Aohell

Israeli Defense Force

 

And before I get a lot of grief on this from the pro-Israelis out there, there is an incredible amount of propaganda used to lie about what the IDF does and has done. It is an arm of the Israeli state that has been used in human rights violations, including ethnic deportations and massacres. Yes, there is a terrorist campaign against the Israeli state. No, it does not justify a state-sponsored terror campaign that kills three times as many Arab civilians as the Israelis lose to the PLO/Hamas/Hizbollah and other Palestinian Arab organizations. There are people who believe in Israel like it was God. It is not God. It is not an entity one follows blindly. It is not led by God. It is a secular state that abuses the power granted it by the United States to oppress millions of people it has rendered stateless, creating ghettos of Arabs on marginal lands.

People sometimes ask what would have happened if the Jews were able to organize an effective resistance under Hitler: what would it have been like? It would have been like the Palestinian resistance against Israel's robbery of their lands and property. No, Israel does not resort to death camps, thank goodness. On the other hand, it is resorting to the Stalinist solution: slow, determined grinding away to eliminate resistance in the long run. Stalin hoped to collect all the Jews in Russia to the Soviet Far East in a "homeland" of sorts, then liquidate the settlements there by severing rail links and letting Siberian winters do their thing. The way Israel seals off Gaza, starving it a little at a time, is more analagous to Stalin's methods than Hitler's, and I find Stalin to be much more the worse of the two tyrants. He just happened to have a better PR machine, that's all.

And Israel has a PR machine almost without parallel. The only thing that comes close to it in terms of viciousness and rabidity is the Turkish denial of the Armenian Holocaust. It would be nice if the USA quit shipping weapons to both those states, but that's not likely at all, especially under a president whose Chief of Staff is a golden boy in the American-Israeli PAC, or AIPAC. For those who are new to Washington lobbying groups, AIPAC is the one that makes sure the USA keeps sending arms and cash to Israel so it can continue to fire rockets into inhabited apartment blocks.

The death toll in Gaza so far in "Operation Cast Lead" is over 1000 civilians. All the US does is watch.

"Never again," my eye. More like "Never again to us, even if we have to make it happen again to others, in some form or fashion." And if you want one of the earliest comparisons of Israeli ethnic cleansing to the Nazis, look no further that the words of Golda Meir in 1948:

It is dreadful thing to see the dead city. I found next to the port [Palestinian Arab] children, women, the old, waiting for a way to leave. I entered the houses, there were houses where coffee and pitot were left on the table, I could not avoid [thinking] that this, indeed, had been the picture in many Jewish towns...

History...

 

A modest request...

I would humbly ask that all the attention and "how could this possibly happen?" sort of stories the major US media outlets have expended, are expending, and will expend on both Don Imus and the tragic shootings in Virginia be equalled, at the very least, in attention to the following topics:

• The US involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq
• Third world poverty
• Global climate instability
• Human rights issues in general

The stories should focus not just on defining the problem, but about what is needed to work towards a solution. Terrible as Mr. Imus' comments may have been and shocking though the tragedy in Virginia may be, there really are much greater things that should be demanding the attention and mindspace of America.

Thank you.

Why Not Walkout?

The United States is coming up on the anniversary of the pro-immigration demonstration marches.

Schools everywhere are bracing for the possibility of a repeat of last year's student walkouts. They're threatening students with disciplinary action should they leave school for political purposes.

They're doing it so they can keep their average daily attendance, or ADA up. ADA is included in the formula for school funding. Should all the Hispanic kids take off for three days, the schools stand to lose some major cash.

This means those Hispanic kids have power. Lots of it. By walking out, they may get some suspensions, but the school system gets whacked. What's more, the Hispanic kids in Texas have an easy countermeasure: If the schools discipline them for walking out, they can simply refuse to take the TAKS test.

If the entire Hispanic subpopulation fails the TAKS test, every school in the state will be found non-performing and will come under stricter state supervision. Students can't be disciplined for doing poorly on a test, especially should such discipline be targeting a specific minority subpopulation.

I think students all over Texas should protest the TAKS test by refusing to take it and breaking the system from within, but, hey, that's just me. If students refuse to be treated like cattle with numbers, maybe then we could see some real school reform. We could give the kids what they want, and then they wouldn't have a reason to walk out of schools.

Head 'Em Up, Move 'Em Out

In a move that's sure to open up a whole can of worms in Kurdistan, the Iraqi government has made a decision to do a little ethnic cleansing in Kirkuk. Non-Kurds who moved to Kirkuk after 1957 and their descendants are supposed to hit the road and not come back no more, no more, no more. Each family so moved gets $25,000 in US dollars as compensation.

Oh goody. Kick me out of my house and send me down south with $25 grand. Should I pre-arrange for a kidnapper to avoid the rush? Those thoughts have to be going through the potentially displaced people. Those, or something more like, "Over my cold dead body." Either way, I don't see good things coming from this.

Kirkuk sits on 2% of the world's oil reserves, which adds to the tension of a land dispute. This is Iraq, as well, where violence seems to be the order of the day, not law and order. This is where Iraq can really plunge into hell. It's the Titanic right now. If Kirkuk flares into violence, Iraq will become the Lusitania.

Racism: Alive and Well and Living in New Delhi

Nearly a sixth of India's population are untouchables. They're now called Scheduled Castes or Dalits, but those words mean the same thing. They're outcasts in society and those who attack or exploit them tend to not face prosecution for those crimes. When they do go to trial, they have a much higher chance of acquital because of the Indian legal system's bias against the Dalits.

India created fast-track courts to try and deal with the crimes against Dalits. Of the 50,000 such cases pending in Uttar Pradesh, four have been tried in the fast-track courts in the last five years. Apparently, "fast" has a different meaning in India.

In America, religious freedom does not guarantee religious practice. That's why the Mormons weren't allowed to have more than one wife, although they could believe it was their right. India needs a similar legal precedent to protect the untouchables. Of course, that would result in massive religious conflict and upheaval, but, hey... what's a little civil war among friends?

OK, so maybe that's not such a great idea. Dalits have often sought refuge in changing religion, but even among Sikhs, Christians, and Muslims, prior caste in the Hindu system follows the convert. It's cultural cruelty, with some of the cases approaching the brutality of forcing widows to die with their husbands on their funeral pyres.

A Reflection on George Orwell, Red Cloud, Heaven, and Hell

We of the sinking middle class may sink without further struggles into the working class where we belong, and probably when we get there it will not be so dreadful as we feared, for, after all, we have nothing to lose. -- George Orwell

As election time draws closer, I become reflective upon the process: what the mythology says it is and what it actually is.

In American mythology, the people speak on voting day. They choose their leaders, who could be just about anyone who wants to try his hand at running things, and the government responds to the mandate of the people.

In reality, the people vote upon a pre-approved slate of candidates who either are members of the Republican or Democrat parties, who enjoy a co-dominion in US politics, or they vote for people who had to do far, far more than show up sober to one of the Republican or Democrat nominating committees. These outsiders are kept as outside as possible by the major parties. They must raise huge sums to compete, or in some states to even file a candidacy. They must amass signatures to prove they have a modicum of support. Why don't the major parties jump through those hoops? The fix is in. They already know they have power and money, so they need not display it like everyone else. And who wrote these laws, which serve as barriers to entry in the free market of ideas? The Republicans and Democrats.

And do they respond to the people? They respond to the people to some degree, it is true. I won't be entirely cynical. But they respond even more readily to huge lobbying efforts on behalf of massive corporate entities and the richest 1% of the richest 1% of American families. America has been bought and paid for, and 99.99% of its citizens aren't on the board of directors.90% of Americans don't even own a share large enough to be noticed, even for a moment, at a blue-plate fundraising dinner. This is not their America. This is, and always has been, the America of the untitled aristocracy.

Income disparity continues to widen in America. This is not necessarily a bad thing in the long run. As my electric bill robs me of plans for my future and I struggle to slay the hydra of debt, the very money I pay to keep the wolves away from my door goes to the pockets of the owners of those wolves and makes their wallets fat with my cash.

All right, so I exaggerate with imagery. Who carries cash, anymore? No, it is their bank accounts which grow ever larger as the electronic bits instantly transfer money away from me and into the laps of the waiting rich, whose government will allow them any tax loopholes their lawyers can write - and when a $500,000-a-year lawyer can save millions of dollars more in taxes, one hires lawyers for just such a purpose and pays them every penny of their retainer fee. And when I pay taxes to the government, who does the government contract with to provide for the common defense, to promote the general welfare, and to secure the blessings of liberty? Ah, that would be the rich, again. Yet again, my money flows uphill.

And defense for who? The poorer the neighborhood, the worse the crime rate. The richer the neighborhood, the more secure the police coverage.

And general welfare for who? The rich pay a much smaller percentage of their income in taxes than the not-quite-so-rich on down to the destitute and starving. The benefits of those taxes go to those whose companies can skim off the public till. The rich even find ways to qualify for farm subsidies and tax credits intended to help the poorest Americans.

Blessings of liberty? The Constitutional rights Americans supposedly enjoy are enjoyed only at the whim of the sitting president. Should he do something unconstitutional, it requires a massive court challenge spanning years and costing potentially millions of dollars in order to attempt to undo. Mind you, that's attempt. There's no guarantee the Supreme Court will agree with your interpretation of "constitutional". Corporations choose to pollute and pay fines rather than clean up. Death penalties are assigned to the poor at greater rates than to the wealthy, yet one does not see a lack of wealthey men accused of murder. One's lawyer can secure the blessings of liberty. or at least the blessings of a prison stretch in a high-quality jail, if paid highly enough. For everyone else, the wheels of justice are made to crush.

No, it is as Orwell says. The middle class will fade and join the poor. It is an inevitable process, perhaps recently sped up by the industrialization of China, India, and the former Soviet Bloc. Their populations are producing millions more skilled workers who are eroding the middle range of salaries in the developed world.

And as Orwell said, it will not be so dreadful a thing as the middle class may be thinking. What do we have to lose but material possessions? When they're gone, we're free.

I am poor and naked but I am the chief of a nation. We do not want riches but we do want to train our children right. Riches would do us no good. We could not take them with us to the other world. We do not want riches. We want peace and love. -- Red Cloud

Let the rich have their riches. I believe in something beyond this life. I am patient. If I have nothing going into the afterlife, I will not miss it at all when I am dead. I will be in heaven. The rich who set their hearts upon the wealth and power of this world will not have it in the next. They will desire it, but they will not have it. They will be in the same place I am, but they will be in hell.

Now I think I understand more why Jesus said a rich man would have a very difficult time getting into heaven. Because of that, Orwell's quote above does not depress me. It sets me free.

The truth is cruel, but it can be loved, and it makes free those who have loved it. -- George Santayana

Might As Well Start Here...

Ouane Rattikone was a drug dealer. What makes him more important than, say, Snoop Dogg is that Ouane Rattikone was the commander of the Laotian Air Force during the Vietnam War. When Alfred W. McCoy interviewed Rattikone for his book, The Politics of Heroin, the General showed McCoy his ledgers of every drugs transaction, so as to dispel any rumors he'd shorted anyone in the heroin business.

Right after McCoy interviewed Rattikone, he contacted the US embassy in Laos. He said he'd heard from sources very close to the general that he was a drug dealer. The US embassy denied Rattikone had any link to drugs, dismissing whatever that source said as a pack of lies.

To me, that is the equivalent of the government insisting that 2+2 = 5. Worse, the government expects every patriotic American to believe 2+2 = 5 in that case and any others where lies are necessary to justify the moral high ground of the government.

At the time, the Nixon administration had launched a war on drugs to drive heroin production from Turkey out of America. It worked. Turkish heroin and opium production plummeted. "The French Connection" smuggling heroin from Turkey faced intense persecution, and faded from power in America.

All this happened at the same time the US intelligence networks in Southeast Asia cooperated with Rattikone, the Binh Xuyen criminal gangs, Nationalist Chinese generals turned Burmese warlords, and Thai government officials - and almost the entire South Vietnamese parliament - in a deal where they provided support for the US position in the region while the US intelligence protected their heroin distribution network from prosecution.

Yes, I could talk about US intelligence drug deals with the Contras and Afghans, but they're not much different from this case. A war on drugs on one hand, dependence on drug dealers on the other to fight some other war.

How did the United States government get in such a bizarre state? How insane does the world have to be for such a thing to happen?

Or am I asking the wrong questions? Is this just a natural state of affairs sensitive minds suffer under, all the while dreaming of a better world to come because of the seeds they sow today?

Given how this story isn't isolated, I'm inclined to believe it's a natural state of affairs. We're just being lied to horribly in this latest version.

There was a time in which those who had power held their power because... well, just because. Why does Pharaoh want a pyramid? Because he's the Pharaoh, that's why. How do you know someone is a king? Because he's not covered in excrement. Simpler times.

Back then, if a king acted like a complete bastard, the peasants had to put up with it. Any peasant rebellion could kill off a few nobles, but would get ruthlessly suppressed later on. Better to just fly under the radar and be thankful for getting Sundays off.

Problems happened when people other than the king got rich. Those rich guys wanted to run things, too. Most places developed an aristocracy to handle the influx of rich people. In Athens, the rich guys got together and made a democracy, except that the demos in question was made up only of the rich guys. There never were any pretensions towards having commoners vote on matters of policy. Why? Because.

Fast forward to the American Revolution. There was a true anarchic spirit in that movement, as embodied in the Articles of Confederation. I read that document because I had always wondered why it was so rotten compared to the Constitution. It wasn't. There were some really nice parts in it, especially the limitations on the powers of the central government and the mandatory term limits. Both of those helped to keep an impersonal supernational government from crushing the rights of the citizens of the nation-states making up the United States.

By the way, I see the same paranoia about the UN in many people who nevertheless swear by the overriding powers of the current federal government. I find such a dichotomy chillingly hilarious.

Anyway, the Articles of Confederation were anarchic. Pretty much everyone agrees on that. But I now see that anarchy as a good thing, compared to what followed. So much of American political mythology depends on the Articles of Confederation being little better than the situation in Somalia, for the writers of the Constitution to rescue with their blessed document.

Yes, the United States were in disarray, as should be expected after the disruption of an 18-year war. That disarray wasn't the fault of the Articles of Confederation, and there were many men around who would argue just that. Please don't sling arguments at me about how wretched the United States were back then. I'll believe that as much as I believe the US Embassy in Laos denying Ouane Rattikone dealt heroin.

The real rescue afforded by the Constitution was to the powers and wealth of the top families of the United States. These guys did not want to see a rabble running the show any more than the Athenians did. Anti-rabble measures are evident throughout the Constitution: the Senate, the Electoral College, no term limits, imprecise wording about state and national powers, and no mention whatsoever of personal rights except as pertains to property ownership.

The Constitution was so unpopular, in order to get it ratified the Federalists had to promise a Bill of Rights. It was nevertheless unpopular and states like Virginia and New York ratified it by the slimmest of margins. Pennsylvania's legislature had to resort to trickery to get it ratified there. I take my pseudonym, Neo_Brutus, from the pseudonym of one of the anti-Federalists, "Brutus".

"Brutus" lacerated the writers of the Constitution:

"We find they have, in the ninth section of the first article declared, that the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless in cases of rebellion,-that no bill of attainder, or ex post facto law, shall be passed,-that no title of nobility shall be granted by the United States, etc. If every thing which is not given is reserved, what propriety is there in these exceptions? Does this Constitution any where grant the power of suspending the habeas corpus, to make ex post facto laws, pass bills of attainder, or grant titles of nobility? It certainly does not in express terms. The only answer that can be given is, that these are implied in the general powers granted. With equal truth it may be said, that all the powers which the bills of rights guard against the abuse of, are contained or implied in the general ones granted by this Constitution."

"Brutus" then predicted a government with no legal restrictions on its actions would put its subjects into a state of vassalage.

And so the arguments in favor of a Bill of Rights went., and so the Bill of Rights got added to the US Constitution. But almost from the beginning, the Bill of Rights meant nothing to a government bent upon circumventing it for its own aggrandizement.

When Adams signed the Alien and Sedition Acts into law, there went the protections of the First Amendment. Sure, victims could argue against them in court, but their rights had nevertheless been overridden Would that the government had not taken such measures in the first place! As it is, a court challenge is a torturous process, covering many years and uncountable legal fees - and the US government can appeal any ruling against it to the Supreme Court.

And what of the Supreme Court? What enforcement powers does it have? When the Supreme Court ruled against President Jackson's ethnic cleansing of the Cherokee Nation in Georgia, Jackson said the court could find its own enforcers and carried on with the ethnic cleansing.

Now, back in the days of the Pharaohs and Caesars, none would ask why Jackson got away with that. The answer would be simple: Because. But in the Constitutional government, that sort of thing wasn't supposed to happen. This is where the mythology of the US reveals itself to be divorced from the reality of the US.

As the monied elites of America consolidated power over time, they did so on a national scale. Their greatest coup was in getting corporations considered as citizens under the 14th Amendment. Equal rights for former slaves? Ha! The 14th Amendment is a get out of jail free card for every corporation in America. This is no recent perversion: very soon after its ratification, that amendment has been sheltering companies from hostile legislation, leaving them free to engage in rapacious practices.

And let us not be fooled by the dire warnings against monopolies. Oligopolies can produce even more rapacious circumstances than monopolies, and that is exactly what the US has dominating its economy. Ours is no free market. Ours is full of barriers to entry and barriers to competition, all erected by the leading corporations of the nation to secure their advantages behind the cloak of law.

Yes, just because something is legal does not mean it is moral. Just because something is illegal does not mean it is immoral. The law will apply when it suits the needs of those in power, do not ever forget that.

