Dick Cheney Strikes Terror into the Hearts of Former Bush Administration Officials

There was an interesting story that popped up in the news today that really emphasizes just how partisan Washington has become.

Peter Baker of the New York Times wrote a magazine piece entitled "Inside Obama's War on Terrorism" which contains the following tidbit (emphasis mine):

A half-dozen former senior Bush officials involved in counterterrorism told me before the Christmas Day incident that for the most part, they were comfortable with Obama’s policies, although they were reluctant to say so on the record. Some worried they would draw the ire of Cheney’s circle if they did, while others calculated that calling attention to the similarities to Bush would only make it harder for Obama to stay the course. And they generally resent Obama’s anti-Bush rhetoric and are unwilling to give him political cover by defending him.

You read that right. Former Senior Bush Administration officials told Baker that they were reluctant to express public support for President Obama's policies partly because they were scared of former Vice President Cheney's reaction.

While the other half of that quote is also disturbing, anyone who has been paying attention has already noticed the similarity in some of Obama's policy decisions to those that were made by President Bush.

What is really striking is not only that these Bush Administration officials admitted this point, but the explicit partisan nature of this behavior. We all know that Washington is bad, but this is something that I would expect to hear more on a middle school playground than from officials who ran this country.

Bill Cunningham Back on "Hannity"

Cincinnati's own, Bill Cunningham was on the Fox News show "Hannity" earlier this week spewing more nonsense. Here is some of the video:



I think Cunningham wins the award for cramming the most smears into the shortest time period for this rant:

"Sean, what we have here is this little boy who grew up in Jakarta, Indonesia, at the age of 6 to 10, rejected by his own father, rejected by his own mother, rejected by his stepfather, raised by his grandparents, bowing before the King of Saudi Arabia, kissing the behind of every European socialist, saying okay to people like Ahmenijad -- we have the most dishonest, the most disreputable 100 days in American history, and this guy actually believes it's good!"

You know you are watching something wildly over the top when Geraldo Rivera actually looks like a voice of reason.

Also interesting to note that in a current poll on Cincinnati.com, Bill Cunningham is the leading vote-getter for "Favorite Personality on WLW-AM".

The Continued Need for Expanded Racial Discourse

Since the election of Barack Obama into this nation's highest office, there has been widespread praise for how far the United States of America has come in regard to race relations. After all, not even half a century ago, our black brothers and sisters were fighting against seemingly insurmountable odds in order to achieve equality. It still pains us to watch the old footage of black members of society being beaten, attacked by police dogs, and sprayed with fire hoses. These images, along with the images of peaceful protests singing "We Shall Overcome" cannot help but remind us not only of how far we have come, but of the power of a determined people to create social change.

While a black man ascending into the office of President indicates measured progress for race relations, it does not automatically mean that issues of race and racism are no longer relevant or worth discussing. Isolated incidents of achievement are not always indicative of widespread societal progress. One only needs to turn back the clock a mere three and a half years and remember the scenes that played out in New Orleans duirng Hurricane Katrina for a reminder of why race issues should continue to be discussed in the twenty-first century.

Attorney General Eric Holder recently gave a speech in honor of Black History Month and used the opportunity to encourage people to have an open dialogue about race. Holder said that we are "essentially a nation of cowards" in our collective failure of engaging in meaningful discussions on race related issues. Holder continued:

Our history has demonstrated that the vast majority of Americans are uncomfortable with, and would like to not have to deal with, racial matters and that is why those, black or white, elected or self-appointed, who promise relief in easy, quick solutions, no matter how divisive, are embraced. We are then free to retreat to our race protected cocoons where much is comfortable and where progress is not really made. If we allow this attitude to persist in the face of the most significant demographic changes that this nation has ever confronted-and remember, there will be no majority race in America in about fifty years-the coming diversity that could be such a powerful, positive force will, instead, become a reason for stagnation and polarization.

With President Obama now in office we see people retreating into their "race protected cocoons". Racial disparity and racial inequality have not just magically disappeared, but rather it is the chance for meaningful discourse which has fallen into old patterns and continues to fade into the background. What a fantastic opportunity this country currently has to speak to each other about issues of race now that we have witnessed the election of our first black President. What follows should not be the assumption that all has been overcome, but rather a dialogue on how we can continue to move forward. Communication and emerging from our protected cocoons is the only way that we can effectively continue this all important progression on these issues.

Recently, the much publicized editorial cartoon printed by The New York Post, touched off a firestorm of criticism. The cartoon (linked to above) shows two white police officers standing over a bullet-ridden and bloodied chimp with their guns smoking. One officer is saying to the other: "They'll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill". Rev. Al Sharpton was quick to criticize the cartoon as racist for the implication that the dead chimpanzee could be interpreted to be President Obama. The Post initially issued a statement defending the cartoon and attacking "those in the media and in public life who have had differences with the Post in the past". "To them," the statement read, "no apology is due." This led to continued demonstrations outside the Post's offices and concluded with an apology from Rupert Murdoch, CEO of NewsCorp.

This incident got a lot of sensational coverage in the media and set off debates between pundits who argued whether or not the cartoon was racist. Whether the chimpanzee was initially intended to represent Obama is not necessarily the central issue. A more productive discussion would have stretched beyond the surface and could have examined the history of likening African-Americans to monkeys and chimpanzees. Now, with Murdoch's apology and the sensational aspect of this story fading, we will once again shelve the discussion of this issue until the next controversy erupts. This pattern, one we have seen for years on the issue of race, is not a recipe for progress, but like Eric Holder says, a reason for stagnation.

While the recent controversy over the Post's editorial cartoon shows us an example of the continued failure of discussing race in a meaningful way, there are still some who feel that it is appropriate to engage in behavior that directly works against progress. Jim Schifrin is the publisher of The Whistleblower (an internet based alternative "news" source for Cincinnati) and has come under fire recently for blatantly racist language and images as well as assassination jokes that he has posted. As you can read in other stories posted at The Cincinnati Beacon, many area politicians have repudiated this racist language.

In the January 17th edition of The Whistleblower Schifrin made mention of sharing Obama jokes with Hamilton County Prosecutor Joe Deters:

Q: What do Abe Lincoln, JFK, Martin Luther King Jr. and Obama have in common? A: Nothing, yet!

Q: What's the difference between Sarah Palin naked and Michelle Obama naked?
A: Playboy and National Geographic!

BREAKING NEWS: “Hail to the Chief” is being replaced with the theme song from "The Jefferson's"!

Finally, everybody—just relax. When was the last time you saw an black guy keep
a job for four years?

In the February 20th edition of The Whistleblower Schifrin has Obama's face pasted over the face of a monkey and also published this result of a "limerick competition":

The best part of dead Presidents' Day
Is that at some point this one will also be that way.
I don't wish him bad luck
(Though I really don't give a good ... uh ... "darn")
Just call me a nasty old Republican ofay!

and in the February 21st edition of The Whistleblower, Schifrin posted a photo that likens Michelle Obama to a monkey. It is racist actions like these that run directly contrary to the kind of progress that Eric Holder talks about in his speech. There is nothing about the publication of such images and so-called jokes that allow us to have an intelligent and productive conversation about serious race related issues. The fact that there are still Jim Schifrin's of the world out there should indicate not only that racism is still alive and well, but that we need to take every opportunity that we are given to have intellectual discussions that will actual move this country forward instead of backward. After all, as Eric Holder said:

As I indicated before, the artificial device that is Black History month is a perfect vehicle for the beginnings of such a dialogue. And so I urge all of you to use the opportunity of this month to talk with your friends and co-workers on the other side of the divide about racial matters. In this way we can hasten the day when we truly become one America.

Perhaps Jim Schifrin would like to take Eric Holder's challenge and discuss (in interview format) his use of assassination jokes, racist jokes, and likening monkeys to the Obamas. (If he is interested in such an interview, he should let me know.) After all, lobbing racist insults is an easy thing to do, but tackling these issues in a meaningful manner is another matter entirely.

Though we have made great strides with race, it is evident by the examples that I have listed above, that we still have a long way to come. As Eric Holder states in his speech, "to respect one another, we must have a basic understanding of each other" . Communication and dialogue is the only way that we can begin to understand each other and understand the full history of black America. "The history of black America and the history of this nation are inextricably tied to each other", Holder states, and until we start to talk with each other and understand this, we will see more stagnation and less progression.


