As I wrote a few weeks back, the war in Iraq is essentially over for the United States. It ended, in effect, when the Iraqis asked us to leave. By the way, they want a timetable to be sure we actually get out.

The Iraqis had seen the writing on the wall, with many Americans, notably Barack Obama, getting behind a fixed timetable for the withdrawal of American forces, as opposed to the open-ended "hundred years" or more occupation called for by John McCain and expected by the architects of the war.

With a threatened American withdrawal signaling the end of American protection of the Sunnis from a still revenge-seeking Shite majority, the Sunnis "awoke" and sloughed off the radical element and turned to cooperation with American troops and the Shite-dominated government. More than the so-called "surge" of American troop numbers, this "Awakening" movement by the Sunnis resulted in a drop in violence in recent months, according to American General David Petraeus. The myth of the "success of the surge", of course, has been used by John McCain and his supporters to demonstrate McCain's brilliance in all matters military, even though General Petraeas disagrees.

With the UN authorization of American occupation nearing expiration, the Bush/Cheney/McCain neocons tried to strongarm the Iraqis into allowing American forces to remain and the United States to act indefinitely as a super-government, whose troops and hired guns could attack at will would remain above Iraqi law. Originally, the Americans had demanded a completely open-ended military presence in Iraq at over 50 bases around the country.

This is the plan that was envisioned by *** Cheney and the people who started this war, including John McCain. From before day one of the war, the plan was (and remains) to "secure" stable supplies of petroleum for the global oil industry.

With many Americans, including military personnel and their families, lining up behind a fixed timetable for withdrawal, and especially the rise of Senator Obama, whose signature issue was ending American involvement in Iraq, the Iraqis realized that they would have to establish some semblance of order, or descend back into the all-out sectarian war that has balkanized their country. Hence, the Sunni Awakening.

And so, John McCain and the Republicans are crowing about "victory", while frantically negotiating with the elite of Iraq to divide up the spoils of war. Again, General Patraeus, constantly cited as a paragon of virtue and a genius of military strategy, denies that anything like "victory" has occurred and remains extremely skeptical that Al-Queda has been, or ever will be, defeated in Iraq.

Unfortunately, "conditions on the ground" do not look good. Recently, sectarian tensions seem to be on the rise again. Presumed Sunni suicide bombers are striking at Iraqi Army and police recruiting stations, in a return to an old tactic. And in response, the Shite government has begun "cracking down" on Sunni Awakening groups.

The hard-core pro-war among us, and John McCain, continue to maintain that our phony "victory" justifies the invasion/occupation and the hundreds of thousands of deaths that ensued. Some are even starting to deny that we invaded at all, but claim were called by the Iraqis to "liberate" them.

If it were not for Iraqi national pride, and their absolute insistence that we leave, we would be doing the exact same thing the Russians are doing in Georgia - settling in for a permanent occupation.

The endorsement by Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki of Senator Barack Obama's proposed 16-month timeline for the withdrawal of the bulk of American troops has significance well beyond its positive effect on his campaign. Obviously, it demonstrates that Obama's instincts and advisers are more than a match for the vaunted foreign policy expertise of John McCain.

The call by the Iraqi Prime Minister for a specific timeline for American troop withdrawal was more than a huge blow to the credibility of George Bush and McCain - it may be the last nail in the coffin of the neo-conservative movement, headed up by Vice President *** Cheney.

The plan, of course - as articulated in a rare moment of candor by John McCain - was to stay in Iraq indefinitely. In the negotiations of a Status of Forces agreement, the U.S. had originally demanded more than 50 permanent bases on Iraqi soil, immunity for all U.S. soldiers and contractors, and the ability to use those forces unilaterally against Iraqi citizens. (And presumably, against Iran.)

This permanent occupation of Iraq was the primary objective of the war, and now it has turned to sand. A "free and democratic" Iraq was to be the home base for American military power in the Mid East. From Iraq, we could control the flow of oil, assuring that American companies would receive royalties for every gallon.

The Iraqis may be divided by religion, but the one thing that they all agree on is that they want their country back.

The endorsement of Obama's proposal blows wide open the Bush/McCain illusion that American occupation was at the request of a free Iraq. Both have said in the past that if the Iraqi government asked us to leave, we would.

Well, we have been asked.

Now, how we will reconcile our further occupation? Will McCain now advocate staying in Iraq against the will of the Iraqis? Assuming that we cannot simply walk away from our "investment" in Iraqi oil and strategic control of their forces, how long will the Iraqis tolerate our presence?

