By selecting General David Petraeus to replace General Stan McChrystal, President Obama hasn’t yet improved the chance that we will get it right in Afghanistan.
General McChrystal, as we all know by now, lost his job as supreme commander of allied forces in Afghanistan because of comments he made about the President and his Afghan team that were less than complimentary. Actually, they were downright insulting and insubordinate. The comments were made in a Rolling Stones Magazine article that profiled General McChrystal and became available to all of America yesterday.
The story makes clear that McChrystal and his staff were not happy at all with President Obama and his staff primarily because the President has set a deadline of July 2011 for the start of American withdrawal from Afghanistan. General McChrystal apparently prefers a president who is committed to the fight in the same way President Bush was committed to the fight in Iraq, and in Obama—they just don’t have one.
On Tuesday, June 22nd, the Heritage Foundation issued the following statement regarding President Obama’s withdrawal deadline, “That deadline, which President Barack Obama announced to the American people, the military, our allies and our enemies on December 1, 2009, has provoked many—including the government in Kabul, the Afghan people, the military in Pakistan, and our enemies the terrorists—to question America’s resolve to win the War in Afghanistan. More disconcerting for the American people is that the timeline appears to be putting tremendous unnecessary pressure on our armed forces to accomplish their task: victory on the ground. We don’t need an artificial timeline for withdrawal. We need a strategy for victory.”
General McChrystal could not have said it better. Last summer, he engaged in a guerilla-style insurrection against the White House in an effort to pressure the president to escalate the war. He won, with President Obama caving in to the Pentagon’s pressure and, for the second time in a year, added tens of thousands of additional US troops to this unwinnable war.
McChrystal let it be known that he might resign in protest if he failed to get what he wanted and he went so far as to leak a copy of his report to the Washington Post, to make public the fact that he wanted more, more and still more. Another element of his strategy at the time was to agree to what in retrospect must seem like an almost embarrassing profile on 60 Minutes, to tout his own brilliance and charisma. He then flew to London where he discredited Vice-President’s less militaristic approach to the war in Afghanistan and his boss at the time, General Petraeus dropped hints that he might consider running for President in 2012 as a Republican. As a result, President Obama finally acted and demanded that General McChrystal fly from London to Copenhagen where the president read the General the riot act on a tarmac aboard Air Force One.
Consequently, when McChrystal’s staff act like eighth graders and make jokes about Vice President Biden saying that his name ought to be “Bite Me” or when they give each other the finger and so on, what is really happening is that they are angry about the same thing many other military leaders in American history have been mad about—most notably General Douglas MacArthur—civilian control of the military.
As much as it hurts me to say this, and as much as many of my liberal friends will disagree, while President Obama has for the most part exhibited strength as President, he has struggled with the notion that he is also the Commander-in-Chief, When he had an opportunity to fire General McChrystal last year for insubordination he instead capitulated, giving McChrystal what he wanted, or nearly wanted anyway: 30,000 additional troops. This was on top of the 20,000 he had added some six months earlier. At that time, our president had a choice. He could have declared that the war in Afghanistan had to wind down, not intensify. He could have outlined a drawdown of American troops modeled on the Iraq withdrawal but instead he made the political decision to cater to the right and gave McChrystal his troops and then to provide some political cover, declared that he would begin withdrawing American forces by July of 2011.
Why did he do this? Because President Obama thought first about domestic politics, not the Afghani people who have been locked in this war for the last nine years. Fearing the wrath of the extreme right he placated the military and then he placated the left by adding the July 2011 deadline.
On November 24th of last year, I wrote in Birth of a Notion, “As much as I admire President Obama and as tirelessly as I worked for his election, I fear that President Obama will never admit to the horrible mistake that has been made before him and perpetuated since his inauguration. Instead, he will more than likely increase the American commitment to Afghanistan, just as Lyndon Johnson did in Vietnam in 1965. The driving force in both cases is domestic politics. President Johnson felt that he had to escalate the fight in Vietnam because otherwise the Republicans would accuse him for “losing Vietnam” the same way they accused President Truman of “losing China” in the late 1940s.”
Now, President Obama has another chance to get it right. With McChrystal gone, he should act forcefully to ensure that everyone on the team, including and especially General Petraeus, accepts that the war is finally drawing to a close. As Vice-President Biden says, “In July 2011 you’re going to see a whole lot of people moving out. Bet on it.”
That is one bet I would love to make.
Saturday, June 26, 2010
Friday, June 18, 2010
War in Central Asia.........
As someone who blogs almost every week on a variety of topics, the common denominator of my posts are that they are driven by the news stories of the day and that they reflect my own particular view of those events. Sometimes, however, it is just better to share the information and allow the reader to come to a conclusion all by themselves. This week’s blog is about a series of events taking place in Central Asia that are so horrific and tragic that even I am at a loss for an opinion except to ask myself, “How low can the species sink?”
We have all read about the recent ethnic clashes that have erupted in southern Kyrgyzstan these past two weeks and how they have now, finally managed to spiral almost completely out of control. News agencies report that approximately 118 people have been confirmed killed with an additional 1,500 wounded by the conflict while thousands of ethnic Uzbeks make their escape to neighboring Uzbekistan every day. One only has to look at the photos and video footage coming out of Eastern Europe every day to know that the number of people killed over the past four days far exceeds what these estimates suggest. Many of the victims are Muslim and in compliance with Muslim custom, people are burying their family members within 24 hours without bothering to report their deaths to the authorities.
Although Uzbeks make up only 15% of Kyrgyzstan’s population of a little over five million, most of them live in the southern part of the county, where most likely by design, they happen to be in the majority. The Fergana Valley, where most of the killing has taken place thus far, was sliced up arbitrarily by Josef Stalin in the 1920s among the peoples of Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan respectively. While the Soviet Union existed, the iron heel of the Red Army kept ethnic tensions below the simmering point but with the eventual collapse of the Soviet Union, the artificial borders created by Stalin disintegrated and ethnic tension quickly boiled into ethnic hate.
The cause of all this latest round of killing and violence involving the Kyrgyz and ethnic Uzbeks began in Osh, Kyrgyzstan’s second largest city and remains unclear. Some believe that the events in Osh were provoked and to some extent orchestrated by individuals who wanted to take advantage of the long-standing tensions between these two ethnic groups. The interim government has put the blame squarely on the country’s ex-president Kurmanbek Bakiyev and his supporters. They are being blamed for lighting the match that exploded into this newly ignited of unrest because they wished to prevent a national referendum on a new constitution which was scheduled to take place on June 27th. Mr. Bakiyev who was thrown out of the country by a popular uprising and then forced into exile has of course denied culpability.
Like most violence on this scale, it is shaped by politics. Mr. Bakiyev is a native of the southern part of the country and his political center is in Jalal-Abad, where he still has many loyal supporters. Ethnic Uzbeks, who are not part of the political landscape or any aspect of public life for that matter, have tended to prefer the interim government, which has as a goal, a more parliamentary form of government and less of an authoritarian style of presidential rule.
The fighting, like most ethnic violence has been murderous. A recent report out of the region claim that the army, which consists mainly of ethnic Kyrgyz, has joined forces with its civilian relatives and that has led to violence spreading to the town of Jalal-Abad over this past weekend. War crimes with their accompanying atrocities appear to have been committed by both sides, but the Kyrgyz, strengthened by its control of the military have quickly gained a position of dominance. Uzbek homes have been robbed and then burned to the ground and most hideously of all, women have been reportedly raped and then murdered, reminiscent of the horrors of Serbia—just a few years ago. Utilities all over Osh have been cut off and then destroyed while the scarcity of food increases daily.
