McCain Unable

McCain’s campaign managers are putting the lives of Obama and his supporters in danger - that's a serious character flaw on their part. It's failing though - Obama's poll lead is increasing and the bigotry just increases Obama's stature, making him look like another JFK, Martin Luther King or Robert Kennedy

“What I am seeing reminds me …of another destructive period in American history. Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin are sowing the seeds of hatred and division….George Wallace never threw a bomb. He never fired a gun, but he created the climate and the conditions that encouraged vicious attacks against innocent Americans who were simply trying to exercise their constitutional rights. Because of this atmosphere of hate, four little girls were killed on Sunday morning when a church was bombed in Birmingham, Alabama”
Congressman and civil rights campaigner John Lewis on the McCain campaign. (McCain previously said he would seek advice from Lewis if he was elected President)

In November 1995 Israeli Prime Minister and Labor party leader Yitzakh Rabin was murdered by an extreme-right Jewish fundamentalist opposed to the Oslo Peace Process. His murder followed months of speeches by politicians from the right wing Likud party in which Netanyahu accused Rabin of surrendering to terrorists and Ariel Sharon compared him to Eichmann. Both allowed their supporters to burn effigies of Rabin dressed as a Nazi (2), (3).

Today the same tactics are being used by McCain’s campaign in the U.S.

Sarah Palin has accused Obama of “palling around with terrorists”, referring to Bill Ayers, who served on a community education council with Obama and whose terrorism took place 40 years ago when Obama was 8 years old. Obama has condemned it as “detestable” (4), (5). Republicans posing as pollsters are phoning Americans to ask if they know that Obama is a “supporter of Hamas”. In fact Obama has called Hamas a terrorist organisation and said he won't negotiate with them unless they recognise Israel and renounce violence (6), (6a).

From Palin’s speech on crowds of supporters at McCain-Palin campaign rallies have routinely shouted lies and threats like “terrorist”, “treason” and “kill him” when Obama is mentioned. One even told a black sound engineer to “sit down boy” after Palin complained about the media(7), (8), (9), (10). Palin has never once taken issue with this or had anyone thrown out of a rally for it.

Last Friday McCain finally told another deluded crowd that Obama was not a “terrorist” and “an Arab” but “a decent person and a person that you do not have to be scared as President of the United States” (11, 12, 13), which has the sad implication that McCain isn't saying Americans shouldn't consider all Arabs terrorists and be scared of them. However McCain simultaneously implied that Obama had a closer relationship to Bill Ayers than had been revealed so far – yet provided no evidence for this claim (14). His senior adviser Nicolle Wallace claimed that the Obama campaign’s criticisms of the death threats, racism and insults were “Obama’s assault on our supporters”, while McCain’s spokesman Brian Rogers called them “Obama’s attacks on Americans” (15), (16). If McCain doesn’t want to be associated with cowards who are risking Obama’s life by encouraging extremists to target an opponent they can’t beat, he needs to fire those campaign managers and stop making wild claims that he has no evidence for.

McCain’s campaign know they’re losing so they’re lying and demonising Obama to get votes from the ignorant, or maybe get one of their deluded extreme right Oklahoma-bomber-like American terrorist “pals” to make Obama another JFK, Martin Luther King or Robert Kennedy.

This witch-hunt plays on superstition, prejudice and ignorance, echoing17th century Salem and McCarthyism. It’s failing though. Even Fox News admits Obama’s poll lead has increased since the hate speeches began (17), (18). McCain and Palin might want to try and salvage some tattered remnants of their self-respect and standing among the majority of decent Americans and people world-wide by ending their cowardly hate campaign. If Obama or any of his supporters are killed the hate-mongers on the McCain campaign will be permanently reviled in America and worldwide.

McCain's campaign manager wants this election to be about “character not issues” (19). That’s not surprising since the issues of their 8 years in power include Enron, doing nothing to try to prevent 9/11, more Americans in poverty than there have been in decades, lying to start a war that got Americans, British and Iraqis killed in Iraq, the endless war in Afghanistan and then economic crisis. Will undecided voters be impressed by the character of people that whip up prejudice based on lies that risk the lives of other Americans?

