Vox’s posts tagged iran

NEW! Rachel Maddow Show! To follow Keith Olbermann!!!

nobody@vox.com(Bol) — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 17:59:22 +0000

NEW! Rachel Maddow Show! To follow Keith Olbermann!!!

http://cspanjunkie.org/
August 19, 2008 MSNBC

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

"Semtex Used in Dissident Attack"

nobody@vox.com(Elyse) — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 02:09:04 +0000

I grew up in the 80's and 90's. I was neither politically savvy or even curious. My mother was an avid watcher of the evening news. A habit I found ridiculous, but which I tolerated because none of my cartoons were on at that time. Being (somewhat purposely) naive of national and world events it was only the loudest, most oft-repeated incidents that made any impression on my pre-, and over time adolescent, brain. I remember my mother crying when the hostages were released from Iran. I remember the Iran-Contra Affair which was my first brush with the crushing, eye-rolling impatience I have for endless government hearings. I remember the word Sandinistas because it is fun to say. And I remember standing in my backyard for a long time one afternoon after George Bush the Elder was elected. I was very concerned because I had become convinced over the course of his campaign that he would start a nuclear war with Russia and I thought the world was going to end any moment. Boy am I glad I was wrong.

Perhaps it was because I was living in Massachusetts and with such rich Irish heritage in this state those stories were aired more. Or maybe it was because I was older and I listened better and I was learning some empathy, but one world event that has stayed with me since that time was the violence in Northern Ireland. Though I could not cite the year, for some time it seemed like there was a daily bomb explosion and the victims all innocents. I had no idea what Northern Ireland looked like and I didn't particularly think about the suffering of kids my own age, but it crept in and rooted in some primal part of my brain that it must be awful --like pit-of-your-stomach rotted out awful-- to have that happening in your home, in some place that is the heart of you, every day.

Though I have never undertaken any scholarly or even casual study of this conflict it seems to resonate as some part of my personal history. I was in college and when the ceasefire began and peace talks started. I listened avidly to all the coverage leading up to the Good Friday Agreement and I breathed a little sigh of relief when Sinn Féin got its seats in Parliament and had a 'legitimate' way to broker change. So I was quite surprised today when a small story about plastic explosives on the BBC turned out to be one more dig from a separatist group. A little bit of further reading told me that these little flare ups are the norm and that with 10 years passed from the Belfast Agreement news agencies are ripe to cover the 'Where are they now?' angle.

So perhaps my old, awakened sympathies are making more of this report than it is --just a seasonal lightning strike flare, when the big forest fire is long out. Still, I immediately worried that tomorrow will bring a report of a car bomb blast and then another and another. This violence and its persistence are no different than what is happening in Iraq or between Israel and Palestine. The senseless loss of life in vicious acts (no matter how righteous) is not different than the Bosnian War or this recent conflict in Georgia. And I have no less sorrow for the tragedy of other conflicts but I write about this one because through friends and our long history I can grab onto a little piece of it and make it very real for myself. I hope tomorrow is not the day the IRA (under whatever name) comes back to full force. Just as I hope tomorrow is a day with fewer suicide bombings, no violence in the West Bank, and the beginning of Russia's pull-out. No one should have to face that horror. Instead of holding the line let's hold the peace.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

RE Pakistan: Remember Iran’s Revolution

nobody@vox.com(theway2k) — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 22:49:02 +0000

Islamic Revolution Stamp

Matthew Pennington writing for the AP has put together a report which claims that Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal is safe from Islamists.

Pennington’s report goes on to say that Pakistan has some kind of military tribunal with ten members called the Strategic Plans Division. And catch this: This tribunal was set up by Musharraf within one year of his first coming to power.

Pennington’s report says the Pentagon believes that the Pakistan Military would be in control of the nuclear arsenal through this tribunal. Thus a democratically elected Islamist government could not push nuke buttons. Further more the Pentagon believes an Islamist revolutionary take over if possible is years away. Like that should comfort Americans who should be aware Islamists would launch some kind of attack with nukes against American assets just because they could and in the name of Allah and his prophet Mohammed.

Another thing to think about: Any projection of Islamist revolution is not reassuring. The Shah of Iran was firmly an American ally. He was totally backed by Presidential Administrations until America’s delusional Leftist President Carter was elected. Carter took it upon himself to show the Shah’s harsh regime was evidence to throw the Shah under the proverbial bus. This thinking of Carter occurred toward an American ally even though then anti-American Egypt and Syria were (and are) every much as brutal as the Shah was.

I wonder how a new Leftist Appeaser such as Barack Obama would do if a charismatic Sunni Islamist began accruing popularity in Pakistan.

I think the Pentagon is using PR to assuage pundits to the actual potential of an Islamist regime in Pakistan.

When the Shah went into exile, Ayatollah Khomeini sanitized the Iranian military of pro-Shah leadership and just to make sure Khomeini began his own paramilitary force which has become known as the Revolutionary Guard.

