Justice Anti-Trust Div Weighs in on Health Care Reform

The U.S. Department of Justice has stepped into the battle over health care, giving ammunition to congressional Democrats who want to shake up the health insurance market.

The department made its foray today during a Senate hearing about the federal antitrust exemption that health insurers have enjoyed for more than 60 years. Democrats say a repeal of that exemption would help consumers by allowing the Justice Department to police potentially anti-competitive practices, such as market allocation and bid rigging, that are currently left up to state insurance regulators. And the department suggested today that it generally agrees.

The repeal proposal comes up, in a not-so-subtle way, as some Democrats are trying to persuade the insurance industry to accept a new public insurance plan. “It puts in perspective, for those of us who want a public option, that there has to be competition,” said Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), the No. 2 Senate Democrat.

The Democrats’ lead witness on the issue: Christine Varney, assistant attorney general for the Antitrust Division. Though the Justice Department hasn’t taken a position on a specific bill about the insurers’ exemption, Varney gave the proposal a boost this morning. “I don’t think that the reasons that were in existence in 1945 are still very viable for this exemption,” she said.

Varney, a former partner at Hogan & Hartson, testified about three decades’ worth of studies that say the exemption is outdated.

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) said a repeal of the exemption would lead to smaller and fewer insurers. “I have, as yet, seen little evidence to justify a complete repeal,” he said.

Congress created the antitrust exemption in the McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945. Insurers say it’s still needed to allow for the sharing of industry data — a point that Varney disputed, saying that data-sharing is frequently legal as long as it meets Justice Department guidelines.

“Repealing the McCarran-Ferguson Act would allow competition to have a greater role in reforming health and medical malpractice insurance markets than would otherwise be the case,” Varney said.

She added that, if Congress gave her the authority to prosecute in the health insurance market, she would still rely on the guidance of state authorities. And, she said, the Justice Department should be able to take into account the “rule of reason” and other flexible standards before acting against a health insurer. Click here (PDF) for a copy of her prepared testimony.

Posted by David Ingram on October 14, 2009 The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times.

current-events

Kucinich busts a move

The just concluded Democratic Party convention was pretty much a meat and potatoes affair, but Dennis Kucinich (D,OH) blasted one out of the park.

I'd previously been of the opinion that if I heard the phrase "Wake up, America!" one more time, I would strangle someone, but Dennis said it like it should be said. Now I think it should be said more often, and with the passion that Dennis gave it Tuesday night.

Hot damn; I might even vote come November.

current-events

The Man Who Brainwashed America

Doggerel by Fido

Now that the New York Times seems to have found its cojones, it's probably time to drag out some old news which will go a long way to explaining why the American people have seemed to be shellshocked, and so reluctant to embrace the simple fact that they have been had.

There is an advertising agency in Washington, D.C. which holds a Top Secret clearance. The boss of that ad agency is a lifelong Democrat and has been deeply involved in politics on the national level for some time. He probably considers himself a patriot, inasmuch as receives millions of dollars in billing, principally from the CIA. Yeah, that CIA. And what does his crackerjack agency do for its daily bread?

Glad you asked. What they do is lie to the American people and the world about stuff like Ahmad Chalabi and WMD, feed lies to an uncritical Judith Miller, assist in regime change in places like Panama (remember Noriega, the drug king?) and basically engage in brainwashing on behalf of their client, the United States government.

The following transcript has been floating around the Internet since 2005, and it's about time it resurfaced, preferably on the front page of every newspaper and on every nightly news show in the country, but that ain't gonna happen by itself, so we'll start the ball rolling.

The Rendon agency that will be discussed was the goto outfit for the buildup to the Iraq war (as well as previous CIA shenanigans). I wrote about them at the time (2005), but had forgotten about them, as the distractions came so thick and fast for so long. James Bamford is the man who wrote the book on the NSA, The Puzzle Palace: Inside the National Security Agency, America's Most Secret Intelligence Organization

From 2005, Amy Goodman's Democracy Now interview with James Bamford: The Man Who Sold the War

So how did the Bush administration sell the war to the American public? Well, a new article in Rolling Stone magazine (December 1, 2005) examines just that. In it, investigative journalist James Bamford looks at the role of one of the most powerful public relations firms in Washington D.C in setting the stage for the Iraq war. The firm is the Rendon Group and it's founder and CEO is John Rendon – the former Executive Director of the Democratic National Committee.