In an attempt to find a safe haven, many ethnic Uzbeks, mostly women, children and the aged, have fled Osh to the nearby border with Uzbekistan and according to Uzbek government data, more than 30,000 people have crossed the border to end up in large tent cities. Unofficially, estimates go as high as 75,000 exiles crossing the border into Uzbekistan. One Non-Government Official (NGO) based in Uzbekistan, interviewed on CNN, said that there are now more than 200,000 Uzbek refugees in Uzbekistan.
Tragically, Uzbek women and children forced to leave behind their husbands, fathers and brothers have no idea what has happened to them. These clashes are viewed by relief agencies as the worst ethnic violence in Central Asia in 20 years. Back then clashes between Kyrgyz and Uzbeks in this same region of Osh left several hundred people dead but that clash was resolved by the rapid deployment of Soviet troops. Today, there is the blessing and the curse of no Soviet Army to intervene.
We have all read about the recent ethnic clashes that have erupted in southern Kyrgyzstan these past two weeks and how they have now, finally managed to spiral almost completely out of control. News agencies report that approximately 118 people have been confirmed killed with an additional 1,500 wounded by the conflict while thousands of ethnic Uzbeks make their escape to neighboring Uzbekistan every day. One only has to look at the photos and video footage coming out of Eastern Europe every day to know that the number of people killed over the past four days far exceeds what these estimates suggest. Many of the victims are Muslim and in compliance with Muslim custom, people are burying their family members within 24 hours without bothering to report their deaths to the authorities.
Although Uzbeks make up only 15% of Kyrgyzstan’s population of a little over five million, most of them live in the southern part of the county, where most likely by design, they happen to be in the majority. The Fergana Valley, where most of the killing has taken place thus far, was sliced up arbitrarily by Josef Stalin in the 1920s among the peoples of Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan respectively. While the Soviet Union existed, the iron heel of the Red Army kept ethnic tensions below the simmering point but with the eventual collapse of the Soviet Union, the artificial borders created by Stalin disintegrated and ethnic tension quickly boiled into ethnic hate.
The cause of all this latest round of killing and violence involving the Kyrgyz and ethnic Uzbeks began in Osh, Kyrgyzstan’s second largest city and remains unclear. Some believe that the events in Osh were provoked and to some extent orchestrated by individuals who wanted to take advantage of the long-standing tensions between these two ethnic groups. The interim government has put the blame squarely on the country’s ex-president Kurmanbek Bakiyev and his supporters. They are being blamed for lighting the match that exploded into this newly ignited of unrest because they wished to prevent a national referendum on a new constitution which was scheduled to take place on June 27th. Mr. Bakiyev who was thrown out of the country by a popular uprising and then forced into exile has of course denied culpability.
Like most violence on this scale, it is shaped by politics. Mr. Bakiyev is a native of the southern part of the country and his political center is in Jalal-Abad, where he still has many loyal supporters. Ethnic Uzbeks, who are not part of the political landscape or any aspect of public life for that matter, have tended to prefer the interim government, which has as a goal, a more parliamentary form of government and less of an authoritarian style of presidential rule.
The fighting, like most ethnic violence has been murderous. A recent report out of the region claim that the army, which consists mainly of ethnic Kyrgyz, has joined forces with its civilian relatives and that has led to violence spreading to the town of Jalal-Abad over this past weekend. War crimes with their accompanying atrocities appear to have been committed by both sides, but the Kyrgyz, strengthened by its control of the military have quickly gained a position of dominance. Uzbek homes have been robbed and then burned to the ground and most hideously of all, women have been reportedly raped and then murdered, reminiscent of the horrors of Serbia—just a few years ago. Utilities all over Osh have been cut off and then destroyed while the scarcity of food increases daily.
In an attempt to find a safe haven, many ethnic Uzbeks, mostly women, children and the aged, have fled Osh to the nearby border with Uzbekistan and according to Uzbek government data, more than 30,000 people have crossed the border to end up in large tent cities. Unofficially, estimates go as high as 75,000 exiles crossing the border into Uzbekistan. One Non-Government Official (NGO) based in Uzbekistan, interviewed on CNN, said that there are now more than 200,000 Uzbek refugees in Uzbekistan.
Tragically, Uzbek women and children forced to leave behind their husbands, fathers and brothers have no idea what has happened to them. These clashes are viewed by relief agencies as the worst ethnic violence in Central Asia in 20 years. Back then clashes between Kyrgyz and Uzbeks in this same region of Osh left several hundred people dead but that clash was resolved by the rapid deployment of Soviet troops. Today, there is the blessing and the curse of no Soviet Army to intervene.
Saturday, June 5, 2010
The Road to Peace Just Got Longer..........
As someone who is called upon at work to provide technical documents from time to time, I have been, on more than one occasion, warned not to produce a War and Peace sized document. I have truthfully struggled in my life with a seemingly inability to achieve brevity in my writing, but having this blog since last November has admittedly helped. Unfortunately, the topic I have chosen to write about this week makes brevity almost impossible. So, if you are reading this and are intrigued, you may want to take a moment to get a drink of water, go to the bathroom and maybe even take a short nap before reading any further.
The growing isolation of Israel after the recent events of the past couple of weeks is nothing new to the Israelis. They have been isolated before and will more than likely, find themselves alone in the world again.
Having said that, what the Israeli commandos did on the passenger ships on their way to Gaza from Turkey was wrong, stupid and brutal. Recognizing that it is like trying to diffuse a nuclear bomb while blindfolded when discussing the history of the relationship between the Palestinians and the Israelis, two peoples who have laid claim to the same sliver of land, I enter this discussion warily because I am uncomfortable even being thought of as anti-Semitic. My own mother is Jewish and while she is not, I think a Zionist firebrand she does have a love for her people that is stronger than even she, at times, realizes.
I have purposely avoided this debate up to now because being even partly Jewish instills a kind of genetic love for other Jews and a kind of blind allegiance to the policies of the state of Israel. Consequently, when reason and justice are factored in to this natural tendency of only pointing the finger outwards, it is time to take a deep breath, utter a silent prayer for guidance and speak, or as in this case, write what I believe to be the truth
The killing by Israeli commandos of nine Turkish passengers and/or crew members on board the Turkish ship Mavi Marmara, has forced to the forefront of international politics and events a much needed dialogue regarding the whole of the Middle East. It has also brought about however collapsed peace talks that despite the disturbing absence of the Hamas government in Gaza at the table, have made limited progress between Israel, some Palestinians and the United States. Worse, this brutal interdiction of Israeli commandos has caused Turkey, who had been before last week at least, a cautious friend of Israel, to now instead assume the role of bitter enemy.
Up to now, the Hamas government in Gaza was the one in isolation primarily due to the misguided label of “terrorist” organization and it has had to struggle with an Egyptian, Israeli and US joint blockade of supplies and goods into their country. Now the Israelis are the ones isolated and after the Israeli raid onto the Mavi Marmara, Egypt re-opened its border with Gaza.
As the way it is with the Middle East, none of this had to happen.
In early 2006, Hamas won a parliamentary election which meant that voters from Palestine, the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem gave Hamas 44.5 percent of the vote while Fatah only managed to garner 41.4 percent. The way parliamentary elections work, that vote gave Hamas the right to put together a government.