This article can also be found at: http://www.cincinnatibeacon.com/

Conservative Outrage Over Rev. Lowery's Benediction

It seems as though there is some rage brewing in the hearts and souls of some conservative commentators about the benediction that the Rev. Joseph Lowery gave at President Obama's inauguration ceremony yesterday. Here is the benediction:



The part of the benediction that some conservative commentators are fumed about, is the last portion. Glenn Beck, comfortable at his new home on FoxNews, breaks down just why he is so angry:



Beck is amazed that there was an objection to the Rev. Rick Warren saying a prayer at the Inauguration for simply agreeing "with much of Obama's platform on gay marriage". Beck even sarcastically throws in, "what bigotry there". In fact, the objections to Warren were not because he "agrees with much of Obama's platform on gay marriage", but rather because he has equated homosexuality to pedophilia and incest. This strays from the point, but needs to be corrected nonetheless.

Beck continues on that instead of Warren creating controversy, it was Lowery that stirred the pot when he asked god to:

help us work for that day when black will not be asked to get in back, when brown can stick around ... when yellow will be mellow ... when the red man can get ahead, man; and when white will embrace what is right.

Beck decries this statement as "America being called racist" and goes on to say that he wants to believe in the message of change, but that this appears to be the same old divisive language that we are used to. Talk about missing the point. Beck even tries to imply that Lowery's old age has something to do with his remarks. Beck assures Obama that he and his family have been "down on their knees" praying for his success and that he is perfectly fine with "brown sticking around". Thanks for clearing that up Glen.

Joining Beck in expressing outrage at this benediction is Michael Savage:



Savage calls Lowery an "old black racist" and proclaims "how dare he say 'when white will embrace what is right' when he was elected because of white people." I guess it didn't cross Savage's mind that just because white people voted for Obama, it isn't proof that racism doesn't exist. Certainly it indicates progress in the last 40 years, but it does not indicate the eradication of racism. Savage goes on to express his outrage claiming that he was offended as a white person and wonders what Lowery meant by "when black will not be asked to give back". "What in the heck does this old man mean," Savage exclaims, "...you mean they won't have to pay taxes?"

Too bad that Lowery said "when black will not be asked to get in back" and not "when black will not be asked to give back" according to the transcript of his speech. Amazing to see what some will try to do to a message that is meant for inclusion and it is equally amazing to see Michael Savage trying to pass as a moral authority on race relations. Are members of the right-wing trying to re-emerge by placing themselves upon moral high-ground? Stay Tuned!

Interview with John Mooter, Chair of EarthSave Cincinnati

Finally it is here. President George W. Bush’s last day as President of the United States and the beginning of the newly elected Obama Administration. After eight long years of secrecy, law-breaking, and lies, a figure who has promised to put this country back on the right course is being sworn into office. The country is indeed at a crossroads as the promise of “change” finds itself at a standoff with crises too numerous to address all at once. People have latched onto the idea of hope that Obama has promised throughout his campaign and you can feel the tension and yearning for something new in city after city.

From house parties in San Francisco, to people taking Tuesday off work in Des Moines, to people talking about what party they will attend right here in Cincinnati, it is evident that people are placing their trust in this new Administration. As I sat in Tucker’s Restaurant and listened to people discussing what their plans were for the Inauguration, I wanted to see how a local progressive organization felt about what an Obama Administration may mean for causes that have virtually been ignored over the last eight years.

EarthSave Cincinnati is an organization that is affiliated with EarthSave International. They describe themselves as an organization which is primarily concerned with plant-based nutrition, compassionate treatment of animals and the overall general health of the population. This past Sunday they held their monthly vegan potluck at the Clifton United Methodist Church and had a discussion entitled “Messages for Obama”. Attendees broke up into small groups to discuss what they feel an Obama Administration should address during his time in office. After the meeting, I spoke via telephone with EarthSave Cincinnati’s Chair, John Mooter about the meeting and what EarthSave Cincinnati hopes an Obama Presidency will accomplish. Rush transcript is below and if you subscribe to this blog in a reader, you should be able to listen to the interview as a podcast or you can listen below:





CC: Could you just start by giving a background on EarthSave Cincinnati again and some of the issues the organization worked on in 2008?

JM: Yes. EarthSave Cincinnati is part of EarthSave international which was founded by John Robbins. John Robbins wrote a couple of books the first book he wrote was “Diet for a New America” and the second was “The Food Revolution” and both books deal with a movement toward a plant based diet for the health of the planet and human health and also for, let’s see, the animals themselves through compassion. Robbins was actually an air to Baskin' Robbins the dairy people, and he gave it all up and he kind of went a different direction. So That is kind of how the group got started and then little local chapters formed and we are one of the local chapters, we have been around for over 10 years. This last year we’ve had speakers on lots of different things, we are interested in people learning how to make their own gardens, city
gardening, we are interested in mercy for animals which is a group which tries to improve the condition of animals on factory farms or get people to stop eating animals, one or the other.
Also environmental issues to improve the environment through diet, so it is mainly a group about diet and it is mainly educational. It’s not a forced thing. We have potlucks that are vegan but of course a lot of people come who aren’t necessarily vegan but maybe lean in that direction or are somewhat sympathetic, so it is a broad base of people. I’m not sure how many members we have but we average anywhere from 40 up to 80, 90 people. Last year we had Will Tuttle come who wrote “The World Peace Diet” which is an exhaustive study on the plant-based diet and what factory farming has done to the earth and is not really being discussed by a lot of
these other environmental groups, like Al Gore, you don’t hear them talk about it at all, it’s just in the background. Our interest with Obama, you know part of it, he answered a question by someone from Vegan Outreach which we saw on YouTube, where he showed that he understood the impact of factory farming on the environment which kind of made us excited to think,
you know at least he is aware of it. So that was kind of good and that kind of got the ball
rolling. When we had our core group meeting we decided that since it was so close to this inauguration that maybe we would just have a group discussion. Usually we have a speaker come in something like that, you know we might have someone talking on raw food or whole
foods or cooking, different things like that, but this time what I did was I had about six or
seven people fascilitate each table and then each table kind of discussed everything. It wasn’t all food realated, people talked about more efficient cars and a lot of things that everyone else is talking about. What was interesting is one part where people disagreed is someone said “lower
gas prices” and other people said “make the gas prices higher” so people don’t drive as much…so you know better transit and a lot of other things that other groups might discuss.

CC: Sure, sure…so, all these people getting together, “Messages for Obama” I guess was the theme of your meeting...

JM: Yeah, yeah, right.

CC: and so, with everybody’s input, what were some of the core messages that you hope to address in letter form, or other forms, to the newly elected President?

JM: Well, we would like to see more of a movement toward local, plant-based type agriculture
as opposed to this agriculture that we have now, we would like to see improved lunches where instead of 35%-50% saturated fats, that they follow the guidelines that they, the government themselves, have established. Which they are not, you know, I taught for 35 years and I
couldn’t believe what they feed kids in school…

CC: Sure, sure

JM: and yet they have this pyramid and talk about all these plant foods, but what plants are they getting…like ketchup…I’m being a little sarcastic, but better lunches or alternatives
and just move toward better foods in schools is one of the things that EarthSave have been
involved in that for many, many years they even have a healthy lunch program. Of course they would like it to be all plant based but they also work trying to get more whole foods and whole
grains and fresh fruits and vegetables in schools.

CC: Do you feel that corporate influence, cause I know that a lot of times different
contracts as far as putting vending machines in schools…

JM: Yeah…right

CC: are often involved in the decision making process. So how do you work to combat such a huge element…

JM: Well, it’s a big problem and when I was in school McDonald’s and them would come right in there. Of course we oppose that, I don’t know what can be done, it’s something that we would
like to see go away.

CC: Sure, sure.

