Naomi Klein on Haiti: Don't Let Them Shock Again

After last week's devastating earthquake rocked the nation of Haiti, there were several comments from the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Pat Robertson that were not only disgusting, but that were downright revolting.

These comments were very public and received condemnation from across the political spectrum. As relief efforts continue and the United States role in the recovery efforts grows, there are some "behind the scenes" strings that are being pulled that need to be discussed.

Journalist and author Naomi Klein's book The Shock Doctrine does a fantastic job in bringing forth some very important points when it comes to how disasters are often manipulated by those who hold power, to push through policies that are normally unpopular in times of calm. Klein gives example after example (from Chile in 1973 through Katrina in 2005) of how "disaster capitalists" use moments of chaos to apply so-called free-market solutions that will in turn benefit the economic interests of the United States.

Klein is warning people that this crisis in Haiti is no different:





This piece is also posted here.

Around the Horn: Reactions from the Blogosphere on Obama's Nobel Peace Prize

My reaction is here. Here are some reactions from the blogosphere:

The TOXIC Mud Pit:

What a joke. Such a huge slap in the face to those who have actually accomplished something for peace. As WaPo notes, two other US presidents have won…but in their second terms and after, ahem, actually achieving something. I thought giving it to Gore amounted to making it worthless, but this takes the cake.

Bungalow Bill:

Let's face it. The Nobel Prize means nothing. It's a silly peace of metal. Obama has done more to hurt peace by giving credibility to some of the most evil dictators in the world while lowering the security of peaceful nations everywhere. This isn't worthy of a metal. It's worthy of the western world laughing you out of office.

Cosmic X at Cosmic X in Jerusalem:

The Nobel Peace Prize became a joke ever since it was awarded to Yasser Arafat, Shimon Peres and Yitzchak Rabin in 1994 for the ill fated "Oslo Agreements". The Norwegians continue to prove that they have a poor sense of humor by awarding the prize to Mr. B.O. I am not laughing.

Mr. Trend at AlterDestiny:

In that regard, I think he's more deserving of the award than many. Is it too soon? I think that's a fair argument. Is it confusing? A bit (even after having awakened after a cup of coffee). Is there room for improvement? Of course - show me one person who's already perfect. That said, I think this is in part about Obama, and the (what I think is very real) change he brings to American foreign policy. But to focus on it just being about him is to miss the larger point, I think; it's also about embracing a major change in diplomatic relations between the U.S. and the world at large, a change that the U.S. initiated under the leadership of a particular man. And I'm fine with that.

Adam T. Rossi at Political Junkie:

But thank god the Nobel Prize committee does not except money from lobbyists, which allows them, if nothing else, to preserve the idea of peace on earth. Which would probably explain why the war mongering, in it for themselves, swine's of the Republican party are usually being lectured by the Nobel Peace Prize committee and not praised. I can just imagine what Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck will have to say about this. We'll probably be talking about a Tea Party rally in front of Noble Prize committee's Norwegian head quarters next week (Rabble Rabble Rabble), maybe even the total annihilation of Norway all together.

But enough about those sick bastards, because while they sulk over our president's monumental win (like they would if he reached world peace, stopped global warming and cured cancer), the rest of us should be proud that we now have a president, who is praised by the Nobel committee, instead of being chastised for unilateralism like his predecessor George W. Bush had been.

Taylor Marsh:

For Pres. Obama’s outreach to the Muslim community, which is nothing less than historic, especially looking through the prism of Bush-Cheney; when you look at his preliminary preparations for Middle East dialogue; when he took the bold step to demand a freeze in Israeli settlements. Barack Obama foreshadows what could be if partners come forth, even if nothing concrete has manifested. In Afghanistan, his determination to help the Afghans help themselves, but particularly the women of that country rise up.

Coralville Courier:

Never mind that the deadline for submitting a nobel nominee ended two weeks after Obama took office. So what's the deal, are we to believe that Obama won based on campaign trail talk?