We are taught the myth of the progressiveness of the income tax. The rich are supposedly taxed at a higher rate than the poor, right? That is nonsense, and we should recognize it as such. The poor are already paying a higher percentage of their income than the rich in the form of sales taxes. Add to that the burden of paying income taxes without specially-crafted loopholes, and the poor pay a greater share of their income than the rich. The income tax system as it is now is regressive, not progressive.

I mentioned the poor: I should define them. Anyone who is one dread disease away from financial ruin is poor. I am poor. If I become ill due to cancer, my family will be ruined in paying for treatment, or I will die and leave my children and wife without my support. I would add that anyone who is one job away from financial ruin is also poor. If you were to lose your job today and never be allowed to work another day of your life, would you be ruined? If so, you are poor.

There is one more way to identify the poor: they do not purchase politicians or political favors. The rich do that. Read the tax code, if you dare. There are paragraphs describing outlandish loopholes to the tax code which seem to apply to nobody in the nation... then that one return comes in, with a reference to that outlandish law. As Ferdinand Lundberg noted in his book, The Rich and the Super-Rich, suddenly the pieces all fit together.

Who wrote that law? A lawyer working for the person whose return cites it. How did it get passed into law? That same lawyer who drafted it is also that person's congressman, senator, or a close personal friend or business associate of the same. In the quid pro quo world of Washington politics, every congressman will vote for these loopholes if all the other guys vote for his.

These rich stand above the law because they can pay their way to that place. This is not cynicism on my part: this is obvious fact.. Their corporations can commit felony after felony, yet no-one goes to jail. In fact, those corporations can pollute, abuse labor codes, and other malfeasances at will, pay a fine, and carry on with their psychopathic behavior. Chevron once colluded with the MPLA to invade the oil-rich area of Cabinda. The Cabindese thought they were a sovereign nation after Portugal jettisoned its colonies. Chevron and the MPLA made them part of Angola. Saddam Hussein goes on trial for his crimes against humanity, but when a corporation sponsors a war of aggression, it enjoys the profits of victory.

On a more personal level, the rich have much better access to means of evading punishments for criminal activities I will not belabor that point, as it should be obvious that if judges and prosecutors have their prices, it is the rich, not the poor, who are best equipped to pay.

In times of war, it is the rich who profit. Both the Kennedy and Bush families made profits in World War Two selling vital war materiels to Nazi Germany, even while the US was officially at war with that nation. They were indicted under the Trading with the Enemy Act, and then proceeded to carry on violating the act - the money was too great to pass up. They made their fortunes in Vietnam and are making them in Iraq.

Their congressmen and presidents keep the wars going as long as possible. The Cold War ended, but America did not see a peace dividend. The War on Terror has now stepped up as America's interminable conflict. To keep these wars going, our intelligence services rely upon horrible criminals to cooperate with our spying efforts. The thugs and killers give us information we give them protection from prosecution so that the war may continue and, by continuing, increase the profits of the great corporations fueling that war effort.

Americans today are subject to a higher rate of taxation than the French under Louis XVI. While we've had a good run of mythology promoting our supposed rights and freedoms, they are no greater than those of an ancient peasant living out of notice of his imperial masters. Like the hapless peasant of yesterday, if the modern American pays his taxes on time and doesn't get uppity, he can pretty much do as he pleases, provided he also shows up to work on time and isn't prone to disorderly conduct or acts of violent crime.

Today, instead of a hereditary king, America has a rotating king, chosen by the aristocracy from a list of hand-picked candidates. The media owned by the aristocracy touts the virtues and vices of the candidates, but does not allow discussion of other alternatives. The congressmen chosen by the aristocrats will vote in favor of making the rich richer, but prefer to do so with laws they say will provide great benefits to the poor. Lies such as those are vital in order to perpetuate the mythology of America as a great, caring nation.

Our rotating king and the congressmen are constantly sending the poor of America to go and die for profits in the defense or oil industries. These wars entangle top levels of government in association with the top levels of the criminal world and we, the commoners, the poor, are made to swallow the whole untrue equation in order to perpetuate the myth that it is the people at large, and not some aloof aristocracy, which runs the nation.

We live in a trap. Complaining about it does no good. We must instead look for a way out of it. How can that be done?

The Dusty Stranger

An old man walked into the Oval Office. President Bush sat ready to receive a visitor, but hadn't expected this guy. This guy wore a cheap suit, a scraggly beard and leaned hard on his cane.

Well, if he got in here, he must be an important guy. Maybe this old timer owned a huge oil company and just cultivated an eccentric image. Howard Hughes stuff. Yeah, like that Howard Hughes guy. He had zillions. Cool.

Bush stood up to greet the dusty old man. "What can I do for you...ah, what's your name, again?"

"Nathan. Call me Nathan."

"Call me George."

"Nice to meet you, George."

"Won't you have a seat?" The two men sat down on comfy Oval Office chairs.

"What can I do for you, now, Nathan?"

"Well, George, I've got a concern and I want your opinion on what should be done."

"Sure."

"Well, George, it's like this. There are these two nations. One is very rich and powerful, the other small."

Great. Geography. I hope I can pronounce the names of these places. "Go on."

"The small nation is very poor, but it does have one possible hope for the future. It is rich in oil resources."

An oil guy! I knew it! Bush leaned forward. Oil was very, very important. "I hear ya."

"This small nation tried to grow its oil industry. Granted, it had a terrible government. Massive injustices there. But nothing like what was about to happen. Remember that rich and powerful nation? It had been consuming oil at a massive rate in the past, but now consumed oil even more so."

Must be talking about China. Dirty Commies. Still, gotta be careful about China. "Hmmmm."

"This larger nation invaded the smaller one and took over its oil industry. Worse, the government of the larger nation became even harsher on the smaller nation's people than its previous nasty government. As the larger nation looted the smaller nation of its treasures, it also participated in, allowed, or precipitated wholesale acts of violence. This larger nation massacred civilians and whitewashed the whole affair, treating it as nothing. The larger nation even began to withdraw from the Geneva Conventions on Human Rights."

"One question, Nathan."

"Sure."

"Is this larger nation China?"

"No."

"Awesome."

"Excuse me?"

"Sorry, go on."

"Sure, George. There's not much left to say except this larger nation isn't letting go. It's committed to occupying the smaller nation with no end in sight. The murders, robbery, and destruction continue. The people of this nation cry out against their oppressors. The leader of the larger nation insists, however, on keeping things the way they are. He refuses to budge. He refuses to consider negotiations. He seems beyond the reach of words."

Bush's anger took over. He wanted action. "Can the United States do something about this situation?"

"Absolutely."

We will move decisively. Oil is one thing, but murdering the people of a conquered nation? That's just wrong! That's evil! I'm against evil! "Well, Nathan. Let me be frank with you. I don't like what's going on in wherever it is you're talking about. As God lives, the leader of that bigger nation shall surely die. His nation shall restore the damages to that smaller nation plus triple the cost in punitive damages, because he had so little pity to invade that nation in the first place."

But Bush, in spite of his fear of big, fancy names, just had to know who his new sworn adversary was. This man deserved to be part of the Axis of Evil. "Who exactly are we talking about, Nathan? Who is the leader of this other nation?"

Nathan said to George, "You are that man."

"I'm sorry?"

"You are that man."

George looked on in shock.

Nathan continued. "You are the president of the United States, the most powerful nation in the world. You beat two other challengers to the presidency by appealing to conservative Christians and using religion to your advantage. You had all the resources of the United States at your disposal. That was not enough, so you allowed massive deficits in your budgets financed in large part by overseas investors, and even then that was not yet enough.

"Why, then, have you despised the commandment of God, to do evil in his sight? You have ordered aggressive wars against other nations and taken their resources to be your resources. You have allowed them to kill each other with their own weapons more and more as the years passed.

"You lied to the American people so that they would send both sons and daughters, husbands and wives, into the wars fought for gain. You have murdered to get gain, and the Lord has discovered this."

Get this nut out of here. "I think your time is up, Nathan."

Nathan stood up. "I understand. I've said what I had to say. Except one thing: Now therefore the sword shall never depart from your house. Because you have despised God and have sinned in his sight."

George W. Bush, President of the Entire United States of God-Fearin' America, did not let that challenge pass. He stood up and jabbed a finger into Nathan's face. "Where do you get off telling me I have sinned? Nobody's perfect! He who is without sin, let him cast the first stone, right?"

"Hey, this is standard stuff. Ever read about King David?"

"Who?"

"Guy in the book of Samuel, King of Israel, killed off Uriah so he could take his wife. That King David? Well, this is pretty much what God decreed against him back in the day. God is the same today, yesterday and forever, so I came to you with this message."

"How did you get in here, you dusty old bum?"

"Never mind about that. Let's just say your security can't stop everything coming for you. Only God can deliver you from your enemies."

"Well, I pray every day that He does."

"Right, that's why I'm here. To warn you about your greatest foe. You must not allow him to do as he pleases, but must instead remind him of his religion and what that religion requires of him."

This was something Bush could wrap his brain around, telling someone to straighten up and fly right. "And who is my greatest foe?"

"You are that man."

"Not again."

"Afraid so. Now, David was told his son by Bath-Sheba would die, but you're done having kids, so that can't happen to you. The sword never departing from your house, that can stick. And you mentioned about casting the first stone..."

"Yes?"

"You know you cast the first stones in your wars. People who had nothing to do with those who warred upon you have been killed, injured, and left to starve slowly because you chose to cast the first stones. George, I'd advise you not to judge any more, lest you be judged by the same measure."

"But I've tried to serve God!"

"Yeah, and by your deeds, you've given great occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme. That's not serving God."

Bush felt a burden fall on his shoulders and mind. He looked down at the carpet.

After an interval, Nathan asked, "Well, are you going to change?"

"What do you mean?"

"Well, David at least admitted he'd sinned."

"Oh, I've sinned."

"Well, he admitted in the specific instance."

George remained silent.

"Oh come on, George. Admitting you were wrong is the first step toward making things better again. I mean, take David. Later on, he said things like, 'He that rules over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God.' It's possible to let go of your pride and make changes for the better." Nathan paused to give George a chance to speak. George didn't take advantage of that opportunity, so Nathan continued. "Well, you don't have to decide right now. You don't have to decide at all. You are free to choose."

"Who sent you?"

"I beg your pardon?"

"Who sent you, Nathan?"

"You know, George. You know. You prayed and asked for help with the mess you've got. This is your help. My name being Nathan and all, I went with the motif from Second Samuel in the Old Testament. And-"

"So you're a Christian?"

"Does it matter? If you were Jewish, I'd have quoted from the Law. Were you a Muslim, the Koran. And so on. It wouldn't make a difference what your religion was, the message would be the same, just with a different basis."

"What if I was agnostic or an atheist?"

"If you were an atheist, you wouldn't have prayed, so that's a moot point. And for agnostic, there are plenty of philosophers to work with. The point I'm making, George, is that you are that man. You are now seen as the vile oppressor whose men murder in the night and escape justice. Your administration's policies have taken away the freedoms of your nation. Your administration has allowed rich men to become richer still by robbing the poor of both their money and their children. Your administration has constructed lies in order to attack other nations, bringing wars that could have been avoided to those lands. War is a great evil, George. War ends when it has rolled through cities and villages, everywhere sowing death and destruction."

George looked up. "I don't remember reading that in the Bible."

Nathan nodded. "That last one was Nikita Krushchev to John Kennedy about the Cuban Missile Crisis. It's still pertinent to our discussion. Now, speaking of wars, in order to pay for these wars, you have allowed your Congress to run riot with the money of America, and your nation owes great sums of money to foreign hands. You have sold the future birthright of your nation's children for the most massive deficits in your nation's history. You have created a financial situation so dire, there are serious economists talking about the United States defaulting on its debt. You are that man."

Still no word from George.

"Well, I've said my piece, George. I'm not here to heap troubles on you. You should admit you were wrong, though, if you want people to start believing you. You've got some cheerleader nutjobs out there who will support you, no matter what, so you don't need to worry about them. The rest of your nation, though, does not believe anything about you except you may wind up as the worst president so far for the reasons I've discussed. Sort of a combination Herbert Hoover, Richard Nixon, and Ulysses Grant. If you start telling the truth, you can start solving the problems that beset you and the people of your nation will work with you. You'll have to accept compromises on all of your administration's policies and give back much of the power you've gathered for the executive branch over the years... and reduce a great deal of the secrecy the executive branch surrounds itself with."

"But we need national security and-"

"And, yes, there have to be secrets kept in such cases. But I'm referring to secrecy, which exists to cover up mistakes and failings of the administration. Cover-ups serve no good to your people. Besides, God already knows about them. If the people who have done wrong don't face justice here, they face justice in His court. That's what you believe, right?"

George didn't know if he should agree with Nathan or not. Was this some sort of Democrat plot?

Nathan walked to the door. "I'll see myself out. Just remember, you became enraged at the man I first described."

George opened his mouth to reply, but Nathan cut him off with a wave of his hand. As he left, he said, "You are that man."

Failed Nations

Full table here... 

The US is #128 out of 146 on the list. That means there are 18 nations in the world that are less failed than the US. It also means there are 127 more failed, so criticize the States all you want, they're still not anywhere near as bad off as Afghanistan, this year's #10, up from #11.

The sad part is how many of the total failures in the top ten are occupied or heavily influenced by the US. Afghanistan's a wreck at #10, and Pakistan's actually worse off at #9 - plunging there from #34 last year. That's not good for Pakistan to be in that position. Its proximity to Afghanistan and the drugs trade in the border regions can only mean worse things for those who actually want to fight heroin addiction in the world. Both states seem likely candidates to become narcocracies.

Haiti weighs in at #8. The US has been attempting to bail out Haiti since the 1920's. So far, no success with the whole nation-building thing. Even though Haiti is so close to the US, it is so far, far away in terms of being a successful democracy. Part of the problem in Haiti have been the thugs who try and take over every time the US leaves. The other part of the problem are the thugs who are put in power when the US arrives.

Speaking of thugs, Somalia's #7 on our Top Ten countdown. Somalia's its own damn fault and folks in the US are damn glad to have the US out of there every time they watch Black Hawk Down. Chad and Zimbabwe take the next two slots on the chart and then we hit a big number four...

Iraq.

Iraq outscores Zimbabwe by a bare tenth of a point on the Foreign Policy scale, but it outscores that African hellhole all the same. Zimbabwe rates somewhat higher than Iraq on "Mounting Demographic Pressures", "Uneven Economic Development Along Group Lines", and "Progressive Deterioration of Public Services". Iraq beats out Zimbabwe in a convincing way on "Legacy of Vengeance-Seeking Group Activity", "Security Apparatus as a 'State Within a State'", "Rise of Factionalized Elites", and "Intervention of Other States or External Actors". Six of one, half dozen of the other... I wouldn't want to live in either country right now.

Cote d'Ivoire beats Iraq by 0.2 points. Ouch. I know how bad that nation fared last year, and Iraq and Zimbabwe are almost that bad. The Democratic Republic of Congo and Sudan aren't that much further ahead, either, which is the scariest thing of all. Sudan beats out Iraq by the same margin between Spain and the US, but less than the difference between #124-ranked Germany and the US.

According to this table, Iraq's about the same as Sudan. Not much difference between the two, at all, in the overall scheme of things.

Put in another perspective, North Korea is ranked #14. North friggin' Korea! When your nation is worse off than both Afghanistan and North Korea, my friend, it's time to bail out, if at all possible. Folks in Guinea, Liberia, and the Central African Republic (#11-13) can exercise their judgment on whether to cut and run or not. The swains of Nepal (#20) decided to have a revolution just recently, so maybe that's in the cards for the folks in the 19 slots above them.

Given the violence in #22 Nigeria, #23 Uzbekistan, #25 Sri Lanka, and #27 Colombia, something going completely to hell in #4 Iraq doesn't seem all that unlikely. The rest of the nations in that top ten are in deep trouble, too, but it's Iraq where the US has the most troops to get caught in the crossfire.

But when Pakistan falls apart, that's the one to get scared about. Never mind Iran building nukes. Pakistan already has them. What happens in a Pakistani civil war or if warlordism becomes the fashion there? What if a popular, yet extremist, faction gets its hands on one of those nukes, complete with its delivery system?

Let this all serve as a cautionary tale to any nation what seeks the building of empires through brute force: they are but castles made of sand on the shores of the sea of history.

Watch out.

Leave Them Kids Behind

Once upon a time, kids could drop out of school. When it no longer served their needs as an institution, they could walk right out of the doors and never return. They were the high school dropouts, doomed forever to pump gas and say "would you like fries with that" at the end of every business transaction, or so the legends went. Actually, a good number of them wound up in jails because they didn't have good enough jobs to afford the kinds of lawyers that keep criminals out of jails.

Meanwhile, the kids who stayed in school got to enjoy a much better educational experience once the dropouts dropped out. No longer were their classes clogged with disruptive types who were held in classes against their wills. There were one or two, but a teacher could handle those ruffians and deliver some quality teaching to the rest of the bunch.

Enter egalitarianist reform.

Shocked and horrified by the numbers of crimes committed by high school dropouts, people with no clue about education decided to pass laws to keep those guys in school and to make sure they graduated, or the teachers and administrators of those districts would catch all hell, because, of course, it was all their fault for some kids being either too lazy or too stupid to master the skills necessary to graduate high school.

Now, we got kids who used to drop out forced into the system again. I don't know about the number of crimes committed by high school dropouts, but I know the number of crimes committed by high school <em>students</em> on campus is spiking in districts in and around where I teach. Worse, there's pressure to make sure <em>everyone</em> passes the courses and state tests necessary to graduate. If we get too many kids in a minority subpopulation who fail to go the distance, our entire school gets labeled as "non-performing", no matter how many National Merit scholars we produce.