JM: Obama, I can’t remember exactly what he said when he answered the question from this lady from Vegan outreach, but he did talk a little bit about agribusiness and its emphasis on meat and dairy and that that should change. In other words we are subsidizing all these things…

CC: Sure, sure

JM: and telling people that’s what’s good for them and all the medical sciences disagreeing and pretty much agreeing with our stand I would say. There are varying opinions but whole foods
and plant based seem to be the way that things are going with Colin Campbell in this China
study, put out a book on that and John McDoughlal and Dean Ornish, there are so many books on reversing heart disease, Dr. Ethelstein, the list just goes on and on. These are all medical doctors now that are changing more to the low-fat plant-based diet. So those are all things that we would like to see happen in schools with education and adults as well. There’s a group, the Cancer Project, which is actually a cancer charity which works from the standpoint of diet rather than drugs and that type of thing…chemotherapy and all that. So, that’s sort of been our
emphasis at EarthSave more of preventative medicine.

CC: Sure. Do you feel concerned at all, there is so much talk about this country being at a crossroads with the economy being in the trouble it is in and the two
wars and the environmental issues that people are talking about…what would
you like to see Obama make his top priorities as he kind of moves into
office, because there really is so much to tackle initially.

JM: Well yeah, (laughter) personally I would like to see him get the war out of the way.
That would be my first priority which I think will probably (unintelligible). After that I don’t know, there is only so much one man can do. I’ve heard commentators say that the average American would give him two years to get something straightened out, I think that is being somewhat patient, I think it is going to take a lot longer.

CC: You know, some progressive groups have been critical of some of the decisions that Obama has made so far from his…

JM: Yes.

CC: …vote on the FISA legislation to some of his nominees for Cabinet positions. Are you hopeful that the issues that EarthSave cares about most are going to be
constructively addressed by the new administration?

JM: I just don’t know, and I do understand we’ve had some people angry about some of the things you’ve just said. There are others that see him as having to incorporate a lot of
different people with a lot of different perspectives and views and therefore in order to get something done he can’t just cut these other people out. So I kind of understand both and our hope is that some of what we would like done, will get done. Of course we want to be actively involved…we think it is up to him, we think it is up to us.

CC: and at least have a more open dialogue about it now with the new administration…

JM: Yeah, our group is more specific more diet related so we are just dealing with one area, there are so many others.

CC: Sure, sure. I guess more on a local scale with local school districts, any plans in 2009 to address, you know you mention nutrition in schools and things of
that nature…

JM: Yes.

CC: Are there any school districts that you have seen that are at least open to dialogue of incorporating more whole foods with nutrition?

JM: Yes, I’ve heard…I haven’t been real closely involved in that, but I’ve heard that some of the private schools, I don’t know if it was Seven Hills or Ursula or a couple of those, that have moved in that direction. I don’t know about locally, I’ve heard stories of some schools that have adopted whole foods and they talked about the graffiti going away and the grades going up, which doesn’t
surprise me. I really don’t have a whole lot of information on that myself, now Mary Ann Lederer might know more about that than I would…

CC: Ok.

JM: Who you can also, I mean she will gladly talk to you, she loves to talk.

CC: Ok great.

JM: I don’t know if you have called her yet, but…

CC: I have not, but I…

JM: Well she is home, you know she is in a wheelchair. She was injured a long long time ago, but she is very bright and very interesting to talk to if you have the time.

CC: Okay great. I will have to reach out to her as well and see what she has to say as well.

JM: Absolutely.

CC: Alright, well I guess just to sum up, at this time next year, what do you hope
will have been addressed in 2009 and where do you hope that EarthSave Cincinnati kind of stands this time next year?

JM: Well, I’m hoping that some of these food issues will have been addressed, that some of
these (unintelligible) like Tyson Foods, which is a leading polluter and I think the Clintons are actually involved in that as well, that some of the special interests in the meat and dairy industry will be addressed and of course the war, that’s the main thing. I would say those two things.

CC: That was John Mooter, Chairman of EarthSave Cincinnati. EarthSave Cincinnati is a group that was formed to promote eating plant-based foods, sharing concerns for the environment, compassionate treatment of animals, and improved greater health.

John Mooter mentioned that EarthSave Cincinnati will be writing a letter to President Obama based on the input from this past weekend’s meeting and will share it with the Beacon within the next month. For more information you can visit: http://cincinnati.earthsave.org/

The Stunted Discourse on Torture Continues

I have devoted quite a few entries recently to the discussion of torture policies and my viewpoint that officials that approved these policies should be investigated and held accountable for their actions. I actually find it fascinating to witness some of the conversations that take place in the media in regard to torture policies and those who continue to insist that this is merely a question of political difference and debate as opposed to a discussion over accountability to the rule of law.

I am in complete agreement that outgoing administrations should not have to worry about policies being criminalized, but when those policies break the law and are potential war crimes, then certainly those who implement said policies should be investigated and held to account. When we are discussing violations of the law, we move beyond mere differences in political ideology and discussions about accountability to the law should not be viewed through merely a political lens. After all, we are a nation of laws and are of the belief that no one is above the law. It was quite refreshing to see the nominee for the position of Attorney General state today that "no one is above the law" and that "waterboarding is torture".




Despite Holder's assertion that "no one is above the law" President-elect Obama has not made any indication that Bush Administration officials will be investigated and face charges for implementing policies. In fact, Obama stated the tired line that "we need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards" this past weekend with George Stephanopolous. In order for Obama's Administration to hold the line that "no one is above the law" and to remain consistent with their assertion that "waterboarding is torture", there is no other option than to hold those who made the decision to implement torture, accountable for their illegal and immoral actions.

As President Bush and other Administration officials continue to admit that they approved of torture and Holder and Obama state that waterboarding is indeed torture that the United States has prosecuted others for in the past, the scenario is set for the next step of accountability. All the while there is still a debate about whether these policies are appropriate, with people like Joe Scarborough and Dick Cheney, continuing to defend these policies as necessary to the safety of U.S. citizens. The clip below is a prime example of just how backward the discourse has slid when these issues are discussed:

Alberto Gonzales and His Perverse Sense of Political Martyrdom

Former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has recently resurfaced in the news media as he has announced plans to write a tell-all book about his time as a member of the Bush Administration. Gonzales appeared on The O'Reilly Factor last week to answer softball questions from substitute host Juan Williams about his role in approving so-called enhanced interrogation techniques and his role in the firing of nine U.S. attorneys.

Billed as a "Factor Exclusive", it quickly became clear why Gonzales chose The O'Reilly Factor as the forum for his first interview since leaving the Bush Administration. Williams began the interview with this question:

WILLIAMS: Now do these kind of loud appeals coming from the left for the
Obama administration to go after you, to look at criminal proceedings, does that
worry you?

GONZALES: It doesn't worry me, Juan. Obviously, in every
administration, every president is criticized. Cabinet heads are criticized. I
think if you're not criticized by someone, you're probably not doing your
job.

Other questions Williams asked were:

WILLIAMS: Now Ruben Navarrette, the columnist out in San Diego he says, you
know what? Liberals don't like you, conservatives don't like you. He says civil
libertarians are going after you for treatment of detainees as well as for
wiretaps. And then last week, you had the Senate Armed Services report that said
that based on their studies, the Obama administration should look at future
criminal proceedings. Now, let's stop and think about this for a second. Do you think that you did anything wrong in terms of paving the way for
detainees to be tortured?

WILLIAMS: Now, Mr. Attorney General, in September, the current Attorney
General Michael Mukasey appointed a prosecutor to look at whether or not there
were possible criminal charges, again criminal charges that could put you in
jail in regard to the firing of those nine U.S. attorneys. Again,
you're on the spot. You know, some people say there's a lynch mob after you. We
have talked just a moment ago about detainees. Now we are back to the nine U.S.
attorneys. Again, do you have any sense that you did something wrong
with regard to the firing of those nine U.S. attorneys?

Guess what Gonzales answered to both of these questions? "Absolutely not Juan..." followed by a long explanation for why he didn't feel he was in the wrong. It is clear that this was not a critical interview, but a chance for Alberto Gonzalez to continue to spout his talking points and deny that he did anything wrong or criminal while he was a member of the Bush Administration. Williams performance reminded me of a defense attorney gently asking his client rehearsed questions in order to allow his client to give favorable testimony in front of jurors.

If this appearance wasn't interesting enough, Gonzales also gave an interview to the Wall Street Journal's Evan Perez. From Perez's piece:

"What is it that I did that is so fundamentally wrong, that deserves this kind
of response to my service?" he said during an interview Tuesday, offering his
most extensive comments since leaving government.
During a lunch meeting two blocks from the White House, where he served under his longtime friend, President George W. Bush, Mr. Gonzales said that "for some reason, I am portrayed as the one who is evil in formulating policies that people disagree with. I consider myself a casualty, one of the many casualties of the war on terror."

