Transcripts & Speeches


McCain's Speech to LULAC - John McCain
Obama's Remarks to LULAC - Barack Obama
Interview with John McCain - American Morning
Panel Discusses the Energy Debate - Special Report w/Brit Hume
Romney on "Hannity & Colmes" - Hannity & Colmes

Best of the Blogs
Obama and Helms: BFF? - J.P. Freire, AmSpec Blog
Jesse Steps in it Again - Joe Gandelman, The Moderate Voice
How Matt Drudge Rules the (Political) World - Chris Cillizza, The Fix
Missouri Looks a Lot Like a Swing State - Jonathan Singer, MyDD
John McCain's Message - James Joyner, OTB

Dems Will Force Obama To Govern From Left
- Dick Morris, The Hill
Ranking Vice-Presidential Contenders
- Novak
Campaign 2008: Sounds of Silence
- Robert Samuelson, Newsweek
Europe's Fear
- Alvaro Vargas Llosa, RealClearPolitics

Housing Market Meltdown Causes Massive Losses

by: Dean Baker, The Center for Economic and Policy Research

OPINION



Obama and the Latino Vote

by: Sridhar Pappu, The Washington Independent

OPINION



Put War Powers Back Where They Belong

by: James A. Baker III and Warren Christopher, The New York Times

OPINION



A Raw Deal for India

by: J. Sri Raman, Truthout | Perspective

OPINION



A Summit That's Hard to Swallow

by: James Chapman, The Daily Mail

OPINION

William Helbig: Government of the Rich, by the Rich, for the Rich. This article discusses the high price of oil as a strategy by the Arab nations to prevent the re-drawing of the Middle East Map by the Bush Administration.

The New FISA Compromise: It's Worse than You Think
Timothy B. Lee in Ars Technica.

Senate Passes FISA "Compromise"
The Senate on Wednesday approved the FISA "compromise" bill that passed in the House last month. Cato scholar Timothy B. Lee argues, "Democratic leaders have worked hard to portray the legislation as a compromise, but close examination of its provisions suggests that it is an unvarnished victory for President Bush and his allies in Congress. ...In short, the [bill] opens up loopholes so large that the feds could drive a truck loaded down with purloined civil liberties through it."

• "The New FISA Compromise: It's Worse than You Think," by Timothy B. Lee
• "Democrats Determined to Capitulate on Warrantless Spying," by Timothy B. Lee

Nixon, China, Clinton and NAFTA
What is NAFTA's role in the new world economy? By Edward Goldberg Tuesday, July 08, 2008
Grappling with Globalization
What things should the U.S. compete for, and what things are more efficient abroad? By Steven Greenhouse Monday, July 07, 2008
Blue-Collar Blues
Are U.S. workers settling for less compensation?

Social Security: An 'Absolute Disgrace?'
During a recent town hall meeting in Denver, CO, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) called the "present" Social Security "setup" -- in which "we are paying present-day retirees with the taxes paid by young workers in America today" -- "an absolute disgrace" that's "gotta be fixed." McCain’s disavowal of the way Social Security works raises concerns about his commitment to preserving the successful retirement security program, and has even led some economists to question McCain's basic understanding of the program. In response to McCain's comments, Gerald McEntee, International President of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) union, issued a statement arguing that "McCain's ignorance about Social Security is the real 'disgrace.' ... Working Americans understand that Social Security is the contract between the generations. It has served our country well since FDR signed it into law." Former congresswoman Barbara Kennelly, President of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, pointed out thats "since its inception, Social Security has been a pay-as-you-go system. That's not new and it's certainly not a disgrace. To suggest that Social Security is fundamentally 'broken' because of this fact, shows a lack of understanding of the program, its traditional role and the need to preserve and strengthen it for the future." McCain's remarks come on the heels of his support for President Bush's failed campaign to privatize social security and highlight the inconsistencies between McCain's rhetoric, policy proposals, and voting record.

MCCAIN'S FLIP-FLOPS ON SOCIAL SECURITY: Currently, McCain says he supports "supplementing the current Social Security System with personal accounts." But in 2006, McCain voted for and strongly backed Bush's privatization scheme, which would have allowed workers to "divert a portion of Social Security payroll taxes to fund private accounts." McCain proposed diverting "a portion of Social Security payroll taxes to fund private accounts" during the 2000 campaign and suggested privatization in 2004 and 2008. In fact, during a March interview with the Wall Street Journal, McCain said, "I'm totally in favor of personal savings accounts…along the lines that President Bush proposed." When questioned why his website proposed merely "supplementing" the current system with personal accounts, McCain promised to "change the website," the Journal reported.

BUSH'S FAILED PUSH FOR PRIVATIZATION: Shortly after being reelected in 2004, Bush immediately began a campaign to privatize Social Security. As White House officials told the New York Times in April 2005, conservatives planned to "lure Democrats into negotiations on the program's solvency and prepare for an endgame in which Mr. Bush will make an all-out push to convince the country that individual investment accounts will reduce the pain of benefit cuts or tax increases." Realizing that Bush's proposal would add trillions to the national debt, cut retirement benefits, and raise taxes, the public ultimately compelled the president to end his social security privatization tour. By the end of the campaign, an ABC News-Washington Post poll showed that 64 percent of Americans disapproved of Bush's handling of Social Security, up from 56 percent in March when the tour began. During a press conference in Oct. 2005, Bush admitted that his reform efforts failed, saying that "there seems to be a diminished appetite in the short term" for dealing with Social Security.

PRESERVING AN EFFICIENT SYSTEM: Americans have a "diminished appetite" for dramatically reforming Social Security because they understand that there is "no Social Security crisis." Despite conservative fear mongering about the insolvency of the Social Security trust fund, the program is fairly strong. In fact, "Social Security is more financially sound today then it has been throughout most of its 69-year history," the Center for Economic and Policy Research stated in 2005. In March, "Social Security's trustees issued a report on the program's financial status which stated that the program 'passes our short-range test of financial adequacy.'" According to the Congressional Budget Office, without any changes at all, the Social Security program can pay all benefits though at least 2052. And while McCain has not explained how he would prevent the projected shortfall, progressives have pointed out that the long-term social security shortfall is smaller than the cost of Bush's tax cuts for the top 1 percent of Americans, which McCain has promised to extend. While McCain often invokes the 1983 Social Security compromise as a model for a bipartisanship solution to prevent the budget shortfall, insuring that the system remains solvent for the indefinite future requires much more moderate proposals.

VETERANS -- WHITE HOUSE ISSUES VETO THREAT ON BIPARTISAN HOUSING BILL FOR LOW-INCOME VETS: The White House Office of Management and Budget issued a veto threat yesterday against the Homes for Heroes Act, which would provide housing assistance for low-income veterans. The bill, introduced by Rep. Al Green (D-TX), passed 412-9 in the House Wednesday; a Senate companion bill introduced by Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) has 10 sponsors. The act authorizes $200 million for veterans' housing and support services, requires the Department of Housing and Urban Development to provide at least 10,000 rental vouchers a year available for homeless veterans as well as a comprehensive report on homeless veterans to be made each year. The Statement of Administration Policy released yesterday stated that the White House opposes provisions requiring that builders of veterans' housing pay prevailing wage and that Bush's "Senior Advisors would recommend that he veto" the bill. The Department of Veterans Affairs estimates that nearly 200,000 veterans are homeless on any given night and that veterans make up 23 percent of all homeless people in America.