Our school was "non-performing" for a few months several years ago due to an accounting error that labeled one dropout as hispanic. That put our school 0.5 hispanics over the dropout limit. Fortunately, we were able to prove he was really some other subpopulation, so we were 0.5 under the limit for hispanic dropouts after that. In the meantime, we had some outstanding performance in lots of other areas. AP tests were good, the band and orchestras did great, the choirs and theater kids were outstanding... we even started to have a winning football team again! Never mind any of that, though, if the school is 0.5 hispanic dropouts over the limit. It's obviously a failed institution.

That's only part of the ludicrousness of state and federal mandates that don't take into account local issues and needs. They rule like a blind mole, completely ignorant of conditions on the surface.

Thank goodness they don't look too hard at Arabic or Southeast Asian subpopulations. Arabs frequently get lumped in with "whites" and SE Asians with all the other "Asian/Pacific Islanders". We've got some issues with those kids, mostly new immigrants, but if they can be masked by other high-performing subpop groups, we don't have to get them to work harder. Classify either of them as hispanic, and we're all over their cases like a duck on a junebug. We're on the knife edge with that subpop. We really wish we had more hispanics, so one or two deciding to hit the bricks wouldn't skew our percentages so badly.

The petty criminals stay in school, too. Theft is way up on campus. I even have staplers get stolen out from under me. Staplers! They're only five bucks at an office supply store, but I gotta keep mine locked down, or I'm out that five bucks plus the gas for the trip on over. And never mind the occasional crude language directed at me - we got loads of kids with guns in our nation's schools.

Don't talk to me about metal detectors or searches. They are easily defeated within one week (often earlier) of their installation. These kids aren't in lockdown and have access to the outside in ways folks at San Quentin can only dream of. The guns are in every school and it's a miracle the body count in our schools is as low as it is.

Maybe it's because a lot of these guys are also coming to school stoned. If they're too mellow to open fire, that's a good thing. Don't let them drink alcohol - that's a nasty mix with handguns - but maybe we could look the other way on the pot if we're forced to keep the violent guys in school. Maybe if we had methadone in the school clinic, we could cut waaaaaay back on fights in the halls. That way, we could keep kids in school and maintain a secure environment. I'm thinking something along the lines of the opium dens the British and French used in Asia back under colonialism.

But will they learn? Nope. Not that it's different from what they're doing now. They don't want to be in school, and preaching polemics about the glories of edumacashun is not going to change any of their minds. I was once told to never try to teach a pig to dance, as it would frustrate me and annoy the pig. Someone should change that proverb to be a little more direct so the geniuses in the legislatures will figure out that trying to teach someone who doesn't want to learn what I'm teaching will frustrate me and annoy the student.

There are days where my heart leaps within me when I notice certain students aren't in my classroom. Even better is when one of these lambs is in alternative educational placement - the modern school equivalent of spending a night in jail. You may have once known it as in-school suspension. That didn't have enough syllables, though, so it needed changing to sound more confusing. I think it should be shortened to "school jail", so the proper stigma is associated with the sentence.

But, yeah, my heart leaps... if I know a troublemaker is gone for three days, I know I can cover a lot more ground in that class than usual. I can have great discussions, meaningful conversations, and happier students. Then, when ol' Sunshine returns and asks "Hey, didja miss me?", we return to the same old power struggle grind between a guy who doesn't want to be in my class and me, the guy who doesn't want to force him to be there.

I fail to see the societal benefit of keeping the louts in the schools. They should be turned loose after 6th grade, really. That would make junior high so much more pleasant. And believe me, it needs all the help it can get. I do not fail to see the societal plague of "No Child Left Behind". NCLB results in worse classroom environments, dumber classes, and more miserable educations for the good kids.

I'm serious. They break out into applause when the hoodlums withdraw from school. Imagine how much happier they'd be if those same hoodlums were gone much, much earlier.

And for goodness' sake, quit holding teachers responsible for dumb and/or lazy kids. I've got a teenager, myself. I want her to be responsible for her actions. I don't blame teachers when she exercises poor judgment. Bless her heart, but it's her fault when she does something wrong. She can fix it up and get better at not screwing up, and that's what we want in our adults, right?

But it gets to a point where it's not the parents' fault anymore. It's not the teachers' fault. It's the damn kid who's taking advantage of the system as much as possible. If the exploiter has to be forced into staying in school, he's going to force everyone else to be as miserable as he is. Let him go, and he'll stop being a pill.

What to do with the little potential criminal? If he can't hold down a job, don't give out any benefits from the state. That only rewards irresponsibility. Either let him realize he's got to get his act together and get back into school the right way, or let him live a hard luck life. Maybe he could take one of those legendary jobs Americans supposedly don't want to take.

But these are teenagers we're dealing with. Human free will is one hellacious statistical variable, and these guys are just loaded with it! How can anyone reasonably hold anyone else responsible for what a teenager does?

I know I've got some extremist ideas about schools. But getting rid of NCLB would be one step towards making public education that much less of a failure in America. We're a nation built on ideals of free choice, personal responsibility, and work ethics, so why should we have a government system built on command economics, shifted blame, and screwball statistics?

Leave 'em behind if they can't appreciate the system. Maybe all they really need is a different road from what the rest of the nation is traveling on.

The Good, the Bad, and the WTF: The Neo-Con International Landscape

On 29 January 2002, President Bush delivered his famous "Axis of Evil" speech. He thrust an accusing finger in the faces of Iraq, Iran, and North Korea. He also said the US was "working with Russia and China... in ways we never have before, to achieve peace and prosperity." Back on the list of enemies, Bush had this to say, "Our enemies send other people's children on missions of suicide and murder.... We choose freedom and the dignity of every life."

I won't go into whether or not Bush is sending other people's children on missions of suicide and murder, nor will I consider if Bush's last statement there was a backhanded anti-abortion statement. I'll take his words at face value. I like the bit about freedom and dignity of every life. I agree with that. And if he's against guys who force children into their armies, I'm right there with him. Something should be done about the butchers of children around the world.

But, ah! Has President Bush committed an error of Wilsonian proportions? When Woodrow Wilson went out on an ideological limb at Versailles, he pushed for freedom for all oppressed peoples, then found out there were oppressed peoples he'd never heard of. Worse, quite a few of the oppressed peoples were in the empires of America's erstwhile allies, France and Britain. Wilson retreated from his earlier push, but he'd already put the idea into radical heads around the world. Arabs were particularly excited at the time, having been promised freedom from the Ottomans and a state of their own in exchange for helping the British defeat the Turks. They were as yet unaware of Britain and France's agreement to take the dismembered Turkish provinces for themselves.

Frustrated, the Arabs began resisting foreign rule. Their resistance included acts of terror. Jewish settlers in Palestine also began carrying out acts of terror against the British. The very sort of ethnic terror that caused the first world war started over anew. Arabs weren't the only ones with a beef. There were resistance movements elsewhere in Africa and Asia, all determined to get rid of their colonial masters. All resistance movements engaged in acts of terror against the governments determined to be their oppressors.

That's what a fight for independence involves - fighting. Gandhi's nonviolence was all fine and dandy, but at the same time he was getting people to oppose the Salt Tax, guys like Subhash Chandra Bose and Vinayek Savarkar were actively fighting the British. Bose put together an army that fought alongside the Japanese while Savarkar waged a massive terror campaign in Maharashtra from his base in Mumbai. Bose got discredited as a Nazi sympathizer, while Savarkar fell from historical grace when one of his supporters murdered Gandhi because the nonviolent leader allowed India to be partitioned, which led to war between the nascent India and Pakistan.

Entrenched powers extol the virtues of nonviolent protest. This makes me suspicious. Why would they promote actions that would erode, if not destroy, their power? Turns out, nonviolent protest is a non-starter when the powers that be unleash the hounds and bring down the truncheons. It fizzles further when the government in charge assassinates the leaders of the movement. Martin Luther King? Please. He's dead. Civil rights in the US remain elusive for Africans, Mexicans, and all manner of peoples once seen as the White Man's Burden. Violence, on the other hand...

Tell you what, I'll spot you US civil rights and India if you want to argue in favor of non-violence. I'll then lay out all the successful, violent struggles for independence: China, Vietnam, Israel, Palestine (hey, they got something, although they don't seem to be of the opinion that it's over...), South Africa, Algeria, Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Venezuela, Colombia, Mexico, Texas, Ireland, Bosnia, Slovenia, Croatia, Eritrea, Greece, Bulgaria, and Zimbabwe. Not that all of these produced democratic states - they just managed to get rid of the foreign influence in their nations and were able to oppress themselves afterward. To be sure, I can't leave out the one most relevant to President Bush - the United States of America. The US struggle for independence was armed, fiercely fought, and involved extensive acts of piracy and terror directed against those who sympathized with the legitimate government of King George.

Governments can dismiss nonviolent protesters, but must take violent acts directed against it seriously. Nonviolent revisionists will gladly accept jail time and beatings. Violent change-seekers will shoot back. Couched in ideological terms, both sides in the struggle ask for asymmetrical participation in the conflict. This means women and children, traditional noncombatants, become involved so the enemy will not know who will deliver the next strike against his power base. The resistance uses suicide attacks. The government uses informer networks. Either way, innocence is discarded. It is excess baggage on the road to the final struggle. In places like Congo where manpower has become severely depleted, women and children become front-line soldiers as pathetic as those pressed into service by the Russians and Germans in their epic struggle during the early 40s.

Wilson gave fuel to freedom-fighting terror movements everywhere. Those pesky Arabs he inspired have matured and remain in opposition to pro-Western governments, seeing them as extensions of colonial administrations. Given those governments' cozy relations with the US, it's easy to see how they arrive at that connection. Given the oppressive nature of those governments, it's easy to see how they're upset over such coziness.

For the US' part, perhaps Nehru's observation about the British could be adapted to describe the US: "I have always wondered at and admired the astonishing knack of the British people for making their moral standards correspond with their material interests and for seeing virtue in everything that advances their imperial designs." Given the history of US-sponsored coups, it's not difficult at all to juxtapose US domestic moral self-righteousness with US Bismarckian "blood and iron" policies overseas. Regimes all around the world have taken a fall when the US cast a disapproving eye their way. Iraq is the most violent in recent memory, but by no means the only violent regime change effected by US arms.

Back in 1979, the US experimented with destabilizing Afghanistan as a means of destroying the USSR. The US had brought down regimes before to suit its own ends, but this would be the first time one would fall with such high hopes. Then NSC adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski postulated a severe Soviet crackdown would unleash a wave of Islamic revolutionary activity and lead to enough instability in the USSR to render it irrelevant as a major power. When the USSR invaded, the Islamicists appeared, right on schedule. As the Pakistani ISI forged the mujahaddin into a crack heroin-producing outfit with CIA money, other Islamicists arrived in Afghanistan with an agenda of their own.

These Arab Islamicists formed a group called Maktab al-Khadamat, or MAK. The MAK provided training and logistic support for mujahaddin, but did not do much actual fighting. The MAK counted Palestinian resistance figures, Saudi dissidents, and survivors of Nasser and Sadat's purges of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. The most prominent of those groups included, respectively, Abdullah Yusuf Azzam, Osama Bin Laden, and Ayman al-Zawahiri. Azzam and Bin Laden were originally optimistic about US support, but al-Zawahiri was more philosophical, being aware of how closely the US worked with the Egyptian government to quell the Muslim Brotherhood's resistance there. Nevertheless, they all worked to assist the Afghans in getting rid of the Soviets.

In 1989, the Soviets left Afghanistan and the US cut all support for the mujahaddin. Assassins of unknown affiliation killed Azzam in Peshawar, leaving the MAK without a pro-US counterweight to al-Zawahiri's position. The chaos left in the wake of the US abandonment helped demonstrate the fickle nature of the US' involvement and brought Bin Laden over to al-Zawahiri's point of view.

In 1990, Iraq moved into Kuwait. This ended good relations between the US and Iraq. It also showed how vulnerable Saudi Arabia was. Bin Laden offered the MAK and mujahaddin from Afghanistan to assist in protecting Saudi Arabia, but the Saudis chose instead to invite the US to be their protectors. This proceeded to blow Bin Laden's mind and he placed the Saudi royal family in his crosshairs. To get them, though, he would also have to get the US, as they provided the chief supports for the Saudi monarchy. This would not be an easy thing to do.

Bin Laden's group became known as al-Qaeda and commenced violent resistance against the US-backed hegemony in the Middle East, including attacks outside the region on the US and its allies. The biggest one was the series of attacks on 11 September 2001, which resulted in Mr. Bush making the aforementioned speech.

No tolerance for the Axis o' Evil. Cooperation with Russia and China. Dignity of every life. What was it Nehru said?

There are three classifications for nations in the Neo-Con scheme of things: Good, Bad, and WTF? The "good" nations are those that agree to preserve US interests and hegemony in their geopolitically important region. The "bad" nations are those which engage in outright opposition to US policies in geopolitically important ways. The "WTF?" nations are the ones irrelevant to US foreign policy objectives, but whose situations frequently pop up to embarrass the moral crusades the US is attempting to run in places with important strategic resources.

Know a nation where an unelected few repress their people's hope for freedom? Bush used those words to condemn Iran, but what about Azerbaijan, the oil-rich nation just north of Iran? The Azeris recently had a bout of voting so fraudulent, the BBC reports about it referred to it not as an election but as an "election" where the ruling party didn't have a win at the polls - it had a resounding "win" at the polls. No, Azerbaijan is "good". It will likely remain "good" even if it orders a brutal crushing of opposition movements, as happened in Uzbekistan. Why will it remain "good"? It agrees to pump oil in a way the US finds acceptable. Iran won't follow US orders on oil production, so it's "bad".

Now consider another diplomatic basket case, Uganda. There's not only a repressive government in Uganda, they're dealing with crazed whacko Christian rebels based in Congo, bent on violent overthrow of the government. Current US policy on Uganda, however, is a guarded "WTF?" There is no oil in Uganda, so it's irrelevant if its government supports the US or not. If the Lord's Resistance Army forces more women and children into its ranks as the government plants ever more anti-personnel landmines, the US will continue to completely ignore Uganda as it tries to keep the message focused on how "good" Azerbaijan is and how "bad" Iran is.

So what makes a nation "good"? First off, if it has oil and sells it to the US. That is a very good thing to do. Second, if it has military power and will use it on behalf of US interests. That is also a good thing to do.

60% of the oil consumed in the US is imported, roughly 10,000,000 barrels per day. (2004 figures) 16% of the oil bound for the US comes from Canada. Another 16% comes from Mexico. Just behind those two is Saudi Arabia, sending almost 1,500,000 barrels per day, or 15% of the US total imports. Next is Venezuela which, for all President Chavez' bluster, ships 13% of the US' oil imports. Nigeria handles 10%, Iraq 6.5%, Angola 3%, Kuwait 2.4%, the UK 2.4%, and Ecuador 2.3%: that's the top 10. But don't ignore the next five - Algeria, Russia, Norway, Colombia, and Gabon, which each contribute between 1.4% and 2.1% of the US total. All the above supply about 94.7% of the US' imported oil. They are all, therefore, very good nations whenever possible.

Consider, however, the actual governments of those nations. I'll allow Canada and the UK are nice places. Sure, they have problems, but they don't generate Amnesty International pleas for an end to injustices in those lands on a regular basis. Norway, too, is a nice part of the earth where only its lutefisk could be a contender for a WMD. Human rights activists are not going to be agitating for a boycott of Norwegian oil anytime soon, unless they're in cahoots with the Save the Whales crowd. That's about 20% of the US' total oil imports. The other 80% comes from less savory places.

Mexico isn't all that bad when compared to, say, Angola, but it's still got some big problems its lobbyists want to make sure don't get reported on in America. There's the Chiapas revolt, still ongoing, the strange situation around the mayoral race for Mexico City, and a police force shot through with cops in the pay of major drug dealers which at one time reached up to the office of the president. It may not be a completely failed state, but it is a haven for some pretty severe threats to US security in the form of drugs gangs that have supplanted local authority. Nuevo Laredo, for instance, hosted a war between two rival gangs and their police allies in the summer of 2005. The federal army stopped the shooting for a while, but when they left, the local warlords went back to their business. Mexico also grows its own poppies, so I suppose that makes it North America's own Afghanistan. The heroin trade is nascent in Mexico, but within twenty years, with proper nurturing from competent criminals, should be as unstoppable as the trade that now fuels the clans of the Afghan highlands.

Saudi Arabia... ah! Where else can one see a good flogging of a cross-dresser or women forced to burn to death rather than appear unveiled in public? Such a nice place. Saudi Arabia is so nice, in fact, the Bush administration did not allow any of its citizens to be questioned in relation to the 11 September 2001 attacks, in spite of the fact nearly all the terrorists were Saudi nationals. $1.4 billion worth of business has gone from Saudi Arabia to companies like Carlyle Group and Halliburton - that those companies have extremely close ties with Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney will be seen as coincidental by only the most naive students of human nature. Saudi Arabia continues to flog cross-dressers alongside democratic dissidents and journalists who fail to follow the dictum from the Koran, "Ask not about things which, if made plain to you, may cause you trouble."

Venezuela may sport a Bush-bashing president, but Hugo Chavez has a soft spot for his nation's oil trade. Be that as it may, he did threaten in March 2005 to cut off oil supplies if the US ever hurts his country in any way. That probably means Bush will have to let Chavez say whatever he wants to, which seems to be very unfunny versions of Al Franken's material. The US has officially accused Chavez of trying to create a populist dictatorship and supporting rebels in Colombia. Chavez denies these claims, but he has been keeping a strong hold on Venezuela's government. He'd led a coup to take it over once before, and he is a scrappy fighter. He probably won't go down in any right-wing coup, and the US probably won't invade as long as the oil flows. Venezuela is a nation the US wishes was "good", but has to tolerate its "bad" aspects to allow its oil to continue to flow northward. If Chavez didn't make so much noise, Venezuela would be ignored in the mainstream press.

