Showing posts with label Senate. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Senate. Show all posts

December 23, 2010

January 5th Senate Rules Opportunity

Due to abuse of the U.S. Senate filibuster procedure, any major issue now requires a 60% majority vote to pass (super-majority).

In the past, all Senate business would stop during a filibuster; however, some time ago the Senate adopted a two-track process that allows business to continue while a filibuster is occurring. This means that there is no price for conducting a filibuster, so it can be used willy nilly. This has to stop.

January 5th, the U.S. Senate adopts its rules for the next two years. It's critical that they fix this problem on that single day. Contact your Senators and insist that they support Colorado Sen. Mark Udall's proposed rules change, or similar measure, to fix the filibuster problem.

Thanks

For Your Convenience:

gdaeman_scroll_small

October 9, 2010

GDAE Podcast - Episode 35

Left / Right Populism - Part VI

Can principled people on the left and right clean up our democratic institutions?
  • Case-study from Electoral Politics: David Sirota on Tea-party-backed candidate for US Senate in Colorado, Ken Buck.

  • Shared Left/Right Populist Anger: CNN interview with David Sirota explains Bush & Obama failure on Financial Bailout.

  • MUSIC: Ryan Harvey, "It's Not Just Bush"

  • Historical Context of Tea Party: We've seen this before in past decades. Kevin Drum exposes how the Tea Party follows the same broad contours of past right-wing spasms during Democratic Party presidencies.

  • Prosecute Bush: An example of a "nation of laws," Iceland is holding its leaders accountable for financial meltdown.

Play Episode 35 from this page:


Click to Download Episode 35.

Listen to Part V in the series, Episode 34:


Listen to Part IV in the series, Episode 33:


Listen to Part III in the series, Episode 32:


Listen to Part II in the series, Episode 31:


Listen to Part I in the series, Episode 30, (20-minute abridged version):


Previous Episodes & 60-Sec Promo:
GDAE Podcast 60-Second Promo

GDAE Podcast Episode 30 April 30, 2010 - Common Interests on the Right & Left
GDAE Podcast Episode 29 March 31, 2010 - Right Left Populist Unity?
GDAE Podcast Episode 28 March 7, 2010
GDAE Podcast Episode 27 February 21, 2010
GDAE Podcast Episode 26 February 7, 2010
GDAE Podcast Episode 25 January 19, 2010
GDAE Podcast Episode 24 December 31, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 23 November 29, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 22 November 11, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 21 October 18, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 20 October 9, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 19 September 27, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 18 September 16, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 17 August 31, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 16 July 30, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 15 June 17, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 14 June 10, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 13 May 22, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 12May 5, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 11 April 24, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 10 April 9, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 9March 28, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 8 March 15, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 7 March 1, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 6 February 17, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 5 February 6, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 4 January 24, 2009

Sources:

GDAEman.Com

gdaeman_scroll_small

March 10, 2010

Public Option Senate Letter

Has your Senator signed on to support the public option for healthcare?

HERE IS THE LIST

Time to raise our mutual voices.

For Your Convenience:
  • Contact the US Senate
  • Contact the House of Representatives

  • Sources:

    gdaeman_scroll_small

    January 27, 2010

    The Bernanke Challenge Continues

    As former New York State governor Eliot Spitzer has said, George Bush's Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke wasn't only in a position of responsibility for overseeing Wall Street, Bernanke was "complicit" in the designs that allowed a textbook case of bubble expansion and collapse. Of course Alan Greenspan was complicit too.

    Why is Obama re-nominating Bernanke to head the Fed? It's another outrage, and this time people need to act.

    My most recent message to the White House:

    Deeds not words. Withdraw Bernanke's nomination and nominate someone who has a record of siding with the interests of people over the corporate investment banks.


    GLH Blog
    informs us that CREDO is calling for a no vote on Bernanke


    For Your Convenience:

    Sign CREDO petition, which urges the Senate to reject Ben Bernanke's nomination.