ADMINISTRATION -- MUKASEY WON'T SAY IF ALBERTO GONZALES POLITICIZED THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT: Under questioning from Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) before the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday, Attorney General Michael Mukasey hedged on whether he found the Justice Department to be politicized when he was sworn in. Mukasey bumbled back and forth, repeatedly contradicting himself. "What I found were enormously dedicated people who were very committed to my succeeding," he said. Biden followed up: "Did you find that some of those enormously dedicated people engaged in politicizing the administration of Justice?" Biden asked. "No. No," said Mukasey. "So you disagree with the IG (Inspector General) report?" "I do not disagree with the IG report," Mukasey said. The IG report concluded that DOJ employees "inappropriately used political and ideological considerations" in the selection process. The blatant politicization of the Justice Department is something that administration officials have admitted under sworn testimony. Even Senate conservatives said that Alberto Gonzales "made up reasons to fire" prosecutors. Mukasey maintained that considering politics in hires for career slots is "unacceptable." "You really are an enigma to me. ... I find it very difficult to understand you," Biden said.

ETHICS -- MILITARY OFFICIALS INCREASE MEDIA RESTRICTIONS AT SOLDIERS' FUNERALS: Today, Washington Post reporter Dana Milbank reports that Gina Gray, the newly appointed public affairs director at the Arlington National Cemetery, appears to have been fired for her efforts to restore media access to military interments. In April, Milbank wrote an article about how Pentagon officials had obstructed reporters from viewing the burial ceremony of Lt. Col. Billy Hall, who had been killed while serving in Iraq, even though Hall's family had granted permission to the media to cover the funeral. After Milbank's initial column, which noted that Gray was shot down by her superiors for attempting to allow reporters to access the ceremony, Gray says she was demoted, that her BlackBerry had been disconnected, and that she received various forms of pressure before eventually being fired. Milbank notes the strict rules at Arlington Cemetery are a continuation of policies started under Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who rigorously censored images of American dead and even flag-draped caskets returning home from the war. CBS News Chief Foreign Correspondent Lara Logan also recently raised the issue of the Pentagon concealing the death of American soldiers, asking on the Daily Show, "Tell me the last time you saw the body of a dead American soldier?"

Democrats in Congress are negotiating a compromise on offshore oil drilling. "Democrats also want any compromise plan to include investments in clean and renewable energies, a crackdown on oil speculators and proof that the oil and gas companies are fully utilizing land that is already leased for exploration."

According to American military and intelligence officials, "there has been an increase in recent months in the number of foreign fighters who have traveled to Pakistan’s tribal areas to join with militants there." The officials said that "the flow may reflect a change that is making Pakistan, not Iraq, the preferred destination for some Sunni extremists" and "shows a further strengthening of the position of the forces of Al Qaeda."

Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND) yesterday "accused an Army general of misleading Congress about problems with a major defense contractor in Iraq." Dorgan said Maj. Gen. Jerome Johnson told the Senate Armed Services Committee "in April 2007 that there were no widespread problems with water supplied by KBR, after the Pentagon's inspector general had already found that there were."

Yesterday, the House approved legislation "designed to ensure the preservation of e-mails by the White House and other federal agencies." The measure "passed 286-137 in the wake of accusations that the White House had failed to preserve internal e-mails." The White House has threatened a veto.

"Home foreclosure filings jumped 53 percent in June from a year earlier," according to real estate data firm RealtyTrac. Though they were down 3 percent from May, "foreclosures are expected to rise further."

The chief economist of England's carbon reduction agency criticized the climate plan agreed to at the G8 summit as not doing "a single thing" to reduce emissions. Professor Michael Grubb of the Carbon Trust accused G8 leaders of "an abrogation of responsibility" for their "lack of anything specific that will make any difference."

Gulf Stream Coach, a leading U.S. trailer manufacturer, "failed to disclose to Hurricane Katrina evacuees or the government its internal findings that formaldehyde in some units exceeded a federal health standard by as much as 45 times in 2006, its chairman acknowledged to Congress yesterday."

"Iran test-fired nine missiles yesterday -- including at least one capable of striking Israel." While Defense Secretary Robert Gates said "the world is not closer to a military confrontation," Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said, "We will defend American interests and the interests of our allies. ... No one should be confused about that." And finally: Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) is still a huge Grateful Dead fan. On Tuesday, he "bounded" out of a Capitol elevator singing the song "Casey Jones." "Driving that train," he sang, although Roll Call notes he "stopped before completing the second part to that lyric, which goes, High on cocaine." Leahy said that one of the best moments was when he brought the Grateful Dead "to the Senate Dining Room when [singer and guitarist] Jerry [Garcia] was alive."

BILL SCHER
Here's A Little Straight Talk, My Friends. John McCain Hates Social Security. Sen. John McCain, I'm one of your friends, right? The kind of friend who can handle some of your special brand of Straight Talk™. So why won't you just tell me you hate Social Security?

DAVID CORN
How McCain Adviser Phil Gramm Helped Create the Subprime Mortgage Crisis i3.democracynow.org — In the midst the chaos of the 2000 election aftermath, Senator Phil Gramm slipped into a must-pass spending bill a 268-page bill that totally deregulated credit "swaps" — a market that's now about four times the size of Wall Street — and turned a large part of the economy into a secret casino where the stakes are high, rules are almost non-existent, and the high-rollers' gambling debts are paid by the rest of us.

Bush’s Christmas in July: Senate Passes FISA
You know a legislative compromise is one-sided when the AP headline announcing its passage reads “Senate Bows to Bush.” Democratic advocates of the new FISA bill, passed by the Senate on Wednesday, are still trying to explain what they got in exchange for rolling back a few civil liberties and burying some of the president’s abuses. When they figure it out, someone, somewhere, will surely be listening.

• Ken Blackwell : McCain and Post-Racial Politics
• Humberto Fontova : Jesse Helms Vilified Worldwide
• John McCaslin : Swiss Brachuli
• Ross Mackenzie : Maybe the Top Journalistic Deceit of All
• Johnnie B. Byrd : Will Obama Jump the Shark?
• Douglas MacKinnon : Is it time to create a new United States? If so, how?
• Victor Davis Hanson : Barack W. Bush?
• Robert D. Novak : An "Underwhelming" Nominee
• Steve Chapman : Obama, McCain, and Fiscal Disaster
• Cal Thomas : (Un)Conventional Wisdom
• Larry Elder : Why Do We "Keep and Bear Arms"? Part 2
• Peter J. Wirs : Judicial Misconduct Strikes Democratic Congressman's Fundraising
• Donald Lambro : Obama' Flip-Flops Anger the Liberal Base
• Marvin Olasky : Don't Waste Your Setback
• George Will : No Beer, No Civilization
• Emmett Tyrrell : Health Care From Adam Smith
• Matt Towery : Let McCain be McCain
• Roger Schlesinger : The Difference Between Recession and Depression
• Matt Purple : Democrats Grill Mukasey in Judiciary Committee
• Daniel Silva : Comrade Lenin: Alive and Well
• Robert Knight : Templeton Never Confused Mammon with God
• Dick Morris and Eileen McGann : Obama Would, In Fact, Govern From the Left
• Congressman Peter Roskam : Energy Independence - A Question of Will
• Dave Ficere : Barack Obama: A Liberal For All Seasons
• Dinesh D'Souza : Frankenstein Endorses Obama

Karl Rove, The White House And The Rule Of Law
Rep. John Conyers, 07.10.2008

Today it became clear Rove and the White House believe they are in a class entirely by themselves -- a separate group that is above the reach of a subpoena and, consequently, above the law.

Read Post

Karl Rove's Contempt for the Constitution and the Public's Right to Know
Arianna Huffington, 07.09.2008

Rove is thumbing his nose at Congress, legal precedent, the public's right to know the truth, and the Constitution. This is no petty partisan squabble; this is a fight about the foundations of our democracy.