Now for Nigeria. Nowadays, when I hear "Nigeria", I immediately think of the word, "corruption". Not just the nickel and dime cop on the street corruption. I mean the kleptocratic, murderous sort of corruption huge corporations and Supreme Presidents for Life like to get down to. Between 1960 and 1999, the rulers of Nigeria managed to steal $400 billion from their own people and western aid donors. I actually wrote this part, on Nigeria, on the tenth anniversary of the execution of Ken Saro-Wiwa, who fought to stop the pillaging and polluting of his part of the country, the Niger Delta where his Ogoni tribe lived. He managed to get Shell to leave the delta in 1993, and they haven't returned, but General Sani Abacha ordered Saro-Wiwa executed for treason in 1995. Chevron is currently having trouble with its operations in the Niger River Delta, but is not active in the Ogoni region. No oil company is active in the Ogoni region. Both Shell and Chevron have hired Nigerian police and military forces to kill protesters. Well, maybe not with direct orders to shoot to kill anyone and everyone, but they do kill on behalf of the oil giants. The Nigerian oil is pumped out at gunpoint and brought to the US, where it is sold in nice, clean gas stations, away from the lakes of industrial sludge left behind in Nigeria.

Iraq's situation is a right mess. In the words of The Independent journalist Robert Fisk, "The US wants to leave, the US has to leave [but] the US cannot leave, and that's why there is blood on the sand." The civilian casualties in Iraq continue to mount. We all know President Bush lied about the reasons the US invaded Iraq. It is clear why the US invaded: to physically hold down the oil-producing regions. Americans do not want to believe that, so they continue to sit in delusions, investigating the intelligence situation before the 2003 invasion. It doesn't make a rat's ass worth of difference what the intelligence was. The Neo-cons engineered whatever was needed to get an invasion underway. In history classes, we do not teach that Germany invaded Poland in response to a Polish attack on a radio station inside German territory. Eventually, people will stop talking about weapons of mass destruction and the desire to build democracy in Iraq as reasons for going forth into that heart of darkness. The US is interested in one thing in Iraq: creating a government there which will continue to pump oil to the US, whatever that government may be. Even though the news coming from Iraq looks like a colorized version of Gillo Pontecorvo's "The Battle of Algiers", the US forces continue to torture, cover-up, and kill civilians in the name of... what? Just as the French in Algeria, the US fights out of sheer stubbornness and refusal to withdraw. Because of Iraq, what Americans think of the French is what the rest of the world thinks of America - that is, except for those who hate America enough to want to die trying to take it down a peg.

Angola may only provide 3% of the US' imported oil, but it's still got a sordid story to tell. Back in 1975, Chevron hired the MPLA to invade Cabinda, which was under the impression it was a free former colony of Portugal. To this day, the Cabindese continue to fight against the MPLA government and the MPLA continue to supply oil at rates lower than what the Cabindese were willing to offer. I'll make a slight tangent here to bring in Equatorial Guinea, another oil producer. Its leader had a horrendous human rights record, no problem for the US and UK. He starts pushing for a renegotiation of the oil contracts, WHAM! Down he goes in a coup. Same thing happened to Mossadeq in Iran - mention oil contract renegotiation, and your government will fall hard.

Kuwait is not a democracy. For all the people who thought the US liberation of Kuwait would install a beacon of democracy in the Middle East, the sick joke is on you. It's a constitutional monarchy, with only 10% of the population able to vote. But even if you argue Kuwait's half-democratic instead of half-authoritarian, it's only 2.4% of the US' imported oil made nice by such a distinction. Much of its wealth is built on the backs of cheap foreign labor, which makes up over half the population of Kuwait and over 80% of its labor force. It may not be a slave economy, but only by a few degrees of separation.

Ecuador's oil comes out of its Amazon jungle region. The drilling companies have tried to corral the natives into reservations, but not all comply. To assist in those efforts, the oil companies hired Christian missionaries to assist in the work of clearing the land of pesky indigenous tribes. Once brought to Jesus, promised medical care and education is provided on a minimal level for the recent converts, if at all. The natives are paid for their land in corrugated metal sheets, perfect for building flimsy houses. Then the roads come in. The roads are actually dirt tracks with industrial waste - benzene, tolulene, and other toxic chemicals - sprayed directly on the dirt. This lethal sludge oozes into the soil and ground water. The oil companies say there's nothing wrong with it, the government of Ecuador agrees, and the natives are left screwed. Well, almost. They're suing Chevron in Texas and have banded together to resist exploration expeditions. The Ecuadorian government provides military escorts, but this time around the natives are determined to not let another Ogoni-like situation develop.

For the others, Algeria continues to be governed under a state of emergency and its civil war is not entirely over. Russia is, well... Russia. Going into the depths of its kleptocracy is beyond the scope of this article. Moreover, there's evidence to put Russia almost in the "bad" category, so I'll deal with it there, even though it's an important supplier of oil to the US. Colombia remains wracked by a three-way civil war and Gabon...

What's a Gabon, you ask? It's a tidy little dictatorship in west-central Africa where President Omar Bongo has ruled since 1967. In the last election in 1998, he won nearly 67% of the votes. He plans to stand again for another seven-year term. He's been very fortunate in his politics, having bought off most of his opponents. Gabon politics and society are highly corrupt, which serves its current ruler's needs well enough. He enjoys the blessings of 600-700 French troops propping up his regime. There are rumblings of unrest, however, as more Gabonese demand a bigger share of the nation's oil wealth. President Bongo is responding by packing the army with soldiers from his home province. If, I mean when, Bongo "wins" the 2005 election, he'll likely need that loyal army to keep the palace and oil platforms from burning.

The list of friends with oil, as it were. To paraphrase Bush, they send other people's children on missions of suicide and murder, and they do not choose freedom and the dignity of every life. They're a bunch of rich oilmen riding high on exploiting the mineral wealth of their nations, using oppression and bribes to keep things quiet in the interior.

There are other "good" nations which allow the US to base troops within their borders. Bahrain, Sao Tome and Principe, and Georgia are all happy to host US troops along potential pipeline routes and near strategic waterways. Colombia's got US forces based there, perhaps getting ready to rumble with frisky little Venezuela, should the need arise. Afghanistan's not got much say in hosting US troops. Hamid Karzai would be dead in a Kabul minute if the US troops left Afghanistan, so he's happy to see them place bases all along the pipeline route from Turkmenistan to Pakistan. Out of respect for Karzai's needs, the US announced it would not spray opium crops with pesticides. The 2005 opium harvest in Afghanistan is estimated to be around 8600 tons, almost four times the 2002 harvest.

Pakistan is another "good" nation because of its assistance in US moves in South and Southwest Asia. Never mind what its ISI may be up to. To the folks gathered around their teevee sets to watch the major media news shows, Pakistan is "good". Israel is also "good", in spite of being a rogue nation that's developed nuclear weapons, repeatedly invaded its neighbors in aggressive wars, and perpetrates massive human rights violations against civilians in its occupied territories.

So who's "bad"? France. France is definitely "bad". The French have competing oil interests and oppose the US' empire-building. The US won't go to war with France, but they provide a convenient punching bag for administration officials looking to distract the people of America from analyzing their crapulent foreign policy too closely.

Iran is also a "bad" nation. That's a shame, because Iran's current president has so much in common with George W. Bush. He's an unsophisticated bumpkin being manipulated by his country's wealthy and reactionary religious elites. In spite of their common ground, the two leaders look set to do anything but bridge the potentially violent distance between Iran and the US.

Iran almost went "bad" in 1953 when Mossadeq talked about nationalizing Iran's oil industry, but a timely US-sponsored coup kept Iran "good" until 1979. Iran became a "bad" place when the Islamic Revolution booted out the Shah and created a state hostile to US interests. Iran is obviously building its own nuclear weapons, which the US does not like. Iran doesn't care. Once it acquires nukes, it is immune from US attack and can assume a MAD policy relative to Israel.

Iran is also actively pursuing an expansion of its influence in the Middle East, and the US invasion of Iraq was a godsend to them. Their man in Baghdad, Ahmed Chalabi, sits high up in Iraqi government and freely visits Tehran and Washington. Chalabi also helped con the Neo-Cons into invading Iraq, taking out Saddam Hussein in a way the Iranian army never could have done. The US insists it will create democracy in Iraq, and Iran is ready to assist in any way possible, knowing that the Shi'a majority in Iraq has natural ties with Iran. Once the US throws in the towel and leaves Iraq, Iran will enjoy a friendly neighbor and can apply pressure on other Persian Gulf states to fall into its sphere of influence. It may take a generation of bloodshed, but Iran can wait it out.

North Korea is a "bad" nation that really is bad. Its leaders are insane, their domestic policies a sort of urbanized Khmer Rouge program. If Stalinism ever returns to fashion, North Koreans will be able to brag how they were Stalinist when Stalinism wasn't cool, which has been every day since he died in 1953. The North Koreans definitely have missiles with enough range to hit Japan. They probably have nuclear explosives, although they may not yet be able to deploy them as warheads just yet. Nobody likes the North Koreans, and they don't like anybody right back. They reserve the most hatred for the US, whose bombing campaigns inflicted roughly 1.5 million civilian casualties, or 11% of their population. They might actually do something crazy, but to date they haven't done anything much against the US.

Syria is about to be "bad", but they've cooperated with US torture schemes in the past, so it would take some doing to make them truly "bad". Besides, there's no oil there. What would be the point in invading Syria?

Venezuela will be "bad" if it ever cuts off the US from its oil. Would the US be able to invade, though? It's already overcommitted in Iraq and Afghanistan, so it's questionable if the US is ready to send another 125,000 troops it doesn't have into a hostile urban jungle - and real jungles, to boot.

Russia, officially, is friendly with the US. It tolerates the US War on Terror so long as the US tolerates the Russian version of the same conflict. We're all adults, after all. We know what's really going on. Both states are using violence to hold together their hegemony. Whatever one must say to justify the violence are so many lies to allow the violence to continue under a cloak of morality.

Underneath the cooperative quid pro quo lies a continuation of the Cold War rivalry. Bush announced the US would construct a missile defense program to handle one-off attacks from rogue nations, but the actual defense system looked set to repel a massive nuclear assault - the sort of thing only Russia could deliver. Putin responded in turn by announcing development of new warheads that would evade anti-missile systems, just in case any rogue nation acquired anti-missile systems. When the US balked, Putin responded that if the US' anti-missile system was no threat to Russia, then the Russian "Crazy Ivan" warheads were no threat to America. And so the arms race continues. But Russia isn't "bad" like the French. they're just "good" enough to be praised as a democracy, sort of.

China is a tricky nation to categorize. Although its economy is pumping out goods that bury the US competition, it's also financing a huge chunk of US debt. Should it revise its economy so as not to be so competitive with its exports, it'll also quit buying US debt, which would risk a collapse of the dollar on world markets. This isn't some crazed Cassandra prophecy. Sober heads at journals like the Economist have been fretting over this possibility for some time now. So Bush proceeds carefully with China. The US praises it as a modernizing, more market-friendly nation and China threatens to take the US down if it ever interferes with Taiwan. The US may be an 800-pound gorilla, but China's bulking up pretty quickly, and the US' right hook isn't what it used to be, what with the recent commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan. It would be horribly ironic to watch a United States essentially sit by as China took control of Taiwan by force because the US could not commit troops and had to kowtow to China in order to keep the dollar on an even keel.

The rest of the world are either minor allies of the US or nations the US would like to ignore forever more. They don't have anything the US wants or needs all that badly. If they remain out of the spotlight, it means the US can proceed to carry out its foreign policy without looking too hypocritical in its moral stance.

But, every now and then, one of them flies above the international media's radar, and the US gets pressured into doing something, for goodness' sake. The US sent massive forces into Kuwait to restore "freedom" in the wake of the Iraqi invasion. Bush the Elder claimed the operation there had nothing to do with oil. Strictly humanitarian. Then the media found Somalia.

I remember the press conferences over Somalia. Both Bush and Clinton appointees had this WTF? look on their faces, long before those three letters captured the essence of that feeling. They couldn't believe the press were pushing for US involvement in Somalia on the same "humanitarian" grounds as its Kuwait involvement. For heaven's sake, didn't the media know there wasn't anything of value in Somalia outside the khat bushes and Kalashnikovs? Indignant Americans asked why not Somalia if Kuwait was such a noble operation?

So the US went into Somalia with a "There! You happy now?" attitude. The US could be "humanitarian" there, too. Haiti popped up on the radar around that time and got itself a US deployment, lucky them. When the media freaked out over US military casualties in Mogadishu in the wake of a failed kidnapping of Mohammed Aideed, the US had its justification to pull outta there. Somalia went back beneath the radar and the US kept its boys in Kuwait. The US slinked out of Haiti, too, just in time for the next round of violence to begin there.

Clinton wanted to ignore Bosnia, but again media pressure started another US military involvement. He ordered US planes to bomb the hell out of the Serbs, and the press applauded. Then two young men shot their classmates and teachers at Columbine High School and the pressure for the US to "do something" in Bosnia slackened. It was strong enough to get US forces involved in the Kosovo tangle, but nowadays the media ignores anything and everything about the former Yugoslavia, except to somehow punctuate the "good" still being done by the UN/NATO/US occupation forces, even though the Hague trials are a joke and the occupation forces are heavily involved in human trafficking and drug deals.

The Bush administration has been adept at avoiding WTF? deployments. Sudan has been successfully ignored, as has Zimbabwe. Liberia's proved trickier, because of historic US ties to the nation, but the US might pull things off with an election the non-US-backed candidate accuses of being rigged. Haiti doesn't need US troops when a US-friendly ruler is installed in Port-au-Prince. Because Bush and the rest of the G8 leaders threw a few crumbs to the developing world at their latest get-together, they managed to appease the aging British rockers arranged to confront them. So far, so good at keeping the worthless part of the third world at arm's length.

Unfortunately for the Neo-Cons, they failed to keep the US relationship with Uzbekistan on the down-low. Like Georgia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, and Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan is a scrappy little tinpot dictatorship with either potential as a supplier of petrochemicals or as a pipeline route. The Uzbeks gleefully allowed US forces into their country, ostensibly to support operations in Afghanistan. Those US troops, however, could also get sucked into fighting off enemies of the Uzbek state, of which there are many. Well, even though news the Uzbek leader Islam Karimov had his opponents boiled to death didn't get the US to confront the Uzbek totalitarians, the massacres in Andijan did. Against its will, the US had to lodge a formal protest and the Uzbeks ordered the US to close its airbase there. The US Senate then voted to not pay Uzbekistan any more money for the base. That'll teach them.

But will Uzbekistan's Karimov face the same fate as Iraq's Hussein? Probably not now. As I mentioned earlier, the US is busy with Iraq and Afghanistan. It has to keep ready to smack Venezuela around, as it's got way more oil than Uzbekistan. Even though Karimov is much the worse dictator than Chavez, he will get away with fading into the background because he doesn't have the petro-wealth Venezuela does.

There is no morality in the Bush Administration's foreign policy. There hasn't been morality in any US foreign policy, even during the Carter years - Carter eventually supported the Khmer Rouges against Vietnam. The US has practiced Realpolitik all its history. It is no more a bastion of democracy and freedom than Vanuatu is. Actually, it's less of one. Vanuatu is the only nation in the world that officially opposes the Indonesian grab of Irian Jaya in 1963, calling for freedom for their brother Melanesians there. Vanuatu can't send an army in, but they can continue to fight Indonesian membership in regional associations of nations. Not much, but they do what they can.

Meanwhile, the United States pursues a different path. What nations it considers to be good or bad or worthy of ignorance will change to suit the foreign policy interests of the major corporations and plutocrats of the US. Bush's "Axis of Evil" speech and declaration of a "War on Terror" are pablums for the masses of US citizens to suck on. America's leaders have decided to play a Hobbesian game in the world. Existence for commoners is reduced to being nasty, brutish, and short. The US moves about as Leviathan, just like other Great Powers. But rather than acquiring other lands for direct administration, the US installs governments friendly to the US, in spite of any hostility to their nation's population. That way, there aren't any messy struggles for independence. Any unrest is a struggle against a legitimate government, which can be put down without guilt for the citizens of the US, provided the stories are told properly, if at all.

The US clothes its operations in the style of freedom and benevolence. This means it must occasionally invade another country not in its best interests to knock over, but it's the poor and middle classes of America who pay for it, not the plutocracy. Not much of a problem for the US, even if people protest its wars.

The real problems begin when other people in the world start to believe what Bush said about freedom and dignity. They take that stuff seriously and, like the nationalities who rose up to challenge empires when Wilson called for national self-determination, they rise up to challenge their dictators when Bush calls for freedom and dignity. When these dictators are US allies, the US is left in the unenviable position of crushing the expectations of the freedom-fighters. That makes the US a fair target for terrorism in their minds, for it is the US that enables their dictators to oppress and murder in the name of state security.

At first, I thought Mr. Bush would do something about getting rid of the butchers of children in the world, but now? It's obvious I'll have to do that work without his help in some cases and his direct opposition in others. Seems as though Bush was too quick to judge the oppressive dictators of the world: some of them are his best friends. Let us revisit Nehru: I have always wondered at and admired the astonishing knack of the American people for making their moral standards correspond with their material interests and for seeing virtue in everything that advances their imperial designs.