Upset over Fatah’s loss, both the US and Israel then encouraged Fatah forces to attack Hamas militarily while they imposed an embargo against Gaza resulting in financial starvation for the Hamas government. Of course these combined actions made it almost impossible for Hamas to govern as it had been elected to do. Ultimately, Hamas was only left with Gaza to govern and it was then that Israel began the naval blockade followed in December 2008 by a military attack designed to cause a total destruction of the Hamas government. While Hamas is not a blameless player in this drama, a recently published UN report has made it extremely clear that the majority of the violence and destruction in this military flare up was caused by Israeli forces.
On the propaganda front, Israel has been no less destructive. In a NY Times story this past Tuesday, Israeli reporter Isabel Kershner made no reference at all to the 2006 elections and instead wrote that Hamas “took over [Gaza] by force in 2007.” Apparently, “All the news that’s fit to print” was thrown out with the bathwater, along with the truth.
What really happened is clear, the majority of Palestinians in 2006 felt that the Fatah government along with the Palestinian Authority had become corrupt and consequently voted for candidates whom they felt were not only more credible and had more integrity, but that they would be more forceful in future negotiations with Israel. The shameful fact is that Gaza was attacked by the Israeli military soon after these candidates assumed office. Even in Ms. Kershner’s wildest imagination, the election of Hamas political leaders cannot be described as taking Gaza “by force.”
In former President Jimmy Carter’s monumental works on the Middle East, Palestine Peace, Not Apartheid and We Can Have Peace in the Holy Land: A Plan that will Work, he does a masterful job of demonstrating that there is enough “terror” in the Middle East for everyone to be called a terrorist. What needs to happen however is for each side to resist demonizing and attacking the other so that peaceful negotiations can replace the cycle of state-sponsored terrorism from both sides.
Since its inception, there have been numerous attempts to run the Israeli blockade of Gaza, usually by sea or through Egypt. Some of the early efforts to run the blockade by sea were actually successful but the Israelis learned to stop them so these attempts were eventually abandoned. This latest event was by far the largest attempt to break the blockade by sea and what worried the Israelis the most was its powerful symbolism.
In a separate NY Times article, Einat Wif, a member of the Labor Party and the Knesset, said that she had warned Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak that the flotilla originating from Turkey was strictly a public relations event and definitely not something the Israeli government should respond to militarily. “This has nothing to do with security” she told the NY Times. “The armaments for Hamas were not coming from this flotilla.”
Since I was a young boy, I have been a student of Israeli history. From the Israeli perspective, the history of modern Israel following the Holocaust with Jews fleeing Europe en masse and arriving in Palestine with nightmares from the horrors of the concentration camps, bears a strange and frightening resemblance to that of the American policy of Manifest Destiny which after all the pretty language really meant that the land coveted by white Americans already occupied by native Americans was destined to become “The land of the free and the home of the brave” minus its native population.
Americans who supported manifest destiny used the argument that they brought civilization and economic power to lands populated by the Indian and therefore they were the rightful possessors of the land.
Many Israelis feel that they have brought modern technology to the land, particularly in their cultivation of the desert, and so the Palestinians, displaced by this technological and economic machine are reduced to second class citizens in their own land. Sound familiar?
This is not however, 18th or 19th century America, where one people could get away with the total destruction of another people. What we have now are the makings of a new holocaust in which one side, the Israelis, have created a culture replete with western comforts while the other side, the Palestinians are prisoners in their own land, a land that despite their legitimate claims, are dispossessed. Courageously, the Israeli writer Amos Oz has written that “Force cannot solve the problem that we are not alone in this land.”
All of the attempts that the US and Israel and to some extent Egypt have made to marginalize the democratically elected Hamas government has been a terrible mistake. Recognizing the Hamas electoral victory did not necessarily mean that we were all of a sudden in love with Hamas, but accepting them into the international family of duly elected governments would have certainly had a calming effect on the hair-trigger tensions of the entire Middle East.
Just as when parents say no their children and their children are then more determined than ever to do what they are being denied to do, the Hamas government is real and exists only because the Palestinian people have democratically put them into power. The more we yell at Hamas and stamp our feet and block their ports of entry, the more the Hamas government will not only stay in power, but attract new adherents, angry at America for her blind support of Israel and contemptuous of continued Israeli action to rule all of Palestine with an iron fist. Attacking a non-weaponized and humanitarian ship whose only reason for existence was to call international attention to the blockade of Gaza, was the dumbest thing Israel has done in a long string of stupid decisions.
It is not important to the truth of the situation when Turkish crew members began to fight the Israeli commandos. What is important to the truth however is that Israelis attacked the ship first. It was this action that initiated the violence and if history is to be believed, the people of Gaza should have the ability to decide who and what sails into their ports of entry. The Gaza blockade is abhorrent, savage and indefensible.
Despite the many issues facing Americans today, including the most important one of joblessness, we still need to take a moment, in the interest of international peace, to appeal to our legislators and to our President to resist the continued no-strings attached support of the Israeli right wing. This latest attack on the Palestinians calls for the courage to once and for all, do the right thing and demand the recognition of Hamas while imposing a mandate stating that unless face-to-face talks with Hamas and Fatah and the Egyptians gets underway immediately and has positive results, American military support for Israel will end. President Obama should do this for the good of the United States, the end of bloodshed in the Middle East Region and for the sake of humanity everywhere.
The growing isolation of Israel after the recent events of the past couple of weeks is nothing new to the Israelis. They have been isolated before and will more than likely, find themselves alone in the world again.
Having said that, what the Israeli commandos did on the passenger ships on their way to Gaza from Turkey was wrong, stupid and brutal. Recognizing that it is like trying to diffuse a nuclear bomb while blindfolded when discussing the history of the relationship between the Palestinians and the Israelis, two peoples who have laid claim to the same sliver of land, I enter this discussion warily because I am uncomfortable even being thought of as anti-Semitic. My own mother is Jewish and while she is not, I think a Zionist firebrand she does have a love for her people that is stronger than even she, at times, realizes.
I have purposely avoided this debate up to now because being even partly Jewish instills a kind of genetic love for other Jews and a kind of blind allegiance to the policies of the state of Israel. Consequently, when reason and justice are factored in to this natural tendency of only pointing the finger outwards, it is time to take a deep breath, utter a silent prayer for guidance and speak, or as in this case, write what I believe to be the truth
The killing by Israeli commandos of nine Turkish passengers and/or crew members on board the Turkish ship Mavi Marmara, has forced to the forefront of international politics and events a much needed dialogue regarding the whole of the Middle East. It has also brought about however collapsed peace talks that despite the disturbing absence of the Hamas government in Gaza at the table, have made limited progress between Israel, some Palestinians and the United States. Worse, this brutal interdiction of Israeli commandos has caused Turkey, who had been before last week at least, a cautious friend of Israel, to now instead assume the role of bitter enemy.
Up to now, the Hamas government in Gaza was the one in isolation primarily due to the misguided label of “terrorist” organization and it has had to struggle with an Egyptian, Israeli and US joint blockade of supplies and goods into their country. Now the Israelis are the ones isolated and after the Israeli raid onto the Mavi Marmara, Egypt re-opened its border with Gaza.
As the way it is with the Middle East, none of this had to happen.
In early 2006, Hamas won a parliamentary election which meant that voters from Palestine, the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem gave Hamas 44.5 percent of the vote while Fatah only managed to garner 41.4 percent. The way parliamentary elections work, that vote gave Hamas the right to put together a government.
