I was in a medical waiting room the other day, the ubiquitous television tuned to “American Morning” or “Good Morning, America” or “American America – Great Day in the Morning” or whatever the hell they call that show with old Nixon crony Diane Sawyer, joined on that particular day by sit-in co-host (and old Clinton crony) George Snuffleupagus. Their two big stories were the intelligence reports about a resurgent Al Qaeda and the interim report on “progress” in Iraq. While those two stories are, by virtue of previous intelligence reports, intimately related, Sawyer and Stephanopoulos were careful to keep them in their separate silos. No chance that either of these seasoned journalists would, say, ask Michael Chertoff whether or not Al Qaeda’s new strength was further evidence that the Iraq war is spawning a new generation of terrorism, drawing more people to extremism, and alienating those people in the middle east who might otherwise harbor some affection for us. I mean, we know that this stupid war is making terrorism worse – why do we pretend otherwise?

This thing the mainstream media calls journalistic objectivity amounts to basically wiping the slate clean before every story. Know-nothing journalism, that’s what it is. So even a not overly subtle White House communications team can fill that slate with whatever dreck they want and watch it passed along to the viewing/reading/browsing public without significant challenge. For christ’s sake, is it at all controversial to say that this war was not a good idea? More than 60% of the American people believe it was a mistake. That’s landslide territory, last time I looked. So why in fuck’s name can’t the corporate media build on that foundation? Why do reports on Iraq always proceed from the administration-encouraged assumption that the conflict needed to be fought, that our intentions have always been good, and that the success of the U.S. project in Iraq is essential to both our country and theirs? Political figures give voice to this nonsense – but does anyone really believe it?

Even in the face of no significant progress on the “benchmarks”, Bush demands patience. That’s basically the only card he has left. He’s got nothing to lose by taking that position because… well… he’s got nothing to lose. He can’t run for president again and he knows it’s unlikely that he’ll be impeached, so he’s got the office for the next 18 months. And as long as he never admits failure, Bush can always tag the collapse of Iraq on someone else. It won’t be down to him. It will be Congress’s fault if they cut off funds and Iraq falls apart. It will be the Iraqis’ fault if the money keeps flowing but the place implodes anyway. It will be the skeptics’ fault in either case for draining the American people’s will to “stay the course.” And when he leaves office with the war still rolling lethally along, he leaves the mess to someone else who will take the blame for the ensuing disaster. For now, Bush and company are content to prolong the fiction that there can be a good outcome to this war for anyone besides Halliburton and Blackwater. If doing so kills another World Trade Center’s worth of Americans between now and the end of his term, it’s no skin off his nose.

Dubya’s message for now is clear: our portion is obedience. Wait ’til September. And be kind of scared.

luv u,

jp

Just when the pundits were predicting all-out pandemonium in Gaza, things seem to be kind of… well… not so chaotic, considering the place is being starved by a maniacal “international community” (i.e. Europe and America) and beaten by the local military hegemon (i.e. Israel). In just a couple of short weeks, Hamas has managed what Fatah couldn’t do in months – free BBC reporter Alan Johnston. They’re cracking down on organized crime, drug trafficking, even celebratory gunfire. Aside from that last item, it’s unclear to me why Bush doesn’t fucking love them, inasmuch as they’re religious conservatives as well. And now reporters and the “experts” who love them (including many who thought the Iraq war was a great idea and are still on television) are finding themselves backed into saying something not entirely disparaging about Hamas, which by their expressions appears to be roughly equivalent to drinking their own urine. Oh my god! Hamas is governing! They’re not acting like crazed chimps with machine guns, like we always said they would!

No question – Hamas has engaged in attacks against civilian and military targets. Name a resistance movement that hasn’t. Fatah has done the same, and yet they seem to have no trouble getting the U.S. and Israel to talk to them, send them money, give them guns, etc. What’s the difference? Don’t say it’s because Fatah renounced violence – not when the U.S. media and political culture have repeatedly linked them to the al Aqsa brigades, one of the most violent Palestinian groups. Besides, Hamas observed a long-term ceasefire with Israel, despite repeated provocations. The difference is this: Fatah follows orders, Hamas does not. Fatah has demonstrated again and again that they will not stand up for even minimal Palestinian rights. Hamas, on the other hand, shows signs of becoming the Israeli political culture’s worst nightmare – a determined popular political organization that cannot be co-opted with promises of privileged trusteeship over the open air prisons that Gaza and the West Bank have become. When Bush and Olmert demand “recognition of Israel,” they’re really saying “recognize Israel’s right to keep building settlements, take what they want, and impose their will on the occupied territories.” That – and that alone – is why Bush and Olmert hate Hamas.