Abdul Rahman, Part III

Seems as though Mr. Rahman is safe and sound in Italy by now, and I'm glad for him. He was a dead man in Afghanistan. Poor Mr. Karzai, however, has no such relief. He was in a lose-lose situation and decided in favor of catering to foreign pressure. I don't think he wanted to kill Mr. Rahman: far from it. Mr. Karzai seems like a great guy.

The problem is that most the people in his country wanted Mr. Rahman to die for his apostasy. Now that the courts have been fudged in foreign favor, Mr. Karzai's legitimacy as anything more than the Mayor of Kabul has taken a solid whack. I surmise his ability to keep Kabul in control is significantly diminished, as well.

Mr. Karzai is struggling with drug lords to try and establish the rule of law in Afghanistan. With the justice system now obviously corrupted by foreign influence, that particular war is less winnable than before the strange case of Mr. Rahman came to light.

I must confess I'd be critical of the US' backing of Afghanistan's government if Mr. Rahman were killed for his change in belief. As I said, it was a lose-lose situation for Mr. Karzai. Had he given in to the clerics' demands, his authority as a leader would have been weakened in favor of a resurgent Islamic fundamentalism, which is already happening, anyway.

Mr. Karzai wasn't going to win. Nobody wins in Afghanistan. Mr. Rahman had to leave the country in order to get out of immediate harm. Mr. Karzai's still there, along with the rabid clerics, US bases all along a pipeline route, drug lords, and a record opium harvest.

No, nobody wins in Afghanistan, not even the Afghans.

Abdul Rahman, Part II

All right, so the Afghan government has found a way to drop the trial against Abdul Rahman, on grounds he may not have been an Afghan citizen, sane, or both. That makes no difference to the medieval minds that want to put him to death for converting from Islam to Christianity.

Afghan, Shmafghan. If anyone converts from Islam to another religion, some hardliner can insist Sharia be applied and then kill the guy, regardless of his origin. It's also regardless of his status as a refugee, which Mr. Rahman is about to become.

There are voices in Afghanistan rejecting Mr. Rahman be given refugee status. If he was allowed to be a refugee, then anyone wanting a one-way ticket out of Afghanistan could convert to Christianity and get the heck out of the country.

If Paris was worth a mass to Henri IV, imagine what asylum in the West would be worth to a struggling Afghan peasant.

Meanwhile, the Afghans are not happy with Mr. Rahman getting out of the country. In general, they want him dead. Anything less means the government is not respecting Islam in their eyes. As long as Afghanistan remains as medieval as it is, it will never know democracy.

Northern Alliance, Taliban, it's all the same. Nobody wins in Afghanistan, not even the Afghans.

So... the Taliban's Not in Charge?

Then why is Abdul Rahman about to be sentenced to death for converting to Christianity?

Yes, Islam gets a bad reputation in the press from people who don't understand it, but this sort of thing is a matter of a religion using state-approved violence to support itself.

The trial is in the heart of the cleaned-up part of Afghanistan, the capital city, Kabul. That's where Karzai is supposed to be working his magic at transforming Afghan society. He's supposed to be getting rid of all that Taliban stuff about strict punishments for minor infractions and so on. So why is this trial of religion happening?

Yes, I know Islamic law, Sharia, specifies death as a punishment for converting from Islam.One specific reference is in the Hadith, Volume 4, Book 52, number 250, which contains: "No doubt, I would have killed them, for the Prophet said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.' "

But just because the religion demands death for converts does not mean the state must allow it to happen. In the US, religious belief is unrestricted. Religious practice, however, cannot cross certain bounds. When the Mormons practiced polygamy, the US Supreme Court said they could believe in it, but not practice it in their decision denying them a First Amendment exemption from laws forbidding polygamy. That church has since gotten along fine without polygamy as a practice within its membership.

Afghanistan could use a little restriction on religious practice right now. So an Islamic court believes Mr. Rahman should die for converting to Christianity. It doesn't mean the state should approve of that religious practice. If it does, then what difference is it from the Taliban? Yes, I know many Taliban just trimmed their beards and changed hats when the Northern Alliance rolled through, but weren't they also supposed to have changed their minds in Mr. Bush's adventure to build democracy there?

... or was that all just a ruse to build a pipeline and bring back the heroin trade under US intelligence services' control?

There's one way to find out. If Mr. Bush intervenes on behalf of Mr. Rahman, then the US really is trying to help out. If not, then it's all a load of hypocrisy.

In the name of God, the Merciful, the Just, let Mr. Rahman live.

UN Findings on Guantanamo Bay

The US Government denies anything wrong is happening at Gitmo and claims everything is fine, legally and otherwise. Of course they would. Would the USG say anything other than that? They are are building an empire, and empires are always built upon bodies crushed under tyranny.

Here are the Conclusions and Recommendations of the UN report published today. The USG is a disgusting tyrant, and the United States is a nation unworthy of being counted among the nations of the free world. Shame on George Bush for betraying the principles upon which the nation was built and for perpetuating policies which cause terror to grow, rather than diminish.

****************************************

VII. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

A. Conclusions

83. International human rights law is applicable to the analysis of the situation of detainees in Guantánamo Bay. Indeed, human rights law applies at all times, even during situations of emergency and armed conflicts. The war on terror, as such, does not constitute an armed conflict for the purposes of the applicability of international humanitarian law. The United States of America has not notified to the Secretary-General of the United Nations or other States parties to the treaties any official derogation from the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights or any other international human rights treaty to which it is a party.

84. The persons held at Guantánamo Bay are entitled to challenge the legality of their detention before a judicial body in accordance with article 9 of ICCPR, and to obtain release if detention is found to lack a proper legal basis. This right is currently being violated, and the continuing detention of all persons held at Guantánamo Bay amounts to arbitrary detention in violation of article 9 of ICCPR.

85. The executive branch of the United States Govenrment operates as judge, prosecutor and defence counsel of the Guantánamo Bay detainees: this constitutes serious violations of various guarantees of the right to a fair trial before an independent tribunal as provided for by article 14 of the ICCPR.

86. Attempts by the United States Administration to redefine “torture” in the framework of the struggle against terrorism in order to allow certain interrogation techniques that would not be permitted under the internationally accepted definition of torture are of utmost concern. The confusion with regard to authorized and unauthorized interrogation techniques over the last years is particularly alarming.

87. The interrogation techniques authorized by the Department of Defense, particularly if used simultaneously, amount to degrading treatment in violation of article 7 of ICCPR and article 16 of the Convention against Torture. If in individual cases, which were described in interviews, the victim experienced severe pain or suffering, these acts amounted to torture as defined in article 1 of the Convention. Furthermore, the general conditions of detention, in particular the uncertainty about the length of detention and prolonged solitary confinement, amount to inhuman treatment and to a violation of the right to health as well as a violation of the right of detainees under article 10 (1) of ICCPR to be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person.

88. The excessive violence used in many cases during transportation, in operations by the Initial Reaction Forces and force-feeding of detainees on hunger strike must be assessed as amounting to torture as defined in article 1 of the Convention against Torture.

89. The practice of rendition of persons to countries where there is a substantial risk of torture, such as in the case of Mr. Al Qadasi, amounts to a violation of the principle of non-refoulement and is contrary to article 3 of the Convention against Torture and Article 7 of ICCPR.

90. The lack of any impartial investigation into allegations of torture and illtreatment and the resulting impunity of the perpetrators amount to a violation of articles 12 and 13 of the Convention against Torture.

91. There are reliable indications that, in different circumstances, persons detained in the Guantánamo Bay detention facilities have been victims of violations of the right to freedom of religion or belief, contrary to article 18 of ICCPR and the 1981 Declaration. It is of particular concern that some of these violations have even been authorized by the authorities. In addition, some interrogation techniques are based on religious discrimination and are aimed at offending the religious feelings of detainees.

92. The totality of the conditions of their confinement at Guantánamo Bay constitute a right-to-health violation because they derive from a breach of duty and have resulted in profound deterioration of the mental health of many detainees.

93. There are also serious concerns about the alleged violations of ethical standards by health professionals at Guantánamo Bay and the effect that such violations have on the quality of health care, including mental health care, the detainees are receiving.

94. The treatment of the detainees and the conditions of their confinement has led to prolonged hunger strikes. The force-feeding of competent detainees violates the right to health as well as the ethical duties of any health professionals who may be involved.

B. Recommendations

95. Terrorism suspects should be detained in accordance with criminal procedure that respects the safeguards enshrined in relevant international law. Accordingly, the United States Government should either expeditiously bring all Guantánamo Bay detainees to trial, in compliance with articles 9(3) and 14 of ICCPR, or release them without further delay. Consideration should also be given to trying suspected terrorists before a competent international tribunal.

96. The United States Government should close the Guantánamo Bay detention facilities without further delay. Until the closure, and possible transfer of detainees to pre-trial detention facilities on United States territory, the Government should refrain from any practice amounting to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, discrimination on the basis of religion, and violations of the rights to health and freedom of religion. In particular, all special interrogation techniques authorized by the Department of Defense should immediately be revoked.

97. The United States Government should refrain from expelling, returning, extraditing or rendering Guantánamo Bay detainees to States where there are substantial grounds for believing they would be in danger of being tortured.

98. The United States Government should ensure that every detainee has the right to make a complaint regarding his treatment and to have it dealt with promptly and, if requested, confidentially. If necessary, complaints may be lodged on behalf of the detainee or by his legal representative or family.

99. The United States Government should ensure that all allegations of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment are thoroughly investigated by an independent authority, and that all persons found to have perpetrated, ordered, tolerated or condoned such practices, up to the highest level of military and political command, are brought to justice.

100. The United States Government should ensure that all victims of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment are provided with fair and adequate compensation, in accordance with article 14 of the Convention against Torture, including the means for as full a rehabilitation as possible.

101. The United States Government should provide the personnel of detention facilities with adequate training, in order to ensure that they know that it is their duty to respect international human rights standards for the treatment of persons in detention, including the right to freedom of religion, and to enhance their sensitivity of cultural issues.

102. The United States Government should revise the United States Department of Defense Medical Program Principles to be consistent with the United Nations Principles of Medical Ethics.

103. The United States Government should ensure that the authorities in Guantánamo Bay do not force-feed any detainee who is capable of forming a rational judgement and is aware of the consequences of refusing food. The United States Government should invite independent health professionals to monitor hunger strikers, in a manner consistent with international ethical standards, throughout the hunger strike.

104. All five mandate holders should be granted full and unrestricted access to the Guantánamo Bay facilities, including private interviews with detainees.

STATE OF THE UNION TRANSLATION

Bush's stuff is in italics. My stuff isn't. Scroll carefully and enjoy.

In a system of two parties, two chambers, and two elected branches, there will always be differences and debate. But even tough debates can be conducted in a civil tone, and our differences cannot be allowed to harden into anger. To confront the great issues before us, we must act in a spirit of goodwill and respect for one another -- and I will do my part. Tonight the state of our Union is strong -- and together we will make it stronger. (Applause.)

TRANSLATION: I pray every day people don't realize the two-party system as it stands deprives people of a real voice. I pray even harder an armed rebellion doesn't break out, because me and my family would be the first to go to the firing squad.

In this decisive year, you and I will make choices that determine both the future and the character of our country. We will choose to act confidently in pursuing the enemies of freedom -- or retreat from our duties in the hope of an easier life. We will choose to build our prosperity by leading the world economy -- or shut ourselves off from trade and opportunity. In a complex and challenging time, the road of isolationism and protectionism may seem broad and inviting -- yet it ends in danger and decline. The only way to protect our people, the only way to secure the peace, the only way to control our destiny is by our leadership -- so the United States of America will continue to lead. (Applause.)

TRANSLATION: We are going to conquer the world and take all the oil for ourselves. Don't get in our way, or we will cut you.

Abroad, our nation is committed to an historic, long-term goal -- we seek the end of tyranny in our world. Some dismiss that goal as misguided idealism. In reality, the future security of America depends on it. On September the 11th, 2001, we found that problems originating in a failed and oppressive state 7,000 miles away could bring murder and destruction to our country. Dictatorships shelter terrorists, and feed resentment and radicalism, and seek weapons of mass destruction. Democracies replace resentment with hope, respect the rights of their citizens and their neighbors, and join the fight against terror. Every step toward freedom in the world makes our country safer -- so we will act boldly in freedom's cause. (Applause.)

TRANSLATION: This is misguided idealism, but I have to sound positive, or you won't be suckered into the neo-conservative goal of conquering the oil-producing regions of the world and installing puppet governments. To all the dictatorships we currently support, fear not. This speech is for domestic consumption only. We plan to try and kill every terrorist your oppressive regimes create so long as you keep the natural resources flowing to our ever-consuming nation.

Far from being a hopeless dream, the advance of freedom is the great story of our time. In 1945, there were about two dozen lonely democracies in the world. Today, there are 122. And we're writing a new chapter in the story of self-government -- with women lining up to vote in Afghanistan, and millions of Iraqis marking their liberty with purple ink, and men and women from Lebanon to Egypt debating the rights of individuals and the necessity of freedom. At the start of 2006, more than half the people of our world live in democratic nations. And we do not forget the other half -- in places like Syria and Burma, Zimbabwe, North Korea, and Iran -- because the demands of justice, and the peace of this world, require their freedom, as well. (Applause.)

TRANSLATION: There are 122 democracies, but most of them are horribly corrupt and ramshackle. The ones that aren't scare me deeply, particularly the democracy that produced Hamas as the Palestinian leadership. Afghan women are still oppressed by our standards and millions of Iraqis plan to deprive millions others of their ability to be an effective political force. I put Iran on the list of undemocratic nations because, even though they're a democracy, I don't like them.

I WILL NOT PUT CHINA OR SAUDI ARABIA ON THE LIST OF UNDEMOCRATIC NATIONS. So help me, if China wanted, they could make our dollar their plaything faster than you can say, "prison sex". And if the King of Saudi Arabia called me up and said to appear on national television with underwear on my head, I'd have all three networks carrying live footage of me with cotton jockeys on my noggin within half an hour. The demands of my deficit spending programs and our voracious consumption of oil require I keep my mouth shut on how their peoples require their freedom, as well. (Dead, stunned silence.)

No one can deny the success of freedom, but some men rage and fight against it. And one of the main sources of reaction and opposition is radical Islam -- the perversion by a few of a noble faith into an ideology of terror and death. Terrorists like bin Laden are serious about mass murder -- and all of us must take their declared intentions seriously. They seek to impose a heartless system of totalitarian control throughout the Middle East, and arm themselves with weapons of mass murder.

TRANSLATION: Islam is the new Communism. Except for the radical Islam in Saudi Arabia. If the King of Saudi Arabia told me to carry a donkey across the Potomac, I'd have a snorkel, donkey, and naval escort whipped together faster that you can say "Sport-Utility Vehicle". Lord, I hope the Saudis aren't buying nuclear weapons from starving Russian military personnel. That would be so embarrassing.

Their aim is to seize power in Iraq, and use it as a safe haven to launch attacks against America and the world. Lacking the military strength to challenge us directly, the terrorists have chosen the weapon of fear. When they murder children at a school in Beslan, or blow up commuters in London, or behead a bound captive, the terrorists hope these horrors will break our will, allowing the violent to inherit the Earth. But they have miscalculated: We love our freedom, and we will fight to keep it. (Applause.)

TRANSLATION: Maybe if I mention Beslan, the Russians will help me get the UN to order an invasion of Iran. Then again, we're trying to screw them out of oil and gas money by having the Kazakstan reserves get pumped through Afghanistan or across the Caspian to Azerbaijan and Georgia. Azerbaijan. Damn. There's another hellacious dictatorship we've got to support. We love our SUVs, and we will keep third world nations oppressed to keep them. (Grumbles of discontent.)

In a time of testing, we cannot find security by abandoning our commitments and retreating within our borders. If we were to leave these vicious attackers alone, they would not leave us alone. They would simply move the battlefield to our own shores. There is no peace in retreat. And there is no honor in retreat. By allowing radical Islam to work its will -- by leaving an assaulted world to fend for itself -- we would signal to all that we no longer believe in our own ideals, or even in our own courage. But our enemies and our friends can be certain: The United States will not retreat from the world, and we will never surrender to evil. (Applause.)

TRANSLATION: This is my justification for invading the oil-producing regions of the world we can't buy. And Saudi Arabia. Lord have mercy on us all if they ever stick it to us again like they did in '73. Anyway, since there aren't enough soldiers to go around, we're going to need to bring back the draft to invade Iran and maybe a few other places.

I have no idea what will replace Islam as a bogeyman after we wipe it out and bring them all to Jesus. Can't take on the Chinese. They're financing our debt. We're one exchange rate adjustment from becoming the next Paraguay. (Short selling on the stock market.)

America rejects the false comfort of isolationism. We are the nation that saved liberty in Europe, and liberated death camps, and helped raise up democracies, and faced down an evil empire. Once again, we accept the call of history to deliver the oppressed and move this world toward peace. We remain on the offensive against terror networks. We have killed or captured many of their leaders -- and for the others, their day will come.

TRANSLATION: I am referring to FDR. As in the Grand-daddy of Big Government, or "gubbmint" as we like to call it in Texas. If I make a reference to Lincoln, you know you're all going to be collectively screwed as a nation. That's been the case in every State of the Union Address since 1945.

We remain on the offensive in Afghanistan, where a fine President and a National Assembly are fighting terror while building the institutions of a new democracy. We're on the offensive in Iraq, with a clear plan for victory. First, we're helping Iraqis build an inclusive government, so that old resentments will be eased and the insurgency will be marginalized.