    Contact the White House

    Sources:

    gdaeman_scroll_small

    December 31, 2009

    GDAE Podcast Episode 24

    US Senate Reform: Filibuster
    • People's History: Voice of Sojourner Truth & thoughts on Deep Social Change...
    • Media Criticism: Washington Post disconnect with public desires for real healthcare reform via Fair and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR).
    • Echo of American Exceptionalism: Congressman Alan Grayson and Chris Mathews via the WakeUp AM Podcast.
    • Prosecution of Bush: Jane Mayer's Book "The Dark Side".
    • Musical diversion: Jimi Hedrix "Little Wing".
    • Filibuster: Healthcare legislation is exposing US Senate as a barrier to majority-rule democracy.
    • Poetry: Night Before Christmas Debacle.
    • Bloopers.



    Play Episode 24 from this page:


    Click to Download Episode 24.

    Previous Episodes & 60-Sec Promo:

    GDAE Podcast 60-Second Promo

    GDAE Podcast Episode 23 November 29, 2009
    GDAE Podcast Episode 22 November 11, 2009
    GDAE Podcast Episode 21 October 18, 2009
    GDAE Podcast Episode 20 October 9, 2009
    GDAE Podcast Episode 19 September 27, 2009
    GDAE Podcast Episode 18 September 16, 2009
    GDAE Podcast Episode 17 August 31, 2009
    GDAE Podcast Episode 16 July 30, 2009
    GDAE Podcast Episode 15 June 17, 2009
    GDAE Podcast Episode 14 June 10, 2009
    GDAE Podcast Episode 13 May 22, 2009
    GDAE Podcast Episode 12May 5, 2009
    GDAE Podcast Episode 11 April 24, 2009
    GDAE Podcast Episode 10 April 9, 2009
    GDAE Podcast Episode 9March 28, 2009
    GDAE Podcast Episode 8 March 15, 2009
    GDAE Podcast Episode 7 March 1, 2009
    GDAE Podcast Episode 6 February 17, 2009
    GDAE Podcast Episode 5 February 6, 2009
    GDAE Podcast Episode 4 January 24, 2009



    gdaeman_scroll_small

    December 26, 2009

    Day After Christmas: Lets Filibuster!

    'Twas the day after Christmas and all through the House, people were thinking "the Senate is a barrier to democracy!"

    I'm not going to try to rhyme here in saying that the US Senate was set up by our dear founding fathers as a barrier between the unwashed masses and the wealthy establishment elite (AKA our founding fathers).

    Yes, as the US Constitution was written in 1789, US Senators were elected by state legislatures, not by the unwashed masses (AKA The People). Then in 1913 the 17th Amendment was ratified to replace the phrase "chosen by the Legislature thereof" with "elected by the people thereof." My grandmother was alive when this little bit of democracy was gained by the unwashed masses.

    Today it is becoming painfully apparent that the Senate rule allowing for a minority filibuster now functions as a requirement for a 60-vote super-majority on all legislation. This state of affairs, in a Senate captured by corporate power, is undemocratic and threatens to undermine popular support for Congress. This, in turn, undermines democracy.

    It's true that we need checks on excessive power, or "tyranny," of the majority; however, today nearly unsurmountable power, or "tyranny," is being wielded by a corporate-sponsored minority. The situation is a corruption of American ideals and demands attention.

    Sources:

    gdaeman_scroll_small

    December 4, 2009

    One Voice for Real Healthcare

    Since writing on "How Healthcare Legislation Will Pass" I heard a disturbing interview with the founder of Firedog Lake Blog, Jane Hamsher, on DemocracyNow! She is sounding a bit pessimistic, suggesting 1) final bill out of conference will have a triggered public option, which will never be triggered, and 2) will include Stupack anti-choice amendment.... unless we raise our voices.

    Hamsher is trying hard to create counter pressure via a phone banking operation that targets Democratic House members who voted for the Stupack amendment via One Voice for Choice.