Upset over Fatah’s loss, both the US and Israel then encouraged Fatah forces to attack Hamas militarily while they imposed an embargo against Gaza resulting in financial starvation for the Hamas government. Of course these combined actions made it almost impossible for Hamas to govern as it had been elected to do. Ultimately, Hamas was only left with Gaza to govern and it was then that Israel began the naval blockade followed in December 2008 by a military attack designed to cause a total destruction of the Hamas government. While Hamas is not a blameless player in this drama, a recently published UN report has made it extremely clear that the majority of the violence and destruction in this military flare up was caused by Israeli forces.
On the propaganda front, Israel has been no less destructive. In a NY Times story this past Tuesday, Israeli reporter Isabel Kershner made no reference at all to the 2006 elections and instead wrote that Hamas “took over [Gaza] by force in 2007.” Apparently, “All the news that’s fit to print” was thrown out with the bathwater, along with the truth.
What really happened is clear, the majority of Palestinians in 2006 felt that the Fatah government along with the Palestinian Authority had become corrupt and consequently voted for candidates whom they felt were not only more credible and had more integrity, but that they would be more forceful in future negotiations with Israel. The shameful fact is that Gaza was attacked by the Israeli military soon after these candidates assumed office. Even in Ms. Kershner’s wildest imagination, the election of Hamas political leaders cannot be described as taking Gaza “by force.”
In former President Jimmy Carter’s monumental works on the Middle East, Palestine Peace, Not Apartheid and We Can Have Peace in the Holy Land: A Plan that will Work, he does a masterful job of demonstrating that there is enough “terror” in the Middle East for everyone to be called a terrorist. What needs to happen however is for each side to resist demonizing and attacking the other so that peaceful negotiations can replace the cycle of state-sponsored terrorism from both sides.
Since its inception, there have been numerous attempts to run the Israeli blockade of Gaza, usually by sea or through Egypt. Some of the early efforts to run the blockade by sea were actually successful but the Israelis learned to stop them so these attempts were eventually abandoned. This latest event was by far the largest attempt to break the blockade by sea and what worried the Israelis the most was its powerful symbolism.
In a separate NY Times article, Einat Wif, a member of the Labor Party and the Knesset, said that she had warned Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak that the flotilla originating from Turkey was strictly a public relations event and definitely not something the Israeli government should respond to militarily. “This has nothing to do with security” she told the NY Times. “The armaments for Hamas were not coming from this flotilla.”
Since I was a young boy, I have been a student of Israeli history. From the Israeli perspective, the history of modern Israel following the Holocaust with Jews fleeing Europe en masse and arriving in Palestine with nightmares from the horrors of the concentration camps, bears a strange and frightening resemblance to that of the American policy of Manifest Destiny which after all the pretty language really meant that the land coveted by white Americans already occupied by native Americans was destined to become “The land of the free and the home of the brave” minus its native population.
Americans who supported manifest destiny used the argument that they brought civilization and economic power to lands populated by the Indian and therefore they were the rightful possessors of the land.
Many Israelis feel that they have brought modern technology to the land, particularly in their cultivation of the desert, and so the Palestinians, displaced by this technological and economic machine are reduced to second class citizens in their own land. Sound familiar?
This is not however, 18th or 19th century America, where one people could get away with the total destruction of another people. What we have now are the makings of a new holocaust in which one side, the Israelis, have created a culture replete with western comforts while the other side, the Palestinians are prisoners in their own land, a land that despite their legitimate claims, are dispossessed. Courageously, the Israeli writer Amos Oz has written that “Force cannot solve the problem that we are not alone in this land.”
All of the attempts that the US and Israel and to some extent Egypt have made to marginalize the democratically elected Hamas government has been a terrible mistake. Recognizing the Hamas electoral victory did not necessarily mean that we were all of a sudden in love with Hamas, but accepting them into the international family of duly elected governments would have certainly had a calming effect on the hair-trigger tensions of the entire Middle East.
Just as when parents say no their children and their children are then more determined than ever to do what they are being denied to do, the Hamas government is real and exists only because the Palestinian people have democratically put them into power. The more we yell at Hamas and stamp our feet and block their ports of entry, the more the Hamas government will not only stay in power, but attract new adherents, angry at America for her blind support of Israel and contemptuous of continued Israeli action to rule all of Palestine with an iron fist. Attacking a non-weaponized and humanitarian ship whose only reason for existence was to call international attention to the blockade of Gaza, was the dumbest thing Israel has done in a long string of stupid decisions.
It is not important to the truth of the situation when Turkish crew members began to fight the Israeli commandos. What is important to the truth however is that Israelis attacked the ship first. It was this action that initiated the violence and if history is to be believed, the people of Gaza should have the ability to decide who and what sails into their ports of entry. The Gaza blockade is abhorrent, savage and indefensible.
Despite the many issues facing Americans today, including the most important one of joblessness, we still need to take a moment, in the interest of international peace, to appeal to our legislators and to our President to resist the continued no-strings attached support of the Israeli right wing. This latest attack on the Palestinians calls for the courage to once and for all, do the right thing and demand the recognition of Hamas while imposing a mandate stating that unless face-to-face talks with Hamas and Fatah and the Egyptians gets underway immediately and has positive results, American military support for Israel will end. President Obama should do this for the good of the United States, the end of bloodshed in the Middle East Region and for the sake of humanity everywhere.
Monday, May 31, 2010
Memorial Day 2010
The war in Afghanistan passed a grim milestone this past Friday in a horrible reminder of just how protracted and costly this war has become. As volunteers placed miniature American flags upon the endless rows of little white headstones at Arlington cemetery, the 1,000th soldier to die in Afghanistan breathed his last breath. Appropriately enough, his death also came just days away from the war in Afghanistan becoming America’s longest war.
It has been almost nine years since the U.S. invaded Afghanistan in the weeks immediately following Al-Queda’s attacks on American soil on September, 11, 2001 and the war has gone on and on, drifting in and out of public consciousness as some distant conflict, constantly overshadowed by the far more costly Iraq war.
Whether a response to terrorism was required or not, the years have taken their toll and even this “war of necessity” has resulted in hundreds of tragedies that multiply exponentially, impacting more and more American families on a daily basis. As allied forces prepare for a major offensive in Kandahar this summer, there seems to be no end in sight to this conflict.
President Barack Obama has added thousands more American troops into the Afghan theatre of war and for the first time ever, the number of American forces in Afghanistan exceeds that in Iraq. Afghan war costs will also eclipse those in Iraq this year for the first time since the 2003 invasion that brought down the regime of Saddam Hussein.
As almost anyone would imagine, hawk and dove alike, escalating the war has its price. The number of U.S. fatalities in and around Afghanistan in 2009 doubled the death count of 2008. By the time 2010 draws to a close, there will be almost 100,000 American troops in Afghanistan for a total foreign military presence of 150,000 troops.
As Americans head to the polls this fall they will among other things be looking closely at the trillion dollar cost to the American treasury for our involvement in both Iraq and Afghanistan thus far. For those in this country who are so concerned about the national debt, this might be a good place to start whittling it down. Already, a $60 billion war funding bill has cleared the US Senate and now awaits passage in the US House of Representatives next month.