Go ahead and read that excerpt again if you need to because it is quite telling of the mindset that exists not just within the Bush Administration, but within Washington. Not only does Gonzales express a sense of bewilderment at why people would think that he has done anything wrong, but he also plays the role of a political martyr by victimizing himself as "one of the many casualties of the war on terror." When I think about casualties of the so-called "War on Terror", I tend to think about the hundreds of thousands of innocents killed between Afghanistan and Iraq, I tend to think about the millions of displaced persons in both countries, and I tend to think about all those effected by the attacks on the World Trade Center. to name a few. What I don't think about, is Alberto Gonzales and his political career.

Aside from being appalling, the mindset that Gonzales puts forth stems from his belief that he is portrayed as evil for "formulating policies that people disagree with". He is viewing this, as was done in the interview with Juan Williams, as a political issue. Opponents of the torture policies and wiretapping policies that Gonzales has shown his support for, are painted as "liberals", "lynch mobs" and with vague terms like "the left". The debate is framed as political opposition to policies that were implemented by the Bush Administration. This issue, that of lawbreaking conducted by Bush Administration officials, should not be viewed through the lens of political accountability rather these concerns exist outside traditional political discourse. These concerns need to be discussed without a Pavlovian response to paint everything as "the left" vs. "the right" because we are talking about accountability to the rule of law and remaining a country in which no person can operate above the law.

The bewilderment that Alberto Gonzales expresses as he asks "what is it that I did that is so fundamentally wrong" is precisely a reason for why these Bush Administration officials should be held to account. Alberto Gonzales, like other Bush Administration officials, believe that they have done nothing wrong and that this criticism stems from "political opponents". This is despite reports like those from the bi-partisan Senate Armed Services Committee that state that Bush Administration officials are "directly responsible" for the abuse of detainees and despite the report done by Physicians for Human Rights which led Maj. General Antonio Taguba to state:

After years of disclosures by government investigations, media accounts,
and reports from human rights organizations, there is no longer any doubt as to
whether the current administration has committed war crimes. The only question
is whether those who ordered the use of torture will be held to account.

It is imperative for the Obama Administration to understand that holding elected officials to account for breaking the law falls outside of political retribution. The media pundits and the Bush Administration continue to try and frame this issue of accountability within the context of political differences and in order for any kind of legal accountability to take place, it is absolutely necessary for the incoming administration to recognize that this is taking place. This would not be an act of investigating political opponents who drew up unfavorable policies, this would be an act of investigating elected officials who committed serious crimes because they believed themselves to be above the law. There is a difference and in order for this country to preserve itself as a nation where no one is above the law, it is a difference that needs to be realized and articulated by the incoming administration.

This article can also be found at: http://www.cincinnatibeacon.com/

Contrary to Rick Warren's Recent Statements, He DID Equate Gay Marriage With Incest and Pedophilia

This past Sunday, Rick Warren put out a video for his members at Saddleback Church attempting to explain all of the recent controversy surrounding President elect Obama's decision to have Warren give the invocation at his inauguration. The controversy has come from those who are angered by Warren's opposition to gay marriage, abortion rights, and even the membership of gays to his church.

In his video response, Warren claims that no news story is 100% accurate and that all of this has happened because the media loves conflict. He also blames all this divisiveness on talk radio and bloggers that "need to get a life" and "are just being rude". Here is the video:




Did you hear that? "I have been accused of equating gay partnerships with incest and pedophilia," Warren stated, "I believe no such thing, I never have. You've never once heard me in thirty years talk that way about that."

Really? Well in that case, listen up members of Saddleback Church!





In case you missed it, check out the above clip starting at 2:00.

Warren: "I'm opposed to the redefinition of a 5,000 year definition of marriage. I'm opposed to having a brother and sister being together and call that marriage. I'm opposed to an older guy marrying a child and calling that a marriage. I'm opposed to one guy having multiple wives and calling that marriage."

Interviewer: "Do you think those are equivalent to gays getting married?"

Warren: "Oh I do."


Thanks for setting us straight Rick!

Cheney Admits Role in Approving Torture: It's Time for a Recommitment to the Rule of Law

In follow-up to my blog entry yesterday, In an interview with ABC News Dick Cheney has admitted to authorizing torture techniques and continues to justify their use.



Cheney also went on to advocate keeping Guantanamo Bay open indefinitely and continues to justify the invasion of Iraq despite the fact that the Administration was dead wrong about Saddam Hussein having stockpiles of Weapons of Mass Destruction. In fact, Cheney even brushed aside the notion that the accuracy of their pre-war claims even matter anymore. This is the first time that Vice President Cheney has admitted such an active role in approving these so-call "enhanced interrogation techniques" and his stark admission comes just days after the Senate Armed Services Committee released their report finding that senior officials within the Bush Administration are directly responsible for the abuse of detainees in U.S. custody. What is described in the report (thought not explicitly cited as such) are war crimes and what Cheney admits to in his interview with ABC, are war crimes. The only question left at this juncture is what (if any) actions an Obama Administration will take to restore the respect for the rule of law.

Cheney's arrogance and stark admissions are done because he knows that the likelihood of being held to account is very small within the current Washington climate. This is the same arrogance that has led the Bush Administration to expand the powers of the Executive Branch of the government to unprecedented levels. As rumors continue to float around the country that once President-elect Obama takes office he will close Guantanamo, it is necessary for Obama to simultaneously announce a recommitment to the rule of law. This recommitment needs to emphasize that no one, not the President and not any elected or appointed official, is above the law. In accordance with this recommitment, Obama should take the necessary steps to convene either an independent panel or a special prosecutor to investigate lawbreaking that has occurred over the last eight years. It is necessary to stop the expansion of power within the Executive Branch and it is necessary to restore this country's commitment to the basic principles of law that this country should adhere to.

An Open Letter to John Bolton

Dear Mr. Bolton,

I was recently about half-way through reading your letter to President-elect Obama when I asked myself this question: Why should I, Barack Obama, or anyone else for that matter, take any advice from you seriously?

You sir were a loyal soldier in the neo-conservative army that waged an all out assault on rationality and dissenting opinion in the lead-up to the Iraq War in 2002 and 2003. Your work directly contributed toward the invasion and occupation of Iraq which has resulted in the loss of thousands of U.S. soldiers and hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis. You were a member of the Project for the New American Century which tried to influence the Clinton Administration to adopt the same preemptive doctrine that you later were able to implement under the Bush Administration. This type of behavior has led to the decline in respect of the United States throughout the world and the spread of terrorist activities into countries that previously had little to no activity.

Your disregard for world opinion when it conflicts with so-called "United States interests" is a prime example of an unilateralist philosophy that has led this country into the giant mess that this new administration must now attempt to dig us out of. Why in the world should an Obama Administration take the advice of someone who is part of the ideology that the American people rejected so enthusiastically in this election?

In your letter, you advise President-elect Obama to:

"...resolve disagreements among your advisers, and not allow drift, and you must insist on discipline once you make a decision. If anyone disagrees with this approach, you may invite them to do the honourable thing and resign, or not sign on in the first place."

This advice is dictatorial. While you acknowledge that President Bush suffered from only hearing "one voice in his ear at critical points", you then advise Obama to take the same 'my way or the highway' approach to leading. The voters have rejected the idea of the imperial presidency Mr. Bolton. The strength of a leader does not simply reside in the ability to make decisions, but to listen to various viewpoints, constantly review new information, and be willing to adapt to a situation when things do not go as planned. In case you are not aware, things over the last eight years have not quite gone as planned for the American people. It is time for a new leadership strategy.

This new strategy should include a technique that you have not always been helpful in implementing, this is the strategy of diplomacy. It has not been effective nor will it continue to be effective to make statements such as "...there is no United Nations" and to suggest that it would make no difference if the UN lost ten floors of its building. You sound like a bully on the playground when you say things like:

"The United States makes the UN work when when it wants it to work and that is exactly the way it should be because the only basic question, only question for the United States, is what's in our national interest and if you don't like that, then I'm sorry but that is the fact."