TRANSLATION: We remain on the offensive in Afghanistan against the terrorists. That means we cut sweet deals with the opium growers and heroin producers. They'll help us kill terrorists if we keep them safe from prosecution. In Iraq, we're scared as hell everyone figures out the current government, such as it is, is bringing back the secret police networks of Saddam Hussein. This insurgency is going to last another 5-8 years according to our predictions, by the way.

Second, we're continuing reconstruction efforts, and helping the Iraqi government to fight corruption and build a modern economy, so all Iraqis can experience the benefits of freedom. And, third, we're striking terrorist targets while we train Iraqi forces that are increasingly capable of defeating the enemy. Iraqis are showing their courage every day, and we are proud to be their allies in the cause of freedom. (Applause.)

TRANSLATION: Let's not mention the Kurds and Arabs getting ready to kill each other over Kirkuk. Or how the Shia in the south are leaning close to Iran and could kick the British out of that sector faster than you can say "Running-Dog Capitalist". We're only in Iraq as long as we serve the ends of the Kurds and Shia. So help us, if they turned against us, we'd have to bomb them into the stone age, and that makes for terrible television. If this Iraq thing becomes a full-blown civil war, my administration would have been responsible for creating even more bloodshed and instability in the Middle East. (Fear-filled quiet.)

Our work in Iraq is difficult because our enemy is brutal. But that brutality has not stopped the dramatic progress of a new democracy. In less than three years, the nation has gone from dictatorship to liberation, to sovereignty, to a constitution, to national elections. At the same time, our coalition has been relentless in shutting off terrorist infiltration, clearing out insurgent strongholds, and turning over territory to Iraqi security forces. I am confident in our plan for victory; I am confident in the will of the Iraqi people; I am confident in the skill and spirit of our military. Fellow citizens, we are in this fight to win, and we are winning. (Applause.)

TRANSLATION: Everyone's brutal in Iraq, but we're now getting the Iraqis to do all the torturing and extrajudicial killing so our troops look clean again. Like I said, 5-8 years, tops. And don't worry, only the poor people of America actually get wounded and die. (Uneasy shifting, a few hesitant claps that quickly taper off to silence.)

The road of victory is the road that will take our troops home. As we make progress on the ground, and Iraqi forces increasingly take the lead, we should be able to further decrease our troop levels -- but those decisions will be made by our military commanders, not by politicians in Washington, D.C. (Applause.)

TRANSLATION: Remember the Pentagon Papers? We're trying the same strategy and hoping that doesn't happen again. (Dark muttering from portions of the audience.)

Our coalition has learned from our experience in Iraq. We've adjusted our military tactics and changed our approach to reconstruction. Along the way, we have benefitted from responsible criticism and counsel offered by members of Congress of both parties. In the coming year, I will continue to reach out and seek your good advice. Yet, there is a difference between responsible criticism that aims for success, and defeatism that refuses to acknowledge anything but failure. (Applause.) Hindsight alone is not wisdom, and second-guessing is not a strategy. (Applause.)

TRANSLATION: OK, so we screwed up. Shut up already. (Someone in the audience cries an obscene phrase.) Yeah, well [OBSCENE VERB] YOURSELF, TOO, BUDDY! And I know my VP Dick Cheney won't mind me paraphrasing him. (Obscene gesture at the audience, met by increasing murmuring.)

With so much in the balance, those of us in public office have a duty to speak with candor. A sudden withdrawal of our forces from Iraq would abandon our Iraqi allies to death and prison, would put men like bin Laden and Zarqawi in charge of a strategic country, and show that a pledge from America means little. Members of Congress, however we feel about the decisions and debates of the past, our nation has only one option: We must keep our word, defeat our enemies, and stand behind the American military in this vital mission. (Applause.)

TRANSLATION: You know if we bail, they'll all kill each other. A slow burn for 5-8 years is preferable to a massacre, right? Nobody has trusted America since we broke every treaty we made with the Native Americans, but we do have to show the world that when we show up to chew bubble gum and kick some ass, we mean it. So shut up and stand with me, or we're all gonna get killed by the families of people we've needlessly killed. They're not going to give you a questionnaire to see who's side you're on when they come looking for blood. (Angry grumbling.)

Our men and women in uniform are making sacrifices -- and showing a sense of duty stronger than all fear. They know what it's like to fight house to house in a maze of streets, to wear heavy gear in the desert heat, to see a comrade killed by a roadside bomb. And those who know the costs also know the stakes. Marine Staff Sergeant Dan Clay was killed last month fighting in Fallujah. He left behind a letter to his family, but his words could just as well be addressed to every American. Here is what Dan wrote: "I know what honor is. ... It has been an honor to protect and serve all of you. I faced death with the secure knowledge that you would not have to.... Never falter! Don't hesitate to honor and support those of us who have the honor of protecting that which is worth protecting."

TRANSLATION: I'm so glad it's them and not me out there. I'm also so glad I can wrap realpolitik in a US flag and convince young men like this guy that they're dying for freedom when they're really dying for control of oil.

Staff Sergeant Dan Clay's wife, Lisa, and his mom and dad, Sara Jo and Bud, are with us this evening. Welcome. (Applause.)

TRANSLATION: We're not inviting the families of dead soldiers who criticize the war. We're not even gonna talk to them. (Sounds of people trying to get in from outside the chamber.)

Our nation is grateful to the fallen, who live in the memory of our country. We're grateful to all who volunteer to wear our nation's uniform -- and as we honor our brave troops, let us never forget the sacrifices of America's military families. (Applause.)

TRANSLATION: We're grateful, but don't expect any raises anytime soon. Or medical benefits for National Guardsmen pressed into active duty service. You're lucky we decided to finally reimburse soldiers for body armor. That stuff's useless, anyway. You sit on it to protect yourself from mines. Your helmet is for scooping up your guts. Your only friends are your fellow soldiers and you are going to die. What you do will determine if they piss on your grave or pour vodka on it. You are pawns and don't forget it. (Angry shouting from veterans who are getting the run-around from the VA.)

Our offensive against terror involves more than military action. Ultimately, the only way to defeat the terrorists is to defeat their dark vision of hatred and fear by offering the hopeful alternative of political freedom and peaceful change. So the United States of America supports democratic reform across the broader Middle East. Elections are vital, but they are only the beginning. Raising up a democracy requires the rule of law, and protection of minorities, and strong, accountable institutions that last longer than a single vote.

TRANSLATION: We will continue illegally detaining suspected terrorists and flying them to cooperative nations who will torture them for us or let us torture them without tattling. We want elections, but not the kind that elect Hamas. Good grief, why can't these people figure out how to rig an election? It's easy. Just have a brother who's governor of Florida or use them cool Diebold machines. Too bad folks figured out they were hackable. Would have been nice to use them again in 2006.

The great people of Egypt have voted in a multi-party presidential election -- and now their government should open paths of peaceful opposition that will reduce the appeal of radicalism. The Palestinian people have voted in elections. And now the leaders of Hamas must recognize Israel, disarm, reject terrorism, and work for lasting peace. (Applause.) Saudi Arabia has taken the first steps of reform -- now it can offer its people a better future by pressing forward with those efforts. Democracies in the Middle East will not look like our own, because they will reflect the traditions of their own citizens. Yet liberty is the future of every nation in the Middle East, because liberty is the right and hope of all humanity. (Applause.)

TRANSLATION: Suck it, Hamas. You're going down. We're bringing back the draft and we're gonna drive you guys into the sea. (Confused noise.) I'll mention Saudi Arabia in a nice way, but not get into too many details. That's crazy. But I will cover my ass by saying those Middle East democracies will not look like our own. That way, they can get away with all kinds of crazy stuff, like we used to let the Taliban do before they decided to quit negotiating the pipeline deal. (Disgusted silence.)

The same is true of Iran, a nation now held hostage by a small clerical elite that is isolating and repressing its people. The regime in that country sponsors terrorists in the Palestinian territories and in Lebanon -- and that must come to an end. (Applause.) The Iranian government is defying the world with its nuclear ambitions, and the nations of the world must not permit the Iranian regime to gain nuclear weapons. (Applause.) America will continue to rally the world to confront these threats.

TRANSLATION: So help me, I hope they don't already have nukes, or we're gonna have a lot of soldiers get killed when we go into Iran in a few months. (Sporadic angry shouting.) We'll nuke their asses right back, though, so at least we wouldn't have to deal with a bloody occupation. But all that oil... damn. (More profuse angry shouting.)

Tonight, let me speak directly to the citizens of Iran: America respects you, and we respect your country. We respect your right to choose your own future and win your own freedom. And our nation hopes one day to be the closest of friends with a free and democratic Iran. (Applause.)

TRANSLATION: You're next. This is what we said to Iraq before we went in. Get ready, 'cause you're next. (Outraged demands of "Impeach him!")

To overcome dangers in our world, we must also take the offensive by encouraging economic progress, and fighting disease, and spreading hope in hopeless lands. Isolationism would not only tie our hands in fighting enemies, it would keep us from helping our friends in desperate need. We show compassion abroad because Americans believe in the God-given dignity and worth of a villager with HIV/AIDS, or an infant with malaria, or a refugee fleeing genocide, or a young girl sold into slavery. We also show compassion abroad because regions overwhelmed by poverty, corruption, and despair are sources of terrorism, and organized crime, and human trafficking, and the drug trade.

TRANSLATION: OK, disease scares the hell out of me. Diseases can kill rich people. That's just wrong. We have to get rid of those. Drugs have to go, unless the drug dealers are helping us get rid of the terrorists so we can take over the world's oil supplies. Gotta take the bad with the good.

In recent years, you and I have taken unprecedented action to fight AIDS and malaria, expand the education of girls, and reward developing nations that are moving forward with economic and political reform. For people everywhere, the United States is a partner for a better life. Short-changing these efforts would increase the suffering and chaos of our world, undercut our long-term security, and dull the conscience of our country. I urge members of Congress to serve the interests of America by showing the compassion of America.

TRANSLATION: Get ready to provide more foreign aid. Sure, the dictators we support are going to buy weapons instead of vaccines, but we don't have to mention that just right now, do we?

Our country must also remain on the offensive against terrorism here at home. The enemy has not lost the desire or capability to attack us. Fortunately, this nation has superb professionals in law enforcement, intelligence, the military, and homeland security. These men and women are dedicating their lives, protecting us all, and they deserve our support and our thanks. (Applause.) They also deserve the same tools they already use to fight drug trafficking and organized crime -- so I ask you to reauthorize the Patriot Act. (Applause.)

TRANSLATION: Quit dissing the TSA. They're here to stay. They make us look safe, even though they don't make a hell of a lot of difference in actual security. (Groans.) I want to be able to do all kinds of things without worrying about civil rights, so reauthorize the Patriot Act. Or I'll have you on a plane to a CIA prison in Romania. (Wild, enthusiastic applause.)

It is said that prior to the attacks of September the 11th, our government failed to connect the dots of the conspiracy. We now know that two of the hijackers in the United States placed telephone calls to al Qaeda operatives overseas. But we did not know about their plans until it was too late. So to prevent another attack -- based on authority given to me by the Constitution and by statute -- I have authorized a terrorist surveillance program to aggressively pursue the international communications of suspected al Qaeda operatives and affiliates to and from America. Previous Presidents have used the same constitutional authority I have, and federal courts have approved the use of that authority. Appropriate members of Congress have been kept informed. The terrorist surveillance program has helped prevent terrorist attacks. It remains essential to the security of America. If there are people inside our country who are talking with al Qaeda, we want to know about it, because we will not sit back and wait to be hit again. (Applause.)

TRANSLATION: It's all your fault for whining about civil rights that the WTC went down. Freedom is slavery, just like Orwell said. Clap now, you lackeys! (Applause.)

In all these areas -- from the disruption of terror networks, to victory in Iraq, to the spread of freedom and hope in troubled regions -- we need the support of our friends and allies. To draw that support, we must always be clear in our principles and willing to act. The only alternative to American leadership is a dramatically more dangerous and anxious world. Yet we also choose to lead because it is a privilege to serve the values that gave us birth. American leaders -- from Roosevelt to Truman to Kennedy to Reagan -- rejected isolation and retreat, because they knew that America is always more secure when freedom is on the march.

TRANSLATION: Not yet referring to Lincoln. I'm warming up, though. Anyway, war is peace. That's the second thing Orwell got right.

Our own generation is in a long war against a determined enemy -- a war that will be fought by Presidents of both parties, who will need steady bipartisan support from the Congress. And tonight I ask for yours. Together, let us protect our country, support the men and women who defend us, and lead this world toward freedom. (Applause.)

TRANSLATION: Yes, I know Hilary Clinton will win in 2008, but I'm certain she's as much of a warmonger as I am. Ignorance is strength. That's the hat trick for Orwell. Two minutes' hate, now. (Applause.)

Here at home, America also has a great opportunity: We will build the prosperity of our country by strengthening our economic leadership in the world.

TRANSLATION: We're screwed if we can't sell our debt. Interest rates are going to have to go higher.

Our economy is healthy and vigorous, and growing faster than other major industrialized nations. In the last two-and-a-half years, America has created 4.6 million new jobs -- more than Japan and the European Union combined. (Applause.) Even in the face of higher energy prices and natural disasters, the American people have turned in an economic performance that is the envy of the world.

TRANSLATION: We're in hock up to our eyeballs. We can't keep this up forever, but maybe the crash won't happen until after Hilary's sworn into office in 2009. I'll be good and gone by then. (Hesitant applause.) Guards! (Weapons getting ready.) (Obviously forced enthusiastic applause.)

The American economy is preeminent, but we cannot afford to be complacent. In a dynamic world economy, we are seeing new competitors, like China and India, and this creates uncertainty, which makes it easier to feed people's fears. So we're seeing some old temptations return. Protectionists want to escape competition, pretending that we can keep our high standard of living while walling off our economy. Others say that the government needs to take a larger role in directing the economy, centralizing more power in Washington and increasing taxes. We hear claims that immigrants are somehow bad for the economy -- even though this economy could not function without them. (Applause.) All these are forms of economic retreat, and they lead in the same direction -- toward a stagnant and second-rate economy.

TRANSLATION: China and India are why we have to grab the oil first. And we need immigrants as a source of cheap labor or we're screwed. That's the only reason I'm in favor of them. You already know my stand on civil liberties. Heh. (Sounds of people outside screaming, some indications of a struggle.)

Tonight I will set out a better path: an agenda for a nation that competes with confidence; an agenda that will raise standards of living and generate new jobs. Americans should not fear our economic future, because we intend to shape it.

TRANSLATION: Here it comes.

Keeping America competitive begins with keeping our economy growing. And our economy grows when Americans have more of their own money to spend, save, and invest. In the last five years, the tax relief you passed has left $880 billion in the hands of American workers, investors, small businesses, and families -- and they have used it to help produce more than four years of uninterrupted economic growth. (Applause.) Yet the tax relief is set to expire in the next few years. If we do nothing, American families will face a massive tax increase they do not expect and will not welcome. Because America needs more than a temporary expansion, we need more than temporary tax relief. I urge the Congress to act responsibly, and make the tax cuts permanent. (Applause.)

TRANSLATION: If you don't pass the tax cut, you're going to get lynched. (Golf claps.)

Keeping America competitive requires us to be good stewards of tax dollars. Every year of my presidency, we've reduced the growth of non-security discretionary spending, and last year you passed bills that cut this spending. This year my budget will cut it again, and reduce or eliminate more than 140 programs that are performing poorly or not fulfilling essential priorities. By passing these reforms, we will save the American taxpayer another $14 billion next year, and stay on track to cut the deficit in half by 2009. (Applause.)

TRANSLATION: I am lying. All the discretionary spending took off like a rocket, but I've cooked the books for you all. And if we don't cut the deficit by 2009, we won't be able to stay in business as a nation. Them's the breaks. Remember what happened to Mexico and their peso crisis? Well, act confident or it's gonna happen to us. You know how investors get spooked! (Applause.)

I am pleased that members of Congress are working on earmark reform, because the federal budget has too many special interest projects. (Applause.) And we can tackle this problem together, if you pass the line-item veto. (Applause.)

TRANSLATION: Pork away! But give me the line-item veto so I can starve the Democrats' pork and have only Republicans get elected. (Applause from the Republican side only.)

We must also confront the larger challenge of mandatory spending, or entitlements. This year, the first of about 78 million baby boomers turn 60, including two of my Dad's favorite people -- me and President Clinton. (Laughter.) This milestone is more than a personal crisis -- (laughter) -- it is a national challenge. The retirement of the baby boom generation will put unprecedented strains on the federal government. By 2030, spending for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid alone will be almost 60 percent of the entire federal budget. And that will present future Congresses with impossible choices -- staggering tax increases, immense deficits, or deep cuts in every category of spending. Congress did not act last year on my proposal to save Social Security -- (applause) -- yet the rising cost of entitlements is a problem that is not going away. (Applause.) And every year we fail to act, the situation gets worse.

TRANSLATION: Come on, we're all rich people in charge, so why should we have to give all that money to the poor? I'm sure there's some way we can cancel welfare and divert that pile of loot to ourselves. (Laughter, then applause.) Otherwise, we'll go bankrupt because of laws passed by that sonofabitch Roosevelt. (Shock.)

So tonight, I ask you to join me in creating a commission to examine the full impact of baby boom retirements on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. This commission should include members of Congress of both parties, and offer bipartisan solutions. We need to put aside partisan politics and work together and get this problem solved. (Applause.)

TRANSLATION: Figure out a way we can get ourselves out of this mess without having to also get out of Iraq and cancel the invasion of Iran. (Uneasy muttering.) Guards! (Spineless, fawning applause.)