This conundrum proves the bankruptcy of the neo-conservative dream of American empire, and exposes the myth of McCain's so-called expertise in foreign policy.

 

Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama, currently in Afghanistan as part of a tour of Europe and the Middle East, is working hard to separate himself from the Bush/McCain war policies, and at the same time demonstrate that he can muster some enthusiasm for those same policies.

Obviously, he is trying to inoculate himself from charges by the right that he is not tough enough on our enemies. He has to make aggressive noises and strike warrior poses, mimicking the brainless militarism of Bush/McCain, or risk being called weak.

It is tragic that this is necessary. Obama's resistance to the invasion of Iraq was, of course, a huge factor in his early support by grassroots Democrats. But apparently this country, post 9-11, is not ready for an anti-war candidate.

The utter futility of fighting a "war on terror" should be obvious by now. Of course, there never were any "terrorists" in Iraq, other than the ruling junta. Still, it is considered the front line in this "war".

After a million deaths in Iraq, and 5-6 million Iraqis displaced, the depletion of America's military forces, and the resulting ravages on the value of the dollar and unimaginable increases in oil prices, the Iraqi people live in a fiercely sectarian society with rampant lawlessness and without electricity. While there are hopeful signs that sectarian self-segregation will keep violence down, there is precious little evidence that a liberal, secular, self-standing society will emerge anytime soon. There are major issues that are hopelessly deadlocked in sectarian positions, and the nation of Iraq could still degenerate into civil war if someone (say Al-Queda) were to actively foment more sectarian violence by perpetrating atrocities on civilian targets.

One thing is certain. The Iraqis want us out. I take this as a positive sign, but doubt that our "investment" in Iraqi oil will allow this, regardless of who is our next president.

Obama is calling for additional troops in Afghanistan to highlight the difference between himself and Bush/McCain, claiming that they lost focus on the real front in the "war on terror". This is pandering, pure and simple. The very last thing that Afghanistan needs is more American/NATO troops creating resentment in the population and acting as bait for terrorist attacks, which inevitably kill more Afghanis than soldiers.

Must we repeat the same damn war all over again? Do we expect any different result?

What both Iraq and Afghanistan need is international help in creating a functional infrastructure including water systems, highways, electrical grid, health care and schools. The money we have wasted on a military campaign could have paid for these things, easily.

It is very disappointing to see Obama pick up the sabre, but I sincerely hope that he is merely posing for the camera, and will begin to turn American foreign policy in a more humanitarian direction if he is elected.

Ol’ billionaire Phil Gramm, the economic brain behind John McCain’s presidential bid, thinks that the economy is just damn fine, and if you are feeling pinched then it’s all in your damn head.

You know, if you gasp when the pump clicks off to see that it has cost you 50, 60 or 70 dollars to fill up your tank, or that a loaf of bread that was $1.50 last winter is now $3.50, then you are a whiner.

Apparently, if you made enough damn money, you would just take these things in stride and quit your damn whining, according to Phil. I mean what is your damn problem?

Gramm, who has extensive ties to Enron, served as a lobbyist for the international banking and subprime mortgage giant UBS until April. Gramm played a key role in the subprime meltdown during his time in the Senate.

Apparently, what you are experiencing is a “mental recession”, which is something like depression, but not anywhere near as severe.

From the Baltimore Chronicle, referring to Gram’s complicity in Enron’s rape of the state of California by manipulating electricity prices in 2001. “Clearing the way for that California price gouging, Gramm, as a powerful Texas senator in 2000, slipped an Enron-backed provision into the Commodities Futures Modernization Act that exempted from regulation energy trading on electronic platforms.

Then, over the next year, Enron – with Gramm’s wife Wendy serving on its board of directors – worked to create false electricity shortages in California, bilking consumers out of an estimated $40 billion.”

This is the legislation that has allowed energy companies to invest in “futures” in their own stock prices – essentially betting that they will raise their prices. Heads they win, tails you lose.

McCain, who has famously said that he doesn't know much about economics, will be relying on Gramm and the same folks who got us into the current state of affairs.

Lord help us.

Sorry to whine.

A recent comment deserves a comprehensive response.

From SG 134:

Do you believe terrorist want to destroy us and our great country? Especially Jews and Christians? Do you believe Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wants to make nukes and then use them to destroy Israel?