Read Post

No More Blank Checks for War
by Patrick J. Buchanan After the assassination of the archduke in Sarajevo on June 28, 1914, Austria got from Kaiser Wilhelm a "blank cheque" to punish Serbia. Germany would follow whatever course its ally chose to take. Austria chose war on Serbia. And World War I resulted.

On March 31, 1939, Britain gave a blank check to Poland in its dispute with Germany over Danzig, a town of 350,000 Germans. Should war come, Britain would fight on Poland's side.

Poland refused to negotiate, Adolf Hitler attacked, and Britain declared war. After six years, the British Empire collapsed. Germany was burnt to ashes. Poland entered the slave quarters of Joseph Stalin's empire.

Lesson: No great power should ever give to a small ally or client state a blank check to drag it into war.

This raises the question: Has President Bush given Israel a blank check?

A year ago, Israel attacked and smashed an alleged nuclear reactor site in Syria. In April, Israel held a five-day civil defense drill. In June, Israel sent 100 F-15s and F-16s, with refueling tankers, toward Greece in a simulated attack. The planes flew 1,450 kilometers, the distance to Iran's uranium enrichment facility at Natanz.

On June 6, Deputy Prime Minister Shaul Mofaz threatened, "If Iran continues its nuclear weapons program we will attack it."

Ehud Olmert returned from a June meeting with Bush to tell Israelis, "George Bush understands the severity of the Iranian threat and the need to vanquish it, and intends to act on the matter before the end of his term."

Is Israel bluffing, or in dead earnest?

For while Israel can do damage to Iran, she cannot defeat Iran without using nuclear weapons. But any attack Israel launched against Iran would require U.S. complicity, and any Israeli war with Iran would almost certainly require the United States to do most of the fighting to win or end it.

Thus, if George Bush does not want war with Iran, with two U.S. wars already, he must inform the Israelis in unequivocal terms that the United States opposes any Israeli pre-emptive strike on Iran, and will not assist but denounce any such attack.

If Bush believes war with Iran is vital to U.S. security, he should make that case to Congress. To allow Israel to start a war we do not want would be an abdication of his duty as president.

Clearly, among the reasons Israel conducted its dress rehearsal for war was to maximize pressure on Iran to halt enriching uranium. Bush may well have welcomed the added pressure.

But as the Iranians have insisted, they are entitled, under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty they signed and Israel did not, to enrich uranium for fuel in power plants. Tehran has declared it will not be the only nation to surrender its legal rights under the NPT. And in response to the Israeli military exercises, Tehran conducted its own missile-firing exercises this week.

If neither side yields, confrontation is inevitable. Perhaps soon.

For we are only four months from the election, and Israel is pawing the ground to attack Iran's nuclear facilities.

Is this Bush's back door to war with Iran?

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Adm. Mike Mullen, in Israel a week ago, returned to say a "third front" in the Middle East, with Iran, would be "extremely stressful" to U.S. forces.

He is saying that U.S. ground forces probably cannot now cope with another war, with a nation three times as large as Iraq.

Asked about Israel taking unilateral action, Mullen replied, "This is a very unstable part of the world, and I don't need it to be more unstable." But Mullen is not the president. What did Bush tell Olmert? Does Israel have a green light, a yellow light or a red light?

Should Israel attack Iran and Bush deny complicity, he would no more be believed than were Britain and France in 1956. Then, the Israelis stormed into Sinai, and Britain and France said they were intervening to separate the warring nations and secure the Suez Canal. Outraged, Ike ordered the British, French and Israelis alike to get out of Suez and Sinai. They did.

President Bush must step up to the plate.

If he believes sanctions are not succeeding and Iran's nuclear program must be halted, he should go to Congress for authority to neutralize the facilities. If he has not so concluded, he should tell Israel it is not to start a war that U.S. airmen, sailors, soldiers and Marines will have to finish.

America needs to restore that absolute freedom of action in matters of war and peace she once had, before entering the skein of entangling alliances that now encumber the republic.

No ally, no client state, should ever be allowed to drag America into a war she has not chosen, constitutionally, to fight.

No more blank checks for any nation.

COPYRIGHT CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.

Congressional Hearings Are Needed to Forestall an Attack on Iran
by Scott Ritter There is increasing discussion and speculation about the possibility of an American military strike against Iran prior to President Bush leaving office. The justification for such an attack is derived from Iran's continued refusal to adhere to Security Council demands that it suspend its enrichment of uranium (a program Iran contends is exclusively for peaceful energy purposes) and Bush administration assertions that Iran operates as a state sponsor of terror. While Iran denies any wrongdoing on its part, the Bush administration has successfully positioned itself, both domestically and internationally, so that it is Iran which must demonstrate its innocence of the charges made against it, as opposed to America proving its guilt.



There are those who say that such observations are moot. The Bush administration may want to act against Iran, this thinking goes, but is unable to do so due to an overstretched military strained by open-ended conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan and a worsening economic situation at home brought on, in part, by soaring oil prices, and as such any military attack on Iran would be an act of madness. Such reasoning may not be enough to give pause to those within the Bush administration who cling to an ideology which links the national security of the United States to a transformed Middle East, one where regimes such as the theocracy in Tehran must be eliminated if there is to be any hope of long-term peace and stability. For these true believers, it is not action against Iran which would constitute an act of madness, but rather any failure to act.



Contrary to popular belief, the U.S. military has sufficient military capacity to initiate, and sustain, military strike options ranging from a limited attack against one or two targets, lasting less than a day, to a massive aerial bombardment of Iran lasting 30-45 days. Current speculation holds that the Pentagon is leaning toward the limited strike option, but given the fact that no one can predict how Iran would respond to even a limited air strike against its territory, the potential for escalation exists which finds the United States engaged in an all-out aerial onslaught against Iran is all too real.



Those who look to the Congress of the United States to prevent or forestall an attack against Iran do so in vain. Congressional inaction on the issue of Iran has created a situation where there are no Constitutional impediments to the Bush administration taking military action. Not only has the U.S. Senate passed a non-binding resolution (Kyl-Lieberman) which labels the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Command as a terrorist group, but it has left in place, unchanged, two war powers resolutions (September 2001 and October 2002) which give the President free reign to use military force against the forces of terror, state and non-state sponsored alike. Efforts to have the US Congress make use of its power of the purse to mandate that the President must seek, and get, Congressional approval to strike Iran before any U.S. taxpayer funds can be expended, have likewise failed to gain any momentum. This failure to act itself serves as a facilitator for military action, since it demonstrates not only a lack of will in the U.S. Congress to oppose military action against Iran, but conversely, a recognition on the part of Congress that such action is not only within the right of the President to initiate, but also represents a legitimate course of action.



Those who have formulated the policies of the Bush administration which have placed Iran and America on a collision course have done so not on a whim, but rather based upon deep and sincere ideologically based conviction which holds that such a course of action is in the best interests of the United States. The ideologues who populate the current Bush administration, especially those associated with the Office of the Vice President, imbued with an unprecedented level of influence on matters pertaining to national security and defense, may feel obliged to initiate a military strike against Iran prior to leaving office, not for the purpose of achieving any permanent result, but rather to ensnare a new President in a situation where the political-military options for Iran policy are limited by the reality of ongoing conflict.