    Jane Hamsher has been following the healthcare legislation very closely:

    JANE HAMSHER on Public Option: .... it looks like it’s going to get worse this week [12/3/09]. Privately, people in the Senate are confirming that Harry Reid is going to try and cut a deal for triggers, which is something that the White House has been pushing for, Rahm Emanuel, since January of this year. They’ve wanted it all along. They’ve said they wanted the public option, but what they’ve worked for is triggers. And we always knew that this was, you know, probably going to be the lay of the land.

    ... the fact is that the White House [Rahm Emanuel] cut these deals over the summer with ... the insurance companies, the drug companies, and they have intended to follow through on them in order to keep the donations and the lobbying money out of the pockets of the Republicans in 2010. So they are going to try and jam triggers through, and I believe that, at the end of the day, we’ll be in a situation where we will be asking those members of the House that we got to commit to vote against any bill that doesn’t have a public option in it to vote against this bill.

    JANE HAMSHER on Anti-Choice Language: Stupak [the anti-choice amendment], I believe, will make it into a conference report. As you know, after the Senate and House pass a bill, they go into conference and have to merge the two bills. And because Nancy Pelosi is saying she can’t pass a bill without Stupak, I believe that whether Ben Nelson is successful in getting it into the Senate bill or not, I believe that it will be in the final bill that comes out of conference. [Unless We Apply Major Pressure... See Phone Banking link above].
    Hamsher says a lot of people don't realize that federal funds are already prohibited for abortions by the Hyde amendment passed years ago. Stupak's amendment goes further:

    JANE HAMSHER on Anti-Choice Language: ... no insurance company offering insurance on the exchange, whether it’s funded with government money or not, can offer elective abortion coverage. And that threatens to take away abortion coverage from just about any insurance policy, because even the private insurance plans for reinsurance of big companies that have their employees insured can be affected by it...

    For Your Convenience:

  • Contact the US Senate
  • Contact the House of Representatives
  • Contact the White House
  • One Voice for Choice Phone Banking

  • Sources:

    DemocracyNow! “One Voice for Choice"–FireDogLake Founder Launches Campaign to Target Dems Supporting Stupak Amendment, December 3, 2009

    gdaeman_scroll_small

    November 30, 2009

    How Healthcare Legislation Will Pass

    We could all drive ourselves crazy following the twists and turns of the Senate healthcare legislative process, but that would be very stressful. The word is that the Senate will likely pass healthcare without a public option, thereby gaining the necessary 60 votes for cloture. Then, the legislation will go to the conference committee to be reconciled with the House bill, at which point the public option will be put into the bill. Then the Senate will vote on the reconciled bill with only 51 votes needed.

    gdaeman_scroll_small

    October 29, 2009

    Let Them Filibuster Healthcare

    I don't think it's too wonkish to raise the issue of the Senate filibuster process is it? Everyone should know that the United States Senate was designed by the founding fathers as a firewall between the unwashed masses and the new elite that kicked out the old elite... call it democracy.

    One of the ways that firewall works is that, before a bill can be voted on by the entire US Sentate, a procedural vote is conducted to allow the bill to be considered by the full Senate. In the past, it worked somewhat in reverse... Any senator, or group of senators, could stop legislation via a process called the filibuster and sixty senators could overcome the filibuster with a vote to that end.

    HOWEVER, in the past, a filibuster process required those trying to stop the legislation to physically stand at the Senate floor podium and argue their case... non-stop. No other Senate business could be conducted on the floor while the filibustering senator(s) held the podium. The filibuster represented a battle of wills, with the obstructionists facing the potential wrath of the public for preventing popular legislation from advancing.

    Rarely do we see the traditional form of a filibuster these days. Instead, the Senate usually just tests the water with a vote of 60 or more. If they can't reach the magic number of 60, the legislation doesn't move forward, and is either modified to appease any hold-out senators, or is simply stopped. Hence, by effectively requiring a "super majority" on every vote, 60 of 100, the Senate keeps the "unruly masses," We the People, from having the laws we want.