In a recent news conference, when President Obama was asked about his plans to begin transferring control of security to Afghan military and police in those parts of the country that are least contested, he referred to that strategy as a “big messy process.” Not his usual eloquence but accurate nonetheless. To add to that, Defense Secretary Robert Gates has already begun the process of backpedaling away from any U.S. troops being withdrawn during the summer of 2011—an earlier prediction now viewed as hopelessly optimistic.
Meanwhile, the Obama administration’s criticism of Afghan President Hamid Karzai for allowing fraud and corruption to be representative of his rule has been replaced by the need to expand the use of unmanned drones and US Special Forces for targeted killings along the border with Pakistan. It seems that President Obama and his advisers take the war far more seriously than the Afghan President as Karzai spends his time making nice with his Iranian neighbors, borrowing a page from the American handbook of politics by allowing himself to be blown in whatever direction the so-called populist winds are blowing. So, while American boys are dying in Afghani villages and mountain passes, he is proudly exclaiming that he would join the Taliban “resistance.”
When President Bush invaded Afghanistan, the stated objective was to protect the United States from extremist threats from distant lands. Since that time, the Taliban has regrouped, Osama bin Laden has continued to avoid capture and Afghanistan is once again engulfed in war.
There are many in this country who point to the fact that since our invasion of Afghanistan and the subsequent invasion of Iraq, that we have not suffered an attack on our country like the one we suffered on 9/11. For all the soldiers who now lie dead on this Memorial Day, they are the ones who paid the ultimate sacrifice for that claim and all the claims throughout our history that have sent our sons and daughters to war, not the politicians who sent them there and continue to do so.
It has been almost nine years since the U.S. invaded Afghanistan in the weeks immediately following Al-Queda’s attacks on American soil on September, 11, 2001 and the war has gone on and on, drifting in and out of public consciousness as some distant conflict, constantly overshadowed by the far more costly Iraq war.
Whether a response to terrorism was required or not, the years have taken their toll and even this “war of necessity” has resulted in hundreds of tragedies that multiply exponentially, impacting more and more American families on a daily basis. As allied forces prepare for a major offensive in Kandahar this summer, there seems to be no end in sight to this conflict.
President Barack Obama has added thousands more American troops into the Afghan theatre of war and for the first time ever, the number of American forces in Afghanistan exceeds that in Iraq. Afghan war costs will also eclipse those in Iraq this year for the first time since the 2003 invasion that brought down the regime of Saddam Hussein.
As almost anyone would imagine, hawk and dove alike, escalating the war has its price. The number of U.S. fatalities in and around Afghanistan in 2009 doubled the death count of 2008. By the time 2010 draws to a close, there will be almost 100,000 American troops in Afghanistan for a total foreign military presence of 150,000 troops.
As Americans head to the polls this fall they will among other things be looking closely at the trillion dollar cost to the American treasury for our involvement in both Iraq and Afghanistan thus far. For those in this country who are so concerned about the national debt, this might be a good place to start whittling it down. Already, a $60 billion war funding bill has cleared the US Senate and now awaits passage in the US House of Representatives next month.
In a recent news conference, when President Obama was asked about his plans to begin transferring control of security to Afghan military and police in those parts of the country that are least contested, he referred to that strategy as a “big messy process.” Not his usual eloquence but accurate nonetheless. To add to that, Defense Secretary Robert Gates has already begun the process of backpedaling away from any U.S. troops being withdrawn during the summer of 2011—an earlier prediction now viewed as hopelessly optimistic.
Meanwhile, the Obama administration’s criticism of Afghan President Hamid Karzai for allowing fraud and corruption to be representative of his rule has been replaced by the need to expand the use of unmanned drones and US Special Forces for targeted killings along the border with Pakistan. It seems that President Obama and his advisers take the war far more seriously than the Afghan President as Karzai spends his time making nice with his Iranian neighbors, borrowing a page from the American handbook of politics by allowing himself to be blown in whatever direction the so-called populist winds are blowing. So, while American boys are dying in Afghani villages and mountain passes, he is proudly exclaiming that he would join the Taliban “resistance.”
When President Bush invaded Afghanistan, the stated objective was to protect the United States from extremist threats from distant lands. Since that time, the Taliban has regrouped, Osama bin Laden has continued to avoid capture and Afghanistan is once again engulfed in war.
There are many in this country who point to the fact that since our invasion of Afghanistan and the subsequent invasion of Iraq, that we have not suffered an attack on our country like the one we suffered on 9/11. For all the soldiers who now lie dead on this Memorial Day, they are the ones who paid the ultimate sacrifice for that claim and all the claims throughout our history that have sent our sons and daughters to war, not the politicians who sent them there and continue to do so.
Saturday, May 22, 2010
Financial Sector Reform--Or is it?
The United States Congress has finally decided to govern. More than likely action on financial regulatory reform is a little too late for this body of incumbent politicians but, possibly in time to do some good for the American people.
This past Thursday, lawmakers made two key changes to financial sector reform legislation making its way through the U.S. Senate. In a 64-35 vote, the Senate voted to create a ratings board overseen by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) designed to decide which credit rating agencies will rate mortgage-backed and other “structured” securities. It is necessary to do this because currently Standard & Poor’s and the Moody’s Investment Service have historically inflated the value of the very same mortgage bonds that they are paid to assess.
Public pension funds blame S&P and Moody’s for helping to cause the global financial crisis by assigning top rankings to mortgage-linked securities that blew up when the housing market collapsed in 2007 and 2008. Lawmakers and regulators have debated since then on how reduce this “staggering conflict of interest”
Senator Franken, not only a freshman Senator but one who arrived months late to begin his term because of endless recounts and lawsuits challenging his victory in Minnesota, seemed to grasp the conflict and its resolution rather quickly. Moving to halt such practices is as Senator Franken said in a statement, a no-brainer. During floor debate on his amendment, he stated that “There is a staggering conflict of interest affecting the credit-rating industry. Issuers of securities are paying for the credit ratings. They shop around for their ratings.”
Before we break out the Franken for President banners however, let’s keep in mind that the new ratings board proposed in his amendment would oversee only structured securities, leaving Wall Street salespeople free to carry on the rigging of ratings for other instruments.
In the second key change to the financial regulatory reform package, merchants may finally get relief from the onerously high “interchange” or swipe. These are fees card-issuers charge to process debit-card transactions. Similar to Senator Franken’s amendment in terms of its reform power, this second change, as far as reforms go, is also pretty low-hanging. Even those same Wall Street honchos who decry any kind of financial reform have expressed support for ending the high fees merchants pay for the ‘privilege’ of processing debit-card transactions.
What makes this interchange limit sponsored by Senator Richard Durbin, (D-Ill.) so weak is that it applies only to debit cards—leaving credit-card fees alone. That is a major concession to financial firms because the swipe income they derive from credit card transactions dwarfs what they receive from debit card purchases. Senator Durbin’s original proposal had targeted both.
So, despite all the fiery rhetoric in Washington lately, the reform bill in its current form remains fairly tame, at least relative to the crisis that plunged the country into its current state of economic recession. It will put a dent in bank profits, but it won’t drastically alter the paradigm of the way they do business. Wall Street is relatively unscathed.
That could all change next week however as the US Senate is scheduled to vote on three major provisions that, if passed, could significantly alter the financial landscape. One amendment, backed by Senator Blanche Lincoln, (D-ARK.), would force banks finally to unload their derivatives businesses.