(1) = CNN 11 Oct 2008 ‘McCain calls on Obama to repudiate 'shocking' Lewis comments’, http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/10/11/mccain-calls-on-obama-to-repudiate-%e2%80%9cshocking%e2%80%9d-lewis-comments/

(2) = Shlaim, Avi(2000) ‘The Iron Wall – Israel and the Arab World’ , Penguin, London , 2000 (paperback) Chapter 14, pages 546-551

(3) = Haaretz 9 Nov 1995 , ‘The Sources of Yigal Amir’s hatred’, cited by
Morris, Benny(1999) ‘Righteous Victims – A History of the Arab Israeli Conflict’ , John Murray, London , 2000 (hardback), Chapter 13, pages 634-635

(4) = Fox News 04 Oct 2008, ‘Palin Accuses Obama of 'Palling Around With Terrorists'’, http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/04/palin-accuses-obama-palling-terrorists/

(5) = CNN 05 Oct 2008 , ‘Obama campaign rejects Palin 'terrorist' gibe’,
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/05/palin.obama.terrorist.claim/index.html

(6) = Guardian 03 Oct 2008 ‘Fake pollsters' scare tactics target Obama’
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/oct/03/uselections2008.barackobama1


(6a) = Times Online 10 May 2008
'Barack Obama sacks adviser over talks with Hamas',
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article3897414.ece

(7) = Washington Post 06 Oct 2008 ‘The Trail : In Fla., Palin Goes for the Rough Stuff as Audience Boos Obama’, http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/10/06/in_fla_palin_goes_for_the_roug.html

(8) = Huffington Post 06 Oct 2008, ‘Obama Hatred At McCain-Palin Rallies: "Terrorist!" "Kill Him!" (VIDEO)’, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/06/mccain-does-nothing-as-cr_n_132366.html


(9) = Guardian 09 Oct 2008 , ‘US election: McCain rallies grow negative as Obama rises in the polls’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/oct/09/uselections2008.johnmccain4


(10) = AP 11 Oct 2008 , ‘AP Top News at 2:00 a.m. EDT’,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/feedarticle/7852639
(see 5th paragraph)

(11) = Fox News 10 Oct 2008, ‘McCain seeks to calm angry supporters’,
http://embeds.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/10/11/mccain-seeks-to-calm-angry-supporters/

(12) = AP 11th Oct 2008 ‘McCain booed after trying to calm anti-Obama crowd’, http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i4OpiwXT-cn2aMmpTpiUVElig0FgD93O3N3G0

(13) = AP 11 Oct 2008 ‘Obama notes McCain's effort to temper GOP comments’, http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5isOFwdbq0tsqatW6vJpkDRTI1gMgD93OBJM00

(14) = CNN 11 Oct 2008 ‘Rage rising on the McCain campaign trail’,
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/10/mccain.crowd/
10th and 9th from last lines read

‘McCain, however, seems torn. On one hand, he is going negative on the Ayers controversy.

"The point is, Sen. Obama said he was just a guy in the neighborhood. We know that's not true," he said at the rally in Wisconsin. "We need to know the full extent of the relationship because of whether Sen. Obama is telling the truth to the American people or not."’


(15) = Wall Street Journal/Washington Wire 10 Oct 2008 ‘McCain Is Asked to Denounce Supporters’ Outbursts’, http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/10/10/labor-leader-asks-mccain-to-denounce-supporters-outbursts/

(16) = The Hill 10 Oct 2008 ‘Labor group calls on McCain to denounce supporters’,
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/labor-group-calls-on-mccain-to-denounce-supporters-2008-10-10.html

(17) = CNN 10 Oct 2008, http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/10/campaign.wrap/?iref=mpstoryview
3rd last paragraph reads ‘A new CNN poll of polls, which averages the results of three national polls taken October 7-9, shows that Obama has a seven-point lead over McCain, 49 percent to 42 percent.’