AMY GOODMAN: James Bamford joins us in our Firehouse studio here in New York, the author of several books including the first one ever written about the National Security Agency called The Puzzle Palace: Inside America’s Most Secret Intelligence Organization. His latest book is A Pretext for War: 9/11, Iraq and the Abuse of America’s Intelligence Agencies. We welcome you to Democracy Now!

JAMES BAMFORD: Thanks, Amy. I appreciate it.

AMY GOODMAN: It’s great to have you with us. Well, this piece in Rolling Stone is quite a read. Why don’t you start off by talking about a man in the Gulf of Thailand who was taking a lie detector test?

JAMES BAMFORD: Well, this took place in December of 2001. This was really the sort of opening shot of the propaganda war to get the United States into war. And the person being polygraphed was an Iraqi defector by the name of al-Haideri, and the Iraqi National Congress, the I.N.C., had brought him out of Iraq and brought him to Thailand primarily to expose him to the media and to try to get his story told. And what his story was was that Saddam Hussein had not only chemical and biological weapons but even nuclear weapons and precursors to nuclear weapons hidden in Iraq in various places. Some of the biological weapons were supposedly hidden under the main hospital in Baghdad, for example. So it was an amazing story.

And this was the—up until this time there was a lot of speculation in the press and in Congress and other places about what Saddam may have, what might have been left over from the Gulf War and so forth. But this was going to be the very first time that somebody could actually point to information as proof, having seen where these things were buried and so forth. So, the I.N.C., the Iraqi National Congress, which was led by Ahmed Chalabi, decided to call in two journalists to broadcast this information to the world.

AMY GOODMAN: Wait. First, the lie detector proved what?

JAMES BAMFORD: Exactly. Before he actually called these people in to broadcast this information, obviously the C.I.A. had a big interest in this and the Pentagon had a big interest in this, so the C.I.A. flew a polygraph operator with his machine all the way over to Thailand, Pattaya, Thailand, which is south of Bangkok, and they went into a hotel room, they strapped up al-Haideri, and they asked him all these questions. And they went over and over for hours his allegations regarding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and they came away with charts that indicated he was deceptive, that he was lying, that this was not true. And they flew back to Washington and, presumably, assuming this was going to be the end of it. But that was information that was never made public. They didn’t broadcast that information. So what happened was the I.N.C. and Chalabi decided to take that bogus information that al-Haideri was giving and broadcast it around the world. So, they called in two journalists. One of the journalists was Judy Miller, who was given the worldwide print exclusive rights to the story.

AMY GOODMAN: And who called her in?

JAMES BAMFORD: Chalabi called her in. Chalabi asked her if she wanted to do the story, and she flew from Washington all the way over to Bangkok to interview al-Haideri.

AMY GOODMAN: Chalabi on the payroll of the C.I.A.?

JAMES BAMFORD: At this time, Chalabi was—he had been getting money from the C.I.A. up until the mid-1990s, and then he started getting money from the Pentagon after the C.I.A. failed to trust him any more. So, the other journalist that they called in was Paul Moran, who was a journalist working for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. And what makes this very interesting was how this came about. The people setting this up were members of the I.N.C. whose main goal all along from the very beginning was overthrowing Saddam Hussein anyway possible. And ironically, one of the people they called in, Paul Moran, had formerly worked for the I.N.C., and he had also worked for another company called the Rendon Group.

AMY GOODMAN: Hold it there. We have to break. When we come back, we’ll take a look at the Rendon Group. We are talking to investigative reporter James Bamford, author of A Pretext for War, has just written a piece in Rolling Stone called “The Man Who Sold the War.”

[break]

AMY GOODMAN: Our guest is James Bamford. He’s written the piece in Rolling Stone magazine, “The Man Who Sold the War: Meet John Rendon, Bush’s General in the Propaganda War.” So, the Rendon Group and John Rendon.

JAMES BAMFORD: That’s right. The Rendon Group plays an important part in this, because it was the Rendon Group, who few people have heard about, that actually set up the I.N.C., the Iraqi National Congress, in the first place. In a very unusual move, the Bush administration, the first Bush administration, outsourced the propaganda for the war in Iraq basically to a private company.

AMY GOODMAN: Why?