Just think if some charismatic Sunni Cleric caught the imagination of the Pakistani people who are not exactly hip to the potential of moderate Pakistani Military rule or elitism always entering the political fray when there is a perception of emerging political chaos.

I think this is one of those “don’t believe everything you read moments.”

JRH 8/18/08

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Musharraf Resigns, What Will Follow?

nobody@vox.com(theway2k) — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 16:53:57 +0000

Pervez Musharraf (resignation 2008)

Pervez Musharraf has resigned before an impending impeachment proceedings in Pakistan’s Parliament.

Essentially Musharraf has been a go-between between America’s interest in prosecuting the Global War on Terror and the Islamists inside Pakistan that support the Taliban and al Qaeda, the two transnational terrorist organization in collusion for the attack on American soil.

So America, step back and take a breath. A democratically elected government in Pakistan could very possibly be an Islamist government. Imagine that! A Sunni Islamist Nuclear Power very near to an emerging nuclear power of Shi’ite Islamist Iran. How is that going to work out?

Is there enough hatred between Sunnis and Shi’ites to offset each other? Or will the Islamist hatred for Israel and America dissolve Sunni/Shi’ite differences to lead to an American/Israeli confrontation with a potential Islamist united front of Pakistan and Iran?

If the Sunni/Shi’ite bridge cannot be built, how would a democratically elected Islamist Pakistan government interact with America?

JRH 8/18/08

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Its only a Test!

nobody@vox.com(roab) — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 19:19:02 +0000

It's the first time I'm using Vox blogging service, and I'm gonna just test its environment and design. it looks nice, even nicer than Blogger and Wordpress (its only my own idea and I know it may sound crazy for some -most-all- of you. But anyway! I think I like this blog service and I would like to have a good blog in this. I don't know how popular is this service?! but as I see it has all the features I may need in my blogging. the most important thing is that Vox has a nice and user friendly environment, At least for ME. Ha! I just forgot to introduce myself! My name is "Roozbeh". I'm originally from Iran (yes u r right! one of the axis of evils). but I'm living in Sweden right now and I'm studying in Business and Entrepreneurship staff. this blog which called "ROAB" is where I will write my opinions about anything. its NOTHING SPECIAL!

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

i am the very thing you pretend to be

nobody@vox.com(prasanna) — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 01:56:48 +0000

on the way to the garden

the garden is breathing out the air of paradise
today. i can sense myself, and this lively wine,
and this friend whose nature approaches the divine.

it's all right if the beggar claims to be a king
today. his tent is a shadow thrown by a cloud;
his banqueting hall is a newly sown field.

paradise is here in the simple tale that the may
meadow tells; the wise person lets the future
and its profits go, and accepts the cash now.

please don't imagine that your enemy will ever
be faithful to you. the candle the hermit lights
will always flutter out in the worldly church.

make your soul strong then by letting it drink
the secret wine. this rotten world has its own
plans to press our dust into bricks.

- hafez

Another piece by George Friedman of Stratfor called Mediterranean Flyover: Telegraphing an Israeli Punch? which provides a few tasty morsels for the inner geopolitical geek in us all. The whole concept of either Israel , US or both attacking Iran has fueled a great deal of speculation about what they are going to do and increasing instability. I think the article takes a more pragmatic look at what might going on and also hints at the inner conflict within Iran itself as it tries to cement what it perceives as a new hegemony in the region and how evolves as a nation. Also we see the flip side to Iran acting crazy from the previous post to Israel engaged in act of misdirection to keep the Iranians on guard and paranoid. The net effect of this is that it's doubtful anything will happen soon and will keep the fires of speculation going. This is one high stakes pissing match.

Finally, the Israelis and Americans might not be intending an attack at all. Rather, they are — as the Iranians have said — engaged in psychological warfare for political reasons. The Iranians appear to be split now between those who think that Ahmadinejad has led Iran into an extremely dangerous situation and those who think Ahmadinejad has done a fine job. The prospect of an imminent and massive attack on Iran could give his opponents ammunition against him. This would explain the Iranian government response to the reports of a possible attack — which was that such an attack was just psychological warfare and could not happen. That clearly was directed more for internal consumption than it was for the Israelis or Americans.

We tend toward this latter theory. Frankly, the Bush administration has been talking about an attack on Iran for years. It is hard for us to see that the situation has changed materially over the past months. But if it has, then either Israel or the United States would have attacked — and not with front-page spreads in The New York Times before the attack was launched. In the end, we tend toward the view that this is psychological warfare for the simple reason that you don't launch a surprise attack of the kind necessary to take out Iran's nuclear program with a media blitz beforehand. It just doesn't work that way.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

THE PENDING ISRAELI ATTACK ON IRAN

nobody@vox.com(The Historian) — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 21:32:55 +0000

THE PENDING ISRAELI ATTACK ON IRAN

As the world, and particularly the west, hopes that the increasing tensions between Iran and Israel dissipates, the growing reality appears to be that an armed conflict between the two is in the cards in the very near future.