Another would also forbid banks from engaging in proprietary trading. This practice occurs when banks actively trade stocks, bonds, currencies, commodities and their derivatives or other financial instruments with its own money as opposed to its customer’s money, so as to make a profit for itself. They act like a hedge fund and many critics of this practice insist that large banks purposely leave ambiguous the amount of non-proprietary trading they do versus the amount of proprietary trading they do because it is felt that proprietary trading is riskier and results in more volatile profits.
For example, if a company sold stock with a bank, whoever first purchased shares would possibly have a difficult time selling them to buyers if those buyers were not familiar with the company. Consequently, the investment bank then agrees to buy the shares sold in order to identify another buyer. This, by the way, provides liquidity to the marketplace. The bank normally does not care about the fundamental or intrinsic value of the shares, only that it can sell them at a slightly higher price than what it paid for them. To accomplish this, the investment bank employs traders who over time begin to devise different strategies within this system designed to earn even more profit independent of providing client liquidity, and this is how proprietary trading was created.
Proprietary traders have the highest value at risk among other activities at the bank and this is why investment banks such as Goldman Sachs, Deutsche Bank and the late Merrill Lynch are known to have earned a significant portion of their profits through proprietary trading.
Finally, a third provision would inhibit U.S. states in protecting consumers from predatory lending and related abuses while providing more power to the federal government to protect consumers. Most Senate Democrats however, along with the White House and even many state attorneys general are pushing for a version that would have federal regulators set a minimum standard while allowing states to push for tougher rules as they feel appropriate.
As one would imagine, the financial industry strongly opposes the bans on derivative and proprietary trading while supporting the federal government’s right to “preempt” state-level financial enforcers. I suppose we are all about to find out if Congress really means business. As George Washington so eloquently phrased it, “Guard against postures of pretended patriotism.”
This past Thursday, lawmakers made two key changes to financial sector reform legislation making its way through the U.S. Senate. In a 64-35 vote, the Senate voted to create a ratings board overseen by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) designed to decide which credit rating agencies will rate mortgage-backed and other “structured” securities. It is necessary to do this because currently Standard & Poor’s and the Moody’s Investment Service have historically inflated the value of the very same mortgage bonds that they are paid to assess.
Public pension funds blame S&P and Moody’s for helping to cause the global financial crisis by assigning top rankings to mortgage-linked securities that blew up when the housing market collapsed in 2007 and 2008. Lawmakers and regulators have debated since then on how reduce this “staggering conflict of interest”
Senator Franken, not only a freshman Senator but one who arrived months late to begin his term because of endless recounts and lawsuits challenging his victory in Minnesota, seemed to grasp the conflict and its resolution rather quickly. Moving to halt such practices is as Senator Franken said in a statement, a no-brainer. During floor debate on his amendment, he stated that “There is a staggering conflict of interest affecting the credit-rating industry. Issuers of securities are paying for the credit ratings. They shop around for their ratings.”
Before we break out the Franken for President banners however, let’s keep in mind that the new ratings board proposed in his amendment would oversee only structured securities, leaving Wall Street salespeople free to carry on the rigging of ratings for other instruments.
In the second key change to the financial regulatory reform package, merchants may finally get relief from the onerously high “interchange” or swipe. These are fees card-issuers charge to process debit-card transactions. Similar to Senator Franken’s amendment in terms of its reform power, this second change, as far as reforms go, is also pretty low-hanging. Even those same Wall Street honchos who decry any kind of financial reform have expressed support for ending the high fees merchants pay for the ‘privilege’ of processing debit-card transactions.
What makes this interchange limit sponsored by Senator Richard Durbin, (D-Ill.) so weak is that it applies only to debit cards—leaving credit-card fees alone. That is a major concession to financial firms because the swipe income they derive from credit card transactions dwarfs what they receive from debit card purchases. Senator Durbin’s original proposal had targeted both.
So, despite all the fiery rhetoric in Washington lately, the reform bill in its current form remains fairly tame, at least relative to the crisis that plunged the country into its current state of economic recession. It will put a dent in bank profits, but it won’t drastically alter the paradigm of the way they do business. Wall Street is relatively unscathed.
That could all change next week however as the US Senate is scheduled to vote on three major provisions that, if passed, could significantly alter the financial landscape. One amendment, backed by Senator Blanche Lincoln, (D-ARK.), would force banks finally to unload their derivatives businesses.
Another would also forbid banks from engaging in proprietary trading. This practice occurs when banks actively trade stocks, bonds, currencies, commodities and their derivatives or other financial instruments with its own money as opposed to its customer’s money, so as to make a profit for itself. They act like a hedge fund and many critics of this practice insist that large banks purposely leave ambiguous the amount of non-proprietary trading they do versus the amount of proprietary trading they do because it is felt that proprietary trading is riskier and results in more volatile profits.
For example, if a company sold stock with a bank, whoever first purchased shares would possibly have a difficult time selling them to buyers if those buyers were not familiar with the company. Consequently, the investment bank then agrees to buy the shares sold in order to identify another buyer. This, by the way, provides liquidity to the marketplace. The bank normally does not care about the fundamental or intrinsic value of the shares, only that it can sell them at a slightly higher price than what it paid for them. To accomplish this, the investment bank employs traders who over time begin to devise different strategies within this system designed to earn even more profit independent of providing client liquidity, and this is how proprietary trading was created.
Proprietary traders have the highest value at risk among other activities at the bank and this is why investment banks such as Goldman Sachs, Deutsche Bank and the late Merrill Lynch are known to have earned a significant portion of their profits through proprietary trading.
Finally, a third provision would inhibit U.S. states in protecting consumers from predatory lending and related abuses while providing more power to the federal government to protect consumers. Most Senate Democrats however, along with the White House and even many state attorneys general are pushing for a version that would have federal regulators set a minimum standard while allowing states to push for tougher rules as they feel appropriate.
As one would imagine, the financial industry strongly opposes the bans on derivative and proprietary trading while supporting the federal government’s right to “preempt” state-level financial enforcers. I suppose we are all about to find out if Congress really means business. As George Washington so eloquently phrased it, “Guard against postures of pretended patriotism.”
Sunday, May 16, 2010
Crying Over Spilt Oil
The admission last week by Tony Hayward, Better Petroleum’s (BP) Chief Executive Officer, that his company was “absolutely responsible” for the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico came amidst an environment in which BP spokespersons spent the entire week before attempting to point blame on to Transocean, the firm that owns the actual drilling rig on which the blowout occurred. On Thursday, May 14th, BP finally took full responsibility for the cleanup operation and promised to pay all necessary and appropriate clean up costs.” In full disclosure, the oil giant was forced to confirm what President Obama had already proclaimed publicly, that BP would be footing the bill. To paraphrase U.S. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, ‘the U.S. Government’s job is to keep its boot on BP’s neck throughout this environmental disaster.’
Everyone however is playing politics, not least a federal government with a long history of ignoring Louisiana’s woes. Not wanting to repeat the catastrophic mistakes made by the Bush administration in dealing with Hurricane Katrina five years ago, President Obama and his administration have responded quickly and massively to this latest Louisiana environmental crisis. But neither a relatively contrite BP nor a responsive President will be enough to prevent what will ultimately go down in history as the world’s most devastating oil spillage to date. For this, BP in particular, and the oil industry in general, must assume their share of the blame when these events occur. It was BP who made the management decision to drill the deepest wells in the Gulf of Mexico and it was its business strategy to become the leader of the oil industry’s drilling frontiers in the Gulf of Mexico and the Arctic.