JAMES BAMFORD: The reason they did it was because they specialize in this. The Rendon Group for years have been able to take information that the C.I.A. was trying to get across to the public and broadcast it. For example, they went back to Panama. Just before the U.S. action in Iraq in 1990, the Bush administration invaded Panama and ousted Manuel Noriega. Well, all along, the C.I.A. had a person they wanted to put in there to take Noriega’s place, a person by the name of Endara. And the C.I.A. outsourced to the Rendon Group the propaganda campaign to put Endara in there. So they took this person who was basically a lawyer, a businessman, and Rendon built him up into a presidential candidate, took him around Europe, introduced him to the Pope, and when his group was attacked, one of his vice presidents was attacked, a very bloody attack, it made the front page of newspapers all over the world, including Time magazine.

AMY GOODMAN: With the Rendon Group’s help getting that image out?

JAMES BAMFORD: Exactly, the Rendon Group is the public relations group that pushed all of that information out there.

AMY GOODMAN: John Rendon flying in a few minutes before the actual invasion took place, of Panama.

JAMES BAMFORD: Well, as the invasion took place, before the planes actually started attacking, John Rendon was in a plane about to land in Panama. So he was there right at the beginning, and he was there, too, right about the same time that his candidate, Endara, was sworn in as president. So he did such a good job in Panama in terms of regime change, getting the C.I.A.’s man into office, the Bush administration decided—the first Bush administration decided to use him to help do regime change in Iraq. And after the first Gulf War, the whole idea was to oust Saddam Hussein and put in Ahmed Chalabi as the leader. So, John Rendon, his company the Rendon Group, created an umbrella group known as the Iraqi National Congress.

AMY GOODMAN: He came up with the name?

JAMES BAMFORD: John Rendon came up with the name. He formed an organizational meeting in Vienna. He helped install Chalabi as the head of the group, and then the money was originally funneled from the C.I.A. through the Rendon Group, about $350,000 a month, to Chalabi.

AMY GOODMAN: Was this also for deniability, so it wouldn’t be the C.I.A. directly giving the money?

JAMES BAMFORD: Well, definitely. That’s one of the key reasons that they wanted to use a private company like the Rendon Group as a cutout. And they did that in Panama also. So it was a very convenient organization to turn to in order to help regime change. The C.I.A. could help in terms of the combat, overthrowing a foreign leader like Saddam Hussein, but in terms of building up the world propaganda, number one, hating Saddam Hussein, number two, loving Ahmed Chalabi, that was something that they had to outsource, and the Rendon Group had become specialists in that type of propaganda.

AMY GOODMAN: We are talking with investigative reporter, Jim Bamford, author of A Pretext for War. That’s his book. “The Man Who Sold the War” is the name of his article in Mother Jones. So let’s go back—

JAMES BAMFORD: In Rolling Stone.

AMY GOODMAN: I mean, in Rolling Stone magazine. Let’s go back to Judith Miller and Paul Moran. One is a radio reporter who worked for the Rendon Group, and you could talk about that; and the other, Judith Miller, worked for The New York Times.

JAMES BAMFORD: That’s right. And how this comes full circle is that the Rendon Group created the I.N.C., put in Chalabi in there, and then now we have December of 2001, right after the September 11 attacks, and while the administration is gearing up to sort of get the public behind the administration in going into war in Iraq. So up until this time it had been all speculation about what had been going on in terms of Saddam’s use of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and now the I.N.C., the Iraqi National Congress, comes up with this defector who is telling this huge lie about where all of these weapons are being hidden.

AMY GOODMAN: And they know it’s a lie?

JAMES BAMFORD: Well, I don’t know when they knew it, but they certainly should have known it at some point, that the C.I.A. person who walked out of the room wasn’t smiling about all of the happy news he was hearing—

AMY GOODMAN: And the guy who did the lie detector test said, “He is not telling the truth.”

JAMES BAMFORD: That’s right, exactly, and it didn’t seem to make much difference, because they called in the press, and the two people that they called in, ironically one of them was Paul Moran who had formerly worked, not only for the I.N.C., but also for the Rendon Group. So you have a journalist who has the worldwide broadcast exclusive for this interview with this defector who is telling a lot of lies, who actually had formerly worked for the group putting this show on the road, and then they called in Judy Miller, who was going to be granted the worldwide print exclusives. And Judy Miller, in her own words in a memo she wrote to her bureau chief in Baghdad at one point, mentioned that for a decade Chalabi had been one of her key sources and that he was responsible for many of the front page stories on W.M.D. in The New York Times.