SG134,

Your questions demonstrate a critical lack of understanding of the world around you.

“Terrorism” is the tactical use of violence against civilians to achieve a strategic goal, whether political, economic, religious or ideological. A terrorist is someone who practices terrorism or advocates that practice.

No terrorist believes that they can literally destroy an entire country. The psychological effect – terror – is the real goal. If the act of terrorism provokes a violent response, then the mission has been successful. If there is not a violent response, the mission has failed.

Perpetuating a cycle of violence is a tactic that is designed to ultimately provoke a military response. This military response depletes the resources of the victim state, costs many lives, and is doomed to fail, because the original perpetrators are replaced by recruits motivated by the military action itself.

You are a victim, and at the same time a perpetrator of terrorism. Intellectually, you may understand that your chances of being killed in an act of terror are minuscule, yet you are obviously terrified. By being terrified and responding by supporting state sanctioned violence, and by virally spreading fear and hate, people like you are aiding in the mission of the terrorist.

Does that make you a terrorist? If you actively support a military solution, then you are playing into the hands of the terrorist. Without the reaction of terrified people like you, the tactic of terror is useless.

I frequently use the word “terrorism” in a somewhat broader sense. I believe that when a government uses propaganda to raise the same kind of fear, hate and nationalism that terrorist violence breeds, in order to manipulate the behavior and attitudes of its citizens, that is also terrorism. The psychological effect is the same – the acceptance of violence as a tool of policy.

There really should be a name for people who are the unwitting accomplices of terrorists, and one for state-sponsored, psychological terrorists.

I assume, SG134, that when you use the word “terrorists” you mean Islamic fundamentalists. The fact is that fundamentalists of all faiths, including Islam, Christianity, and Judaism have used terror to “defend” their faith.

There certainly are Muslim fundamentalists who believe that our way of life is decadent and immoral. (This is a legitimate argument, if you follow the Christian doctrine, or the Jewish one.) Fortunately, the percentage of religious fundamentalists of any faith is very small. The absolute numbers of those willing to use violence is tiny.

Let’s also acknowledge that not all terrorism is religiously motivated.

The Muslim fundamentalists willing to use violence may think that they are fighting a religious war, but we are not. Although it is sometimes portrayed in cultural terms for the propaganda value, the so-called “War on Terror” is about politics and economics.

As for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, I fully understand his obsession with obtaining nuclear weapons.  The United States has made no attempt to disguise our aggressive intentions toward that nation. The unprovoked invasion of their neighbor Iraq has terrorized a large percentage of their population and inflamed the Mullahs. They want a nuke to keep us out.

The only way out of the box we are in is to elect a President who does not see a military resolution to every international issue.

A perpetual state of war is what Bush has achieved, and John McCain is exactly the right man to keep that cycle of violence turning.

It’s the Fourth of July! Hooray! We’ve won the War on Iraq! Big Oil is moving in to pump more oil our way. Mission Accomplished! Light up those fireworks!

So maybe things are not going so well in Afghanistan, with violence up, the Taliban running the country outside of Kabul, and even the neocons afraid of accidentally toppling Musharraf by venturing into Pakistan to get Bin Laden.

Get ready for this Summer’s blockbuster! The War on Iran is showing trailers on TV screens nationwide. You’ve seen it! Now buy it!

(Why wouldn’t we attack Iran? What, do we have to wait for the Israelis to do it?)

OK, this time it's REALLY not about oil (they don't have any.) This is about… saving you from nuclear attack!

They hate us because we’re free!

Oh hell, believe whatever you want, but we ARE going to fight. In fact, it's already happening.

All of you big-time supporters of the War on Iraq, please prepare your eligible sons and daughters to attempt what a million Iraqis and Saddam’s WMDs couldn’t do.

And this is going to hurt a bit, but in the spirit of making the world safe for democracy, get ready for a little bit more expensive gasoline.

But do NOT worry about increases in your taxes! We’ll pay for this war the same way we’re paying for the other ones. Saudi Arabia has agreed to loan us the cash at a very reasonable rate.

Providing you vote Republican.

Americans appetite for war has been satisfied, and the media is reacting by turning down their war coverage.

The vicarious rush of "shock and awe" passed quickly, the euphoria of "Mission Accomplished" gave way to the nightmare of the insurgency, Saddam's capture was exhilarating, but his execution was sickening, the whole yellow ribbon magnet thing played out to the point that there are magnets for favorite dog breeds, and even the critical analysis about how Bush got us into this mess has gone way past tedious to being annoying. I mean really, who cares any more?