BP, formerly known as British Petroleum, has long been accused of putting profits before safety. As I did the research for this blog, I discovered that the kind of oil drilling blowout that has occurred in the Gulf is not uncommon, nor is the event of a fail-safe device doing just that—failing. So it is a little late now for BP to discover that staunching the three leaks on the Gulf’s ocean floor with robot-controlled submersibles is like doing open heart surgery in total darkness. This is also not the time to attempt strategies never tried before at this depth such as building and then lowering a 74 ton steel funnel over the leak and then “hoovering” or pumping the oil to the surface and into giant oil cargo ships. These strategies with their un-tried technologies should have been tested and then tested again before BP got the license to drill in the Gulf—or anywhere else for that matter.
As it usually is however, when profits are measured against safety, it was the other way around. BP is in the forefront of lobbying to contain the regulatory framework within which it has been operating in the Gulf of Mexico. Last year, the oil conglomerate spent $15.9 million on federal lobbying regarding such issues as drilling for oil on the outer continental shelf. Even as this disaster continues to unfold, BP continues to oppose tougher rules of safety inspection, arguing that voluntary compliance is enough. One has to ask the question, how much less of a disaster would this be if almost $16 million had instead been invested in oil spillage preventable or containable technology?
On Friday, May 15th, President Obama, who seems to have seemingly backed away from his recent limited support for off-shore drilling also seems to be losing his patience with oil company executives and officials who have been trading blame since the rig exploded. "I will not tolerate more finger-pointing or irresponsibility," he said in the White House rose garden, flanked by members of his cabinet. "The system failed, and it failed badly. And for that, there is enough responsibility to go around. And all parties should be willing to accept it."
This catastrophe is not unfolding off the coast of Nigeria or Azerbaijan, but on home turf and on primetime television. Maybe now, it will become clear to everyone, that off-shore drilling is not a wise response to our energy needs after all. That the Sarah Palin cry to “Drill baby drill” is a recipe for disaster, just as a Palin presidency would be.
Everyone however is playing politics, not least a federal government with a long history of ignoring Louisiana’s woes. Not wanting to repeat the catastrophic mistakes made by the Bush administration in dealing with Hurricane Katrina five years ago, President Obama and his administration have responded quickly and massively to this latest Louisiana environmental crisis. But neither a relatively contrite BP nor a responsive President will be enough to prevent what will ultimately go down in history as the world’s most devastating oil spillage to date. For this, BP in particular, and the oil industry in general, must assume their share of the blame when these events occur. It was BP who made the management decision to drill the deepest wells in the Gulf of Mexico and it was its business strategy to become the leader of the oil industry’s drilling frontiers in the Gulf of Mexico and the Arctic.
BP, formerly known as British Petroleum, has long been accused of putting profits before safety. As I did the research for this blog, I discovered that the kind of oil drilling blowout that has occurred in the Gulf is not uncommon, nor is the event of a fail-safe device doing just that—failing. So it is a little late now for BP to discover that staunching the three leaks on the Gulf’s ocean floor with robot-controlled submersibles is like doing open heart surgery in total darkness. This is also not the time to attempt strategies never tried before at this depth such as building and then lowering a 74 ton steel funnel over the leak and then “hoovering” or pumping the oil to the surface and into giant oil cargo ships. These strategies with their un-tried technologies should have been tested and then tested again before BP got the license to drill in the Gulf—or anywhere else for that matter.
As it usually is however, when profits are measured against safety, it was the other way around. BP is in the forefront of lobbying to contain the regulatory framework within which it has been operating in the Gulf of Mexico. Last year, the oil conglomerate spent $15.9 million on federal lobbying regarding such issues as drilling for oil on the outer continental shelf. Even as this disaster continues to unfold, BP continues to oppose tougher rules of safety inspection, arguing that voluntary compliance is enough. One has to ask the question, how much less of a disaster would this be if almost $16 million had instead been invested in oil spillage preventable or containable technology?
On Friday, May 15th, President Obama, who seems to have seemingly backed away from his recent limited support for off-shore drilling also seems to be losing his patience with oil company executives and officials who have been trading blame since the rig exploded. "I will not tolerate more finger-pointing or irresponsibility," he said in the White House rose garden, flanked by members of his cabinet. "The system failed, and it failed badly. And for that, there is enough responsibility to go around. And all parties should be willing to accept it."
This catastrophe is not unfolding off the coast of Nigeria or Azerbaijan, but on home turf and on primetime television. Maybe now, it will become clear to everyone, that off-shore drilling is not a wise response to our energy needs after all. That the Sarah Palin cry to “Drill baby drill” is a recipe for disaster, just as a Palin presidency would be.
Saturday, May 8, 2010
I Love a Family Squabble!
No, I don’t mean a normal family squabble. Most families don’t communicate with each other enough to squabble. What I mean here is the squabble going on within the Republican Party.
The election of President Barack Obama has created a firestorm of protest among the right in this country and they have used the now too familiar strategies of fear and even hatred to galvanize people who heretofore hated our system of government so much they simply stayed home.
Pundits would have you believe that the sudden appearance of the so-called tea party movement on the political scene is attributed to a rising tide of voter anger. It is instead, an awakening or in some cases a reawakening of a right wing mentality that led to a 400% increase in death threats to the President of United States immediately following the swearing in of President Obama. The reality of a Black American presidency was simply too much for Americans who hate so much they have grown to hate their own kind for not being radical enough. The sad reality to all this is they have the audacity to claim they are not racist, that instead they just hate Obama. Of course the picket signs they carry which utilize racist caricatures of our President don’t mean their racist. They just are trying to make a point.
As the primary season for the much ballyhooed November 2010 election begins in earnest this coming week, establishment Republican candidates are the ones who find themselves in a fight because they have failed to be conservative enough. The upcoming Republican primary season could finally provide a real test of the strength and viability of the tea party.
Florida’s Governor, Charlie Crist, made the decision last week to bolt from the Republican Party as a candidate for the U.S. Senate and instead make his run for office as an Independent. In doing so, Crist manages to avoid a primary fight with former Florida House Speaker Marco Rubio, the fair haired boy of tea party activists who have targeted Crist and other mainstream Republicans for being too moderate in their politics. Those crazies you saw last summer who showed up at town hall meetings armed to the teeth and accusing Jewish legislators like Barney Frank of being “fascists” because they supported healthcare reform have now turned their madness on their own kind for not being conservative enough.
In a political environment where all 435 House seats and 36 Senate seats are up for grabs, Democrats are hoping that recent signs that the American economy is gaining strength and improving along with the Republican infighting that has broken out primarily due to the tea party and its allies will help them to save their lead in both Houses. Even someone who carries a sign at a tea party rally that displays a caricature of President Obama as the devil knows that the more the economy and employment improves, the harder it is for the Rush Limbaugh’s of the world to spread their message of hate and discord.
An early contest will be on Tuesday in Indiana where tea party favorite Marlin Stutzman is challenging former Senator Dan Coats for the Republican nomination for retiring Senate Democrat Evan Bayh’s seat.
Today, Republican Senator Bob Bennett faces a pack of conservative challengers at the state party convention and polls today indicate he may not survive. Senator Bennett, who has always been viewed as a conservative Republican has been viciously attacked by the extreme right wing of his state party for voting in favor of the so-called Wall Street bailout.