Keeping America competitive requires us to open more markets for all that Americans make and grow. One out of every five factory jobs in America is related to global trade, and we want people everywhere to buy American. With open markets and a level playing field, no one can out-produce or out-compete the American worker. (Applause.)

TRANSLATION: With luck, our oligopolies can crush foreign competition. We'll claim it's fair trade, but you all know there are some big checks from lobbyists coming your way if you can make this happen. (Applause.)

Keeping America competitive requires an immigration system that upholds our laws, reflects our values, and serves the interests of our economy. Our nation needs orderly and secure borders. (Applause.) To meet this goal, we must have stronger immigration enforcement and border protection. (Applause.) And we must have a rational, humane guest worker program that rejects amnesty, allows temporary jobs for people who seek them legally, and reduces smuggling and crime at the border. (Applause.)

TRANSLATION: Let's shoot all the bad immigrants and have the others pick lettuce and program on the cheap. Man, that tunnel from Mexico into California really freaks me out. (Mutters of agreement.)

Keeping America competitive requires affordable health care. (Applause.) Our government has a responsibility to provide health care for the poor and the elderly, and we are meeting that responsibility. (Applause.) For all Americans -- for all Americans, we must confront the rising cost of care, strengthen the doctor-patient relationship, and help people afford the insurance coverage they need. (Applause.)

TRANSLATION: I know Republicans shot down Hilary's health care plan a few years ago, but she's coming in 2008, so I figured I'd take the credit for it by getting it passed myself. Steal her thunder. Ha ha ha. (Applause from the Republican side only.) (Dirty looks from Senator Clinton.)

We will make wider use of electronic records and other health information technology, to help control costs and reduce dangerous medical errors. We will strengthen health savings accounts -- making sure individuals and small business employees can buy insurance with the same advantages that people working for big businesses now get. (Applause.) We will do more to make this coverage portable, so workers can switch jobs without having to worry about losing their health insurance. (Applause.) And because lawsuits are driving many good doctors out of practice -- leaving women in nearly 1,500 American counties without a single OB/GYN -- I ask the Congress to pass medical liability reform this year. (Applause.)

TRANSLATION: Expect more junk mail. Lots of it. And my doctor friends want me to throw them a bone. If we let the lawyers sue the fast food companies, maybe they'll cut the doctors some slack. (Hesitant applause.)

Keeping America competitive requires affordable energy. And here we have a serious problem: America is addicted to oil, which is often imported from unstable parts of the world. The best way to break this addiction is through technology. Since 2001, we have spent nearly $10 billion to develop cleaner, cheaper, and more reliable alternative energy sources -- and we are on the threshold of incredible advances.

TRANSLATION: We're not going to conserve. That's what got Carter kicked out of office, talk like that. No, we're going to divert $10 billion to my buddies in the energy industry to figure out that there really isn't any fuel as efficient as gasoline, which is really scary when you think about it.

So tonight, I announce the Advanced Energy Initiative -- a 22-percent increase in clean-energy research -- at the Department of Energy, to push for breakthroughs in two vital areas. To change how we power our homes and offices, we will invest more in zero-emission coal-fired plants, revolutionary solar and wind technologies, and clean, safe nuclear energy. (Applause.)

TRANSLATION: It's a done deal. $10 billion from the back pockets of American taxpayers and into the bank accounts of people too rich to pay any real taxes. (Applause from all of Bush's oil buddies.)

We must also change how we power our automobiles. We will increase our research in better batteries for hybrid and electric cars, and in pollution-free cars that run on hydrogen. We'll also fund additional research in cutting-edge methods of producing ethanol, not just from corn, but from wood chips and stalks, or switch grass. Our goal is to make this new kind of ethanol practical and competitive within six years. (Applause.)

TRANSLATION: All this stuff can really mess up the environment once you get beyond consuming waste materials, which is only enough to meet a fraction of our energy demands. Hell, we burn almost 9 million barrels of gasoline every DAY. That's way the hell more than any other nation on the earth, even when adjusted for population discrepancies. But we're gonna go with the ethanol so all the Big Oil companies can get even bigger farm subsidy checks. (More applause from all of Bush's oil buddies.)

Breakthroughs on this and other new technologies will help us reach another great goal: to replace more than 75 percent of our oil imports from the Middle East by 2025. (Applause.) By applying the talent and technology of America, this country can dramatically improve our environment, move beyond a petroleum-based economy, and make our dependence on Middle Eastern oil a thing of the past. (Applause.)

TRANSLATION: Dream on. We're still gay for Saudi oil. What do you think all these damn wars are for, anyway? Why would we be occupying Iraq if it wasn't all about the oil? (Silence.)

And to keep America competitive, one commitment is necessary above all: We must continue to lead the world in human talent and creativity. Our greatest advantage in the world has always been our educated, hardworking, ambitious people -- and we're going to keep that edge. Tonight I announce an American Competitiveness Initiative, to encourage innovation throughout our economy, and to give our nation's children a firm grounding in math and science. (Applause.)

TRANSLATION: Ignorance is strength, just like I said. If I can bog down the public school system with enough people who should have dropped out, the deadweight will eventually make them all non-performing and the whole thing falls apart. More money for us! Yay! (Applause.)

First, I propose to double the federal commitment to the most critical basic research programs in the physical sciences over the next 10 years. This funding will support the work of America's most creative minds as they explore promising areas such as nanotechnology, supercomputing, and alternative energy sources.

TRANSLATION: OK, so we need a few geeks. This is for them.

Second, I propose to make permanent the research and development tax credit -- (applause) -- to encourage bolder private-sector initiatives in technology. With more research in both the public and private sectors, we will improve our quality of life -- and ensure that America will lead the world in opportunity and innovation for decades to come. (Applause.)

TRANSLATION: Tax credits... the ultimate bait and switch! Your voters are gonna love this. Your corporate campaign contributors are gonna love it even more. (Wild applause.)

Third, we need to encourage children to take more math and science, and to make sure those courses are rigorous enough to compete with other nations. We've made a good start in the early grades with the No Child Left Behind Act, which is raising standards and lifting test scores across our country. Tonight I propose to train 70,000 high school teachers to lead advanced-placement courses in math and science, bring 30,000 math and science professionals to teach in classrooms, and give early help to students who struggle with math, so they have a better chance at good, high-wage jobs. If we ensure that America's children succeed in life, they will ensure that America succeeds in the world. (Applause.)

TRANSLATION: We'll throw money at schools for now, but No Child Left Behind leaves them all doomed to failure. Aren't you glad all your kids are in private school, where they don't have to mix with all the riff-raff the law says we can't let drop out of school? (Applause.)

Preparing our nation to compete in the world is a goal that all of us can share. I urge you to support the American Competitiveness Initiative, and together we will show the world what the American people can achieve.

TRANSLATION: No details on this. They're better left unsaid. You know why.

America is a great force for freedom and prosperity. Yet our greatness is not measured in power or luxuries, but by who we are and how we treat one another. So we strive to be a compassionate, decent, hopeful society.

TRANSLATION: Blah blah blah. Nobody's paying attention now. I'll say some fluff just to wrap things up.

In recent years, America has become a more hopeful nation. Violent crime rates have fallen to their lowest levels since the 1970s. Welfare cases have dropped by more than half over the past decade. Drug use among youth is down 19 percent since 2001. There are fewer abortions in America than at any point in the last three decades, and the number of children born to teenage mothers has been falling for a dozen years in a row. (Applause.)

TRANSLATION: Blah blah lies about drug use blah blah blah fudging of numbers blah blah blah (Perfunctory applause.)

These gains are evidence of a quiet transformation -- a revolution of conscience, in which a rising generation is finding that a life of personal responsibility is a life of fulfillment. Government has played a role. Wise policies, such as welfare reform and drug education and support for abstinence and adoption have made a difference in the character of our country. And everyone here tonight, Democrat and Republican, has a right to be proud of this record. (Applause.)

TRANSLATION: Blah blah blah pat yourselves on the back (Applause.)

Yet many Americans, especially parents, still have deep concerns about the direction of our culture, and the health of our most basic institutions. They're concerned about unethical conduct by public officials, and discouraged by activist courts that try to redefine marriage. They worry about children in our society who need direction and love, and about fellow citizens still displaced by natural disaster, and about suffering caused by treatable diseases.

TRANSLATION: Blah blah blah why do Muslims get to be the only religious extremists in the world?

As we look at these challenges, we must never give in to the belief that America is in decline, or that our culture is doomed to unravel. The American people know better than that. We have proven the pessimists wrong before -- and we will do it again. (Applause.)

TRANSLATION: Seriously, let's bring back some of them cool Old Testament laws. (Applause from all the religious extremists.)

A hopeful society depends on courts that deliver equal justice under the law. The Supreme Court now has two superb new members -- new members on its bench: Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Sam Alito. (Applause.) I thank the Senate for confirming both of them. I will continue to nominate men and women who understand that judges must be servants of the law, and not legislate from the bench. (Applause.)

TRANSLATION: Alito was a slam-dunk Ha ha ha. Now we can have the court reinterpret "civil rights" into what Alexander Hamilton wanted - nothingness.

Today marks the official retirement of a very special American. For 24 years of faithful service to our nation, the United States is grateful to Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. (Applause.)

TRANSLATION: Blah blah blah some chick in a robe blah blah blah (Applause because it's almost over.)

A hopeful society has institutions of science and medicine that do not cut ethical corners, and that recognize the matchless value of every life. Tonight I ask you to pass legislation to prohibit the most egregious abuses of medical research: human cloning in all its forms, creating or implanting embryos for experiments, creating human-animal hybrids, and buying, selling, or patenting human embryos. Human life is a gift from our Creator -- and that gift should never be discarded, devalued or put up for sale. (Applause.)

TRANSLATION: Sure, I said I wanted more science, but not the stuff that goes against my extremist, obscurantist religious views.

(Hopeful blather...)

A hopeful society comes to the aid of fellow citizens in times of suffering and emergency -- and stays at it until they're back on their feet. So far the federal government has committed $85 billion to the people of the Gulf Coast and New Orleans. We're removing debris and repairing highways and rebuilding stronger levees. We're providing business loans and housing assistance. Yet as we meet these immediate needs, we must also address deeper challenges that existed before the storm arrived.

TRANSLATION: $85 billion in rigged contracts. More money for my buddies. Ha ha ha.

In New Orleans and in other places, many of our fellow citizens have felt excluded from the promise of our country. The answer is not only temporary relief, but schools that teach every child, and job skills that bring upward mobility, and more opportunities to own a home and start a business. As we recover from a disaster, let us also work for the day when all Americans are protected by justice, equal in hope, and rich in opportunity. (Applause.)

TRANSLATION: So help me I don't want all those dusky peoples to start rioting.

A hopeful society acts boldly to fight diseases like HIV/AIDS, which can be prevented, and treated, and defeated. More than a million Americans live with HIV, and half of all AIDS cases occur among African Americans. I ask Congress to reform and reauthorize the Ryan White Act, and provide new funding to states, so we end the waiting lists for AIDS medicines in America. (Applause.) We will also lead a nationwide effort, working closely with African American churches and faith-based groups, to deliver rapid HIV tests to millions, end the stigma of AIDS, and come closer to the day when there are no new infections in America. (Applause.)

TRANSLATION: PLEASE DON'T RIOT! I'LL GIVE YOU SOME MONEY! JUST DON'T RIOT!!!

Fellow citizens, we've been called to leadership in a period of consequence. We've entered a great ideological conflict we did nothing to invite. We see great changes in science and commerce that will influence all our lives. Sometimes it can seem that history is turning in a wide arc, toward an unknown shore. Yet the destination of history is determined by human action, and every great movement of history comes to a point of choosing.

TRANSLATION: I'm wrapping up. Haven't referred to Lincoln yet, so maybe you're not so bad off, after all.

Lincoln could have accepted peace at the cost of disunity and continued slavery. Martin Luther King could have stopped at Birmingham or at Selma, and achieved only half a victory over segregation. The United States could have accepted the permanent division of Europe, and been complicit in the oppression of others. Today, having come far in our own historical journey, we must decide: Will we turn back, or finish well?

TRANSLATION: BAM! GOTCHA! Referred to Lincoln AND I had the brass to toss in MLK, too. You're all screwed worse than you ever dreamed possible. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. MU HU HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Before history is written down in books, it is written in courage. Like Americans before us, we will show that courage and we will finish well. We will lead freedom's advance. We will compete and excel in the global economy. We will renew the defining moral commitments of this land. And so we move forward -- optimistic about our country, faithful to its cause, and confident of the victories to come.

May God bless America. (Applause.)

TRANSLATION: If there is a God, I'm going straight to hell. I'll take my chances. In the meantime, I'm having one sweet ride at your expense.

Beating Around the Bush

CBS News aired an interview between Bob Schieffer and President George W. Bush. Unfortunately, I wasn't invited to provide my insightful commentary and razor-sharp observations.

So, here's the next best thing. I'll post Bush's comments in italics, followed by my comments. Not everything he said was comment-worthy, so I'll skip over the parts where he talks about his dad and stuff like that. I'll also remove sections of Bush's comments that don't really impact the gist of what he's saying. I'm not going to talk about Bush's style of delivery or malapropisms, as I find that inappropriate to the conversation at hand. Let's consider the policies above the presentation. Heck, I'll even polish up Bush's comments so we can focus on what's really important: the agenda of the executive branch of the United States of America.

ON HAMAS: "... they've got to get rid of that arm of their party which is armed and violent, and secondly, they have got to get rid of that part of their platform that says they want to destroy Israel. And if they don't, we won't deal with them.... Aid packages won't go forward. Well, that's their decision to make... we won't be providing help to a government that wants to destroy our ally and friend. I don't see how you can be a partner in peace if you don't renounce violent aims. The other thing that's interesting about the elections, though, that I found fascinating is that it reminded me that the elections are window panes into the actual condition of society.... In other words, a lot of us were assuming that maybe life was this way or that way, and all of a sudden the people showed up to vote and said we want something different, we want good, honest government; we want people to listen to our needs; we want people to provide services so our families can grow up and be prosperous."

Yes, Hamas ran on a law and order ticket and won big. They got rid of an entrenched corrupt lot and are ready to turn the system on its ear. This has to be scary to any Republican or Democrat. Bolivia's coca-farming president is making waves, too, so one hopes the masses rise up and send home the entrenched aristocracies. Nice dream, that. But, yes, Hamas was elected democratically. It's proof the Arabs do embrace democracy and want it very much. The fact that they plan to use it to run Israel to the wall and stick it to the US is where the goal of making countries friendly to the US through more democracy breaks down. Looks like one can have a pro-US regime or democracy, not both.

OK, back to Hamas being violent. We all know Hamas wants to do to Israel what Israel's been doing to the Palestinians for 50+ years. The US will cut off aid to a Hamas-run Palestine if they don't renounce that platform. The EU's said as much, as well. But Hamas has ties to Hizbollah and Iran and might also pick up funding from disgruntled anti-Zionists from around the Arab and developing world. Hamas has floated the idea of building a Palestinian army, perhaps one with some air defense capability for the next time Israel sends in an attack chopper to fire a few rockets into an apartment block where they suspect terrorists to be located. That's the real threat to Israel: a hostile Palestine not restricting terrorists based within its territory that can also enforce its borders and airspace to keep out or, more likely, delay Israeli retaliatory incursions.

The deeper problem is that time is on the side of the Palestinians. They outnumber the Israelis and, unless the Israelis engage in actual hardcore genocide, will eventually remain standing in superior numbers when the Israelis finally run out of bullets. That's why Israel initiated the peace process and why Sharon didn't abandon it, much as he hindered it with his policies. Israel left Gaza the same way it left Lebanon, and Hamas may be speculating the West Bank could be returned in much the same manner. If Hamas thinks it can succeed without American and EU help, the same way Hizbollah succeeded in Lebanon, then it'll keep the violent plank and damn all.

The question I'd like to ask Bush is, "Will the US consider deploying forces to directly aid and protect Israel from Palestinian actions?" or "Will the US tolerate Israel using nuclear weapons against a hostile Palestine?" Of course, the US neither confirms nor denies that Israel has nukes, so I'd like to ask that last question partly for shock value alone. Which leads us to another issue...

ON IRAN: "The Free World cannot allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon, not just the United States, but those of us who value freedom, and that is why our strategy is to present and hold together a united front to say to the Iranians your designs to have a nuclear weapon or your desire to have the capability of making a nuclear weapon is unacceptable. It's very important that we speak to two groups: One is the government, and also the people. And in speaking to the people, my message is this: You know, we're not going to tell you how to live your life, but we would like you to be free. We would like you to be able to express yourselves in the market, in the open, without fear of reprisal. We want you to be able to vote and elect. To the government, our message is, is that if you want to be a part of the family of nations, give up your nuclear weapons ambitions. Now, one of the things we have done is they have said they want to be able to have a civilian nuclear capacity, we want to be able to have our own nuclear power plant, and we've said we understand that. But because you're a nontransparent government, because you've openly stated your desire to destroy one of our allies, that you should be able to have a plant, but the uranium for running that plant will come from Russia, and Russia will provide the fuel, you will burn the fuel, and Russia will collect the fuel under IAEA safeguards."

Iran later backed away from the Russian plan, but Bush is clear: The US will not allow Iran to get nuclear weapons. Or any more of them, if they've already clandestinely acquired them from the former Soviet Union. Bush went on to say that sanctions and military force remained options he'd consider against Iran after the US and its allies "exhaust all diplomacy".