Frankly, no one wants to hear about the wars, let alone talk about them. Want to kill a conversation? Try mentioning a war.

It seems that the only people who keep harping on the wars are those of us who want to shut them down and the military families whose members are still fighting.

Network media coverage is fading quickly. CBS doesn't have a single correspondent in Iraq. None of the the American television networks has a full-time correspondent in Afghanistan.

Americans are generally not in a good mood, with a recent poll showing that somewhere over 80% feel like things are "on the wrong track" in this country. This is serious depression, and it's easy to see plenty of reasons.

But that does not give us the right to ignore the real sacrifices still being made by American soldiers and the people of Iraq and Afghanistan. Nor should we be so foolhardy as to look the other way while the war profiteers continue to take out sub-prime mortgages on the American economy. Every dollar we borrow to pay for this war drives down the value of that dollar, and increases the interest we will have to pay back.

If the U.S. were a person, we would be taking "payday" loans to pay our maxed-out credit cards.

These insane wars need to stop now. Sorry to bring it up and spoil your morning.

It’s obvious that Republican candidate John McCain either does not have a good grasp of the facts from moment to moment, or he simply chooses to ignore them.

Last week the Republican’s campaign theme was energy, and he was on the road trying to capitalize on Americans’ pain at the pump.

(Meanwhile McCain stands shoulder-to-shoulder with George Bush in threatening military action against Iran, which would be another windfall for the major oil companies.)

McCain also demonstrated in his speeches that he has learned the lessons of Karl Rove, and freely misstated the positions of Barack Obama’s energy proposals. It just doesn’t seem to matter what the facts are to McCain, and the press rarely calls him on it.

Factcheck.org, a nonpartisan project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania, yesterday published a report titled “McCain's Power Outage - Contradictions and misstatements short-circuit McCain's energy policy pronouncements.”

Follow the link for the details, but a here are the highlights:

• He said that ending a moratorium on offshore oil drilling "would be very helpful in the short term in resolving our energy crisis." But according to a government report, offshore oil wouldn't have much of an impact on supply or prices until 2030.
• McCain tried to paint Obama as an opponent of nuclear power, yet Obama has said he is open to nuclear energy being part of the solution and has supported bills that contained nuclear subsidies.
• He has soft-pedaled the "cap" portion of his cap-and-trade proposal for greenhouse gases, even denying that it would be a mandate. The cap is a mandatory limit, however, and McCain even says so on his Web site.
• McCain's new ad, running this week, rightly says that he bucked his party in supporting action on climate change years ago. But its images of windmills and solar panels are misleading in that he supports subsidies for nuclear power, which isn't pictured, and opposes them for wind and solar energy.
• McCain continues to say that a suspension of the federal gas tax will lower prices for consumers, though hundreds of economists say he is wrong.

John McCain apparently has little use for the facts, which is a disturbing trait in a man who would be president.

With a fire sale frenzy, the Big Oil Boys are falling all over themselves to mop up what’s left of your cash and secure their place in your wallet and your national parks before the Bush/Cheney store closes down.

John McCain is trying his best to assure them that the U.S. government will stay open for business if they help him make the down payment on the White House.

Bush and Cheney, BOBs themselves, have of course given their Oily Buddies everything they possibly could; even letting them write our guaranteed oil dependency into our national energy policy.

Not satisfied that the laws written to allow Enron to speculate that Enron would raise energy prices, which has led to the current situation where oil companies can bid up prices for their own products on the commodities market in a never-ending cycle of increasing profits, the Oil Boys now want to grab every square inch of drillable land in both the U.S. and colonial Iraq, while they can still write their own deals.

Ironically, their overall strategy to break the will of the American people is to screw the hell out of them at the neighborhood gas pump. Eye-popping, budget-busting gas prices are supposed to convince you and me that whatever the Oil Boys want, the Oil Boys should get, everything else be damned.

That war in Iraq that was never about oil? Well, it is now Bunky. Even if the Iraqis can’t agree on how to split up their share, the Big Oil Boys have already colluded to decide who gets to “assist” the Iraqis in which oil fields. As long as it’s even, boys.

And who’s right there next to Bush shilling for Big Oil? Why it’s that environmental maverick, John McCain!

With his flip on offshore drilling and his “gas tax holiday” proposal, McCain is letting the Boys know that he will be happy to continue business as usual if he’s running the store.