Gee, what an accomplishment!

The award has truly lost its prestige, as Obama really hasn't contributed anything to global peace yet. Can you say, "Rigged?" I think you can.

And peace? Obama said he would end the Iraq war but he hasn't delivered as he promised on the campaign trail. In Afghanistan, the president is seriously considering ramping up the U.S. troop presence there - a surge. He's authorized predator drone strikes in Pakistan and helicopter attacks in Somalia.

The Role of the News Anchor

Charlie Brooker takes a look at the role of news anchors both in Britain and in the United States in this funny and relevant video:

Senate Armed Services Committee: Senior Bush Officials Directly Responsible for Torture

Last week the Senate Armed Services Committee released the results of their Inquiry into the Treatment of Detainees in U.S. Custody. This bi-partisan inquiry concluded that senior officials in the Bush Administration, including the President, are directly responsible for implementing policies that led to the abusive techniques that were used on detainees in U.S. custody. In addition, the inquiry also concludes that the legal council of the Department of Justice distorted the intent of anti-torture laws and that legal reviews of these policies were cut short and acted to undermine the military's review process.

This revelation, that of the Bush Administration's responsibility for policies resulting in detainee abuse, should not come as a surprise to those who have been following developments of how the United States has conducted the so-call "War on Terror" since 2001. What is new in this instance, is that the Senate Armed Services Committee, whose ranking member is Republican Senator John McCain, has concluded that senior government officials both past and present are directly responsible for such actions.

Such a damning report has received scant media coverage in the wake of the Blagojevich scandal and is likely not to register as a blip on the radar of news coverage. Glenn Greenwald, blogger and analyst for Salon.com, reflects on the issue:

"Just ponder the uproar if, in any other country, the political parties joined together and issued a report documenting that the country's President and highest aides were directly responsible for war crimes and widespread detainee abuse and death. Compare the inevitable reaction to such an event if it happened in another country to what happens in the U.S. when such an event occurs..."

Non-existent media coverage does not lessen the importance of such findings. The conclusions reached and the time-line established are well worthy of, and frankly demand, further discussion and examination. Based on the findings of the inquiry, the initial action that opened the door for the consideration and implementation of so-call "enhanced interrogation techniques" was President Bush's signing of the memorandum on February 7, 2002 which stated that the Third Geneva Convention did not apply to the conflict with Al Qaeda. From the report:

"...the decision to replace well established military doctrine, i.e., legal compliance with the Geneva Conventions, with a policy subject to interpretation, impacted the treatment of detainees in U.S. custody."

This memorandum set off a chain of events that resulted in the United States implementing the same torture techniques on detainees that they had once trained their own military members to resist. The Joint Personnel Recovery Agency (JPRA) is an agency under the Department of Defense who trained American military to resist and withstand interrogation techniques that were considered illegal. This training, called Survival Evasion Resistance and Escape or SERE training, taught service members to resist Chinese Communist techniques originally developed to elicit false confessions. During the Spring of 2002, the report finds that senior government officials began to inquire about knowledge that JPRA had and its support for interrogations. Into the Summer of 2002, JPRA provided information to DOD that allowed the agency to begin the process of reverse engineering the SERE techniques for use on detainees.

During this same time period, the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Council (OLC) was working to redefine torture. The now infamous "Bybee memos" were issued on August 1, 2002. The first memo concluded that "For an act to constitute torture as defined in [the federal torture statute], it must inflict pain that is difficult to endure. Physical pain amounting to torture must be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death." The Second memo addressed the legality of interrogation techniques and while these techniques remain classified, there have been indications that waterboarding was among the list that were approved. It is during this time period where Assistant Attorney General for the OLC, John Yoo, was meeting with people like Alberto Gonzales and David Addington to discuss these matters before issuing a new legal opinion on torture.