So, they called in these two very sympathetic journalists to broadcast this story, and it made huge news. It came out, I think it was December 20, 2001, and again it made a great impact, because this was the first time that an actual eyewitness was able to say that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons. So, this was a major milestone in the road to the war. And from then on, the I.N.C. began coming up with other defectors, and The New York Times and other organizations started promoting the war. But a lot of it had its origins with this first defector, al-Haideri.

AMY GOODMAN: James Bamford, Paul Moran died in Iraq.

JAMES BAMFORD: One of the biggest and most tragic ironies of the entire war was the fact that this journalist, Paul Moran, who had formerly worked for both the I.N.C. and the Rendon Group and then broadcast—had the worldwide broadcast rights for this story about al-Haideri, which helped push the U.S. into war with Iraq—into invading Iraq; Paul Moran actually became the very first journalist killed in the war. He was in northern Iraq, and a car bomb exploded very close to him, and he was killed instantly. I think it was within two or three days of the beginning of the war. So, it was a very tragic irony that Paul Moran, who helped generate some of the early publicity for the war ended up being one of the first people killed in the war.

AMY GOODMAN: John Rendon went to his funeral in Australia?

JAMES BAMFORD: Yes, the Rendon Group really went to a lot of trouble and expense to really create a lot of memorials for Paul Moran. John Rendon flew to the funeral in Australia. They had a memorial service for him in Washington. They had another larger memorial service for him in London, where Rendon and Paul Moran first began working around 1990. So, it was a very big tragedy, and it was a tragedy for the Rendon Group, who had relied on Paul Moran for many, many years.

AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about the I.O.T.F., what it stands for and the Information War Room?

JAMES BAMFORD: Well, the Information Operation Task Force was set up by the Pentagon, because, if you read some of the Pentagon documents that are coming out in the last few years, they wanted to turn information into a major weapon to use during a war. They realized with the internet and with the explosion of information technology around the world that getting a message out is extremely important. It’s especially important in a case like this where we weren’t attacked by Iraq. This wasn’t a case of the United States defending itself against an attack. So, we had to—the United States had to go on a propaganda war in order to convince the world that this preemptive invasion had legitimacy. So, in order to do that the Pentagon created a number of organizations to help promote this information around the world, and the Information Operation Task Force was one of those, and the Rendon Group played an extremely important role in that. And one of the key objectives of the Rendon Group in this aspect was to analyze media all over the world. John Rendon, in my interview with him, and it was the first interview I think he’s ever granted, or at least within probably twenty years—

AMY GOODMAN: And why did he grant it to you?

JAMES BAMFORD: You’re going to have to ask him. I don’t ask questions. I just am very happy when somebody does agree to be interviewed. So he—and one of the ironic aspects of John Rendon is you have somebody here who started out as basically an anti-war activist. He went to work for the George McGovern campaign, actually ran the Maine operation, the operation up in Maine, for George McGovern. So you have a person who started out as an anti-war activist and a lifelong Democrat, head of the Democratic National Committee, Executive Director of the D.N.C., and here he is the chief of propaganda for the Bush administration in their war with Iraq. So it was a very interesting progression, and when I interviewed him, he said he’s still never voted for a Republican, he still votes Democratic, and he donated money to the Democratic Party not long ago.

So now what his role is, is as chief of propaganda and as that, the Pentagon has been using him a great deal to analyze information around the world. Rendon told me that they analyze something like 143 newspapers and a lot of broadcast media around the world and that he prides himself on being able to get to policy makers information on what news organizations all over the world are going to do six hours before they actually do it. And that way, the Pentagon can prepare a response or some kind of rebuttal to whatever may be coming on a news organization hours in advance.

AMY GOODMAN: You write, James Bamford, “A key weapon, according to the documents, was Rendon’s proprietary state-of-the-art news-wire collection system called ‘Livewire,’ which takes real-time news-wire services as they’re filed, before they’re on the internet, before CNN can read them on the air, and 24 hours before they appear in the morning papers, and sorts them by key word. The system provides the most current real time access to news and information available to private or public organizations. The top target that the Pentagon assigned to Rendon was the Al-Jazeera television network. The contract called for the Rendon Group to undertake a massive media mapping campaign against the news organization.” Why, what did they do?