"Boys. Just imagine what a war in Iran would do for your bottom line..." 

Rep. Dennis Kucinch of Ohio introduced a bill containing thirty-five articles of impeachment to the House of Representatives late Monday evening.

 

It is no surprise that there has been virtually no corporate media coverage of this historic event.

 

The only thing more disgraceful than the media silence is the near-complete failure of Democrats in the House of Representatives to co-sponsor the bill. For the record, the exception is Congressman Robert Wexler (District 19, FL), who stated “The Articles present a stunning narrative of offenses that go well beyond previous crimes committed by any U.S. chief executive.  In fact, no President or Vice President in history has done more to undermine our constitution.”

 

The crimes of this administration, specifically President George Bush and Vice President Richard Cheney, in spite of their conspiracy to avoid documentation and considerable efforts to destroy the evidence, are well documented.

 

The lack of will to prosecute the crimes of these men can be traced back to the massive campaign of misinformation that was flooded into the media after the attacks of 9-11. Millions of Americans still believe that Saddam was a planner of those attacks. Millions of Americans also believe that we attacked Iraq based on “bad intelligence” regarding their weapons capability.

 

The facts are clear, and were clear, that Iraq had no role in 9-11, had no significant relationship with the people who did, and had obliterated their nuclear weapons program several years before our invasion.

 

The administration suppressed, obfuscated, and outright lied in order to start this war, and then launched a straw man “war on terror” to justify illegal activities across the board, ranging from unconstitutional spying on American citizens to sweetheart contracts giving multi-billion dollar payoffs to their business associates.

 

The media, having pumped up the hysterical 9-11 rhetoric, having served as the propaganda arm of the administration in the “run-up” to the Iraq war, and having marketed the “war on terror” as a brand, is of course burying the truth rather than acknowledge that war and terror are good for their business.

 

The Democrats, having utterly failed to execute their duty to represent the interests of their constituents, want to see Bush and Cheney slither out of office, perpetuating  the myth that they themselves were innocent victims, rather than passive participants in this shameful era of American history.

 

In time, it is inevitable that the facts will overwhelm the myths, and no one will be able to deny that these wars were unnecessary – that as many as a million Iraqis were murdered, that 4-5 million were turned into refugees, thousands of Americans died, that the economy of our country was mortgaged and wasted, and that the motive for the “war on terror” was profit, pure and simple.

 

Bush and Cheney should be held accountable for their crimes before they leave office.

 

This may be the only way to prevent them from covering their tracks by starting another war.

 

[UPDATE] from rawstory.com:

 

"The House of Representatives voted Wednesday to send articles of impeachment against President Bush to the Judiciary Committee for review.

The impeachment resolution’s sponsor, Rep. Dennis Kucinich, requested a recorded vote on the motion around 3 p.m. Wednesday, and 24 Republicans joined nearly all Democrats in voting to send the impeachment measure to the committee.

The motion passed 251-166."

It has long been obvious that the U.S. is not fighting Al Queda on Iraqi soil, but the Iraqis themselves, at the cost of as many as a million of their citizens and of course, control of their government and their economy.

We are about to see the confiscation of Iraq's national sovereignty by the Bush neocons formalized in a "security agreement" between the Bush/Cheney cabal and their puppet Iraq regime.

The details of the the so-called "strategic alliance", which have been leaked to Patrick Cockburn of the British newspaper The Independent, essentially sign control of the nation of Iraq over to the United States.

This quasi-legal and open-ended occupation of Iraq will, quite predictably be sold to the U.S. citizens as a "victory" over the forces of terror, and a vindication of the Bush/Cheney doctrine of preventative warfare.

From The Independent; "Under the terms of the new treaty, the Americans would retain the long-term use of more than 50 bases in Iraq. American negotiators are also demanding immunity from Iraqi law for US troops and contractors, and a free hand to carry out arrests and conduct military activities in Iraq without consulting the Baghdad government."

"Washington also wants control of Iraqi airspace below 29,000ft and the right to pursue its "war on terror" in Iraq, giving it the authority to arrest anybody it wants and to launch military campaigns without consultation."

This "agreement " will not be put to a referendum of the Iraqi people for obvious reasons. It will subjugate them to American rule indefinitely and condemn them to an ongoing violent struggle to regain their status as an independent nation, and turn their country into a U.S. base for a war with Iran.

Now you know what we have been fighting for.

Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Powell (and McClellan) Lied Us into Attacking Iraq
Former Bush Press Secretary Scott McClellan, a life-long Bush sycophant, confesses in his new book that he helped hustle us into an unnecessary invasion of Iraq. (Thanks for finding your backbone now that it doesn’t matter, Scott. Fortunately for you, it’s never too late to be called a traitor.)

Expensive Gasoline Discourages Unnecessary Driving
Compared with March a year ago, Americans drove an estimated 4.3 percent less – that's 11 billion fewer miles. The Federal Highway Administration called it "the sharpest yearly drop for any month… since 1942".  (Raise the gas tax now - based on vehicle weight or volume purchased.)

Global Warming is Not a Figment of Al Gore’s Imagination
Under a court order and four years late, the White House produced its report of specific threats to the United States from man-made global warming, including increased heat deaths and deaths from climate-worsened smog, worsening water shortages for agriculture and urban users, more death and damage from wildfires, hurricanes and other natural disasters caused by extreme weather. "Many of the expected health effects are likely to fall disproportionately on the poor, the elderly, the disabled and the uninsured." (Good news for Bush. Hell will be cooler than Texas.)

McCain = Bush
According to a Congressional Quarterly analysis of Senate votes on issues President Bush expressed “an explicit, stated opinion,” Sen. John McCain voted with President Bush 100 percent of the time in 2008 and 95 percent of the time in 2007. (Maverick my ass.)

A report on Israeli Army Radio claimed that George Bush and Vice President Cheney disclosed to the Israeli government last week that they are planning to attack Iran before they leave office next January.

 

Of course, the White House denies the report.

 

According to the unidentified source, described as a “top official in Jerusalem”, a “senior member” of the Bush Administration (a label frequently used to describe the Vice President) stated in a closed meeting that military action against Iran is forthcoming.

 

The report also said that Bush and Cheney were only holding fire due to "the hesitancy of Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice". One can imagine that Secretary Gates actually gives a damn about his troops. Who knows what the hell Condi is thinking?

 

The White House responded, saying, “…Our preference and our actions for dealing with this matter remain through peaceful diplomatic means. Nothing has changed in that regard."

 

That’s a little difficult to imagine. Because even talking about talking to the Iranians is a sign of naiveté, according John McCain, or worse, appeasement according to the Commander in Chief. I think we all know what Cheney is thinking.

 

It seems certain that the attack will be an air strike of suspected nuclear facilities, rather than a ground invasion. (The exhausted state of our military makes that impossible.) In effect, it won’t matter, as the Iranians can be depended upon to launch a spirited defense of their homeland, and will send human waves of troops across the border into Iraq. (During their almost nine year war with Sadaam Hussein they took millions of casualties.)

 

Any large-scale movement of Iranian troops would of course expose them to highly efficient aerial attacks, with horrific loss of life. One can only imagine the carnage of an all-out Iranian invasion of Iraq, with 140,000 U.S. troops caught between the Iranian army and the Sunni insurgency.

 

I am guessing that the bombs will not fly before November 2, so Happy Thanksgiving.

 

Get ready for a whole new war.

 

It has always been clear that George Bush has had little interest in the difficult work of his job.  Now that the expectations of the American people have been reduced to essentially zero, Bush seems fine with being rid of all that responsibility, and riding out the rest of his term blithely following the orders of his neocon handlers.

The Mideast, with its many factions and tangled relationships, has clearly been too much for the incurious Bush to deal with, and he's been happy to just use the labels they slapped on the parties involved; "good guys", "bad guys".

Bush's farewell tour of the region last week may have dealt the death blow to the withered peace process, which apparently was one of his assignments.

It appears his handlers gave Bush two objectives for the trip. First, to pour fuel on the smoldering Iranian situation and preemptively blow up possible negotiations, providing a pretext for a military strike.

While speaking in Israel, Bush not only managed to submerge the prospects of a peaceful resolution of the longstanding issues with the Palestinians and poison any attempt to negotiate with the Iranians, but was so effusive in his simple-minded praise of Israel, that nothing he said on the remainder of his trip even mattered.

Playing directly into the strategy of the terrorists and the neocons - those anxious to shed blood - or send someone else to do it for them - Bush did his best to insure their success.

Not surprisingly, except apparently to Bush, he was shunned during the rest of his trip by those whom he had so glibly associated with Hitler. It actually appeared that his feelings were hurt.

The second part of Bush's assignment didn't go as well as the first.