It may transpire that there is no military clash between Iran and the U.S. and the future President of the United States enters office free to undertake any policy direction he chooses. However, to sit back and do nothing in hopes of such a scenario unfolding is akin to planning to fund your child's college education by playing the lottery. You might win, but the overwhelming odds are against you. It is high time for Congress to stop gambling on the future of the United States by doing nothing about the issue of Iran. There has never been a more pressing need than the present for Congressional hearings about American policy toward Iran. Getting Congress to act should be the highest priority for every American citizen, before it is too late.

July 11, 2008 Pullout Demand Signals Final Bush Defeat in Iraq
by Gareth Porter Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's demand for a timetable for complete US military withdrawal from Iraq, confirmed Tuesday by his national security adviser Mowaffak al-Rubaie, has signaled the almost certain defeat of the George W. Bush administration's aim of establishing a long-term military presence in the country.

The official Iraqi demand for US withdrawal confirms what was becoming increasingly clear in recent months – that the Iraqi regime has decided to shed its military dependence on the United States.

The two strongly pro-Iranian Shiite factions supporting the regime in Baghdad, the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council (SIIC) and al-Maliki's own Dawa Party, were under strong pressure from both Iran and their own Shiite population and from Shiite clerics, including Ayatollah Ali Sistani, to demand US withdrawal.

The statement by al-Rubaie came immediately after he had met with Sistani, thus confirming earlier reports that Sistani was opposed to any continuing US military presence.

The Bush administration has had doubts in the past about the loyalties of those two Shiite groups and of the SIIC's Badr Corps paramilitary organization, and it maneuvered in 2005 and early 2006 to try to weaken their grip on the interior ministry and the police.

By 2007, however, the administration hoped that it had forged a new level of cooperation with al-Maliki aimed at weakening their common enemy, Moqtada al-Sadr's anti-occupation Mahdi Army. SIIC leader Abdul Aziz al-Hakim was invited to the White House in December 2006 and met with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in November 2007.

The degree of cooperation with the al-Maliki regime against the Sadrists was so close that the Bush administration even accepted for a brief period in late 2007 the al-Maliki regime's argument that Iran was restraining the Mahdi Army by pressing Sadr to issue his August 2007 ceasefire order.

In November, Bush and al-Maliki agreed on a set of principles as the basis for negotiating agreements on stationing of US forces and bilateral cooperation, including a US guarantee of Iraq's security and territorial integrity. In February 2008, US and Iraqi military planners were already preparing for a US-British-Iraqi military operation later in the summer to squeeze the Sadrists out of Basra.

But after the US draft agreement of Mar. 7 was given to the Iraqi government, the attitude of the al-Maliki government toward the US military presence began to shift dramatically, just as Iran was playing a more overt role in brokering ceasefire agreements between the two warring Shiite factions.

The first indication was al-Maliki's refusal to go along with the Basra plan and his sudden decision to take over Basra immediately without US troops. Petraeus later said a company of US army troops was attached to some units as advisers "just really because we were having a problem figuring where was the front line."

That al-Maliki decision was followed by an Iranian political mediation of the intra-Shiite fighting in Basra, at the request of a delegation from the two pro-government parties. The result was that Sadr's forces gave up control of the city, even though they were far from having been defeated.

US military officials were privately disgruntled at that development, which effectively canceled the plan for a much bigger operation against the Sadrists during the summer. Weeks later, a US "defense official" would tell the New York Times, "We may have wasted an opportunity in Basra to kill those that needed to be killed."

In another sign of the shifting Iraqi position away from Washington, in early May, al-Maliki refused to cooperate with a Cheney-Petraeus scheme to embarrass Iran by having the Iraqi government publicly accuse it of arming anti-government Shiites in the South. The prime minister angered US officials by naming a committee to investigate US charges.

Even worse for the Bush administration, a delegation of Shiite officials to Tehran that was supposed to confront Iran over the arms issue instead returned with a new Iranian strategy for dealing with Sadr, according to Alissa J. Rubin of the New York Times: reach a negotiated settlement with him.

The al-Maliki regime began to apply the new Iranian strategy immediately. On May 10, al-Maliki and Sadr reached an accord on Sadr City, where pitched battles were being fought between US troops and the Sadrists.

The new accord prevented a major US escalation of violence against the Mahdi Army stronghold and ended heavy US bombing there. Seven US battalions had been poised to assault Sadr City with tanks and armored cars in a battle expected to last several weeks.

Under the new pact, Sadr allowed Iraqi troops to patrol in his stronghold, in return for the government's agreement not to arrest any Sadrist troops unless they were found with "medium and heavy weaponry".

The new determination to keep US forces out of the intra-Shiite conflict was accompanied by a new tough line in the negotiations with the Bush administration on status of forces and cooperation agreements. In a May 21 briefing for Senate staff, Bush administration officials said Iraq was now demanding "significant changes to the form of the agreements".

The al-Maliki regime was rejecting the US demand for access to bases with no time limit as well as for complete freedom to use them without consultation with the Iraqi government, as well as its demand for immunity for its troops and contractors. The Iraqis were asserting that these demands violated Iraqi sovereignty. By early June, Iraqi officials were openly questioning for the first time whether Iraq needs a US military presence at all.

The unexpected Iraqi resistance to the US demands reflected the underlying influence of Iran on the al-Maliki government as well as Sadr's recognition that he could achieve his goal of liberating Iraq from US occupation through political-diplomatic means rather than through military pressures.

Iran put very strong pressure on Iraq to reject the agreement, as soon as it saw the initial US draft. It could cite the fact that the draft would allow the United States to use Iraqi bases to attack Iran, which was known to be a red line in Iran-Iraq relations.

The Iranians could argue that an Iraqi Shiite regime could not depend on the United States, which was committed to a strategy of alliance with Sunni regimes in the region against the Shiite regimes.

Iran was able to exploit a deep vein of Iraqi Shiite suspicion that the US might still try to overthrow the Shiite regime, using former Prime Minister Iyad Allawi and some figures in the Iraqi Army. When the US draft dropped an earlier US commitment to defend Iraq against external aggression and pledged only to "consult" in the event of an external threat, Iran certainly exploited the opening to push al-Maliki to reject the agreement.

The use of military bases in Iraq to project US power into the region to carry out regime change in Iran and elsewhere had been an essential part of the neoconservative plan for invading Iraq from the beginning.

The Bush administration raised the objective of a long-term military presence in Iraq based on the "Korea model" last year at the height of the US celebration of the pacification of the Sunni stronghold of Anbar province, which it viewed as sealing its victory in the war.

But the Iraqi demand for withdrawal makes it clear that the Bush administration was not really in control of events in Iraq, and that Shiite political opposition and Iranian diplomacy could trump US military power.

(Inter Press Service)

Iran and the Photoshop Threat
Tehran isn’t hiding its weapons of mass digital manipulation by Justin Raimondo The Iranians just don’t get it. What they’re supposed to do in response to the superheated rhetoric coming out of Washington – and the full-scale dress rehearsals for a bombing raid on their country coming out of Israel – is cower, downplay their own military prowess, and hope for the best. But – no. Instead, Tehran is puffing up its chest, issuing hair-raising threats of its own – and even Photoshopping its military arsenal to make it look more fearsome.

This last is really indicative of just how much of a real "threat" the Iranians pose. Here they are, testing medium and long-range Shahab missiles, and releasing photos of the launch –except that only three out of the four missiles shown taking off are real. The fourth has been superimposed on the original photo using Photoshop, a computer program that manipulates digital images.

Are we really supposed to take the alleged Iranian "threat" – which Barack Obama deems "the greatest strategic challenge to the United States in the region in a generation" – seriously? Not unless Photoshop is reclassified as a "weapon of mass destruction."

The brouhaha surrounding the Iran issue has been taken up several notches on account of this missile launch, but let’s look at how much of a real danger it really poses.