This belittling of the international community is not what we needed eight years ago and it is certainly not what we need now. Despite this, you advise President-elect Obama to:

"...not let global 'public opinion' about the United States, from Albania to Zimbabwe, dissuade you from doing what you think is right for America. Your job is to defend and advance our interests and values, a task which invariably will displease our adversaries, and even many of our friends, especially those who wish we were, well, more European in our behaviour and attitudes...we should try to shift international public opinion to support our policies, not modify our policies to try to satisfy international public opinion."

Have you learned no lessons from any of the imperialist policies that you have supported? Do you not acknowledge that this type of thinking has led to out of control military spending, an increase in Al Qaeda's presence in Iraq, and a decline in American power and influence throughout the world? While you may think that you are advocating ways for a President Obama to be strong in actuality you are advocating the same stubborn ideology of the last eight years. Your words of advice read as a desperate last attempt for your neo-conservative agenda to fall upon ears that have already rejected your imperialist view of the world.

I urge President-elect Obama to say "thanks but no thanks" to the advice which you offer in your letter, this country can no longer afford to follow your advice. We have a lot of repair work to do and ripping open old wounds through bullying and unilateralism is not going to be an effective way to help this country heal.

This article can also be found at: http://www.cincinnatibeacon.com

From Hope to Momentum: Why the Election is Just the Beginning

It was as if the air had been let out of a balloon. The networks announced at 11pm EST that the country had elected Barack Obama to be the next President of the United States. I could instantly hear people shouting outside of my home and within three minutes, someone near-by began shooting off fireworks. I watched the sea of people at Chicago's Grant Park explode on my television set as people hugged each other and jumped around, unable to control their excitement. Crowds began to gather from Washington D.C. to major cities across the globe driving home just how much of a global impact the U.S. elections have. We watched the world let out a collective sigh of relief on election night with images of a unified and hopeful people anxious to see what happens next.

There is no doubting the historical nature of Barack Obama's campaign and election to be the first African-American President of the United States. Watching Obama address tens of thousands of supporters as President-elect was even enough to move many Americans to tears. Seeing the hope in the eyes of so many people is an amazing moment in history to bear witness to and only provides us with evidence that we are standing at an important time in the history of this country. The end of this election should not mark the end of the involvement of those who were energized by this campaign, to the contrary, this is where the real work needs to begin.

There are two main narratives that have been circulating since the election. The first comes from those on the right who have seen the Republican Party unravel into a giant circular firing squad and are still trying to interject their ideology into the American discourse. This is the narrative that we are a "center-right country". Karl Rove spoke these words on Fox News on election night and it has moved through the conservative echo chamber ever since. These pundits argue that an Obama Administration will be forced to govern from the center because the majority of Americans have "center-right" values.

The other narrative has come out of the Democratic Party and from some progressive-minded individuals. This narrative is that progressives won the election, are now in control, and through Obama will have the sway to influence policy over the next four years. Both of these narratives miss the mark. The United States is not a "center-right country". Americans just demonstrated their rejection of the ideology that has been in control of the Executive Branch for the last eight years and most Americans are in against the war, for universal health care , and in favor of smart government regulation of the financial industry. These are progressive ideas that many Obama supporters hold and are even more progressive than positions that Obama himself holds. This is not the mark of a center-right country, but of a country desperate for a new direction.

In the same breath, the narrative that progressives are now in control of the government and that Obama will automatically enact progressive change is also misguided. It has been demonstrated by many and through Obama's own voting record that he is a moderate politician with centrist policies. Now is not the time for progressives to sit back and watch what Obama can do, but rather it is time to use this fantastic opportunity to unite and apply pressure to an Obama Administration to enact actual change. It is vital for progressives to stay engaged and turn this enthusiasm from the election into a movement for the people.

Barack Obama and his administration are going to be pressured by the big corporate campaign donors who have established ties to and invested funds in Obama's campaign. Just like any other business decision, they want to see a good return on their investment so they will be seeking access and looking to influence policy. Amy Goodman wrote an article earlier this week in which she echos this sentiment:

"There are two key camps that feel invested in the Obama presidency: the millions who each gave a little, and the few who gave millions. The big-money interests have means to gain access. They know how to get meetings in the White House, and they know what lobbyists to hire. But the millions who donated, who volunteered, who were inspired to vote for the first time actually have more power, when organized."

The key to that statement are the last two words...when organized. Progressives need to start building a network in order to counter the insider influence and use this network to create a powerful movement of accountability. This moment in which we live is too important for us to not take action. In order to begin to pressure our national leaders, we must get organized on a grassroots level. It is absolutely necessary for those who supported Obama, to join with those who supported Cynthia McKinney, Ralph Nader, Ron Paul, on down the line and unite around the issues that we all care about. We must seize this moment, turn it into momentum, and raise our voice to say that we demand real progressive change.

John McCain, Sarah Palin, and Their Raging Supporters

As I continue to watch the odd twists and turns of the election season, I cannot help but be somewhat taken aback at the level of anger that is being shown by the supporters of John McCain and Sarah Palin. There have been outbursts during some of the speeches made by McCain and Palin calling Barack Obama a "terrorist" and the Secret Service is investigating whether a supporter shouted out "Kill Him" during a speech given by Sarah Palin in Florida. This level of anger from supporters has been invigorated ever since the McCain campaign has decided that the "gloves are coming off" in the remaining days before the election. This has resulted in increased attacks against Barack Obama for his association with William Ayers, a fear that Obama "isn't one of us", and has led Sarah Palin to famously quip that Obama is "palling around with terrorists." As John McCain desperately tries to attempt to put the genie back in the bottle, let's take a look at some videos and comments that have relevance to this discussion.

There has been some very interesting footage that has been circulating recently of McCain supporters waiting to get into speaking events. Take this video from outside an event in Strongsville, Ohio:



This type of sentiment has also found its way inside McCain rallies. During this clip, you can hear a McCain supporter yell "terrorist" in response to McCain's question: "Who is the real Barack Obama?":



This type of behavior has drawn criticism from some who claim that the McCain/Palin ticket has been fueling this type of behavior. This criticism has led to John McCain defending Barack Obama during recent town hall meetings and even getting booed by his own supporters:



All of this and Cindy McCain still believes that Obama is running the "dirtiest campaign in American history."

On October 10, Frank Schaeffer wrote an open letter to John McCain that appeared in the Baltimore Sun. Schaeffer supported John McCain his Presidential bid in 2000 and is the son of the evangelist Francis Schaeffer. Frank has worked in the past with Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and has chronicled his life growing up with religion in numerous books. Schaeffer has come out in support of Obama and feels that the McCain campaign has released a dangerous hatred from within his supporters. Part of his open letter is below:

John McCain: If your campaign does not stop equating Sen. Barack Obama with terrorism, questioning his patriotism and portraying Mr. Obama as "not one of us," I accuse you of deliberately feeding the most unhinged elements of our society the red meat of hate, and therefore of potentially instigating violence.

At a Sarah Palin rally, someone called out, "Kill him!" At one of your rallies, someone called out, "Terrorist!" Neither was answered or denounced by you or your running mate, as the crowd laughed and cheered. At your campaign event Wednesday in Bethlehem, Pa., the crowd was seething with hatred for the Democratic nominee - an attitude encouraged in speeches there by you, your running mate, your wife and the local Republican chairman.

Shame!...


...John McCain, you are no fool, and you understand the depths of hatred that surround the issue of race in this country. You also know that, post- 9/11, to call someone a friend of a terrorist is a very serious matter. You also know we are a bitterly divided country on many other issues. You know that, sadly, in America, violence is always just a moment away. You know that there are plenty of crazy people out there.

Stop! Think! Your rallies are beginning to look, sound, feel and smell like lynch mobs.

John McCain, you're walking a perilous line. If you do not stand up for all that is good in America and declare that Senator Obama is a patriot, fit for office, and denounce your hate-filled supporters when they scream out "Terrorist" or "Kill him," history will hold you responsible for all that follows.

Frank Schaeffer also mentioned during an interview today, that this type of language being used by McCain and Palin is stirring up anger within certain subcultures within this country that resonate with Sarah Palin and her background.