American and European efforts with carrots and sticks has had little to no impact on slowing the Iranian drive to gain nuclear weapons. Offers of benefits and threats of sanctions matter not to the mullahs in their headlong drive to become a 'nuclear power'. In essence the world is rendered impotent in this matter as the Iranian leadership cares not what happens as long as they can gain such powerfully destructive weapons. Not to mention use them.

Standing in the way, however, is Israel, the state most likely to be the recipient of an Iranian nuclear attack if the mullah's weapons program succeeds. Given the choice between having her population annihilated or taking preemptive action, Israel will naturally choose to eliminate the Iranian program before it can attain a nuclear weapon. The article below outlines the factors involved in this scenario.

What would this mean for America? Most certainly a temporary halt to the flow of oil out of the Middle East. Iran has, on a number of occasions, stated that if attacked it will put a stop to the transport of crude oil out of the Red Sea. In essence, it is the bargaining chip they are attempting to use to keep the world at bay while they develop a weapon of mass destruction. The fact is it may work as far as most countries are concerned, including us, but it is unlikely to work with Israel. Think about which you would choose if in their shoes: a short disruption to the world's oil supply or the elimination of your existence. Not a tough call.

Considering that we get a notable percentage of our daily supply of crude from that part of the world, such an attack would be a major blow to our economy, our way of life and our well being. It would in fact require that we rely on our Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) to survive in the short term. Thus, maintaining and saving our current SPR supply is critically important to the survival of the American economy.

Have you been paying attention of late to who wants to open up and draw down oil supplies from the SPR for an extremely brief relief of the price of gasoline at the pump and more importantly for political advantage in an election year? Hint: it is not George Bush.

Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and, the one we all need to make sure we do not overlook, Barak Obama. Which nation are you going to vote to protect in our November national election?

Think and choose carefully, the welfare of you and your family is very much at stake.

Using Bombs to Stave Off War
By BENNY MORRIS
Li-On, Israel

ISRAEL will almost surely attack Iran’s nuclear sites in the next four to seven months — and the leaders in Washington and even Tehran should hope that the attack will be successful enough to cause at least a significant delay in the Iranian production schedule, if not complete destruction, of that country’s nuclear program. Because if the attack fails, the Middle East will almost certainly face a nuclear war — either through a subsequent pre-emptive Israeli nuclear strike or a nuclear exchange shortly after Iran gets the bomb.

It is in the interest of neither Iran nor the United States (nor, for that matter, the rest of the world) that Iran be savaged by a nuclear strike, or that both Israel and Iran suffer such a fate. We know what would ensue: a traumatic destabilization of the Middle East with resounding political and military consequences around the globe, serious injury to the West’s oil supply and radioactive pollution of the earth’s atmosphere and water.

But should Israel’s conventional assault fail to significantly harm or stall the Iranian program, a ratcheting up of the Iranian-Israeli conflict to a nuclear level will most likely follow. Every intelligence agency in the world believes the Iranian program is geared toward making weapons, not to the peaceful applications of nuclear power. And, despite the current talk of additional economic sanctions, everyone knows that such measures have so far led nowhere and are unlikely to be applied with sufficient scope to cause Iran real pain, given Russia’s and China’s continued recalcitrance and Western Europe’s (and America’s) ambivalence in behavior, if not in rhetoric. Western intelligence agencies agree that Iran will reach the “point of no return” in acquiring the capacity to produce nuclear weapons in one to four years.

Which leaves the world with only one option if it wishes to halt Iran’s march toward nuclear weaponry: the military option, meaning an aerial assault by either the United States or Israel. Clearly, America has the conventional military capacity to do the job, which would involve a protracted air assault against Iran’s air defenses followed by strikes on the nuclear sites themselves. But, as a result of the Iraq imbroglio, and what is rapidly turning into the Afghan imbroglio, the American public has little enthusiasm for wars in the Islamic lands. This curtails the White House’s ability to begin yet another major military campaign in pursuit of a goal that is not seen as a vital national interest by many Americans.

Which leaves only Israel — the country threatened almost daily with destruction by Iran’s leaders. Thus the recent reports about Israeli plans and preparations to attack Iran (the period from Nov. 5 to Jan. 19 seems the best bet, as it gives the West half a year to try the diplomatic route but ensures that Israel will have support from a lame-duck White House).

The problem is that Israel’s military capacities are far smaller than America’s and, given the distances involved, the fact that the Iranian sites are widely dispersed and underground, and Israel’s inadequate intelligence, it is unlikely that the Israeli conventional forces, even if allowed the use of Jordanian and Iraqi airspace (and perhaps, pending American approval, even Iraqi air strips) can destroy or perhaps significantly delay the Iranian nuclear project.

Nonetheless, Israel, believing that its very existence is at stake — and this is a feeling shared by most Israelis across the political spectrum — will certainly make the effort. Israel’s leaders, from Prime Minister Ehud Olmert down, have all explicitly stated that an Iranian bomb means Israel’s destruction; Iran will not be allowed to get the bomb.