Staying the course. This is the first presidential campaign in my memory that hasn’t featured a contender from the current administration. Not a huge surprise, since the Bush team appears to have the midas touch in reverse (everything they touch turns to shit). In fact, it’s too consistent a pattern to be mere incompetence. Politically, Bush represents some of the most extreme right elements of the G.O.P. Usually the focus is on social “conservatives”, but his true base is corporate America and people with enormous pots of money and no desire to part with any of it. Since 2001, Bush has steadily and methodically trashed the federal government, outsourcing its functions, privatizing its resources, and running what’s left into the ground with his “hekuva job” cronyism. Even his astoundingly well-funded Pentagon is now largely a clearing house for private contracting. When he finally leaves, he will have gone a long way towards fulfilling the desires of his well-heeled supporters, turning the government into a cash cow and undermining public faith in its effectiveness and accountability for probably decades to come.

Do Dubya or Cheney care? Hell, no. They’ve got a job to do, and they’re doing it.

luv u,

jp

A mighty tree has fallen in the Republican foreign policy establishment, senatorial division. Indiana Senator Richard Lugar has publicly broken with Bush’s Iraq policy, signaling what may be the leading edge of a much broader exodus amongst rank-and-file G.O.P. lawmakers. Many of these senators and congresspeople are watching the polls and worrying about their prospects for fending off anti-war challengers if this Iraq business doesn’t roll to a stop before fall of 2008. Others are probably just sick of hearing about dead and grievously wounded constituents. Dubya, for his part, obviously couldn’t care less. In some ways, he’s strikingly similar to his predecessor in the White House, at least with respect to his disregard for the health of his party. Oh sure, Bush, Rove, and Tom Delay tried to rig Washington into a G.O.P.-only club, but look where they have brought the party after six years. Pretty much the only thing they have a firm grip on now is the Supreme Court, which can be relied upon to hand down draconian decisions and maybe decide an election in a pinch. That’s enough to win… but not to govern.

So… if a mighty tree falls and no one in the White House gives a damn, does it make a sound? We already know the answer to that one. We’ve seen generals and low-ranking officers turn against this war. We’ve seen mothers of the slain, conservative “freedom fries” loving congressmen, and the vast majority of the American public turn against it. And yet still it continues, with another 100+ U.S. deaths in June and an appalling number of Iraqis wasted. Absent any willingness on the part of the Congress to use their power of the purse, there is only one locus of power with regard to our overseas military deployment. Bush and Cheney (that hybrid executive-legislative extra-constitutional being) are the only ones who can call it off, and they’re not budging before the moving van arrives on January 20, 2008. Their obstinacy is all they have left.

It is remarkable, though, the extent to which they’ve discredited not only military adventurism (resuscitated temporarily by the Gulf War) but, more generally, the U.S.’s capacity for getting its way in the world. We still have plenty of weight to throw around, make no mistake – both economic and military – but that easy way we had of getting ordinarily compliant governments to line up behind us (or in front of us) is not what it once was. Just this week it was reported that African nations are bridling at the prospect of hosting permanent U.S. bases on the continent to support the Pentagon’s new “Africa Command”. Even notoriously corrupt western-oriented (i.e. able to be bribed) leaders are afraid that any movement in that direction will provoke an awful backlash from the populace, which trusts neither American power nor the motives behind its application. (Recall that Africa is now a substantial source of petroleum for the U.S.) Russia is off the reservation and Latin America is in open revolt (both are committing the mortal affront of putting their national and regional interests ahead of our own).

So what remains for us, as our congressional leadership sits on its hand, but to watch the empire crumble? I’m sure there are many in the world who feel it’s about time.

luv u,

jp