On October 11, 2002, a request was sent from the detention facility at Guantanomo Bay (GTMO) to the Commander of the United States Southern Command requesting approval for use of more aggressive interrogation techniques. It was after this request that GTMO's Staff Judge Advocate, Lieutenant Colonel Diane Beaver, wrote an analysis that justified such interrogation techniques, but she expected a broader legal review would take place at more senior levels. General Richard Myers, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff then began to solicit the opinion of every branch of the military on the opinion issued by Beaver. Every branch of the military objected to certain aspects of the opinion. The Marine Corps even stated that several of the techniques "arguably violate federal law, and would expose our service members to possible prosecution."

The Legal Counsel to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Capitan Jane Dalton, instructed her staff to perform a thorough review of these techniques, but the review was cut short by General Myers and soon after, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld pressured his advisors for a final recommendation. On November 27, 2002 DOD council William Haynes recommended that Rumsfeld approve all but three of the techniques that were requested by Dalton. On December 2, 2002, Rumsfeld famously signed Haynes's recommendation and in referencing limits on stress positions Rumsfeld added the handwritten note: "I stand for 8-10 hours a day. Why is standing limited to 4 hours?"

From this point on, SERE techniques were actively taught at the military base in Guantanamo Bay and quickly spread to Afghanistan and into Iraq. These authorized techniques led to the torture, injury, and death of detainees in U.S. custody. The ACLU has compiled a comprehensive list of deaths that have occurred in U.S. custody that you can view here. While Rumsfeld rescinded the order that authorized use of these so-called enhanced techniques at GTMO in January of 2003, it is evident and the Senate Armed Services report states, that these practices continued throughout Afghanistan and Iraq. After rescinding the order, Rumsfeld acted to establish a "Working Group" whose purpose it was to review the interrogation tactics. According to the Senate Armed Services Report:

"...senior military and civilian lawyers tried, without success, to have their concerns about the legality of aggressive techniques reflected in the Working Group's report. Their arguments were rejected in favor of a legal opinion from the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel's John Yoo."

Yoo's opinion concluded that criminal laws in effect would not apply to military interrogators and that they could not be prosecuted for methods that violate the law. This opinion was later rescinded by the new Assistant General for the Office of Legal Counsel, Jack Goldmith in late 2003 as he told the DOD that Yoo's memos could not be relied upon to determine the legality of such techniques.

The conclusions of this report are crystal clear. Starting with President Bush's declaration that the Geneva Conventions do not apply to al Qaeda, senior members of the Administration supported policies that directly led to the abuse (and in some cases death) of detainees in U.S. custody. Though the report does not use the term "war crimes" this is precisely what is being described. Not only did these officials support these policies, but it is apparent that they sought to find legal opinions that matched their wish for implementing such policies and disregarded concerns from numerous branches of the military about the legality of these policies.

As this new Administration takes office it is imperative for President Obama to denounce these actions and end the assault that the Bush Administration has waged upon the rule of law. Doing this requires accountability for past actions and for past crimes committed. We often hear the argument that we should not look to the past and further divide the country by taking action against past Administration officials, but in this situation, it is absolutely necessary for action to be taken. After all, not only did the Administration actively work to reinvent the definition of torture so that they could abuse detainees, but as Dan Froomkin of the Washington Post points out, they constantly lied about it:

"Bush himself repeatedly and sanctimoniously blamed Abu Ghraib on a small number of low-level perpetrators, even while trying to get credit for what he insisted was a transparent system that held those who were responsible accountable.

Bush, on May 24, 2004, described what happened at Abu Ghraib as "disgraceful conduct by a few American troops who dishonored our country and disregarded our values."