The best outcome will be that an Israeli conventional strike, whether failed or not — and, given the Tehran regime’s totalitarian grip, it may not be immediately clear how much damage the Israeli assault has caused — would persuade the Iranians to halt their nuclear program, or at least persuade the Western powers to significantly increase the diplomatic and economic pressure on Iran.

But the more likely result is that the international community will continue to do nothing effective and that Iran will speed up its efforts to produce the bomb that can destroy Israel. The Iranians will also likely retaliate by attacking Israel’s cities with ballistic missiles (possibly topped with chemical or biological warheads); by prodding its local clients, Hezbollah and Hamas, to unleash their own armories against Israel; and by activating international Muslim terrorist networks against Israeli and Jewish — and possibly American — targets worldwide (though the Iranians may at the last moment be wary of provoking American military involvement).

Such a situation would confront Israeli leaders with two agonizing, dismal choices. One is to allow the Iranians to acquire the bomb and hope for the best — meaning a nuclear standoff, with the prospect of mutual assured destruction preventing the Iranians from actually using the weapon. The other would be to use the Iranian counter strikes as an excuse to escalate and use the only means available that will actually destroy the Iranian nuclear project: Israel’s own nuclear arsenal.

Given the fundamentalist, self-sacrificial mindset of the mullahs who run Iran, Israel knows that deterrence may not work as well as it did with the comparatively rational men who ran the Kremlin and White House during the cold war. They are likely to use any bomb they build, both because of ideology and because of fear of Israeli nuclear pre-emption. Thus an Israeli nuclear strike to prevent the Iranians from taking the final steps toward getting the bomb is probable. The alternative is letting Tehran have its bomb. In either case, a Middle Eastern nuclear holocaust would be in the cards.

Iran’s leaders would do well to rethink their gamble and suspend their nuclear program. Bar this, the best they could hope for is that Israel’s conventional air assault will destroy their nuclear facilities. To be sure, this would mean thousands of Iranian casualties and international humiliation. But the alternative is an Iran turned into a nuclear wasteland. Some Iranians may believe that this is a worthwhile gamble if the prospect is Israel’s demise. But most Iranians probably don’t.

Benny Morris, a professor of Middle Eastern history at Ben-Gurion University, is the author, most recently, of “1948: A History of the First Arab-Israeli War.”
Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Iran Rejects Deadline to Curb Nuclear Program

nobody@vox.com(theway2k) — Sat, 02 Aug 2008 17:04:17 +0000

Iran's Carrot & Stick (Cox&Forkum)

How much of a clue do the Western powers need before these nations comprehend that Iran is proceeding with weapons grade enrichment of uranium and that the constant offering of international negotiations is merely a stall tactic to reach the Iranian goal of nuclear weaponry?

This latest round of multilateral talks ended with yet another rejection by Iranian negotiators and public defiance by Iran’s Mullocracy leadership.

Let us guess the response of the West to this latest rejection. O yes, increased economic sanctions that Iran will ignore AGAIN.

Here is the story according to an e-newsletter from The Israel Project (TIP):

JRH 8/2/08

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

172 Days (and counting)

nobody@vox.com(Armchair News) — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 21:19:08 +0000

I put this here as a bookmarking reminder. Because it's quite possible that in the next 172 days it will suddenly appear as if Iran has done something heinous to:

- Our Country
- Our Way of Life
- Our Boys
- Etc.

And the media will jump all over it and go "yes, sir!" when suddenly our Newly Popular Incompetent Incumbent Boob in the Oval Office (NPIIBOO if you must) decides that War, She Is Inevitable Now.

Here's what you should read before any of that happens, so when it does happen, you can shake your head and go, "Nope. No, I don't like it" like Mr. Horse from the Ren & Stimpy cartoons. Then you can call bullshit. Like we all should have done (more loudly for some of us) back when Colin Powell was testifying before the United Nations. Or before we ever heard of "yellowcake."

Here's a quote from the article:

Speaking at the Campus Progress journalism conference earlier this month, Seymour Hersh — a Pulitzer-Prize winning journalist for The New Yorker — revealed that Bush administration officials held a meeting recently in the Vice President’s office to discuss ways to provoke a war with Iran....

This idea, intended to provoke an Iran war, was ultimately rejected:
HERSH: There was a dozen ideas proffered about how to trigger a war. The one that interested me the most was why don’t we build — we in our shipyard — build four or five boats that look like Iranian PT boats. Put Navy seals on them with a lot of arms. And next time one of our boats goes to the Straits of Hormuz, start a shoot-up.

Might cost some lives. And it was rejected because you can’t have Americans killing Americans. That’s the kind of — that’s the level of stuff we’re talking about. Provocation. But that was rejected.

Read now.