(18) = Fox News 10 Oct 2008, ‘FOX NEWS POLL: OBAMA 46, McCAIN 39’
http://embeds.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/10/10/fox-news-poll-obama-46-mccain-39/

1st paragraph “Barack Obama leads John McCain by 46 percent to 39 percent, according to a FOX News national registered voter poll released Friday. Two weeks ago Obama led by 45 percent to 39 percent (September 22-23).”

(19) = Washington Post 02 Sep 2008 'McCain Manager: 'This Election is Not About Issues'', http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/09/mccain_manager_this_election_i.html?hpid=topnews

You want to talk about crazy ministers saying awful things Sarah? Let’s…

Sarah Palin says she wants to talk about crazy ministers again – specifically Obama’s former Minister Jeremiah Wright, whose views Obama has publicly rejected. Palin has not revealed her own extreme religious views. Nor has she condemned the extreme sermons of various ministers and guest speakers she often takes part in services with at her churches in Wasilla, Alaska.

These views include the belief that critics of Bush will "burn in hell", that when Israeli Jews are killed it's a judgement from God on them for not converting to Christianity, that Jesus is "always in war mode" and that there are witches who need to be warded against or else killed.

For twenty years until 2002 she was a member of the Wasilla Assembly of God. Then she moved to Wasilla Bible Church (which is in fact just as extreme), but she still regularly visits the Assembly of God (1), (2). One visit was in June this year. She spoke enthusiastically about the church alongside her former minister, Ed Kalnins (3), (4). So what do Kalnins, Palin, Wasilla Bible Church members and the Wasilla Assembly of God believe?

Critics of Bush will “burn in hell”?
That would include John McCain and 70% of Americans.

Ed Kalnins, Palin’s minister at Wasilla Assembly of God from 1999 till 2002 , delivered sermons saying people who voted for Kerry in 2004 would not go to heaven – and that critics of President Bush would “burn in hell” (5), (6). (You can hear some of his sermons in full on the church’s own website here)

As recently as August John McCain has criticised President Bush’s administration over what Human Rights Watch called it’s “tacit policy of torture” and Amnesty International called “widespread and systematic…torture” (7), (8), (9). Many US military veterans of Afghanistan and Iraq also condemned the torture policy (10). McCain was tortured himself in Vietnam, so his stand against it is understandable.

So does Sarah Palin believe McCain will “burn in hell”? Has McCain shown good judgement in choosing her as a potential vice President (and so a potential President)?

Polls show two thirds of Americans say they disapprove of Bush’s policies (11). Is Sarah Palin’s ‘strong belief’ that they’ll all burn in hell likely to be a vote winner if they’re told about it? Sarah might think ‘You betcha’, but I wouldn’t be betting any money on it.

Palin’s Church says when Israelis are killed it’s a judgement from God on them for not converting to Christianity,
but Republicans still ask American Jewish voters to vote for her

On August 17th this year David Brickner of ‘Jews for Jesus’ a guest speaker at Wasilla Bible Church (Palin’s new and supposedly more moderate Church) , said terrorist attacks on Israeli Jews are God’s judgement on them for not converting to Christianity. You can hear the full sermon on the church’s website here. Palin was present and listened without criticising these views – and has never disowned them since (12). It’s a common view among right-wing Christian fundamentalists that the Jews must convert to Christianity before the Second Coming of Jesus or be destroyed by God. Before she joined the Wasilla Bible Church in 2002 Palin was a member of the Assembly of God Pentecostal Church for 20 years. Many of them believe in this version of the Second Coming (13).

Yet the Republicans are asking Jewish voters to vote for Palin – and quite possibly, given McCain’s age and health problems, President if the McCain/Palin ticket is elected.

Since Palin has also told acquaintances in Alaska that she believes she is living in the Last Days and that the Second Coming will take place in her life time Jewish voters might want to think twice before voting McCain/Palin (14).

Jesus operates in “war mode”? The Iraq war as a “task from God”?

Ed Kalnins also delivered sermons saying that “We need to think like Jesus thinks. … Jesus himself operated from that position of war mode”. (16). Palin herself prayed in her June visit to the Assembly of God that the Iraq war is a “task from God” (16).