    It's time for the Democratic Party get a backbone and forced the Republicans into the glare of the public light by forcing them to undertake a traditional filibuster on the healthcare legislation. Maybe the filibuster cannot be broken, but we won't know if we don't try. Let the filibuster process go on for a day or two and see what happens. Maybe the public sentiment would ratchet up. It would surely be a media event... an educational moment. Maybe the public pressure would rise after a couple days, giving the Democratic leadership the support to let the filibuster continue for several days, a week, or more.

    I think it's time. If you agree, you're not alone:

    The People's Voice
    , October 29, 2009

    Urging the Democrats to bring the legislation to the floor for debate without the proceedural 60-vote super majority, and forcing the Republicans to filibuster, The People's Voice blog says:

    The Republicans are griping that the discussions regarding the content of the bill have not been open and transparent as promised by Candidate Obama... Now it is time for the "transparecy" for which they pine.
    Debate it on the floor of the Senate.

    A contributor to Daily Kos, KWolfman, also expresses this view:

    Honestly, who cares if Joe Lieberman sides with the Republicans here? Who cares if the GOP + One tries to filibuster real health care reform with a strong public option? Why is it so important to avoid a filibuster scenario?

    Let the Senate leader Harry Reid know you want to Let them Filibuster.

    For Your Convenience:
    gdaeman_scroll_small

    December 24, 2008

    Jerry Nadler for NY Senate Seat

    Hilary Clinton's Senate seat is opening and the New York Governor will appoint her replacement. Caroline Kennedy is actively campaigning for the seat. Jerrold Nadler is a contender, but isn't openly campaigning.

    Nadler is chair of a House subcommittee on the US Constitution. He speaks truth to power. He was one of the first politicians I heard, well over a year ago, say, to the effect, "impeachment is NOT important, because we will seek criminal prosecution," of Bush and the other high officials who have broken laws that define our democracy.

    Nadler has 8 years of experience in Congress and has the temperment to be in the upper house (Senate). Please raise your voice on his behalf.


    Contact New York Governor David Paterson.
    Urge him to appoint Jerrold Nadler to the US Senate for the state of New York.

    Psssst... Pass the Word... Our voices are louder with direct contact...

    Sources:

    gdaeman_scroll_small

    October 1, 2008

    Dirty Sexy Bailout

    On the same night the new TV series Dirty Sexy Money premiers, we watched the US Senate "sweeten" the $700 billion bailout legislation to lure principled politicians away from their ... principles.

    Politics is an ugly business, and that was on display for the world to see this evening. Need votes from southern state congress critters? Sweeten the bailout bill with hurricane relief. Need votes from business-friendly congress critters? Sweeten the bailout bill with business tax breaks.

    Never mind that we should own the institutions we're bailing out, and benefit from any future profits they make, if they survive. Never mind that we've now seen consolidation of the banking industry to three major banks, which are way too big to fail, and should be operated as public utilities because they've become monopolies. Never mind that the Senators voting on the legislation have major conflicts of interest because they are owned by the financial industry they're bailing out.

    Few are saying "let 'em crash." But if we buy them, we own them. If these financial institutions survive, all the future profits accrue to us, the people. Not just until they get stabilized, but for a few generations. We're gonna milk those profits that have been going to the top 1% of the insiders, and we're going to fix our infrastructure, our schools, our healthcare and retirement systems. We're going to spread the wealth to the wider society, because we are now back in charge. And if the Congress doesn't get it, we'll select new representatives who do get it.

    We want a new system. We don't want this to happen again, as in the S&L crisis, the dot-com bubble, the Enron et al phony energy deregulation. Never again.

    Sources:

    gdaeman_scroll_small

    August 15, 2008

    INVESTIGATE Suskind's Revelations

    I've urged my senators and representative make a statement on the revelations of Ron Suskind's book regarding the CIA forging of a letter used to influence domestic public opinion on the Iraq war. Please do the same now... go directly to the bottom and click on the contact information.

    .... or procrastinate and read on.