(Via Think Progress)

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

KCRW's Left Right and Center, reading list for 8/1/08

nobody@vox.com(Left, Right and Center) — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 14:14:32 +0000

Your early reading in advance of tomorrow's show!
Here is Tony's column this week, followed by Bob's:

Townhall.com
The Destroyer of Worlds
Copyright © 2008 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/TonyBlankley/2008/07/30/the_destroyer_of_worlds

Tony Blankley
Wednesday, July 30, 2008

In the Birla Temple, a Hindu temple in Delhi, India, there is a plaque that reads: "He who is known as Vishnu the Preserver is verily Rudra the Destroyer, and He who is Rudra is Brahma the Creator." This fact (from Arthur Herman's book "Gandhi and Churchill") came to me over the weekend as I was rereading Sen. Obama's Berlin speech. Now, let me assure my easily offended friends in the Obama camp that I am not suggesting Obama is or ever was a Hindu. I take him at his word that he is whatever he says he is. (Pass out more eggshells.) But it is precisely his words regarding his philosophy of government that I find ambiguous -- and potentially disturbing.

Secular would-be leaders of men who promise transcendence and transformational change have something in common with the promises and warnings of many religions. They claim to want to preserve what is good in their people and change what needs to be changed to make their lives and souls even better. But unlike some religions, secular leaders with transforming visions of their missions often skip over the bits about what must be destroyed in order to bring those better things to man. And that is where religions are often more honest.

For instance, in Hindu, the god Rudra, who is also known as Lord Shiva, is the third god in the Hindu trinity. He destroys worlds. Specifically, he destroys the evil passions and animal instincts that usually characterize human consciousness in order to make room for divinity to enter man's world. He is believed by many Hindus to inspire people to perform acts of courage, spiritual wisdom and devotion.

Now, I am, God knows, no expert on comparative religion. But among the more popular human attributes that many religions condemn is the human desire to possess material things. (Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's oxen or wives, etc.) And most religions remind us that we are all brothers and sisters of one humanity.

But man persists in liking to have things and organizing around groups smaller than humanity. Specifically, modern Western civilization -- and the United States, in particular -- has done rather well organizing into nations and permitting its people to be free to produce and keep most of the fruits of our labor.

Reading Obama's Berlin speech, I see dangerous suggestions that he doesn't share that happy view of American prosperity. As he said, while he came to Berlin as "a proud citizen of the United States," he also came to Berlin as "a fellow citizen of the world." Putting aside the thought that a rally in Berlin in front of a quarter-million glistening-eyed, bosom-clenching, swooning Germans is a historically awkward spot for a leader to proclaim his worldwide goals for tomorrow, his actual words are disconcerting enough -- even if they had been delivered in peaceful Switzerland.

He said: "The walls between the countries with the most and those with the least cannot stand. The walls between natives and immigrants cannot stand. These now are the walls we must tear down. We know that these walls have fallen before. After centuries of strife, the people of Europe have formed a union of promise and prosperity."

That last sentence would suggest that Obama is not terribly keen about nation-states. It suggests that he believes that nation-states have outgrown their practical and moral utility. That is why, presumably, he says that we must tear down the walls between the countries "with the most" -- that would be the United States -- and those with the least. That is why he calls for tearing down walls between "natives and (illegal?) immigrants." That is why he is for strict reductions in carbon emissions for the United States, even if it reduces our prosperity more than it does poorer countries.

That is why he is a co-sponsor of Senate Bill 2433, the Global Poverty Act, a bill Obama's own Web site proudly claims would "cut extreme global poverty in half by 2015." Now, that bill would only authorize the end of gross wealth disparities between nations; it doesn't appropriate money for it or order taxes to pay for it. So technically, that promise doesn't cost a cent. But if Obama is sincere about those goals he proudly champions -- and if he has the political power next year to raise taxes and appropriate taxpayer dollars -- we could see the beginning of vast transfers of our wealth to his "fellow citizens of the world."

Sen. Obama owes it to the public to let us know how much of our hard-earned money he, in his wisdom, believes we have a moral obligation to give away to poor people around the world -- and how much of our money that he has a moral obligation to extract from our wages forcefully, through federal taxation. He has a moral obligation to do as the Hindu god Rudra did and tell his intended subjects what of ours he will destroy to make us better people.

I hope Obama is just saying stuff that he thinks sounds good to the kids. But if Obama means what he says, we should brace for the wrath of Rudra.

Sucking Up to the Bankers: A Bipartisan Lovefest

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20080729_sucking_up_to_the_bankers/

Posted on Jul 29, 2008

By Robert Scheer

This is a time to condemn the bankers, not to embrace them. They are the scoundrels who got us into the biggest economic mess since the Great Depression, lining their own pockets while destroying the life savings of those who trusted them. Yet both of our leading presidential candidates are scrambling to enlist not only the big-dollar contributions but, more frighteningly, the “expertise” of the very folks who advocated the financial industry deregulations at the heart of this meltdown.

Republican candidate John McCain even appointed as his campaign co-chairman Phil Gramm, who went from being chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, where he sponsored disastrous legislation that empowered the banking bandits, to becoming one of them at UBS Warburg. Gramm was forced to resign from McCain’s campaign only after he went public with his contempt for the financial concerns of ordinary Americans, calling them “whiners” and perpetrators of a “mental recession.”