Journalist Max Blumenthal is back from a trip to Alaska where he visited Sarah Palin's church of 20 years and interviewed people that Palin has been involved with during her political career including the former Chair of the Alaskan Independence Party Mark Chryson. (Video here) Blumenthal documented his trip in some videos, one of which is below:




This article can also be found at: http://www.cincinnatibeacon.com

Actual Change and the Need for a Progressive Uprising

As this election season drags on and the race for President is getting more personal by the day, it seems as though we are learning little that is "new" from either major candidate. As has been demonstrated in both Presidential debates, Barack Obama and John McCain agree on many issues. Both have voted for the bailout, both advocate sending more troops into Afghanistan, both are advocating for the use of nuclear power for energy, both advocate unwavering support for Israel and on it goes. This alliance on many issues has some progressives scratching their heads as to what exactly an Obama administration will mean for the country. In fact, it is along these very lines which progressives are divided between supporting Obama and voting for a third party candidate. With under a month left before the election we all have to ask ourselves this question: Will an Obama Presidency produce fundamental progressive change for this country?

Barack Obama has been running on the idea of "bringing change" long before McCain jumped on the bandwagon. It was this message combined with Obama's charismatic ability to appeal to the younger generation that led to a largely progressive following. These supporters are obviously tired of the last eight years of rule under George W. Bush and are looking to take the country in a new direction. During the primaries Obama supported positions that excited the progressive community. He called for an end to the Iraq War and voiced opposition to FISA legislation that would give immunity to telecom companies. Since clinching the nomination, Obama has altered his language on Iraq and voted for FISA legislation that gave immunity to telecom companies. Actions such as these made some Obama supporters think twice about Obama's "progressive" message while others dismissed these changes in position as the traditional "move to the right" that Democratic candidates display after they make it through the primaries. Was Obama running to the left in the primaries and returning to his actual centrist beliefs or did Obama actually hold progressive viewpoints but feel he had to shift to the right in order to get elected? Many still claim that Obama must move to the right so he can get elected and only once he is elected can he implement his true agenda. Is there evidence for this view?


In July, Paul Street wrote a piece that is relevant to this discussion. In his piece, Street outlines Obama's political career and comes to the conclusion that there is no evidence that Obama is somehow a closet progressive that will implement radical progressive change once elected. Street claims that Obama is simply a typical politician with centrist roots. Street writes:

Obama's career prior to his emergence as a national celebrity and politician does not jibe particularly well with the "stealth progressive" hypothesis. During his seven years in the Illinois Senate between 1997 and 2004, Obama developed strong and interrelated reputations for limitless personal aspiration, for working closely with Republicans, for "pragmatic" compromise, and for staying close to the great hidden secret to success under the rules of American "market democracy" - corporate money [8]. As Ryan Lizza notes in an important recent New Yorker sketch of Obama's early political career, "Perhaps the greatest misconception about Barack Obama is that he is some sort of anti-establishment revolutionary. Rather, every stage of his political career has been marked by an eagerness to accommodate himself to existing institutions rather than tear them down or replace them"

The important line in this quote is that at every stage of Obama's political career, he has "been marked by an eagerness to accommodate himself to existing institutions rather than tear them down or replace them." In addition to the examples of FISA, the Iraq War, and Israeli support, Street sites the following as other examples of Obama's eagerness to accommodate himself to existing institutions:

...he did things like:

* vote with Republicans to cap consumer legal damages ("tort reform").
* confirm the war criminal Condoleezaa Rice as (of all things) Secretary of State.
* lecture "bloggers" (Obama's new code name for the growing number of activists and voters who dare to openly disagree with Him from the left) on their need to show proper respect for U.S. Senators who approved the appointment of arch-reactionary opponents of womens' and civil rights to the rule-for-life Supreme Court.
* distance himself from Rep. John Murtha's (D-PA)call for early withdrawal from Iraq and from his fellow Illinois U.S. Senator Dick Durbin's courageous criticism of American Gestapo-like practices in Guantanamo.
* lend his campaign support to pro-war against antiwar candidates in the Democratic congressional primaries of 2006 and otherwise distance himself from the movement against the Iraq War.
* advance the energy agenda of the nuclear and ethanol industries.

It seems as though many Obama supporters are putting their faith in his ability to fundamentally change the existing institutions that have moved America so far backward when Obama's actions over the years indicate that he is more willing to accommodate these institutions rather than tear them down. The conservative criticism that Obama is a closeted "socialist" and the Democratic belief that Obama is a closeted progressive, are both off base in this regard.


With this being said, is there any hope at all for any type of progressive change to be implemented under an Obama Presidency? To address this question it is necessary to recognize the power of corporate interests and lobbyists within this country. One of the criticisms of Bill Clinton was his shift toward more corporatist policies after running a populist campaign back in 1992. In this regard history could very well repeat itself. The next President will inherit a financial crisis like none we have seen since the Great Depression, a national debt that continues to grow, two wars, and a crumbling infrastructure. This financial crisis could provide the pretext for heavy pressure from Wall Street, to cut programs that are needed to reinvest dollars domestically that the United States needs. Think tanks and lobbyists could advise the next President that we simply cannot afford to expand our alternative energy resources or invest in healthcare for everyone. It is this type of pressure that could reignite the same failed polices of privatization that have led us into this mess in the first place. Naomi Klein recently articulated this point in an address to the University of Chicago:

I think it is a waste of your minds, your creativity, because all of these crises—climate change, the casino that is contemporary capitalism—all of these crises do demand answers, do demand actions. They are messages, telling us that the system is broken. And instead of actual solutions, we're throwing ideology, very profitable ideology, at these problems. So we need better ideas lying around.

We need better ideas responding to what a Barack Obama presidency would absolutely face. As soon as he comes to office, "Yes, you can" turns into "No, you can't; we're broke." No green jobs, no alternative energy, no healthcare for everyone. You know, his plan for—to give healthcare to every child in America costs $80 billion. Bailing out AIG cost $85 billion. They're spending that money. They're spending those promises. So, the people who are going to say, "No, you can't," who are going to use this crisis to shut down hope, to shut down possibility, are ready.

Klein reemphasized this point in her appearance on "The Colbert Report" last week. She stated that there are those who will advise an Obama administration that we are broke and cannot afford these changes. These will be the same people who will push for the privatization of things such as our infrastructure. This will be done under the banner that we must eliminate programs that are "unnecessary" and "wasteful". Obama (like McCain) has already stated that he will go through the budget "line by line" and eliminate "programs that don't work and aren't needed." Massive corporate interests are lined up, ready to pressure those within an Obama Administration to adopt policies that will work to uphold the very same institutions that have led us to the dismal situation in which we find ourselves today.


The view that Obama taking power will result in a complete reversal of where we are currently headed is misguided. This belief, that actual change is possible within the two main parties, is unfounded and not supported by history. All major movements for social change have grown out of movements which have forced the party in power to adopt policies that they can no longer refuse to ignore. From Women's Rights to Civil Rights this holds true and the circumstances today are no exception. It is here that there may be some hope around Obama's candidacy: With such a massive groundswell of support for this man there is potential for a movement to form in order to counter the influence of Wall Street, lobbyists and other corporate interests. It is first imperative to realize that Obama is not going to change things without overwhelming pressure from an outside progressive movement. If those who are progressively minded and have supported Obama walk away from the process after the election, then we will not have any hope for accountability. These energized progressives within the Obama campaign need to join with those who have been fighting within existing movements such as the anti-war movement, the media reform movement, or the environmental movement and hold a potential Obama Administration accountable. We live in times where putting faith in one man to change a system is not going to work. A powerful movement is needed to force a potential Obama Administration to adopt policies that they can no longer refuse to ignore.


Many of those who have been fighting this fight are already keenly aware of these problems. This is the reason that there is a very real fight to open the debates to third party candidates to address these issues and this is the reason that many people will either sit out this election or cast their vote for a third party candidate. Those who feel strongly about Obama's possibility must join with those who feel strongly about a unified people's possibility. Obama will not change things on his own, the people must force Obama to change, especially because Obama is a candidate that adapts to institutions rather than tear them down. The people must tear them down.


While a glimmer of hope is there, I fear that this will not happen. I fear that those who have fought this fight for years will be left to continue fighting while a group of confused Obama supporters wonder why things are still heading down the same path. I hope I am proven wrong because the United States can not take much more of this.