    The Way of the World: A Story of Truth and Hope in an Age of Extremism

    It is gravely illegal for the US foreign intelligence agency (CIA) to conduct a domestic propaganda operation. Suskind presents multiple on-the-record testimonials that say George Tenant got a stinky assignment from Vice President Cheney's office to forge a letter implicating Iraq in 9/11 and WMD. One source is Rob Richer, former head of CIA’s Near East Division, and former deputy chief of clandestine operations. Richer points to Vice President Cheney's office as the source of the assignment. Richer puts it to words in the following transcript of a taped interview with Suskind. Speaking of CIA Director George Tenet with whom he discussed this assignment, Richer says:
    But now--he may have hinted--just by the way he said it, it would have--cause almost all that stuff came from one place only: Scooter Libby and the shop around the vice president.

    But he [Tenet] didn't say that specifically. I would naturally--I would probably stand on my, basically, my reputation and say it came from the vice president.
    Rob Richer is not alone in speaking on the record. John Maguire, the former deputy chief of Iraq Operations Group with the CIA is adding to the body of evidence. These two men are not light-weights.

    Vice President Cheney's connection is corroborated by the American Conservative newspaper, which accepts the fabricated CIA letter as a given and adds some color to the unfolding revelations. They report that the idea originated in the Pentagon's Office of Special Plans, headed by neo-con Douglas Feith. This office was exposed by Robert Dreyfuss in The Lie Factory reported in Mother Jones magazine, and shown to be a direct pipeline
    to Vice President Cheney's office. We're just now hearing of another lie from that machine.

    The letter that is at the center of these revelations was faked to appear to have been written by Tahir Jalil Habbush, Iraq's head of intelligence. Habbush left Iraq and made contact with US and British intelligence to inform them that Iraq had no WMD, even though the reports to the UN inspectors left some doubt. That doubt was left intentionally. Habbush told the US and Britain that Hussien feared revealing his military weakness to Iran than he feared the US, which explains Hussein's "irrational" behavior.

    Unfortunately for everyone affected by the Iraq war, Habbush's story-line, though possibly true, didn't fit the Bush story-line on going to war with Iraq. So Bush side-lined Habbush by paying him $5 million to go live quietly in Jordan.

    Habbush never had anything to do with the letter; the CIA fabricated it on its own. It was backdated to July 1, 2001, and referenced the three points Cheney was repeating on Sunday talks shows: 9/11's Mohamed Atta trained in Iraq, Iraq tried to buy yellow cake uranium, biological and chemical weapons. According to Suskind, within intelligence circles, the inclusion of all three of Cheney talking points in a forgery is viewed as a particularly amateurish aspect of the letter forgery, which itself is viewed as "amateur hour".

    Suskind explains,

    Maguire talks, in the book—and there’s a quote, people who read it—he’s, “I wish George [Tenet] had more experience in actual operations, like some CIA directors, because he could have told his bosses in the White House, ‘This is a bad idea. Habbush is never going to sign it. We don’t think this is such a good plan.’” But Tenet doesn’t push back. And as he said, “That’s one thing,” Maguire says, “we blame George about.”

    I could go on, but buy and read Suskind's "The Way of the World," and demand accountability.

    Contact Congress: Cut 'n Paste the following into their e-mail forms:

    I urge you to make a statement on the revelations of Ron Suskind's book about the CIA fabrication of a letter used to influence domestic public opinion on the Iraq war. If proven, this would be a grave violation of federal law designed to protect our democracy.

    INVESTIGATIONS - In your statement on this matter please consider calling for investigations by the House, Senate and Justice Department.

    DECLASSIFICATIONS - You should also urge a rapid review of CIA documents for declassification. Many documents are highly likely to have no national security relevance, but rather are classified to hide embarrassment.

    THE MEDIA - Call 4th estate, the free press, to help expedite the laborious investigation process by coming forward with information.

    I look forward to hearing from you on this.

    CONTACT US SENATE

    CONTACT US HOUSE

    CLICK to Vote for Yahoo! Buzz

    Sources:

    PART 1:
    The Way of the World: Ron Suskind on How the Bush Admin Deliberately Faked an Iraq-al-Qaeda Connection and Undermined Diplomacy, Democracy in Pakistan and Iran.
    "Democracy Now" August 13, 2008.