But Gramm and the Republicans couldn’t have done it without the support of leading Democrats. The most egregious of Gramm’s legislative favors to the financiers took the form of legislation named in part after him—the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which became law only after then-Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin prevailed upon President Clinton to sign the bill. The bill’s immediate major effect was to legitimize the long-sought merger between Citibank and insurance giant Travelers. Rubin’s critical support for the bill was rewarded with an appointment, within days of its passage, to a top job at Citibank (later Citigroup) paying more than $15 million a year.

That is the same Rubin with whom Democratic candidate Barack Obama met, along with other influential advisers, on Tuesday to figure out what to do about the sorry state of our economy. But what in the world did he expect to learn from Rubin? And why did he appoint Rubin’s protégé, Jason Furman, who ran the Rubin-funded Hamilton Project, to be the Obama campaign’s economic director? Hopefully, during their encounter Tuesday, Rubin offered himself as a contrite model of everything that the candidate of change needs to change.

After all, Goldman Sachs, where Rubin spent 25 years of his business career before entering the Clinton administration, has been one of the prime corporate villains in the financial shenanigans that led to the subprime mortgage scandal. As co-chairman of the firm, surely he had knowledge of the financial hanky-panky that would prove so disastrous down the road. Indeed, as Treasury secretary, he favored an extension of the deregulation that enabled this explosion of banking avarice. Not surprisingly, the current Treasury secretary, Henry Paulson, also previously headed Goldman.

When Rubin assumed a top position at Citibank after his stint at the Treasury, he was not above influencing his former employees in the government. In one notorious instance during the fall of 2001, when Enron was going down the tubes Rubin telephoned a Treasury undersecretary and asked him to consider intervening with credit-rating agencies to hold off downgrading Enron’s ratings. When the story was leaked, some media accounts noted the possibility of a conflict of interest because Enron owed Citibank $750 million, which it could not pay if bankrupt.

Despite his skills and his vaunted position as Citibank’s chairman, Rubin was not spared the disastrous consequences of Citibank’s own wild financial manipulations, which, if anything, exceeded those of Enron. Tens of billions in bad mortgage and credit card debt placed the bank at the forefront of the current economic crisis, and so it is weird that Obama would now turn to Rubin for advice.

It’s even weirder that the presumptive Democratic nominee would pick Rubin’s man Furman as his campaign economic director at a time when cleaning up the mess left by the bankers is the highest priority. Furman hardly distinguished himself four years ago in that role in John Kerry’s failed presidential campaign, with its muffled economic message that could not be blamed on the candidate’s stiff style alone.

The bigger problem is that folks such as Rubin and Furman, perhaps best known as an economist for his bold but woefully misguided defense of the Wal-Mart business model, clearly do not feel the pain of the voters who are losing their homes.

But then again, why should Rubin, or Gramm on the Republican side, be expected to care when he has made so many millions off the suffering of those voters? Not good at a time when we need a presidential candidate who sticks it to the bankers instead of sucking up to them.

Robert Scheer is author of a new book, “The Pornography of Power: How Defense Hawks Hijacked 9/11 and Weakened America.”

AP photo / Jae C. Hong

Sen. Barack Obama meets with his economic advisers Monday in Washington. From left: former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, Obama, Service Employees International Union Chair Anna Burger, former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin and New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

all we can do is collide together

nobody@vox.com(prasanna) — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 20:41:26 +0000

behind the curtain none has found his way
none came to know the secret as we could say
and each repeats the dirge his fancy taught
which has no sense - but never ends the lay

- omar khayyam

I get John Mauldin's newsletter and a few days ago it contained a piece by George Friedman called The Geopolitics of Iran. I highly recommend people take the time to read it to get a nibble of Iran and the way it is. I'm not really going to provide much commentary since I have nothing insightful to really say but I think the second last paragraph hits the nail on the head.

"Iran is secure from conceivable invasion. It enhances this security by using two tactics. First, it creates uncertainty as to whether it has an offensive nuclear capability. Second, it projects a carefully honed image of ideological extremism that makes it appear unpredictable. It makes itself appear threatening and unstable. Paradoxically, this increases the caution used in dealing with it because the main option, an air attack, has historically been ineffective without a follow-on ground attack. If just nuclear facilities are attacked and the attack fails, Iranian reaction is unpredictable and potentially disproportionate. Iranian posturing enhances the uncertainty. The threat of an air attack is deterred by Iran's threat of an attack against sea-lanes. Such attacks would not be effective, but even a low-probability disruption of the world's oil supply is a risk not worth taking."

Sorry just a little bit of side commentary. You can stop reading if you have better things to do.