We also need to look at it in context: don’t forget that this launch came in the wake of a massive Israeli military exercise – involving more than 100 F15 and F16 fighters – which simulated a bombing campaign against Iran. Israeli helicopters and tankers (bought and paid for by the US taxpayers) traveled 900 miles westward from bases in Israel, about the same distance as that between Israel and Iran's suspected nuclear sites. This display of military capability was meant to underscore months of rhetorical firepower directed at Tehran by Israeli politicians and public officials – such as Transport Minister Shaul Mofaz, who openly declared that war with Iran is "inevitable."

What was the reaction to this Israeli war dance in the West? It was merely noted: nowhere was this massive and quite impressive dress rehearsal for war described as a provocation, except perhaps in the Arab media.

On top of that, Israel has been openly urging the US to attack Iran, with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert making a special trip to Washington for the express purpose of warmongering, and the powerful Israel lobby pushing for a naval blockade of Iran that would surely end in war. Yet none of this is considered at all provocative, at least by the American news media, while Iran’s Photoshopped military assets are deemed a deadly threat.

Naturally, John McCain advantage of the Iranian missile show to display his own bellicosity, stating that "Iran's most recent missile tests demonstrate again the dangers it poses to its neighbors and to the wider region, especially Israel," and reiterating his support for the "missile defense" systems that we have sold to the Poles and the Czechs – about the last countries on earth likely to suffer an attack from the Iranians.

Obama, for his part, repeated his call for "aggressive diplomacy" and stepped up economic sanctions, while falling for the Iran "threat" hoax, intoning: "The threat from Iran's nuclear program is real and it is grave." Yes, the threat is real – except when it’s Photoshop.

The Bush administration, for its part, reacted far less belligerently than the two presidential campaigns, playing down the scope and seriousness of the Iranian display by disputing the Iranian claim that there were two tests. "A senior Pentagon official said news reports that there were two rounds of tests were incorrect," reported the Washington Post, "because all eight missiles were fired on the same day, within hours of one another." Defense secretary Robert Gates characterized the recent flurry of activity by Iran and Israel as "a lot of signaling going on," just as Undersecretary of State William J. Burns went before Congress and testified that "While deeply troubling, Iran's real nuclear progress has been less than the sum of its boasts."

If that doesn’t undermine the case for war, then nothing will. In any case, what’s interesting here is that the Obama campaign is more belligerent and concerned with putting the Iranians in their place than the Bush administration. While divided on Iraq, the bipartisan Washington consensus on Iran is clear enough: Tehran must be brought to heel, either by "coercive diplomacy" or pure coercion bereft of diplomatic pretense.

Iran’s sin isn’t harboring "weapons of mass destruction" – our own National Intelligence Estimate says they gave up all efforts to build nuclear weapons years ago. Our own CIA denigrates the "intelligence" provided by the Israelis, and the wacko dissidents of the People’s Mujahideen – an Iranian neo-Marxist cult – that supposedly has Tehran about ready to deploy.

Nor is Iran’s real sin providing weapons and training to insurgent groups fighting – and killing – US troops in Iraq, in spite of the administration’s rhetoric. Every time the Pentagon has been challenged to actually produce evidence of Iranian military aid to the so-called special groups, which supposedly are being sent by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards across the border into Iraq, they always come up short.

As for the charge that the Iranians have trained our Iraqi enemies – the truth is that they trained (and armed) our alleged friends, the Shi’ite militias of the ruling parties who support the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. However, it’s far too late to do anything about that. This training, you see, took place during the years of Saddam’s reign, when Tehran succored and gave sanctuary to underground Shi’ite resistance groups fighting Ba’athist rule. Thanks to us, the leaders of these groups are now the rulers of Iraq.

No, Iran’s real transgression is to oppose America’s will: that is the unforgivable sin for which it must be punished without hesitation or mercy. In the court of American elite opinion, defiance is a capital offense. Iran must be made an example of – and, in spite of the moderating influence of Gates and the "realists" within the administration, it most likely will be. The point of going to war with Iran is identical to that which motivated the invasion and occupation of Iraq: to show the world what happens when a mid-level regional power stands up to the global hegemon.

That is what being the world’s last remaining superpower – a "hyperpower," as the French would have it – is all about: confronting various regional troublemakers, and bullying them back into their respective corners. Once one such aspiring challenger is allowed to get away with defying the hegemon, then others will soon follow suit – until the US loses its preeminence on account of its inability to confront multiple challenges on every front.

In contemplating the course of American foreign policy since the end of the Second World War – and especially since 9/11 – I find myself drawn back on more than one occasion to the penultimate chapter of Garet Garrett’s 1956 book, The American Story, which opens like this:

"How now, thou American, frustrated crusader, do you know where you are?

"Is it security you want? There is no security at the top of the world.

"To thine own self a liberator, to the world an alarming portent, do you know where you are going from here?"

Those words were written half a century ago, but they are truer today than on the day the prolific and prescient Garrett set them to paper. The bigger and more powerful we become, the less secure we are: it’s the imperial paradox, a conundrum that won’t be solved until it’s far too late to do anything about it.

July 11, 2008 Exit Iraq, and Leave No Bases Behind
Doug Bandow President George W. Bush, the neoconservative war lobby, and Sen. John McCain all have one overriding goal for U.S. policy towards Iraq: a permanent occupation. Of course, they all prefer that the American regency be peaceful, but Sen. McCain captured the mood when he called for U.S. troops to garrison Iraq for 100 or 1000 or even 10,000 years. The timing of their homecoming just is "not too important."

Such a policy would be in America's interest only if the U.S. would benefit from years of war and potential war in the Middle East. For those who believe in perpetual social engineering abroad – coercively remaking the globe in America's image – the answer is obviously yes. The only failure of Washington's Iraq policy so far has been to invade too few countries, bomb too few targets, and kill too few people.

For the rest of us the answer is obviously no. Surprising as it might seem to would-be empire-builders, people the world over prefer to run their own affairs. You'd think Americans would understand. After all, a couple centuries ago a few disgruntled colonists kicked the British, representing the world's greatest and most enlightened colonial power, out of the 13 middle-North American colonies.

A century later the U.S. became a formal imperial power, ousting Spain from the Philippines and stepping into Madrid's shoes as colonial overlords. Strangely, many locals didn't take kindly to this attempted swap in foreign control. The Filipinos fought bravely, and it took the U.S. three years – killing an estimated 200,000 Filipinos along the way – for Washington to gain control of most of the archipelago.

Manuel Quezon, the first elected president of the Philippines, observed: "I prefer a country run like hell by Filipinos to a country run like heaven by Americans. Because, however bad a Filipino government might be, we can always change it." He's been proved right on both scores: the country has been run like hell by Filipinos and they have changed their government again and again.

The experience in Asia, Africa, and South America is the same. People don't like being ruled from outside, even if ostensibly for their own good. When denied the opportunity to rule themselves, they usually start shooting at their occupiers.

That happened in Iraq. A lot of people started shooting, for various reasons. But even the forces of genuine peace and order, such as Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, opposed Washington's attempt to establish a typical colonial satrapy under Paul Bremer. The Iraqis feel incredible ambivalence at the U.S. invasion: happy to be rid of the monster Saddam Hussein and his vampire Sunni elite, horrified by the tsunami of violence that overwhelmed their nation, angered by hard-line U.S. occupation tactics, worried that increased violence could follow America's departure, and nevertheless desiring that the U.S. leave. While virtually every segment of Iraq society turned against al-Qaeda – a key factor in the terrorist group's reduced effectiveness – there is no similar unity in favor of America.