    PART 2:
    After Ron Suskind Reveals Bush Admin Ordered Iraq-9/11 Fakery, House Judiciary Chair John Conyers Opens Congressional Probe.
    "Democracy Now" August 14, 2008.

    Raw Story

    gdaeman_scroll_small

    February 27, 2008

    Kennebunkport Indictment Resolution

    On February 26, 2008 citizens served papers of indictment on George Bush and Dick Cheney to the Town of Kennebunkport, ME More.

    Some criticize these actions, and similar actions in Brattleboro, VT, as political stunts, which is not the case. Their actions represent government by the people in the face of failing federal institutions. These actions have a legal basis rooted in the fundamental principles that united independent, sovereign states under the banner people blithely call "USA".

    Impunity of Bush et al. would undermine the civil fabric of our nation and the world. The checks and balances of the federal government and corporate media are failing. The citizen's actions represent the assertion of states rights and government by the people as envisioned by our nation's founders. They are patriots in the finest tradition.

    The following 3-minue video documents and explains the events of February 26 described above.


    US Senate Candidate Laurie Dobson, serves papers on Bush and Cheney


    Update:

    For a 50-minute video interview with US Senate candidate Laurie Dobson Click Here

    Related:

    The following 3-min video examines the question of whether the next president will seek criminal prosecution of George Bush and other senior officials: "Prosecute Bush et al. Chapter 1".

    Sources:

    Laurie Dobson for Senate YouTube Channel

    June 3, 2007

    Senate Public Funding Bill S.936

    The Senate has a "public financing bill" S.936, introduced March 20, 2007 by Richard Durbin (D-Ill) and Arlen Specter (R-PA).

    Here's how it works in a nut-shell:

    Step 1: Collect Seed Money
    + this is the "operating cost" money
    + Limited to $100 per doner

    Step 2: Collect Qualifying Contributions
    + This is like a petition to show the candidate has support
    + Must be $5 each (not sure if the operating donations count toward this)
    + Need 2,000 contributions plus another 500 contributions from each congressional district.

    Step 3: Follow Spending Limits
    + After candidates commit to and qualify for public funding, they cannot use private donations or their own money.

    Step 4: Comply with Simple Rules

    Step 5: Receive Enough Public Funding to Campaign
    + Senate candidates receive $750k plus $150k for each congressional district for the general election.
    + "Fair Fight" funds are provided if a privately funded candidate is highly funded.
    + Smaller amounts are provided for the primary election.

    Remember: It's Voluntary
    + Because money has been defined as "free speech" by the US Supreme Court, public financing cannot be mandatory, unless we change the US Constitution.

    Sources:

    Public Citizen News, May/June 2007.

    February 18, 2007

    Brzezinski: Bush Steering US Toward War with Islam


    The bloggers at Pedestrian Infidel (PI) have bought into what Zbigniew Brzezinski recently called, "A mythical historical narrative," or maybe they're just trying to sell it. In a February 8, 2007 post to their site, PI proposes an amendment to the US constitution. Following nine whereas statements that argue Islam is social and political ideology, is intolerant of other religions, seeks to supplant all other religions across the world, they conclude Therefore:

    Islam is not a religion, but a political ideology more akin to Fascism and totally in opposition to the ideals of freedom as described in the United States Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights.

    They continue with a series of proposed constitutional amendements that begin with a change to Article I:

    The social/political/ideological system known around the world as Islam is not recognized in the United States as a religion.

    The practice of Islam is therefore not protected under the 1st Amendment as to freedom of religion and speech.

    One might dismiss this as, "just another blogger doing his or her thing", or in this case just another group of bloggers.