Bush's comments about Iranian democracy sound odd in light of the fact that the Iranian election was pretty much like the Palestinian one. The "wrong guy", as far as US interests go, got elected and is now rallying the population to pursue policies counter to those of the US. The head of Iran is another guy who upset the apple cart in his nation and plans to raise a little hell with the powers that be. If Pakistan is any guide, the people of Iran would love to have their nation get nuclear weapons. Nukes are a status symbol, a sign that your nation has arrived. A sign that the US can't unilaterally invade your nation without risking losing a huge number of troops and/or civilians in a nuclear strike. Nukes mean your nation can't be pushed around. It can have a cold war with its neighbors and do all kinds of James Bond type stuff, but it can't be invaded or bullied. The same way two guys with AK-47s on the street have to respect each other or die, nuclear-armed nations have to be respected.

Is Bush's allowance for a military option credible? Not at current US troop levels, unless he plans on a nuclear attack on Iran, which would be an absolute disaster. Should he introduce a draft, that would also be a disaster of a different sort. Short of war, the US is left with only a few other options, to paraphrase Sir Humphrey Appelby from Yes, Minister. The US can't cut off diplomatic ties or cut off aid, because all that happened back in 1979. The US could lodge an official protest with the UN, which probably wouldn't go anywhere. The US could issue a statement deploring Iran, which would be ignored. Or, the US could do nothing at all, which would make them look foolish.

If, then, the US is backed into a corner and considers an attack on Iran, it'll have to start a draft, and it'll be the nation's poor who will go to Iran and do the garrison duty, complete with the death and injuries that go with it. Oil prices would spike and the US economy would splutter - possibly leading to a dollar crisis. If the US is not already overreached, action against Iran would do the job.

ON THE US BEING OVERREACHED: "Well, I would disagree with that. I think we've got plenty of capability, but the first option, of course, is to solve this problem diplomatically, and that's where we are working to do."

So help me, I want the translation in the subtitles at the bottom of the screen to say, "We're going to bring back the draft and plunge into Central and Southwest Asia."

ON WHY THE OCCUPATION OF IRAQ IS LOSING IN POPULARITY: "My job is not only Commander-In-Chief but educator-in-chief. And I needed to say to the people, you bet it's tough. And the enemy is using their own weapon effectively, which is the destruction of innocent life... I think a lot of people are wondering whether or not we had a plan to win. Some people say we shouldn't have been there in the first place, and I understand that. Some people said, you did the right thing going in there, but I'm not so sure you've got the desire or the plan to win, and that's what I've been trying to articulate, is we do have a plan to win, and we are winning. And progress on the ground is beginning to back me up. I mean, the political process has been amazing when you think about it. These elections are truly outstanding."

I'll deal with this and then have Bush speak again. I'll also point out that Bush dismissed any connection with the government's admittedly poor response to Hurricane Katrina and a resultant lack of faith in the government's ability to effectively carry out its Iraq policy.

Bush praises the elections and cites progress on the ground as proof the US is winning the occupation of Iraq. I want to stress that it is not an actual war in Iraq, in spite of the violence. The US is supporting the government of Iraq, not warring against it. Therefore, it is an occupation, not a war. But is there really progress in Iraq? Yes, the government there is indeed increasing in its effectiveness in fighting the insurgents, but it is doing so through reliance on factional militias incorporated into the police and armed forces and secret police networks, almost identical to those that existed under Saddam Hussein. The Sunni areas are where the police and army of Iraq are weakest, which is why the crime and violence rage on there. But Sunnis in the Kurdish and Shia areas are living in a police state, and the Shia areas have taken on a definite conservative religious air, much like in neighboring Iran, but with higher rates of mosque attendance.

I'd have to disagree with the president's assessment of progress: the Iraqis elected a government friendly to the US only so long as the US serves its needs and which has proven to be every bit as brutal as Saddam Hussein's towards unpopular minorities. And while the Iraqi constitution protects minority rights, we all know a constitutional right is only as good as the government interpreting that right.

ON US TROOP LEVELS IN IRAQ: "... our troop levels are going down from about 168,000 to less than 138,000, and part of that is because our commanders are confident the Iraqis are going to be able to take more and more of the fight.... [in response to a question about a timetable for pulling out US troops] I can understand you wanting to ask that question and the American people want me to give the answer to that. I can't give the answer to that because I'm not the decider. What I can assure the American people of is that we've got a strategy to victory. We got a plan to see that the Iraqis take the fight. More and more Iraqis are taking the fight, and I'm going to listen to our commanders.... One of the interesting lessons from the Vietnam era was it seemed like to me that politicians all were making the decisions and not the commanders on the ground a lot of times, and I have vowed that the American people, and I will follow through on that if General Casey and the generals there in Iraq that will be making the decisions as to the troop levels... I would hope to say that we have fewer troops there over the course of the year."

I confess I'm a bit at a loss on how best to tidy up the President's comments here, particularly the Vietnam one. Be that as it is, it sounds like he wants to have a reduction in the total troop level by the end of the year, but is reluctant to put his commanders in a position that is militarily untenable. This is at odds with the original invasion plan in which the politicians insisted on a lower troop level than originally requested, which quite likely resulted in a rapid descent into chaos for Iraq. Leaving aside the question of whether or not Iraq should have been invaded, the military community was nearly unanimous in judging Iraq should not have been invaded with so few troops as the US deployed. Order broke down and the US did not have enough men on the ground to stop the situation from deteriorating.

All right, so he's leaving war up to the generals, in spite of what Clemenceau said. He claims to have learned from Vietnam, but I have to question that lesson: It was clear in the war that the commanders in the field did not have accurate data on the Viet Cong or NVA regulars in South Vietnam. They were as clueless at times as their commander-in-chief. This happens in wars and other conflicts. The responsibility of the elected government is to be "the decider", a role Bush abrogates in his statement above. Whether it's a decision to withdraw, as JFK made, to escalate troop levels, as LBJ made, or to reduce troop levels while expanding the scope of the conflict, as Nixon made, it's up to the president to make the big decisions.

I'm sorry, I'm with Clemenceau: War is too important to leave to the generals. Unfortunately, I also feel war is too important to leave to the Bush administration, but that's the situation the US is in.

"I would like to get troops home, but I don't want to get them home without winning, and the definition of winning is a country that can govern itself, sustain itself, and defend itself, and a country which will not become a safe haven for the terrorists. The terrorists have made it abundantly clear they want to drive us out of Iraq so they can have a safe haven from which to operate-- that would be Mr. Zarqawi-- and that's why it's very important for us not only to train the Iraqis, but to stay on the hunt for these people."

This is not something I accept as genuine. Yes, the Shia and Kurds will wipe out any al-Qaeda among them, but they're perfectly willing to harbor terrorists for their own cause. The Kurds in Iraq would love to have their countrymen in Iran, Turkey, and Syria join with them in an oil-rich state. The Shia are hostile to every other Gulf state except Iran. The US is picking and choosing whom it labels as a terrorist, but even so, there's an indefinite timetable on pacifying the Sunni center of Iraq. The British left a bomber wing in Iraq until they were kicked out forcibly in the 1950s - a presence measured in decades, not years. Is the US headed down the same path?

I will pass over Bush's ability to hunt for terrorists. I will instead let Osama Bin Laden speak for himself on that count.

ON EAVESDROPPING WITHOUT COURT ORDERS AND OTHER CIVIL RIGHTS ISSUES: "I don't think a president can order torture, for example. I don't think a president can order the assassination of a leader of another country with which we're not at war. Yes, there are clear red lines. The extent to which a president, during war, can exercise authorities in order to protect the American people, and that's really what the debate is about. I made the decision to listen to phone calls of Al Qaeda or suspected Al Qaeda from outside the country coming in or inside the country going out because the people, our operators, told me that this is one of the best ways to protect the American people. And it wasn't an easy decision to make, but as I thought through the decision-making process, I asked a couple of questions: One, do I have the authority to do it? In other words, will I just act without determining if I have authority. And so, in other words, I was convinced by the legal department of the White House and the Justice Department that I did have the authority, and we looked at it very carefully. And secondly, I wanted to make sure that civil liberties were guarded. In other words, that by unleashing this program there wasn't checks and balances on--inside the NSA so that they would circumvent my order, which was listening for phone calls outside the country and in vice versa; in other words, not listening to the phone calls within the country. It is important that this program go on. I understand the debate, and I understand the need to make sure people discuss and debate whether or not I have got the authority to do it, but as I told the American people--and I can't tell you how strongly I feel about this--if somebody is talking to Al Qaeda inside the United States, we need to know why, and that's what this program is aimed to do.... I asked the people designing the program. I said, how come we can't use the [existing] procedures, and they said it won't work. It doesn't fit in with what Mike Hayden described as "hot pursuit." I have looked at this program from all angles, and my dilemma and my problem is I can't explain to you how it works in order to justify your question without telling the enemy what we are doing. And this debate is an interesting debate. I'm troubled by it only because the enemy listens, and they see what we are doing, and these are smart people, and they will adjust. And one of the interesting questions about this whole debate is whether or not people think we are at war or people think this is kind of an isolated group of people that may or may not hit us.... Perhaps because I remember my words going to Congress just saying I'm not going to ever forget what took place, and I will use all the power and my authority within the Constitution to protect the American people, but I view this situation we're in as war, and therefore I must protect the American people with the tools available to me."

All right, I allow there are people who desire - justified or not - to kill lots and lots of American citizens, preferably in America. These are Bad Men and, yes, I do not want any of them to kill me or those I know and love. I don't even want them to kill people I don't know or love. I'm against killing, make no mistake on that.

So how do I stay safe from the Bad Men when my government is provoking them to extreme anger? By surrendering my civil rights? Well, I'm not really surrendering my civil rights: the COINTELPRO project from the Vietnam Conflict era proved that. My civil rights exist at the pleasure of the sitting president and his executive branch officers and if one of them - any of them - chooses to negate my rights in a particular case, my ability to fight city hall is limited to nearly nil. True, the odd case does eventually make its way up the legal ladder to the Supreme Court, but all the while, the victim of the roughshod government remains in jail or, more likely, watched and harassed. Bush's move on civil rights just means the already remote chance I could fight a rogue government legally has been made that much more impossible.

The US is experiencing an Imperial Presidency, and has been experiencing one since at least Woodrow Wilson's administration, if not also at times previous to it. The inalienable rights Jefferson enumerated in the Declaration of Independence are no more guaranteed by the sitting president's administration than they were by another George... King George III.

ON THE US AND ENERGY INDEPENDENCE: "I'm against a huge gas tax. Secondly, I agree... that we have got to become independent from foreign sources of oil. In other words, we have got to wean ourselves off hydrocarbons. And the best way, in my judgment, to do it is to promote and actively advance new technologies so that we can have different driving habits. For example, there is--I'm a little hesitant because I don't want to tell you what's in the State of the Union, let me put it to you that way.... I agree with Americans who understand being hooked on foreign oil as an economic problem and a national security problem. I couldn't agree more. For example, I'm convinced with more research we'll be able to develop additional ways to make ethanol. There is about 4.6 million cars in America now that are flex-fuel cars. They could either use regular gasoline or fuel derived from corn. I'd like, for example, to not only advance that technology of deriving fuel from corn, but also deriving fuel from waste materials, and I'm convinced we could do that with a good push, a technological push. In other words, I want to see different kinds of cars on our road that don't require (sic) upon crude oil from overseas, but we have got a serious problem, and now is the time to fix it, and I'm going to address it again at the State of the Union."

Translation: The agricultural subsidies already going to Chevron and other Big Oil companies are going to get more massive. Also look for huge amounts of pork to head over to General Electric and other nuclear reactor companies for hydrogen-cell research - it's the reactors that will make all that hydrogen, don't you know.

For the waste fuels, I wonder if he's referring to biodiesel. That's a ground-level solution that could actually work, but which would break the back of the Big Oil companies. Watch for environmental concerns on biodiesel to creep into the picture, which would necessitate many billions' worth of safety and cleanup procedures, so the Big Oil guys would still be the only energy players.

America's energy problems are not limited to foreign oil dependence. They're also due to an oligarchical energy sector with massive political influence, subverting and corrupting the political process for their gain. But given that the US bases in Afghanistan follow the proposed pipeline route across that nation and that the current president of Afghanistan is a former Unocal employee and a whole lot of other Big Oil-related coincidences, I doubt seriously America's other energy problem will be dealt with, which means the first one, foreign oil dependence, will remain an issue for years to come.

ON THE REPUTATION OF THE US IN THE WORLD: "There is no question that Abu Graib pictures not only--we were disgraced, and I know it caused a lot of people that want to like us to question whether they should, and equally important it gave the enemy an incredible propaganda tool. No question. That's why it was important for us to investigate, to expose, and to hold people to account so people see there was a consequence for the behavior.... The actions we take in our own country or elsewhere help define America to others, and that's why it's important for us to constantly remind people that we have got a wonderful heart and we are a compassionate nation. Our HIV/AIDS initiative on Africa is saving lives, our anti-malaria initiative on Africa is saving lives. We feed more of the hungry in the world. I mean, we are doing marvelous things, and it's while we address and deal with issues like Abu Graib, at the same time we have always constantly got to tell people, we care about them, we're not going to impose our form of American-style democracy on you, but we want you to be free, and where you hurt we want to help. And a classic example of that is what took place in Pakistan. When the United States military, upon notification that there was a need for help as a result of the earthquake, moved choppers and aid and equipment and food and tents in and saved a lot of lives, it's by far the best public relations we had in that part of the world in a long period of time. And so, you're right, we need to be conscious about our public diplomacy not only in how we behave at home but our ability to be able to sell that which we are doing around the world."

Sorry, Mr. Bush. The world does not believe the Abu Ghraib scandal was properly investigated. Only small people took the hit for it. The higher ups, and we all know higher ups were involved, escaped public censure because of either their wealth, position, or connections. There was no consequence for those who ordered it, only for those who carried out the orders. You previously criticized Iran for not being transparent: Abu Ghraib and the eavesdropping issue leave those charges squarely in your face. You have met the enemy and he is us, to tip one's hat to Pogo Possum.

And, yes, there is good news in Pakistan over the earthquake relief. The bad news is it got blown all to hell when the US fired rockets into a northern Pakistani village, hoping to kill a few terrorists, but instead destroying innocent families.

Yes, there is good news in Africa over how diseases are beaten back. The bad news is that gets shot up every time a major oil company hires local cops or soldiers to shoot up protesters around its polluting rigs and refineries.

The US continues to turn a blind eye to major heroin traffickers in the world in return for their not opposing the US occupation of parts of Afghanistan. The US continues to turn a blind eye to Israeli nuclear weapons and torture prisons. The US itself is guilty of creating legal ambiguities to torture and abuse people without a trial. The Bureau of Indian Affairs continues to hold out in the Cobell v. Norton case to the tune of $17.2 billion dollars of money stolen from Native Americans.

The US government does not behave well at home or abroad. As long as Bush tries to sell the Pollyanna stuff, I'll be here to ask something real be done about the rest of the sorry state of affairs.

America remains an undemocratic nation that holds out the possibility of smiting its foes with nuclear weapons, in the last stages of changing over from a supposed republic into a real imperium.

War is peace. Ignorance is strength. Freedom is slavery. Look into Bush's comments and you'll see Orwell's sentences, in so many words.

This all comes back to democracy: America is in no position to produce a Palestinian surprise, where the people rise and vote out the gang of corrupt politicians in the back pockets of oligarchical corporations and aristocratic money men. Therefore, Bush's supporters will blindly see only what he wants them to see and I will remain in my prison, whose bars are made only of the ignorance and apathy of others.

Forward this and discuss it: set me free with education and enlightenment and, in doing so, set yourself free.

The Official Denial

Bismarck once said to never believe anything in politics until it had been officially denied.

Today, the US government officially denied the release of female prisoners in Iraq was in any way tied to the demands of the kidnappers of journalist Jill Carroll.

And who says the US won't negotiate with terrorists?

The Emperor's New Soldiers

Well, two reports just came out about the US Army. One said it's spread too thin and the other said it's not meeting recruiting goals. While the Bush administration pooh-poohs the reports, they ring true.

Worse, the US Army is seeing shortfalls in equipment stockpiles. That is not a good thing. It seems likely that the army won't be able to outlast the insurgency in Iraq. It's also quite likely it could not respond to another major threat, say, a war in the Caucasus or intervention against a nuclear-bound Iran.

While the US already puts its National Guardsmen through coimbat duties like the Tsarists of old treated their troops, there simply aren't going to be enough soldiers to meet all the US' commitments overseas. Where will the new soldiers come from?

Here's your first hint: They will not be the sons of families whose wealth places them in the top 5% of households by income or assets. When the drafts of war blow, they chill the homes of those who can't afford the cost of insulation.

How much sadder that the wars themselves are waged primarily to benefit the very families and interests that decline to participate in the sharp end of things. But, then again, wasn't the greatness of Rome built upon the backs of its slaves? Far be it from me to suggest something as unpatriotic as the notion that the poor of America should be anything but proud to plunge headlong into a conflict fought to make the world safer for someone else's money. Far be it from me to suggest something as unpatriotic as the idea that the benefits given to soldiers pale miserably to the profits being generated in the wake of their efforts.

Instead, I shall be the true patriot and suggest the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are undemocratic, imperialistic, and that they have no place in a true democracy. Current administration policy is a blatant affront to the decency of humanity and an insult to the equal rights Americans are supposed to have.

Soldiers are necessary to keep a nation safe: this I know. I'm not ignorant of my Hobbes. It's a nasty, brutish world out there. But soldiers are not necessary to keep my aristocrats fat and happy. Those ventures make my nation less safe and cause blood to be shed in vain. No US soldier in Iraq died to keep my freedoms. They died to enhance the bottom lines of profiteers and to boost the fortunes of politicians. It is truly wretched how men without any conscience at all will commit people willing to die for freedom and justice into a battle for nothing more than a little bit of money.