This article can also be found at: http://www.cincinnatibeacon.com

Privatized Iraq and the Expansion of Private Contractors into Afghanistan

President Bush recently announced that he would be sending nearly 5,000 more troops into Afghanistan. Bush stated: "This continuing commitment to the Afghan people illustrates a stark contrast: While the terrorists and extremists deliberately target and murder the innocent, coalition and Afghan forces risk their lives to protect the innocent." Presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain have both voiced support for increasing troop levels in Afghanistan, but Barack Obama feels that Bush's plan does not go far enough. Obama recently stated, "His plan comes up short. It is not enough troops not enough resources with not enough urgency." While both major candidates for President may agree on sending more troops into the region, a conversation that is rarely discussed is the increased presence of private military contractors within the borders of Afghanistan and the expansion of military basis that hint at a long-term U.S. presence.

The presence of private military contractors inside Iraq's borders has been documented by some within the corporate media and investigated thoroughly by independent journalist Jeremy Scahill. Scahill published a book in 2007 entitled: Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army in which he outlines the activities of the private military company Blackwater Worldwide. Blackwater has provided security for contractors, diplomats, and other high-level personnel in Iraq since initially receiving a no-bid contract for $21 million to guard Paul Bremer after the 2003 invasion. Blackwater continues to have their contracts renewed despite their involvement in incidents such as the Nisour Square Massacre, in which 17 unarmed Iraqi civilians were gunned down by Blackwater employees. While arguably the most notable private contracting firm in Iraq, Blackwater is only one of many companies that has a presence in the region. In a recent piece in the Christian Science Monitor, it is estimated that there are now over 190,000 private contractors in Iraq as of early 2008, a figure that outnumbers U.S. troops in the country. This continued reliance on such contracting firms, in addition to the expansion of the "Green Zone" and other military bases in the country, indicates that the United States is focused on a long-term presence in Iraq. With both major Presidential Candidates wanting to shift the focus from Iraq to Afghanistan and given the announcement of the increase of troops by President Bush, some familiar patterns are beginning to surface.

In a recent article that appeared in the Washington Post, it is reported that the Pentagon has issued a proposal seeking civilian contractors to begin performing various tasks in Afghanistan. It is also revealed that the Defense Department are seeking firms that could supply airborne surveillance services. Other contracts are also being put out by various governmental organizations for a wide range of materials. One contract asks for a contractor who can provide 22 medium to heavy lift helicopters and another for a contractor who can provide storage for 4,600 vehicles. A very telling quote from the article is from Rep. David Price of North Carolina. He says, "The military is stretched very thin, and to keep low the deployments numbers, there is a tendency to go to contractors who have played a huge part in Iraq."

With the expansion of troops to the region and the increased number of requests for private contractors, it is also relevant to look at the expansion of the Bagram prison facility in Afghanistan. Bagram is currently being expanded thanks to a $50 million dollar contract that was awarded from the Army Corps of Engineers to Prime Projects International to expand the prison facility so that it will be able to hold 1,000 high and low risk detainees. This project is not slated to be complete until October 2009. In addition to the physical expansion of the facility, the Pentagon is also looking to expand the role of intelligence operations at the Bagram facility. It was reported by USAToday that interrogators and analysts are being sought by the Pentagon to questions prisoners and provide intelligence that can be used on the battlefield. The report also states that the Pentagon is looking to hire a "trained Mullah" to conduct Islamic services for the detainees and advise the United States on religious issues.

Iraq has been the most privatized war that the United States has ever been involved in. The private contracting firms have never seen business booming at such a rapid rate. The Congressional Budget Office released a report in August, 2008 in which they stated:

The United States has used contractors during previous military operations, although not to the current extent. According to rough historical data, the ratio of about one contractor employee for every member of the U.S. armed forces in the Iraq theater is at least 2.5 times higher than that ratio during any other major U.S. conflict, although it is roughly comparable with the ratio during operations in the Balkans in the 1990s.

The rise in the privatization of the Iraq War has created a template for maximum profitability on services that are carried out by private contractors and often relied upon during a time of war. As private contractors are used more and more to provide services once performed by the military, accountability to international laws and regulations give way to an accountability to the bottom line. This privatization strategy has been embraced by the political leadership of the United States and is now being expanded to play a more prominent role in Afghanistan. This issue needs to be raised during this election season. While John McCain is largely silent on the issue of private contractors, Barack Obama spoke out against the role of contractors in October 2007; however when questioned by journalist Amy Goodman on the issue this summer, Obama refused to state that he would ban contractors from Iraq if elected. Video of that exchange can be found here. Now, as Obama is calling for a greater number of troops in Afghanistan, it is apparent that the level of contractors will only increase as this has been the model that has shown itself to be the best system for large profits. Will these questions be addressed? Is the expansion of the role of private contractors viewed as a problem by political leadership? Perhaps the answer lies in following the money. From a piece written by Aziz Choudry on ZMag.org:

An April 2008 Centre for Responsive Politics report states that US Congress members invested US $196 million of their own money in companies that receive hundreds of millions of dollars a day from Pentagon contracts to provide goods and services to US armed forces, ranging from aircraft and weapons manufacturers to producers of medical supplies and soft drinks.

Or perhaps part of the answer lies in an understanding of the foundation of the very conflict with which the U.S. has been involved in since 2001. It is summed up most recently by Seth Jones, a military analyst with the think tank RAND Corp:

"One thing we have not taken advantage of is just trying to understand what is motivating people to join the insurgency."

This article can also be found at http://www.cincinnatibeacon.com/

Dissent in Denver: A Snapshot of the Voices Kept Out of the Convention Center

One convention down, one convention to go. Barack Obama's acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention on Thursday night concluded four days of speeches, parties, and Democratic celebration over their nominee for President of the United States. Beginning on September 1, the Republicans will roll into St. Paul, Minnesota for four days of the same to try to convince Americans that John McCain and Sarah Palin are the duo to lead this country for the next four years. While there has been much media focus on what has happened inside the Pepsi Center in Denver this past week, it is also important to focus on what happened outside the Pepsi Center, in the streets of Denver, in order to give the public a full view of everything that transpired during the DNC.

Before the convention began, I wrote about the plans of protesters and the actions that were taken by the City of Denver in preparation for dealing with the voices of the people that may not mesh with the Democratic party-line. With the conclusion of the Democratic National Convention, I would like to look back at some of the events that transpired in the streets.

The corporate media did take a little notice of the protesters on the Sunday before the convention began. Fox News sent a reporter to mingle with the protesters and to "cover the story". As you might imagine, the protesters did not take too kindly to the presence of Fox News:




The Fox News reporter decides to go into the protest march and asks numerous protesters: "what is your message?". When some of the protesters do not give him a response, the reporter says, "I guess they don't believe in freedom of speech." This of course, is ridiculous considering that freedom of speech is what was allowing the march to exist in the first place. The purpose of this "report" by Fox News, was to paint the protesters as violent and radical and to avoid any real substantive discussion on the issues. This is a trademark of the corporate media when they cover protests. The major media networks acknowledge that their is a protest, but cover the protesters from a glance, misrepresent their views, and fail to give any voices of dissent airtime for a civil discussion of the issues. Compare that display of so-called journalism with the report filed by the independent news program Democracy Now!:




As the protests grew in number and the Convention got under way, the presence of law enforcement officials also grew. Consider this incident of police surrounding protesters, escorting media out of the area, then pepper spraying and arresting 91 people inside. Again, from Democracy Now:




Video also surfaced of police physically assaulting a protester from the organization CODEPink and then arresting her when she attempted to explain her story to the media:




As we move into the Republican National Convention and more protest is expected, it is important to watch the corporate media with a critical eye when they present opposing views as Fox News did in the report I posted above. It is also important to make sure that the police do not abuse their power and use un-necessary force against voices of dissent. Protesters largely rejected the so-called "free speech zone" in Denver and while it remains to be seen how protests will transpire in St. Paul, there is some indication that the situation may be more of the same. The Minnesota Star Tribune reported this past week that three journalists who arrived in St. Paul to cover the protests, had all their equipment illegally searched and confiscated:

"The incident comes on the heels of a recently adopted city resolution stating police may confiscate video cameras only during events such as protests if needed for evidence or if the person with the camera has been arrested. 'I'm surprised and certainly concerned by this,' said Council Member Cam Gordon, who pushed for the resolution. 'While I still want to get all of the details, this certainly sets the wrong tone for the convention.' "


You can also view this article at: http://www.cincinnatibeacon.com

China and the 2008 Olympic Games: Commercialization, Surveillance, and Political Influence

Much of the focus in the U.S. media on the 2008 Olympic Games has revolved around the athletic accomplishments of athletes representing the United States. There has also been some coverage in the corporate media that has discussed the human rights abuses that surround China as well as the crackdown that the Chinese government has imposed upon those activists that wish to see a free and independent Tibet. While this type of story gets limited airtime, much of the media coverage in the United States has been of a more traditional nature; coverage of athletes and their quest for gold and old rivalries renewed by the spirit of competition. As the Olympics descend upon Beijing this year, it is critical to look at some issues that surround China and China's relations with the United States. Some argue that these issues should be kept separate so as not to tarnish the "spirit of the games", but with China's continued emergence as a global market force, it is only appropriate to give some of these issues attention. Three issues that need the critical focus that corporate coverage often lacks are the commercialization of the games, the emergence of China as a surveillance society, and the rise of political influence from the West.

Commercialization of sporting events in nothing new. Many people watch the Super Bowl for the commercials alone, NASCAR race cars are plastered with company logos, and celebrities can easily obtain a second income from product endorsements. What is new, is the level of commercialization that surrounds the Olympic games. The very involvement of so many global companies with the Olympics immediately shifts the games from not just healthy sporting competition, but to a global business venture for giant corporations. Editor Robert Weissman has written a new piece in which he states:

"A record 63 companies have become sponsors or partners of the Beijing Olympics, and Olympics-related advertising in China alone could reach $4 billion to $6 billion this year, according to CSM, a Beijing marketing research firm."

Weissman is an editor of the Multinational Monitor and they have just released a report which analyzes "how commercialization is overrunning the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games". The report discusses how sponsorships and branding campaigns have eclipsed the very spirit that the Olympics are meant to embody. This includes sponsors such as McDonald's and Coca-Cola (companies not known for making healthy food and drink), which pump loads of money into the games while the Olympics simultaneously strive to promote healthy living and fitness. This type of hypocrisy can also be seen with the companies that make the majority of the Olympic apparel. ADIDAS and Nike have a dark history of sourcing their products from sweatshops and, as the report states, ADIDAS just announced that it is transferring some of the companies production out of China because they pay their workers too high a wage. These inherent contradictions fly in the face of what the "spirit of the Olympics" strive to promote and deserve to be covered fully.

The second issue that deserves in-depth coverage from the corporate media, is the emergence of China as a surveillance society and how U.S. defense contractors are aiding in this process. This issue has received relatively little coverage overall with the exception of an extensive piece done by journalist Naomi Klein and published in May of this year by Rolling Stone. This piece outlines the Chinese city of Shenzhen which Klein describes as "the crack cocaine of capitalism". This city was one of the few areas in China where capitalism was first implemented on a trial basis. The city boomed economically and now has a population of 12.4 million people. The city is now home to numerous American corporations and many electronics, automobiles, and apparel items are made in this city. In addition to this economic boom, Klein reports that the city of Shenzhen installed 200,000 surveillance cameras which all are fed into a nationwide network used to track every public space in the city. Elements of this program, called "Golden Shield", are being supplied to the Chinese by corporations such as IBM, General Electric, and Honeyshield and are being used to build a system which will help to prevent any massive public uprising during this time period in which the entire world is focused on China.

An important point that is made by Klein in this piece, is that free markets and free people do not necessarily go hand in hand. China is a prime example of how "free market capitalism" can thrive under a style of government that is does not at all promote freedom. The "Golden Shield" system is being built to provide 24 hour a day surveillance of the Chinese population, the ability to monitor phone and Internet access, and a system national ID's that will have an end result of providing China with a photo database of all 1.3 billion people within the country. This type of system will not only provide the Chinese government with detailed information about their population, but will allow for tight control over demonstrations and opponents of such a system.

Companies in the United States don't see the emergence of the Chinese surveillance society as a problem, they see it as an opportunity. IBM, General Electric, and Honeywell are all providing China with the infrastructure for building this "Golden Shield" technology. Everything from the computer monitoring systems to the security systems which can control thousands of cameras and track fast-moving objects. The market is ripe for these companies as well as others who are lining up to help China with its immense need to coordinate a system that can help track over a billion people. While this is certainly reason enough for concern among those in the U.S. who care about human rights, Klein quotes a British researcher named Greg Walton in her article who states that the U.S. government is not expressing outrage at this, but rather mining this type of system for ideas.

As has been shown above, American companies already have the opportunity to make big money on the over-commercialization of the Olympic Games as well as in the new Chinese market of population surveillance. In addition to these issues, the Chinese connection of advisors to both major Presidentail campaigns show a very real relevance to the 2008 Presidential election.

Ken Silverstein has written a new piece in Harper's Magazine which outlines how many bipartisan experts (tied to the campaigns of both major Presidential candidates) profit from the emerging Chinese market while simultaneously calling for constructive engagement with the country. Silverstein was on the news program Democracy Now! recently to discuss his most recent article. In the interview, he outlines how several advisors to both major campaigns have appeared regularly on television and in print without disclosing their connection to consulting firms whose business model is built upon pushing for policies that will open more economic doors with countries like China. Silverstein states in his interview:

"...you cannot open doors with Chinese government officials on behalf of Western companies unless you are on good terms. I mean, if they don’t like you, if you say a lot of nasty things about Tibet or human rights or anything else, then the Chinese government officials that you need to help you in your business are not going to be there for you."

The issue with this is not simply a lack of disclosure, but the very real possibility that many of these private-sector advisors to both campaigns could very well end up back in government jobs. Silverstein points to the example of Sandy Berger from the Clinton Administration. Prior to his time spent in the Clinton Administration, Berger worked in the private sector for Hogan & Hartson pushing for the continued normalization of trade with China. Upon his arrival in the Administration, he continued to push for the normalization of trade relations with China and the Clinton Administration ended up prioritizing normal trade relations over human rights policy by the end of their time in office. After Berger left the Clinton Administration, he went to work for Stonebridge International where he still lobbies for China to this day.

In connection with the current Presidential race, Silverstein expands on the connections of Alexander Haig and Brent Scrowcroft with both China and John McCain and of Jeffrey Bader with Barack Obama. These advisors have very strong connections with or have started their own bipartisan firms (The Scowcroft Group) that have direct ties to lobbying for favorable policies toward China. Silverstein states:

"If you look at the authors of virtually any major think tank report on foreign policy and you look down the list of who put it together, you’re almost always going to find people from these consulting firms. And again, at least let’s identify these people. I mean, you’ll see them identified as belonging to a think tank, say, but what you won’t see is, you know, a guy like [Kevin] Nealer identified as working for the Scowcroft Group. I mean, let’s get these conflicts out in the open, at least, so the public knows who’s putting together our foreign policy. "

Affiliations with these firms are often not disclosed to the public when these officials comment in the media and these same advisors have the potential to have very real sway within either a McCain Administration or an Obama Administration. Their backgrounds and agendas need to be both examined and exposed.

The three issues that I have outlined above get very little attention within the greater discussion that has surrounded the Olympic games. Instead, we hear advertiser friendly messages of unity, competition, and the human spirit. Serious issues that directly affect the Olympics are brushed aside and labeled as items that distract from the true nature of the games. What is missed, is the reality that these issues are directly connected the 2008 Olympics and its host country. Commercialization has woven itself through every corridor of Beijing and the Olympic stadiums in which the athletes will perform. The increase in surveillance has been used as an excuse to "beef up" security prior to the games in order to keep people safe, yet the long-term plans to continue construction of the "Golden Shield" speak to the pervasive nature of China's surveillance society. The connection of institutions that lobby for normalized relations with China to prominent advisors of both major Presidential candidates speak to the tangled political and economic web that is woven from the Far East, to Washington D.C. These are the issues that need addressing because the implications of each issue have the potential to last much longer than the shine on a gold medal.

This article can also be found at: http://www.cincinnatibeacon.com