His family's personal benefactors, the Royal Saudis, just chuckled when he implored them to increase oil production to help the Republicans in the elections.

Bush came home with his tail between his legs and his legacy as a self-absorbed fool secured.

Senator McCain’s proposal for a temporary suspension of the federal gas tax is not only a terrible idea, but shows the frightening lack of depth of his analysis of the economy.

"I'm going to be honest: I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues," McCain told the Wall Street Journal in 2005. "I still need to be educated."  Apparently.

Senator Clinton’s endorsement of this ridiculous scheme is further proof that she will say anything that might gain her two or three votes.

Economically, the Gas Tax Holiday would be likely to have little effect at all on prices at the pump, which are determined by the fact that demand is running ahead of increases in production. So, any savings realized by you and me would be barely noticeable, if at all.

The loss of revenue to the federal government would be $10 Billion. Gas tax revenue is dedicated to maintaining the federal highway system, including the bridge that collapsed in Minnesota recently. Does that seem like a good idea?

I have not seen an estimate of the cost of administering this off and on again tax, but it would obviously cost millions.

And the bottom line, any temporary reduction in prices would only encourage consumption, which is our real problem.

The supply side of the equation can never keep up with the ballooning demand for fuel, even if we let the oil companies run the federal government. (Oh, yeah.)

The solution to our petroleum dependency, which affects all our economic well being, our foreign policies (Iraq does have a drop or two), our national security (maybe some of “them” hate us because they think we’re stealing their oil) and the looming problem of climate change is to RAISE the gas tax.

Tell me what you think of this idea. The tax at the pump would increase a penny for each 1/10th of a gallon pumped. We’d tax the first 1/10th at about .50 higher than the current level. The next tenth at .51/gallon, and so on.

This would be displayed in such a way that as you filled your tank you could feel the pain.

We need to DISCOURAGE consumption of gasoline if we are ever going to reduce its toxic effects on our lives. We waste millions of gallons of it by driving vehicles that are grossly overweight, by driving too fast, by failing to build mass transit systems. We could use the taxes to alleviate all of these problems, and actually begin to reduce the rate of consumption.

You may remember that during the gas crisis back in the seventies, a few visionary Democrats actually proposed raising gasoline taxes to discourage consumption. I wonder how much more efficient our cars would be, how much money we would NOT have sent to Saudi Arabia, how much cleaner our air would be, how much grain would now be available for feeding the world’s poorest, if we had taken our medicine back then. We should open up and swallow now. Our grandchildrens' future depends on it.

And please, I am serious; can you at least shut your engine off while you are in the coffee shop getting your morning cup? Let’s not be arrogant as well as foolish.

 

As was predicted by Middle East experts prior to the Bush/Cheney invasion of Iraq, Iran has been the chief beneficiary of the thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars we have wasted there.

For decades Sadaam Hussein, whose ambitions had nothing to do with religion, acted as a foil and a target for Iranian nationalists and Shiite Mullahs. The bitter conflict between Iran and Iraq soaked up the arms, money and attention of both oppressive regimes, to the detriment of their citizens, but the benefit of their neighbors and the West.

By invading Iraq and effectively turning it into a failed state, we opened the door for Iran to move in.

The Sunni and Shiite sectarian extremism that Hussein so brutally suppressed is now in full eruption, and has only recently abated, sated by the gruesome deaths of tens or hundreds of thousands, and the displacement of over 4,000,000 Iraqis. (“The surge” gets the credit, which is Pentagon propaganda.)

Iran, is of course, intervening in this chaos in an attempt to gain control of Iraq’s vast oil reserves, and humiliate the Sunnis. With Iran playing an increasingly influential role in Iraq, it’s becoming clear even to the Bush administration that the genie is out of the bottle.

Their solution, of course, is more mayhem. The Pentagon is planning for war on Iran, which is the prudent thing to do, because the Republicans’ chances in the upcoming presidential elections would be improved dramatically if they had a fresh war to sell.

John McCain has famously sung his “bomb, bomb, bomb – bomb, bomb Iran” song, and has argued that it's fine with HIM if we're in Iraq for "a thousand years"  (why don’t we see those clips repeated in an endless loop on the “liberal” media?) and if Bush/Cheney don’t start this war, he certainly will.