It's the second point that is Iran's real weapon. They are goading the US or Israel into attacking because it helps them recruit more people into their proxy wars and covert operations. They are willing to sacrifice infrastructure if it will help create more support not only in Iran but also elsewhere in the shia community. We tend to forget that Iran has an insanely young population who mostly want to be western (seriously talk to some young iranians). The mainstream media always focuses on the extremists (including the government) and never the regular people because they don't make for good news stories. An attack would ensure that some of those young will become radicalized thus helping the current regime just like they were in the late 60s and early 70s. While Iran may have very little love for Israel they can't be completely stupid. If they did attack Israel it is almost guaranteed that they will be wiped out by Israel's own nuclear capability which doesn't all reside in Israel. I am going to invoke the chewbacca defense and say this does not make sense. Unfortunately it seems like some kind of confrontation will happen and it's exactly what Iran wants. Diplomacy is the only way out.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

IRAN, NUKES & OUR STRATEGIC PETROLEUM RESERVE

nobody@vox.com(The Historian) — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 17:19:06 +0000

IRAN, NUKES & OUR STRATEGIC PETROLEUM RESERVE

Free our oil indeed! But not by the means attempted by the House this past week relative to our national Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR).

In a blatant piece of political theatre what passes for the Dem leadership in our House of Reprehensibles put a measure to force a small draw down of our SPR supposedly to lower the commodity market price per barrel and thereby provide relief at the pump. Not only was this feeble effort too little too late but the vote was set up to fail as it required a two thirds majority, as opposed to a simple majority, to pass. Thus Dems could tell their homies that they tried to do something but the GOP just would not go along. The reality is the Dems did not want to pass the measure in the first place besides which virtually everyone and their dog knew the impact on the markets would be both slight and very short lived.

More to the point however is the pending arrival of a nuclear Iran and all the trials and tribulations that come with it, not the least of which is the destruction of Israel and the slaughter of millions of Jews. Let's be real: Israel will NEVER allow Iran to get to the point where it could potentially take out their entire nation. Before that happens, the Israeli will attack and severely degrade Iran's nuclear capacity.

What will that mean? A chaotic war in the Middle East. A war that could be bloody and most likely catastrophic. One major victim of that kind of conflict is the free flow of the world's oil supply. In fact, Iran has pledged to shut down oil traffic if they are attacked. You can count on them giving that their best shot.

What can the rest of us expect? The price per barrel and thus the price per gallon at the pump will skyrocket into double figures. Are we prepared to pay more than $10 per gallon to transport ourselves, our food, our goods and services and so on at that cost? At that level our economy will be smashed.

Enter the SPR. Although it will only supply about 90 days of our petroleum needs, it means that we can continue to function. Weak and phony politicians who want to draw down the supply are looking for votes in the short term and care not for the long term exposure of the American people. After all, in politics it is all about getting elected, not serving and protecting the public interest. That goodness George W. Bush has the strength of will necessary to ignore the insignificant short term gain in order to protect the average American family from bankruptcy, unemployment and foreclosure.

Further, the fact that much of our imported oil comes from sources other than the Middle East, we can take the petroleum hit better than most of the rest of the world. Europe for instance almost completely depends upon Middle East crude. Thus you can almost empathize with their spineless approach to the Iranian nuclear issue over the past several years. Our prices would rise precipitously but they would not go way off the charts.

The article that follows addresses the idea of freeing our oil supplies. That is those supplies lying off shore, in ANWAR and elsewhere in the country. That is what Congress must do but the far left Dem "leadership" in the House will not even bring it to a vote.

Political games by the far left will strangle this nation economically. And the far left Dems could care less!

'Free Our Oil'

That was House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's catchphrase last week as she continued to grope for an energy policy. One of her ideas was to request "a small draw down" in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, no irony intended. At least President Bush has finally called the Speaker's bluff by rescinding the 1990 executive ban on offshore energy exploration.

With Mr. Bush's belated decision yesterday, Congress's moratorium on offshore drilling is now the last major political barrier to increasing domestic oil-and-gas production. Yet Democratic leaders have refused to schedule even a single hearing on the topic. House Appropriations Chairman David Obey recently shut down the annual budget process rather than allow Republicans to offer drilling amendments. He and the Speaker know that if they allow a vote, moderate Democrats are sure to defect and the offshore moratorium could end.

Ms. Pelosi called Mr. Bush's announcement "a hoax" and made a few cracks about "the oilman in the White House," continuing the Democratic strategy of blaming everyone from industry executives to "speculators" for the energy crunch. But none of those compare to world-wide demand, tight spare production capacity and inflation – the real causes of today's record high oil prices. Easing access to the Outer Continental Shelf, with its likely low-end estimates of 86 billion barrels of oil and 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, is one of the few responsible long-term remedies.

Congress's 27-year ban typically comes in the form of a rider to annual spending bills. This year the ban expires on September 30. To borrow Speaker Pelosi's slogan . . .

URL for this article:http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121607764434252507.html
Copyright 2008 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

KCRW's Left Right & Center 7/25/08: Obama Overseas, McCain Campaign, The Poll Truth, Mortgage Bill

nobody@vox.com(Left, Right and Center) — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 20:47:31 +0000

Obama Overseas, McCain Campaign, The Poll Truth, Mortgage Bill

Photo on the left is from LA Times front page 7/25/08. Obama appears before a crowd of 250,000 fans in Berlin.