Thus, it only makes sense for both sides to draw the occupation to a close. The invasion was a mistake, since Iraq posed no threat to the U.S. Saddam Hussein was an ugly actor, but he was contained and was not going to last forever. The belief that all would be sweetness and light after his ouster demonstrated equal parts arrogance and incompetence on the part of the administration. Thousands of Americans and tens or hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died as a result. Iraqi civil society essentially ceased to exist, and is only slowly recovering.

Washington would gain little but headaches – in addition to the $400 million being spent daily – from sticking around, even with force levels below the 142,000 post-surge total. Although casualties are down, the U.S. will continue to be a lightening rod for disaffected Iraqis. The Iraqi state remains largely non-functioning, and the liberal political order imagined by neocon fantasists is unlikely to quickly arise, with or without America's help. And if the country dissolves into violence again – Washington has in effect been arming both sides, training the Shia-dominated security forces and arming the Sunni militias – it would be best if American troops were far, far away.

Nor is it obvious that America is currently a force for stability. It is easier to posture and put forth maximal demands so long as the U.S. can be counted on to attempt to keep a lid on violence. Real compromise and cooperation are unlikely to occur until forced by necessity. That necessity will occur when America is gone.

Alas, the ongoing negotiations over a continuing U.S. presence have turned into both a torturous and tortuous affair. The Bush administration's original position was clear: permanent, er, "enduring" bases. As of last year the U.S. maintained 136 bases and supply/ammunition/fuel depots. Washington requested to keep 58 military facilities, including five mega-bases, along with a large, safe "zone of influence" around the new $1 billion embassy, the largest American diplomatic outpost in the world.

Nor was that all. The administration's hope to reduce Baghdad to puppet status – demanding autonomy for U.S. military operations, authority to detain and imprison Iraqi citizens, continued extraterritorial status for military contractors, supervisory rights over Iraqi security ministries and arms purchases, control over Iraqi air space, and assistance in war against Iran or any other enemy du jour of America – ran into a little thing called nationalism. Ali al-Adeeb of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's Dawa party observed simply: "It would impair Iraqi sovereignty." Sami al-Askari, a Shiite parliamentarian close to al-Maliki, said "The Americans are making demands that would lead to the colonization of Iraq."

More heated was lawmaker Jalal al-Din al-Saghir, of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq: "The points that were put forth by the Americans were more abominable than the occupation." The original occupation was ordained by the UN Security Council, "But now we are being asked to sign for our own occupation." Indeed, "If it is left to them, they would ask for immunity even for the American dogs."

It was bad enough when populist outsider Muqtada al-Sadr campaigned against the agreement. One of his clerical allies said the accord would lead to "eternal slavery." Then last month Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki declared: "we did not realize that the US demands would so deeply affect Iraqi sovereignty and this is something we can never accept." He even threatened to ask Washington to leave after the negotiations "reached an impasse." A few days ago he said there must be a timetable for America's withdrawal: "The goal is to end the presence" of foreign troops. His national security adviser, Mouwaffak al-Rubaie, said the same thing after briefing Grand Ayatollah al-Sistani: "We will not accept any memorandum of understanding that doesn't have specific dates to withdraw foreign forces from Iraq."

Some advocates of a continued U.S. regency say not to worry. For instance, the Wall Street Journal editorialized that al-Maliki's position was "designed for domestic Iraqi political consumption." Perhaps so, but the fact that he believes he must demand a withdrawal timetable to satisfy the Iraqi public is telling.

Urged on by al-Sadr, tens of thousands rallied against the negotiations back in May. Members of parliament are demanding a vote on any agreement, and there is even talk about holding a referendum. Protests are increasing against the casualties generated by U.S. military raids.

But al-Maliki must worry about more than his domestic constituencies. Iran might be Washington's enemy number one in the region, and perhaps on the planet, but earlier this year al-Maliki welcomed Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on a state visit far more open to the Iraqi people than any of President Bush's trips. In June al-Maliki scurried off to Tehran to assure Iranian officials that they had nothing to fear from a continuing U.S. presence: "We will not allow Iraq to become a platform for harming the security of Iran and its neighbors." Translation: Iraq ain't going to help the U.S. unleash another crazed neocon militaristic adventure.

This is hardly a case of "cut-and-run," or whatever the latest neocon expletive is for damning their opponents. Reports suggest that the Iraqis are thinking of a complete U.S. withdrawal within three to five years. That seems like a long time to anyone other than a member of the Bush administration.

Officials in Washington have been left sputtering. President Bush naturally opposes a timetable, and said he doesn't believe the prime minister was proposing a "rigid" schedule. State Department spokesman Gonzalo Gallegos was more direct: "We want to withdraw. We will withdraw. However, that decision will be conditions-based. We're looking at conditions, not calendars here."

Apparently the Iraqi people have a different vision. And they are looking at a calendar. It is their country, isn't it?

In fact, the withdrawal should be far faster. If the Iraqis ask America to leave, then America must leave. Unless the U.S. intends to treat Nouri al-Maliki like Saddam Hussein, it has no choice but to accept whatever Iraq's democratically-elected leadership decides.

But even if Baghdad asked America to stay, Washington should say no. For it isn't in America's interest to stay. And that should be the test for U.S. military invasion, occupation, or other action.

The American people understand. A record 68 percent believe the war was a mistake. In June 42 percent proclaimed themselves in favor of bringing the troops home within a year. Another 21 percent said one to two years. Nine percent said two to five years, one percent favored five to ten years, and 20 percent opined "as long as it takes" – presumably backing Sen. McCain's 10,000 year occupation, if necessary.

Sen. McCain demonstrated his lack of understanding when he compared Iraq to South Korea. The U.S. actually intervened on behalf of the South to save it from invasion. The Republic of Korea always wanted American forces to stay, even after it was well able to defend itself. It's nice to have a superpower offer a little defense welfare, allowing one to concentrate on economic development and becoming a global trading state. But the defense guarantee makes no sense from America's standpoint. Many South Koreans don't even view North Korea as a serious threat.

Unfortunately, perpetual occupations, even if relatively friendly, are costly. There's the expense not only of the deployment, but of creating the units necessary to patrol the rest of the world. Cut the military commitments and you can cut force levels.

Moreover, extended occupations discourage client states from defending themselves. Most of the Europeans have militaries in name only. Even when they send forces into combat, as in Afghanistan, it usually is with the proviso that the soldiers not actually end up under fire. Armed social work is a better description of their activities. The Japanese are essentially the same. They sent "soldiers" to Iraq who could not even defend themselves – the Dutch and then Australians successively had to protect the Japanese "military" forces from attack.

Occupations inevitably create local antagonism and stoke nationalism. South Korea is a case in point. A status of forces agreement that made sense a half century 60 years ago when the ROK was an underdeveloped national wreck looks unseemly and overbearing today. The recent demonstrations in Seoul are directed more against perceived American domination than U.S. beef imports.

A permanent occupation in the Mideast will raise additional red flags, given the political sensitivities of backing numerous authoritarian regimes and supporting Israel and its rule over millions of antagonistic Palestinians. Even former Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz acknowledged that the presence of U.S. forces in Saudi Arabia spurred terrorism. America's Iraq invasion and occupation created al-Qaeda in Iraq. Attempting to maintain a permanent occupation of Iraq, and even more so using that garrison to intervene in neighboring states, would lead to more blowback.

Finally, security guarantees encourage governments to behave irresponsibly. If you possess a superpower guarantee, you can afford to be more confrontational, churlish, and foolish when dealing with neighbors and potential antagonists. Examples include Austria-Hungary in advance of World War I and Taiwan in its recent dealings with China.