The sad fact is, that because of the illegal war on Iraq by Bush/Cheney, and it’s “unexpected” (but predicted) empowering of the terrorists and religious fundamentalists across the border, the next president, regardless of who it is, will be in a corner with regard to Iran. Hillary Clinton, on the eve of her Pennsylvania primary victory, threatened to “obliterate” the entire nation, presumably including it’s 60-70 million inhabitants, already victims of religious tyranny.

The Bush/Cheney(McCain) marshal mentality will almost certainly lead to an attack on Iran, probably prior to the election. After Iran, we can expect to see the war spread to its Sunni neighbors, which will require yet a further escalation of U.S. military involvement. (Not to mention the potential collapse of the oil-based world economic structure.)

If you have children in the Middle School, I am afraid they will be drafted to fight and die in the deserts of the Middle East unless we take a more enlightened direction in our foreign policy.

 

A range of factors, including the ongoing waste of everything by you and me, global warming causing droughts, and political instability as a result of centuries of imperialist policies by the “major powers” have resulted in the current run on commodities.

Everything from corn to gold is inflating in price at unprecedented rates. (Water is next.)

The speculators and even ordinary investors like you and me, via the mutual funds in our 401ks, are sucking up commodities like there was no tomorrow.

For many of our fellow humans, there may not be.

While you and I are sending our money to those who, on our behalf, are hoarding metals, oil and, most importantly, grain, millions of people around the world are facing starvation due to our “investments”.

These people will do whatever they have to in order to eat. How this will affect you is that they will hold us accountable for their children’s hunger. They will be “patriotic” to whoever distributes food to them. This is how Hammas, Iraqi militias, and al Queda gain recruits, including those anxious to become “martyrs”.

It is pathetic, but there is an obvious tendency for certain people here in the U.S. (Waukesha County) to grab what they can while it’s still available. How else to explain the gas-sucking pickups and SUVs flying down the freeway at 80 MPH? Towing four wheelers or a giant boat. One can only conclude that these individuals are determined to burn as much petroleum as they can while it’s still “affordable”.

So, get ready for the next bubble to burst. Commodity prices may continue to rise for a decade or more, as did housing prices. You and I make even make a lot of money. But the bubble will burst, just as it did in real estate.

You and I will lose money in the markets.

They will starve.

Is it too much to ask all you “Conservatives” to conserve? Just a bit?

 

A variety of conditions, but particularly the price of petroleum and the increasing devotion of farmland to biofuel substitutes, are driving up the cost of eating all over the world.

I’m not talking about the price of a fish fry and a couple of beers at your favorite local establishment. If you can afford eat in a restaurant, please do count your blessings.

You may have noticed (or not) that the basics – bread and milk – at Sentry or Pick ‘n Save are costing a heck of a lot more than they did a year ago.

I am talking about people so hungry that they are willing to charge a line of armed soldiers in the hope of securing something – anything - to eat. Food riots are a daily occurrence in cities around the world.

Because of our insatiable, and shameful, thirst for fuel for our vehicles, a massive amount of land that formerly was used to raise basic food grains to nourish people is now being used to grow corn and soy for fueling our cars and trucks and SUVs.

On every continent people trying to survive on $2 a day are desperately hungry, because your car is, literally, burning up their food.

Do you think you could at least slow down a little bit, and turn off your engine when you're getting your coffee at Kwik Trip?

 

I had lunch with a friend of mine last Friday, a very smart guy with a degree in Urban Planning, a keen interest in architecture, who is building some kind of “data warehouse” which I’m pretty sure is virtual. Walking back to the office, we were talking about the vast number of potential jobs and great fortunes to be made both in wringing energy waste out of our economy and flip side; the energy-producing industries.

 

Not only refining the existing technologies and designing consumer goods that use less energy, but entirely new ideas and products. The potential is there for the U.S. to jumpstart our fading economy, inject some jobs into manufacturing, increase exports and help reduce climate change all at the same time.

 

This country has practically invented industries before. Automotive, computers, consumer electronics and the film industry, to name a few. We didn’t necessarily do this alone, nor did we always do it in the smartest way, but the phrase “Yankee ingenuity” was coined for a reason.

 

So what’s holding us back? Why are the so-called green industries only now beginning to sprout, when they should be in full bloom?

 

Maybe electing a president and vice-president from the oil business wasn’t such a great idea.

 

The Republicans have been steadfast in preventing the direction of federal priorities towards anything that would reduce our use of oil, insisting that our best strategy was more drilling and refining.

 

Anyone need to have “change” defined for them? There’s a start.