On June 1, 2004, he told a reporter: "Obviously, it was a shameful moment when we saw on our TV screens that soldiers took it upon themselves to humiliate Iraqi prisoners -- because it doesn't reflect the nature of the American people, or the nature of the men and women in our uniform. And what the world will see is that we will handle this matter in a very transparent way, that there will be rule of law -- which is an important part of any democracy. And there will be transparency, which is a second important part of a democracy. And people who have done wrong will be held to account for the world to see. "

If action is not taken to punish members of the Bush Administration for these actions, what will deter future political figures from breaking the most serious laws in this country if they are shown that there is no accountability for these actions? How can it be justified that the lower level military personnel have been punished for carring out these policies at places like Abu Ghraib, yet those who supported and provided shoddy legal justification that led to the implementation of these same policies, go unpunished? It is for these reasons that President Obama should launch an independent and thorough investigation into this issue and let the chips fall where they may when it comes to prosecuting these officials. This new Administration should not balk at any political heat they would take for such action as these violations are too serious to simply chalk up to leaving the past in the past.

"The abuse of detainees in U.S. custody cannot simply be attributed to the actions of 'a few bad apples' acting on their own. The fact is that senior officials in the united States government solicited information on how to use aggressive techniques, redefined the law to create the appearance of their legality, and authorized their use against detainees. Those efforts damaged our ability to collect accurate intelligence that could save lives, strengthened the hand of oru enemies, and compromised our moral authority."

- Senate Armed Services Committee Report, 2008

This article is also available at: http://www.cincinnatibeacon.com

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

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

Michael Savage Suggests Bombing Iran and Seizing Their Oil Fields in the Name of Democracy

Commentator Michael Savage has long been a controversial figure both on his long running radio program as well as his short-lived television show. (Savage was fired for telling a caller to "get AIDS and die" on the air.) On his radio program he has advocated putting the homeless in workcamps, stated that he would hang every lawyer who went down to Guantanamo, and played a song for Ted Kennedy by the band the Dead Kennedys after the Senator was diagnosed with a brain tumor.

Savage came out with a short piece entitled "Making the World Safe for Theocracy" in which he likens the current situation in Iran to the rise of Hitler and advocates that the United States take military action against the country. Savage states that Iran "continues to challenge Western democracies" and has tested "missiles designed to do in 6 seconds what Hitler did in 6 years to 6 million Jews". Savage fails to provide this situation with much context including mention of the Israeli military exercise that took place a couple of weeks ago that was largely seen as a rehearsal for a strike against Iranian targets. Washington, the Bush Administration, and Israel have been rattling sabers toward Iran for quite some time over their nuclear ambitions and Iran has responded to the threats by test firing missiles and stating that they will retaliate if their country is attacked.

The Bush Administration continues to argue that Iran is on the path to develop a nuclear weapon dispite the fact that the National Intelligence Estimate stated that there is no evidence that Iran is developing such a weapon post-2003. Iran maintains that they are enriching uranium for peaceful purposes but contrary to the NIE report, both Presidential candidates in addition to the Bush Administration have continued to falsly claim that Iran is developing nuclear weapons.

Despite these facts, Michael Savage states that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is "flaunting his nation's nuclear technology" and compares his actions to Hitler's defiant military build-up in the 1930's. Savage continues by labeling President Bush the "Chamberlain of our time" who just rattles sabers and "refuses to act".

Savage begins his last paragraph by asking the question: "And why won't Bush act to save Western democracies from this madman?" Posing this question implies that Western democracies are at a risk of destruction from Iran, this is misleading and quite contrary to the NIE findings. Savage concludes his piece:

And so to fuel his own vanity, he lets the cancer of Iran metastasize and spread throughout the world. If Bush were to unleash the military might of the United States on this petty dictator and seize control of the Iranian oil fields, we could regain control of the Middle East, boost John McCain's poll numbers, greatly reduce oil prices, and save Israel from a second Holocaust. Instead Bush has decided to make the world safe for theocracy. And that's something everyone but the far left Democrats understand we have to fight.

That's right, Michael Savage actually suggests that we "unleash the military might" of the United States on Iran and "seize control of the Iranian oil fields" in order to "greatly reduce oil prices". That is called pillaging and invading a country to gain control of their resources is against International Law. Nothing says democracy quite like pre-emptively striking a sovereign nation in order to gain control of their resources! Kudos Mr. Savage, you always seem to out-do yourself.