    Which brings us back to Zbigniew Brzezinski's testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Februray 1, 2007. Rather than ignore the kind of thinking reflected by the Pedestrian Infidel, Brzezinski invests a signigicant portion of his short testimony to exposing it's fraudulence. The set-up is his statement that:

    A plausible scenario for a military collision with Iran involves Iraqi failure to meet the benchmarks [that is, Bush's surge fails]; followed by accusations of Iranian responsibility for the failure; then by some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the U.S. blamed on Iran; culminating in a “defensive” U.S. military action against Iran that plunges a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

    This statement is followed immediately by Brzezinski's exposure of the messianic, fear mongering calls for a crusade against Islam:

    A mythical historical narrative to justify the case for such a protracted and potentially expanding war is already being articulated. Initially justified by false claims about WMD’s in Iraq, the war is now being redefined as the “decisive ideological struggle” of our time, reminiscent of the earlier collisions with Nazism and Stalinism. In that context, Islamist extremism and al Qaeda are presented as the equivalents of the threat posed by Nazi Germany and then Soviet Russia, and 9/11 as the equivalent of the Pearl Harbor attack which precipitated America’s involvement in World War II.

    This simplistic and demagogic narrative overlooks the fact that Nazism was based on the military power of the industrially most advanced European state; and that Stalinism was able to mobilize not only the resources of the victorious and militarily powerful Soviet Union but also had worldwide appeal through its Marxist doctrine. In contrast, most Muslims are not embracing Islamic fundamentalism; al Qaeda is an isolated fundamentalist Islamist aberration; most Iraqis are engaged in strife because the American occupation of Iraq destroyed the Iraqi state; while Iran—though gaining in regional influence—is itself politically divided, economically and militarily weak. To argue that America is already at war in the region with a wider Islamic threat, of which Iran is the epicenter, is to promote a self-fulfilling prophecy.

    In no uncertain terms, Brzezinski is saying that he believes the Bush Administration is intentionally steering the Nation into a huge war with Islam, which will make the war in Iraq pale by comparison.

    Deplorably, the Administration’s foreign policy in the Middle East region has lately relied almost entirely on such sloganeering. Vague and inflammatory talk about “a new strategic context” which is based on “clarity” and which prompts “the birth pangs of a new Middle East” is breeding intensifying anti-Americanism and is increasing the danger of a long-term collision between the United States and the Islamic world. Those in charge of U.S. diplomacy have also adopted a posture of moralistic self-ostracism toward Iran strongly reminiscent of John Foster Dulles’s attitude of the early 1950’s toward Chinese Communist leaders (resulting among other things in the well-known episode of the refused handshake). It took some two decades and a half before another Republican president was finally able to undo that legacy.

    Brzezinski closes his brief testimony with four steps in the "quest for a political solution for the growing chaos in Iraq."
    ~

    February 17, 2007

    Brzezinski: Four Steps Out of Iraq

    In his February 1, 2007 testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Zbigniew Brzezinski laid out four steps in the "quest for a political solution for the growing chaos in Iraq." It's basically an excerpt of the diplomatic elements of the Iraq Study Group recommendations, including attention to the Palestinian-Israeli situation, and a recomendation for the US to state clear intentions of prompt military withdrawl from Iraq.
    1.
    The United States should reaffirm explicitly and unambiguously its determination to leave Iraq in a reasonably short period of time. Ambiguity regarding the duration of the occupation in fact encourages unwillingness to compromise and intensifies the on-going civil strife. Moreover, such a public declaration is needed to allay fears in the Middle East of a new and enduring American imperial hegemony.
    Right or wrong, many view the establishment of such a hegemony as the primary reason for the American intervention in a region only recently free of colonial domination. That perception should be discredited from the highest U.S. level. Perhaps the U.S. Congress could do so by a joint resolution.

    2.
    The United States should announce that it is undertaking talks with the Iraqi leaders to jointly set with them a date by which U.S. military disengagement should be completed, and the resulting setting of such a date should be announced as a joint decision. In the meantime, the U.S. should avoid military escalation.