It's time to bring home the U.S. forces. The withdrawal should be speedy and complete – no "residual" force, as now suggested by Colin Kahl, a Barack Obama aide. And the pull-out should place an emphatic explanation point on lessons learned. No more unnecessary wars of choice. No more attempts at coercive social engineering, in the belief that the denizens of Washington can transcend geography, history, religion, tradition, ethnicity, and culture in recreating America abroad. Washington's job is to protect the American people – their territory, liberty, and constitutional system. Not to try to remake the world, whether in the Middle East or elsewhere around the globe.

Politics on the Couch: Opposites Detract or Listening to the Unsaid

What follows is the eighth post for the interactive book, Politics on the Couch. Readers' comments are welcome and an integral part of this experiment.

POC: Opposites Detract - Listening to the Unsaid

One aim of this project is to help us all -- myself included -- pay attention to our own unconscious, and think about how it affects our perceptions of political life in 2008. A second aim of this project is to interact with members of HuffingtonPost.com community who are willing to share how their thoughts and feelings affect their perceptions. Nowhere have these two factors -- thinking about our perceptions and sharing our thoughts -- seemed more compelling than when we try to make sense of what Barack Obama means by the word, "Change."

For years, I have been struck by how political candidates -- especially presidential candidates -- are in most ways like the rest of us, only super-sized. Their psychological coping mechanisms -- their "defenses" -- are also magnified when bathed in TV lights. One simple way to learn about whom the candidates really are is to pay attention to the slogans by which they define themselves.

Slogans such as "I'm a uniter not a divider" overtly express who the candidate is as well as who he isn't. But when we listen at a deeper level we know that by saying who he is not, the candidate may reveal who he actually is. The quality he denies to us about himself is something he had to think of - consciously or unconsciously -- in order to negate it. But hindsight is often 20/20, particularly in the case of G.W. Bush.

It's easy to look at McCain's "Straight Talk Express" and see that it is neither. He changes his positions dramatically -- as in the case of off-shore drilling. He also is not honest with himself, expressing disgust at having been attacked by the Bush/Rove cabal in 2000 and then embracing his attackers. And he is the opposite of the "express" part, admitting to his ignorance of both modern economics and computing.

But Obama has been more of a challenge, even to his acolytes. Democrats who supported other candidates, as well as most Republicans, openly questioned his authenticity or said they didn't know who he really is. Now, in light of his recent support of the death penalty, of government involvement with faith-based initiatives, and of the FISA bill, Obama supporters themselves have to look at who he is and what he might be negating about himself. Perhaps he is unconsciously offering "A Change you CAN'T believe in" or "MORE OF THE SAME you can believe in." My lovely wife, the editor, wishes he would offer, "Change in which you can believe," but that's another issue -- and another unconscious.

What excited so many Obama supporters and led to massive voter registration and turnout was his call for change in Washington. This idea invites projection like few others -- and something Kleinian analysts call projective identification. It means that we put our own hopes and fears into Obama -- not simply onto him -- and assume that he is thinking what we are thinking. We are not consciously aware of doing this, but unconsciously we assume we know what he means by "change" because of having successfully projected our dreams into what we think of as his mind, exemplified by his phraseology. We then identify with him, but our identification is based on projection more than on what he actually means. It's a lot like falling in love -- we meet someone who attracts us and unconsciously imbue that person with all of the attributes we desire in a partner, even before we really know much about her or him.

Projection starts early in life, earlier than disappointment and hurt. But both are involved here -- all infants experience moments when feeding is interrupted because mother has to do something suddenly or because some sibling makes demands or something else. The baby can be upset and angry, and then the mother tries to repair damage done. Projective identification often is evident when mothers change diapers: babies love to have their diapers changed, but experience it as though it's the mother who loves doing the changing.

The process of break and repair can be made worse if the mother is very inviting and exciting but not aware of how upset the baby feels when it's disappointed. I think that Obama should watch for the people he disappoints, as early on he vaulted over not only the disappointment we felt with Washington, but disappointments from our own lives as well. By using the word change he gave us hope -- and with a return of current hope come ancient hopes as well, which set us up even more for disappointment.

Hence disillusionment evolves into dismay at his FISA vote on July 9, 2008. He supported the Bush administration when 23 Senate colleagues (including vanquished primary foes Clinton, Biden, and Dodd) voted nay. So we are forced to ask ourselves what he actually means by "change" as compared to what we think he means. I thought change meant confronting the special interest groups, like pharmas and telecoms whose demands dominate all legislation. I thought change meant listening to others and not being doctrinaire -- that unlike either McCain or Clinton, he would try diplomacy with "enemies" like Iran. I thought change meant genuine thinking -- a foreign policy no longer dominated by knee-jerk neocons.

But others, from Gail Collins of the NYT to my father-in-law, thought Obama's idea of change meant including and even embracing diverse ideas and solutions. He opposed the "with us or against us" approach of Bush Republicans, something partly adopted by Clinton too. Republicans recently disillusioned with their party, thought change meant getting away from politics as usual; Obama's vote on FISA is already seen as flip-flop behavior not different from Kerry's in 2004. On the other side, liberal columnist Bob Herbert titled his July 9 NYT op-ed about Obama "Lurching with Abandon."

So I repaired to the Oxford English Dictionary -- to look up the word "change," which Obama uses as a noun, not a verb. Basically it means substituting one thing for another, a succession of one thing for another. Substitution of one for the other applies to situations as well, as in the phrase "for a change". But where does that leave us in relation to Obama? And where does that leave him?

To me, he wins because people can project all things into the word "change" and feel good about him and about themselves. To me, he loses because many people will end up feeling disappointed in him as he clarifies who he is, or as the positions he takes do that for him. To some, he has veered off his liberal course -- as Arianna Hufington and others think. To others, he has stayed on course, as Gail Collins and others believe. It all depends on what "change" is. I guess that's better than what "is" is.

Emerging from the Drug War Dark Age: LSD and Other Psychedelic Medicines Make a Comeback

By Charles Shaw, AlterNet

Health and Wellness: After a 40-year moratorium, credible research for treating illnesses and addictions with psychedelic compounds has made a miraculous comeback.

• July 11, 2008
• More »

Are Cheney's Iran Dreams Shattered?

Tom Engelhardt, Tomdispatch.com

ForeignPolicy: Just because there's a will doesn't mean there's a way.


Obama-Care Versus McCain-Care: Real Differences in Plans for Our Health System

Dean Baker, TruthOut.org

Election 2008: The two candidates are worlds apart on the most pressing domestic issue of our time.


Think '70s Feminists Are Out of Touch? Not So Fast.

Heidi Schnakenberg, AlterNet

Reproductive Justice and Gender: A lesson from second-wave feminism: Women will continue to be oppressed unless they stop prioritizing other causes over their own.

Mortgage Crisis Is Leaving Children Homeless

Caitlin G. Johnson, OneWorld.net

Some middle class families are facing homelessness for the first time.


NY Times: Rush Limbaugh's Newest Lapdog

Eric Boehlert, Media Matters for America

Media and Technology: The Times assumes Limbaugh controls the GOP, yet he backed Mitt Romney to the hilt.


Top Senator And 10 States Attack VA for Banning Voter Registration Drives

Steven Rosenfeld, AlterNet

Democracy and Elections: Officials overseeing the VA and state elections say the VA's policy is unnecessary and insulting to veterans who sacrificed for our country.

John McCain -- 61 Flip-Flops and Counting

Steve Benen, The Carpetbagger Report

Election 2008: McCain argues that flip-flops are an example of a political leader who can't be trusted -- so he might as well drop out of the race.