JAMES BAMFORD: Well, it’s a very interesting area, this media mapping. And basically, what it is, is they were directed to take a close look at the actual reporters who were reporting the news and analyze them. What is their slant? What is their bias? What is the background for these people? What makes that very worrisome is that there was another group that was set up by the Pentagon, Office of Strategic Influence, and that was eventually closed down, but one of the things—

AMY GOODMAN: Forced to because it became public?

JAMES BAMFORD: That’s right, when it became knowledge, and one of the aspects was that they were going to plant phony stories in news organizations around the world, and when you plant a phony story in a news organization anywhere in the world today, I mean, it’s immediately accessible to people in the United States. So, it would have had a very bad blowback effect.

AMY GOODMAN: Now, I remember when Rumsfeld closed it. He said, ‘Yeah, we may change the name, but it doesn’t mean we have to stop doing what we are doing.’

Continue reading "The Man Who Sold the Iraq War: John Rendon, Bush’s General in the Propaganda War"

The original content of this program is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Please attribute legal copies of this work to democracynow.org. Some of the work(s) that this program incorporates, however, may be separately licensed. For further information or additional permissions, contact us.

current-events

Hillary laughs and Iran gets bombed

For some time now I have been tracking the developments as this administration pushes for a strike on Iran, if not a full-blown bombing campaign. While real progressives shy away from any expansion of the conflict in the Middle East, it has become increasingly apparent that many leading figures, including, evidently, the entire Senate (with only a couple of exceptions) buy into the notion of some sort of punishing blow on Iran, probably quite soon.

To name but one prominent Senator who recently voted up the Kyl-Lieberman resolution, on Amy Goodman’s recent “Democracy Now!” radio program, Hillary Clinton actually laughed at Senator Mike Gravel when he violently protested her vote on Kyl-Lieberman. This was followed by Seymour Hersh's observation that she was beholden to "Jewish money", by which he meant AIPAC and the rabid pro-Zionists in her New York constituency. What Senator Gravel (and any number of commentators as well) missed was the full extent of his misapprehension – Hillary’s laughter was of a two natured kind: the laugh of the guilty party who has been found out and affects a cavalier attitude, and hysterical relief that Gravel had not revealed her more basic rational, one that Gravel is either not privy to or has not signed on for.

In her heart of hearts, Hillary Clinton is a fervid believer - along with the majority of the Democrats and Republican leadership in Congress - in the US policy of Full Spectrum Dominance in support of corporate transnationalism, aka “globalization.” [See below]

… the "moderates" in the[Bush] administration, as well as the leading Democratic candidates and virtually everyone in the Democratic Party leadership -- have been supporting the threat of war against Iran for years, in large part because they share the illusions of power that go with being the militarily dominant state in the world. [Their] chief illusion is that one can and should use U.S. power to coerce an uncooperative state.

The entire spectrum of political leadership in this country now appears to accept that idea, which is an indication of just how far U.S. military dominance has tilted the policy debate in this country. - Gareth Porter in The Huffington Post (my emphasis)

Key policy makers going back to the Wilson administration have been pushing for total American military hegemony. In this policy - backed by the über-rich for whom these policies were designed - they were joined by the Neoliberal economic cheerleaders (including the Clintons), because it means complete American military, political and economic control of the world and outer space.

Simply put, this policy is most recent revision of the philosophy - first formulated by President Woodrow Wilson - that the United States must carry “democracy” (not to mention American commercial interests) to less enlightened states, by force if necessary.

President Wilson’s vision was one that some political scientists call “moral.” In modern times, this has been transmogrified and revised into what some call transnationalism, or globalization. These policies are not subject to public debate, by the way, but arise from the secret meetings of economic cabals such as the Bilderberg Group and Rockefeller’s only slightly more public Trilateral Commission. These cabals are not composed of darkly evil people looking to be the masterminds behind One World government; they all believe that they are helping to build a more humane, just and economically-flattened transnational world; to Tom Friedmanize the planet, as it were. To a realist’s eye, it’s all hokum, of course; just gussied-up royal prerogative. On the other hand, it bears repeating that J. Paul Bremer, prior to his appointment as governor pro tem of Iraq, was the president of Kissinger Associates, advisors to transnational corporations looking to make a fast buck in Third World countries. Closely associated with the Clintons is Mack McLarty, a Kissinger alum. As Adam Smith might put it, they are all motivated by pure greed.