    It is necessary to engage all Iraqi leaders—including those who do not reside within “the Green Zone”—in a serious discussion regarding the proposed and jointly defined date for U.S. military disengagement because the very dialogue itself will help identify the authentic Iraqi leaders with the self-confidence and capacity to stand on their own legs without U.S. military protection. Only Iraqi leaders who can exercise real power beyond “the Green Zone” can eventually reach a genuine Iraqi accommodation. The painful reality is that much of the current Iraqi regime, characterized by the Bush administration as “representative of the Iraqi people,” defines itself largely by its physical location: the 4 sq. miles-large U.S. fortress within Baghdad, protected by a wall in places 15 feet thick, manned by heavily armed U.S. military, popularly known as “the Green Zone.”

    3.
    The United States should issue jointly with appropriate Iraqi leaders, or perhaps let the Iraqi leaders issue, an invitation to all neighbors of Iraq (and perhaps some other Muslim countries such as Egypt, Morocco, Algeria, and Pakistan) to engage in a dialogue regarding how best to enhance stability in Iraq in conjunction with U.S. military disengagement and to participate eventually in a conference regarding
    regional stability.

    The United States and the Iraqi leadership need to engage Iraq’s neighbors in serious discussion regarding the region’s security problems, but such discussions cannot be undertaken while the U.S. is perceived as an occupier for an indefinite duration. Iran and Syria have no reason to help the United States consolidate a permanent regional hegemony. It is ironic, however, that both Iran and Syria
    have lately called for a regional dialogue, exploiting thereby the self-defeating character of the largely passive – and mainly sloganeering – U.S. diplomacy.

    A serious regional dialogue, promoted directly or indirectly by the U.S., could be buttressed at some point by a wider circle of consultations involving other powers with a stake in the region’sstability, such as the EU, China, Japan, India, and Russia. Members of this Committee might consider exploring informally with the states mentioned their potential interest in such a wider dialogue.

    4.
    Concurrently, the United States should activate a credible and energetic effort to finally reach an Israeli-Palestinian peace, making it clear in the process as to what the basic parameters of such a final accommodation ought to involve.

    The United States needs to convince the region that the U.S. is committed both to Israel’s enduring security and to fairness for the Palestinians who have waited for more than forty years now for their own separate state. Only an external and activist intervention can promote the long-delayed settlement for the record shows that the Israelis and the Palestinians will never do so on their own. Without such a settlement, both nationalist and fundamentalist passions in the region will in the longer run doom any Arab regime which is perceived as supportive of U.S. regional hegemony.

    ~

    February 6, 2007

    Is Anything Keeping Bush from Attacking Iran?

    One thing keeping Bush from attacking Iran might be joint chiefs chairman General Peter Pace. It was a mini military coup when Pace contradicted the White House line, saying there is no direct link to Iranian leaders. Pace spoke out while traveling in Indonesia.

    There is, however, plenty of buzz that an attack is brewing. Zbigniew Brzezinski, former NSC Director in the Carter administration, delivered this warning to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Feb. 1:

    If the United States continues to be bogged down in a protracted bloody involvement in Iraq, the final destination on this downhill track is likely to be a head-on conflict with Iran and with much of the world of Islam at large. A plausible scenario for a military collision with Iran involves Iraqi failure to meet the benchmarks; followed by accusations of Iranian responsibility for the failure; then by some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the U.S. blamed on Iran; culminating in a “defensive” U.S. military action against Iran that plunges a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.
    There's also practical consideration of Iran's potential response to an attack that might give Bush pause: Iran has said they will retaliate around the world if attacked, and they have the assets to do it. Also, Iran could make life for US soldiers in Iraq even more dangerous if the US were to attack.

    Brzezinski did not conceal his opinion about the genesis of Bush's Iraq war. His opening sentence was a slam:

    Your hearings come at a critical juncture in the U.S. war of choice in Iraq, and I commend you and Senator Lugar for scheduling them.
    Brzezinski and General Pace are doing their part to counter Bush's drive to war with Iran, and perhaps war with Islam. The other thing that could help keep Bush from attacking Iran is intense public pressure. To that end, we can begin by voicing our views with Congress and with the corporate mass media.

    Contacts:

    Write the US House of Representatives
    Write the US Senate
    Write the Major Media Outlets
    ~