Low expectations for Congress
Rick Moran
Public approval of Congress is so low that a few Republican optimists dream of overcoming the structural factors favoring the Democrats, holding steady or even gaining seats. More

Seven Steps to McCain Narrowing The Speech Gap
Lee Cary
McCain can narrow, not eliminate, the speech gap between him and Obama and thereby improve his chances for victory in November. But it won't happen around a teleprompter. More

Torture redefined
Ray Robison
Three burly men in military uniform forced me to don a mask. I could barely see through the slits in it. But what I could see made me shudder. More

We're Oh So... (a poem)
July 11, 2008
We're hip, we're cool and oh so arty;/ We're Democrats, the smarter party. We're sophisticated unlike you;/ We understand merci beaucoup. More

Make That 104
July 10, 2008
After recently adding Fox News to the Media Dishonesty Matters list, two more entries should be added. More

Is Hillary back in the Veep Picture?
July 10, 2008
There are still many Democrats urging Obama to take her and by doing so, heal the party. More

Campaign of ironies
July 10, 2008
First Hillary becomes the great white hope of Appalachia, now the American wife of Sir Evelyn de Rothschild calls Obama an elitist. More

Obama Regrets Pushing his Kids in front of Access Hollywood Cameras
July 10, 2008
Of all the low down, sneaky, dishonest political tricks, this one takes the cake. More

Jesse Jackson Gets Very Personal in Criticizing Obama (updated)
July 10, 2008
The incident reveals the fear that Jackson and other racialists like Al Sharpton feel with regard to Obama and the threat he poses to their little civil rights empires. More

The Pickens Plan -- only one part of the solution
July 10, 2008
T. Boone Pickens, the legendary Texas oilman, has been on a bit of a media blitz over the past few days, promoting wind-power, of all things. More

Iran Photoshopped its missile tests: AFP
July 10, 2008
The power of blogs once again shines the light of truth on those who would seek to put one over on us. More

AT posters finally available
July 10, 2008
At last AT is able to offer readers posters and other new merchandise of the highest quality. More

Rep. Wexler's Shameless Misinformation Campaign
July 10, 2008
Wexler is carrying water for Obama's Iran appeasement policy More

Judicial Watch files complaint on Obamas' mortgage
July 10, 2008
Judicial Watch has filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission over the below-average interest rate Barack and Michelle Obama received on their Hyde Park mansion in Chicago. Guess who broke the story? More

'What's Spanish for Hypocrite?'
July 10, 2008
Brilliant pandering by Obama to the Hispanic community. More

Norman Solomon:
Obama and the Progressive Base

Tom Engelhardt:
Reality Bites Back: Why the US Won’t Attack Iran


Robert Koehler:
Steel Rain


Dan Kennedy:
Should Bush Be Tried for War Crimes?


Juan Cole:
The FBI’s Plan to ‘Profile’ Muslims


Robert Weissman:
The G8: Humanitarian Failure and Making the World Safe for Corporate Power

John Nichols:
Obama Votes to Silence Debate and Pass FISA


Eric Easter:
What Jesse Jackson Said

The Lesson from Obama's Cowardly Flip-Flop
by Jacob G. Hornberger

Those who think that the election of Barack Obama will save the nation from its many foreign-policy/civil-liberties woes got smashed and dashed with a cold dose of reality. Flip-flopping in the finest political tradition, Obama voted in favor of President Bush’s wiretap/immunity bill, after promising to filibuster it before he secured the Democratic Party nomination.

Presumably, Obama’s thinking goes like this: “Now that I’ve secured the nomination of my party, liberals will vote for me regardless because they won’t want John McCain in power. So, I can now flip flop and taken different positions on foreign policy and civil liberties so that John McCain won’t be able to tell people that I’m soft on terrorism.”

Reminding people of what happened in 2002, when the Democrats unconstitutionally and cowardly delegated the power to declare war on Iraq to President Bush because of fear that the president would accuse them of being soft on Saddam Hussein, congressional Democrats voted to give Bush everything he wanted plus more in the wiretap/immunity bill, including civil immunity to private telecom companies for apparent felony offenses committed against their customers.

For an excellent analysis of the cowardly and craven cave-in by Obama and his fellow Democrats, see Glenn Greenwald’s blog and Jonathan Turley’s television interview, which is included in Greenwald’s June 9 blog. (Both Greenwald and Turley delivered terrific speeches at our recent conference “Restoring the Republic 2008: Foreign Policy and Civil Liberties.”)

Meanwhile, the president and his associates continue to threaten Iran with a military attack without even pretending that they’re going to first ask for a declaration of war from Congress, which the Constitution requires. Keep in mind that the Constitution is the law that we the people impose on the president and the Congress. That’s the law that the president feels that he can violate with impunity.

The fact is that Americans are living under a lawless regime, one in which the president feels that constitutional constraints are illegitimate during his “war on terrorism,” which he says will last indefinitely given that there are still so many terrorists and potential terrorists in the world. Never mind that the U.S. government’s own policies generate the terrorist threat against the United States, which is then used as the excuse for the president to operate in an omnipotent and extra-constitutional manner.

That’s what his signing statements, illegal wiretaps and other searches, enemy-combatant designations, torture and sex abuse camps, cancelation of habeas corpus, wars of aggression, indefinite detentions, and kangaroo military tribunals are all about — the power to ignore constitutional restraints — omnipotent power.

The battle over the wiretap/immunity bill demonstrates a critically important point, one that every lover of liberty must ultimately confront: It is not sufficient to fight every assault on civil liberties that comes down the pike. The infringements are endless. Even if one civil-liberties battle is won, there are always three more battles to wage.

Suppose, for example, that civil libertarians succeed in getting the Pentagon’s torture and sex abuse camp at Guantanamo Bay closed down. Would that end the torture and sex abuse? Of course not. They’ll simply start sending detainees to torture and sex abuse camps in Afghanistan or to friendly terrorist regimes, such as Syria (which they still claim they don’t talk to despite the fact that the CIA somehow or another made the arrangements with Syrian torturers to torture an innocent man on its behalf).

Thus, what every American who thirsts for the restoration of a normal, free society must recognize is that there is one — and only one — solution: the dismantling of America’s standing army, especially the military-industrial complex and the CIA, which are the center of the rot of the U.S. Empire. This is what should have been done when the Berlin Wall fell and it’s what should be done today.

That’s the root of the weed. That’s what needs to be pulled out of the ground. It’s not sufficient to simply continue trimming its branches.

That would mean the closing of every U.S. military base around the world — Europe, Asia, South America, and everywhere else. It would entail bringing all those troops home and discharging them into the private sector. It would entail closing the multitude of military bases all across the United States. It would entail the abolition of the CIA. It would include the repeal of the deadly and destructive war on drugs. It would entail the end of all foreign aid. It would mean the end of the U.S. government’s meddling in the affairs of other nations. It would entail the repeal of all the taxes that fund these people and their deadly, destructive, and nefarious operations.

Barack Obama’s cowardly flip flop should remind every American that the key to our future lies not in electing different people to public office. Instead, the key to our future lies in a shift in paradigms — from one of big government in foreign (and domestic) affairs to one of limited government in foreign (and domestic) affairs.

The time has come for the American people to do what Americans in 1787 were doing: reflecting upon the principles of liberty and limited government on which this nation should be based. The time has come to end the U.S. government’s role as the world’s policeman, intervener, interloper, aggressor, welfare provider, and sole remaining empire. The time has come for the American people to restore the principles of liberty and limited government that our ancestors bequeathed to us.