On May 18th, Kentucky will host a showdown between Republican mainstream favorite Trey Grayson and Rand Paul, a physician and son of guess who….libertarian Republican Congressman Ron Paul. He has been supported by tea party groups and none other than former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. More on her in just a bit.
Winning in either state would be a huge victory for the tea partiers which to date has already lost in a special House election in New York and eight Republican primary challenges to Republican House incumbents in the great state of Texas.
One of the most telling Republican primary campaigns will end in Arizona on August 24th when President Obama’s opponent in the 2008 presidential campaign Senator John McCain faces the vitriolic and extremely conservative former Congressman J.D. Hayworth. Hayworth throughout the campaign has managed to push McCain further and further to the right most notably on the draconian immigration law recently passed by the Arizona state legislature and signed into law by Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, a Republican who faces her own challengers from the right. Senator McCain, once a moderate on immigration and who was initially opposed to the law, ultimately threw his support to the law in the face of increasing right wing furor over his moderate stance.
And now, the coup-de-grace: It appears that the Sarah Palin endorsement of California Republican candidate for Governor Carly Fiorina has infuriated California tea party activists as well as the movement in general.
Apparently, ex-Governor Sarah Palin has outraged some of her fans with an endorsement of former Hewlett-Packard executive Carly Fiorina in the GOP’s U.S. Senate primary in California. Palin endorsed Fiorina on her Facebook page stating that her experience running a major corporation is sorely lacking in Washington. Fiorina, a former adviser for the McCain-Palin 2008 ticket got the endorsement over former congressman Tom Campbell who is leading in most polls and Chuck DeVore, a favorite of tea party activists who posted en masse on Palin’s Facebook page pleas for Palin to recount her endorsement of Fiorina and instead endorse their guy Devore, even though he lags behind a distant third to both Fiorina and Campbell.
True to form, Palin later posted an addendum to her endorsement stating that “some reaction right out of the chute calls for more information.” Oops……..
Dawn Wildman whose San Diego based Southern California Tax Revolt Coalition has about 2,000 members said she has been fielding calls and emails from tea partiers who feel betrayed by Palin’s endorsement.
“My first thought when I heard about the endorsement was, wow, I guess she doesn’t plan to run in 2012” Wildman said. She went on to say that “I think most of us see Palin as a company girl now, meaning the GOP. For her to endorse Fiorina wasn’t terribly shocking. I think what is more interesting is that Palin tries to suggest she aligns herself with the tea party movement but is clearly out of touch with what the tea party movement is saying in California.”
You gotta love it……….
The election of President Barack Obama has created a firestorm of protest among the right in this country and they have used the now too familiar strategies of fear and even hatred to galvanize people who heretofore hated our system of government so much they simply stayed home.
Pundits would have you believe that the sudden appearance of the so-called tea party movement on the political scene is attributed to a rising tide of voter anger. It is instead, an awakening or in some cases a reawakening of a right wing mentality that led to a 400% increase in death threats to the President of United States immediately following the swearing in of President Obama. The reality of a Black American presidency was simply too much for Americans who hate so much they have grown to hate their own kind for not being radical enough. The sad reality to all this is they have the audacity to claim they are not racist, that instead they just hate Obama. Of course the picket signs they carry which utilize racist caricatures of our President don’t mean their racist. They just are trying to make a point.
As the primary season for the much ballyhooed November 2010 election begins in earnest this coming week, establishment Republican candidates are the ones who find themselves in a fight because they have failed to be conservative enough. The upcoming Republican primary season could finally provide a real test of the strength and viability of the tea party.
Florida’s Governor, Charlie Crist, made the decision last week to bolt from the Republican Party as a candidate for the U.S. Senate and instead make his run for office as an Independent. In doing so, Crist manages to avoid a primary fight with former Florida House Speaker Marco Rubio, the fair haired boy of tea party activists who have targeted Crist and other mainstream Republicans for being too moderate in their politics. Those crazies you saw last summer who showed up at town hall meetings armed to the teeth and accusing Jewish legislators like Barney Frank of being “fascists” because they supported healthcare reform have now turned their madness on their own kind for not being conservative enough.
In a political environment where all 435 House seats and 36 Senate seats are up for grabs, Democrats are hoping that recent signs that the American economy is gaining strength and improving along with the Republican infighting that has broken out primarily due to the tea party and its allies will help them to save their lead in both Houses. Even someone who carries a sign at a tea party rally that displays a caricature of President Obama as the devil knows that the more the economy and employment improves, the harder it is for the Rush Limbaugh’s of the world to spread their message of hate and discord.
An early contest will be on Tuesday in Indiana where tea party favorite Marlin Stutzman is challenging former Senator Dan Coats for the Republican nomination for retiring Senate Democrat Evan Bayh’s seat.
Today, Republican Senator Bob Bennett faces a pack of conservative challengers at the state party convention and polls today indicate he may not survive. Senator Bennett, who has always been viewed as a conservative Republican has been viciously attacked by the extreme right wing of his state party for voting in favor of the so-called Wall Street bailout.
On May 18th, Kentucky will host a showdown between Republican mainstream favorite Trey Grayson and Rand Paul, a physician and son of guess who….libertarian Republican Congressman Ron Paul. He has been supported by tea party groups and none other than former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. More on her in just a bit.
Winning in either state would be a huge victory for the tea partiers which to date has already lost in a special House election in New York and eight Republican primary challenges to Republican House incumbents in the great state of Texas.
One of the most telling Republican primary campaigns will end in Arizona on August 24th when President Obama’s opponent in the 2008 presidential campaign Senator John McCain faces the vitriolic and extremely conservative former Congressman J.D. Hayworth. Hayworth throughout the campaign has managed to push McCain further and further to the right most notably on the draconian immigration law recently passed by the Arizona state legislature and signed into law by Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, a Republican who faces her own challengers from the right. Senator McCain, once a moderate on immigration and who was initially opposed to the law, ultimately threw his support to the law in the face of increasing right wing furor over his moderate stance.
And now, the coup-de-grace: It appears that the Sarah Palin endorsement of California Republican candidate for Governor Carly Fiorina has infuriated California tea party activists as well as the movement in general.
Apparently, ex-Governor Sarah Palin has outraged some of her fans with an endorsement of former Hewlett-Packard executive Carly Fiorina in the GOP’s U.S. Senate primary in California. Palin endorsed Fiorina on her Facebook page stating that her experience running a major corporation is sorely lacking in Washington. Fiorina, a former adviser for the McCain-Palin 2008 ticket got the endorsement over former congressman Tom Campbell who is leading in most polls and Chuck DeVore, a favorite of tea party activists who posted en masse on Palin’s Facebook page pleas for Palin to recount her endorsement of Fiorina and instead endorse their guy Devore, even though he lags behind a distant third to both Fiorina and Campbell.
True to form, Palin later posted an addendum to her endorsement stating that “some reaction right out of the chute calls for more information.” Oops……..
Dawn Wildman whose San Diego based Southern California Tax Revolt Coalition has about 2,000 members said she has been fielding calls and emails from tea partiers who feel betrayed by Palin’s endorsement.
“My first thought when I heard about the endorsement was, wow, I guess she doesn’t plan to run in 2012” Wildman said. She went on to say that “I think most of us see Palin as a company girl now, meaning the GOP. For her to endorse Fiorina wasn’t terribly shocking. I think what is more interesting is that Palin tries to suggest she aligns herself with the tea party movement but is clearly out of touch with what the tea party movement is saying in California.”
You gotta love it……….
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