In this regard, one only has to look at Bill Clinton’s bombing and invasion of Bosnia to confirm that the Clintons are of the same mind on the use of military might in pursuit of foreign policy goals. It’s also worth mentioning that this is one of the core beliefs of the Neoconservatives: the promotion of democracy and Neoliberal economic policy to benighted régimes, regardless of the social or cultural milieu that underlie monarchial, authoritarian, and/or theocratic states such as Iran or even Saudi Arabia.

As for our relations with democratic states whose economic policies aren’t in sync with ours, it is significant that when it was revealed that the Bush administration actively helped plan and finance the military coup that ousted democratically-elected Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez in 2002, Hillary – or any other leading senator for that matter - didn’t utter so much as a squeak.

The whole point is, of course, control of the oil, and with it, the economic destiny of the world.

Additional sources:

1) Francis Fukuyama, The End of History and the Last Man (New York: Free Press, 1992)

2) Simon Reich, What is Globalization? Four Possible Answers (The Helen Kellogg Institute for International Studies, 1998)

3) Stephen Gill, American Hegemony and the Trilateral Commission (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990)

4) Howard Zinn, The Uses of History (from a broadcast on Democracy Now!, 11/24/06)

current-events

The myth of Congressional Democrats' helplessness

The Democratic presidential candidates had a big debate last week but I didn't watch it. I mean, Who cares? I knew that they would try to weasel out of their shitty vote on the war funding, and that most of them would say what they did in fact say: "Hey, we tried to end the war, but Bush vetoed it, and now we're stuck."

What a bunch of tripe. This shit isn't rocket science, Gentle Readers. This here vid from YouTube lays it out pretty simply.






current-events

Why Congress caved to Bush

I don't like Patrick Buchanan very much. In fact I despise him, but the guy knows enough to call a spade a spade. Why did the Democrats in Congress stab their constituency in the back? Pat lays it out in no uncertain terms.

Why Congress caved to Bush

By Patrick J. Buchanan

05/25/07 "WorldNetDaily" -- -- The anti-war Democrats are crying betrayal – and justifiably so.

For a Democratic Congress is now voting to fully fund the war in Iraq, as demanded by President Bush, and without any timetable for a U.S. troop withdrawal. Bush got his $100 billion, then magnanimously agreed to let Democrats keep the $20 billion in pork they stuffed into the bill – to soothe the pain of their sellout of the party base.

Remarkable. If the Republican rout of 2006 said anything, it was that America had lost faith in the Bush-Rumsfeld conduct of the war and wanted Democrats to lead the country out.

Yet, today, there are more U.S. troops in Iraq than when the Democrats won. More are on the way. And with the surge and retention of troops in Iraq beyond normal tours, there should be a record number of U.S. troops in country by year's end.

Why did the Democrats capitulate?

Because they lack the courage of their convictions. Because they fear the consequences if they put their anti-war beliefs into practice. Because they are afraid if they defund the war and force President Bush to withdraw U.S. troops, the calamity he predicts will come to pass and they will be held accountable for losing Iraq and the strategic disaster that might well ensue.

Democrats are an intimidated party. The reasons are historical. They were shredded by Nixon and Joe McCarthy for FDR's surrenders to Stalin at Tehran and Yalta, for losing China to Mao's hordes, for the "no-win war" in Korea, for being "soft on communism."

The best and the brightest – JFK's New Frontiersmen – were held responsible for plunging us into Vietnam and proving incapable of winning the war. A Democratic Congress cut off aid to Saigon in 1975, ceding Southeast Asia to Hanoi and bringing on the genocide of Pol Pot.

Democrats know they are distrusted on national security. They fear that if they defund this war and bring on a Saigon ending in the Green Zone, it will be a generation before they are trusted with national power. And power is what the party is all about.

Yet, not only does the situation in Iraq appear increasingly grim, with rising U.S. and Iraqi casualties, other shoes are about to drop that will reverberate throughout the region.