Photo on the right: Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. makes a campaign stop to talk with small business leaders, Thursday, July 24, 2008, at the Schmidt's Restaurant and Banquet Haus in Columbus, Ohio. At left is Dan Young, owner of Youngs Jersey Dairy. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)

Obama’s obvious overseas success may be a triumph of visuals over substance; will it come back to haunt him? The panelists agree that this campaign should be a walk for a Democratic candidate, so why are the polls on McCain and Obama so close? McCain’s week has been as bad Obama’s has been good – by anyone’s standards, he and his campaign have floundered. And the mortgage bill: is it socializing the downside, a banker bailout, a necessity that even free marketers must go along with for fear of a complete US economic meltdown? **This week, we invite our bloggers to weigh in on the promised discussion of media bias **– which we promised but didn't get to during the program.

Volunteer bloggers Andi and Marisa pulled these notable quotables from today's show -- feel free to use them in your blog but please remember to credit KCRW's Left, Right & Center:

Obama's Foreign Adventure

Tony Blankley concluded that Obama "looked like the President of the United States" and is "dubious of McCain's ability to do the same". He added that "McCain was lucky to get as little coverage as he did this week...[because he] looked smaller and less presidential."

Why is this Race so Close??—PLEASE ADD YOUR COMMENTS TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION!!!!!

Robert Scheer stated that “Republicans have brought us disaster, they betrayed conservatism, they’ve bankrupted our economy so there is a lot for a leftist, populist candidate to campaign on….we need to hear that voice from Obama.”

Our allies abroad have heard Obama’s voice and are once again excited about American politics, they know we “ have an incredibly attractive candidate, this guy’s being cheered on as a rock star in Berlin, now THAT is a projection of American values!”

Domestically speaking, Tony Blankley noted that “the more the public gets to know [Obama] the lower his numbers drop.” Blankley thinks “it’s a combination of skin color, his internationalism, his arrogance and the media coverage which says we’ve already selected a president for you” that is hindering Obama’s lead in the polls. Robert Scheer agreed with Tony Blankley’s statement that “there is a racial issue with Obama; the fact that he doesn’t have a white father.”

Mortgage Relief Bill

Robert asks “How is this going to help people with their mortgages?” This is just a “bailout for the bankers, there has been no accountability….we’re losing control of our economy.”

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Is it Possible there is ONLY an Appearance of a China/Russia Alliance?

nobody@vox.com(theway2k) — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 20:42:24 +0000

China-Russia Strategic 2008

1913Intel.com has picked an essay from Stratfor.com relating to bilateral relations between China and Russia. (Thus I have accomplished part of my due diligence of giving credit to who credit is due.)

Now you really need to read this essay by Peter Zeihan entitled, “China and Russia’s Geographic Divide”.

BUT before you do read Zeihan’s essay you need to have some thoughts in the back of your mind.

Consider that Russia (as the USSR) was a fomenter of instability in the Middle East during the Cold War rallying Mohammedan Nations with huge arms sales in the Islamofascist quest to wipe Israel off the map. Fortunately American sold weaponry (with Israeli innovation) was far superior to the old Soviet weaponry. It was fortunate because the little slice of Land known as Israel repeatedly defeated invading Mohammedan Armies from the North, West, South and (kind-of) East. So much were the Israeli victories that Israel re-attained some of their ancient heritage which America and the West is currently pressuring Israel to give up.

With the end of the Cold War and the downfall of Soviet Communism, the large installments of weaponry have not been forthcoming from Russia. On the other hand America was attacked by Islamofascist terrorists on American soil which has led America to become embroiled in an anti-terrorist Global War on Terror (GWOT) concentrated mostly in the Middle East.

Russia has taken this opportunity to trade technology more than weaponry. Sadly this has been with rogue nations Iran (primarily) and Syria. It is Russia that is aiding Iran with nuclear training lying to the world that Iran is going nuclear for peaceful purposes. Thus Russia has made every effort in the U.N. Security Council to water down harsh sanction to Iran just as Russia did with Iraq when Iraq was the recipient of technology. There is no smoking gun on WMD in Iraq but it is fairly common knowledge that Russia Special Forces smuggled the chemical WMD out of Iraq just prior or during the American invasion and HUGE amounts of weapons grade uranium was recently transported to Canada for peaceful processing.

Then there is China. China is also on the U.N. Security Council and its story is similar to Russia. China has been selling weapons in exchange for oil to Iran. And I suspect to old Saddam Hussein as well under the table so to speak (On the link scroll down to “What did Iraq buy with the money?”).

Thus there is the appearance that Russia and (still Communist) China are in cahoots for oil reasons AND geopolitical reasons to offset the hegemony of America. Like I said though, it is an “appearance.”

Peter Zeihan demonstrates with a little history and a little observation of China and Russia’s National Interest such an appearance of an alliance might be more illusion than reality.

Now you are prepared to READ “China and Russia’s Geographic Divide.”

JRH 7/23/08

Read and post comments | Send to a friend