Support for Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, with his war in Lebanon a debacle and his leadership denounced by a commission he appointed, is in single digits. Waiting in the wings is Likud super-hawk "Bibi" Netanyahu, the most popular politician in Israel, who compares today to Munich 1938 and equates Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with Hitler.

If and when Bibi comes to power, he will use every stratagem to provoke us into attacking "Hitler."

Also drumming for war on Iran are the floundering neocons and the Israeli lobby. Under orders from the lobby, Nancy Pelosi stripped from a House bill a stipulation that Bush must come to Congress for authorization before launching an attack on Iran.

With Democratic contenders reciting the mantra "All options are on the table," and Iran defying U.N. sanctions, pursuing nuclear enrichment and detaining U.S. citizens, Bush has a blank check to launch a third war.

Lebanon is ablaze. Gaza is ablaze. The Afghan war is not going well. The Taliban have a privileged sanctuary. The NATO allies grow weary.

In Pakistan, the most dangerous country on earth – one bullet away from an Islamic republic with atom bombs – our erstwhile ally, President Musharraf, is caught in a political crisis over his ouster of the chief justice.

Presidents Musharraf in Islamabad, Kharzi in Kabul and Siniora in Beirut, and Prime Minister Maliki in Baghdad, sit on shaky thrones. No one knows what follows their fall. But it is hard to see how it would not be crippling for America's position.

With such volatility in this crucial region of the world, with such uncertainty, it is easy to see why Democrats prefer to be the "dummy" at the bridge table and let Bush play the hand.

The congressional Democrats are cynical, but they are not stupid. If the surge works and U.S. troops are being withdrawn by fall 2008, they do not want it said of them that they "cut and ran" when the going got tough, that they played Chamberlain to Bush's Churchill.

And if the war is going badly in 2008, they know that the American people, in repudiating the party of Bush and Cheney, have no other choice than the party of Hillary and Pelosi and Harry Reid.

That is why congressional Democrats are surely saying privately of the angry anti-war left what has often been said by the Beltway Republican elite of the right: "Don't worry about them. They have nowhere else to go."

And that is why the anti-war left was thrown under the bus.

Copyright 1997-2007 - WorldNetDaily.com Inc.

current-events

Olbermann says it straight: Dems betray country

I have been livid since I heard that the House Democrats have folded in the face of Bush's threat of a veto over his war funding reauthorization and can't speak or write without sputtering, so I'll let Keith Olbermann do it for me:

Few men or women elected in our history—whether executive or legislative, state or national—have been sent into office with a mandate more obvious, nor instructions more clear:

Get us out of Iraq.

Yet after six months of preparation and execution—half a year gathering the strands of public support; translating into action, the collective will of the nearly 70 percent of Americans who reject this War of Lies, the Democrats have managed only this:

• The Democratic leadership has surrendered to a president—if not the worst president, then easily the most selfish, in our history—who happily blackmails his own people, and uses his own military personnel as hostages to his asinine demand, that the Democrats “give the troops their money”;
• The Democratic leadership has agreed to finance the deaths of Americans in a war that has only reduced the security of Americans;
• The Democratic leadership has given Mr. Bush all that he wanted, with the only caveat being, not merely meaningless symbolism about benchmarks for the Iraqi government, but optional meaningless symbolism about benchmarks for the Iraqi government.
• The Democratic leadership has, in sum, claimed a compromise with the Administration, in which the only things truly compromised, are the trust of the voters, the ethics of the Democrats, and the lives of our brave, and doomed, friends, and family, in Iraq.
  

For the whole video (7 minutes plus) click on the image above.

current-events

Abortion ruling blessing in disguise?

Eloquence in chalk

Photo by Alexandra Lee. (License: Creative Commons Attribution)

Killfile writes: The Court's 5-4 decision in Gonzales v. Carhart will very likely not prevent a single abortion. What it does do, however, is demonstrate a clear and unambiguous consensus from the Court that the Congress does have the authority and the power to legislate, based entirely upon moral grounds, the legality of a medical procedure. The precedent set in Gonzales v. Carhart, in conjunction with that set McCulloch v Maryland, fundamentally alters the landscape of the abortion debate and, with Democrats in control of the Congress and (potentially) the Presidency in 2008, the reaction from the American Right should be one of overwhelming terror, not jubilation.

Continue reading: Chickens Before They Hatch -- The Misplaced Jubilance of the Anti-Abortion Right