I’ll admit to not being a great biblical scholar but I’m pretty certain that in the New Testament of the Bible Jesus tells his follower to “turn the other cheek”, “love thy enemy” and “love thy neighbour as thyself”. There was some discussion of swords and armour which were clearly figures of speech. I don’t recall him calling for any wars at any point. The message seemed to be one of peace, love and forgiveness. So he’d be far too ‘liberal’ and namby-pamby for Kalnins and Palin. Where Kalnins’ and Palin’s War Jesus comes from I don’t know, because he’s certainly not in the Bible. He sounds a bit like Osama Bin Laden’s weird interpretation of Allah and the Koran.

Witch-craft and burning out witches

Sarah Palin doesn’t just associate with one minister with extreme views though. She’s also taken part in ceremonies against ‘witch-craft’ led by Kenyan Christian fundamentalist bishop Thomas Muthee, who uses accusations of witch-craft to threaten political opponents with being stoned or burnt to death (17).

Witch-hunts have led to many murders in Kenya. In one instance eleven old people were burned to death by a mob as witches (18).

It is not reassuring for mainstream Christians or non-Christians to know the Republican vice-Presidential candidate believes in bringing back irrational paranoia and witch hunts which ended hundreds of years ago after the Salem Witch Trials.

,

Palin’s beliefs aren’t ordinary or average –
they’re extreme, fanatical and dangerous

Some of Sarah Palin’s religious beliefs are admirable. Her belief that having a child with Down’s syndrome is a gift from God for instance is hard to criticise. However there is nothing “ordinary” or “average” about her church’s other religious views as outlined above. They’re extreme, intolerant, fanatical and dangerous. Sarah Palin has never once said she doesn’t share any of these views. Some of them are her own words.

The more Americans who are made aware of how extreme Sarah Palin’s religious views seem to be before the election the better – because given McCain’s age she could become President if McCain is elected. Even if McCain serves a full term Palin suggested in the debate with Biden that if elected she will expand the powers of the Vice President beyond even the unconstitutional actions of Dick Cheney (19).


(1) = CNN 9 Sep 2008, ‘Pastor: GOP may be downplaying Palin's religious beliefs’,
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/08/palin.pastor/index.html?section=cnn_latest

(2) = Newsweek 02 Sep 2008, ‘A Visit to Palin’s Church’,
http://www.newsweek.com/id/156679
cited by Huffington Post 02 Sep 2008 ‘Palestinian Attack In Israel Part of God's Judgment, Said Recent Guest At Palin's Church’ , by Seth Caltor Walls,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/02/palestinian-attack-in-isr_n_123297.html

(3) = Huffington Post 02 Sep 2008, ‘Palin's Church May Have Shaped Controversial Worldview’, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/02/palins-church-may-have-sh_n_123205.html (includes embedded video of Palin and Kalnins at Wasilla Assembly of God church from 8th June 2008)

(4) = Wasilla Assembly of God – All 2008 services - http://www.wasillaag.net/2008.html (includes link to same video for 8th June but only playable with realplayer)

(5) = USA Today 03 Sep 2008, ‘Palin's former minister comes under scrutiny’,
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-03-palin-pastor_N.htm

(6) = Wasilla Assembly of God, http://www.wasillaag.net/all.html

(7) = Reuters 31 Aug 2008, ‘McCain criticizes Bush on torture of prisoners’,
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN31224120080831

(8) = Amnesty International 1 Nov 2005 ‘TORTURE AND ILL-TREATMENT IN THE ‘WAR ON TERROR’’, http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engact400142005

(9) = Human Rights Watch World Report 2006 - ‘Torture and Inhumane Treatment: A Deliberate U.S. Policy’ - http://hrw.org/wr2k6/introduction/2.htm#_Toc121910421

(10) = See e.g Washington Post Wednesday, September 28, 2005; A21,‘ A Matter of Honor’, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/27/AR2005092701527_pf.html and http://www.duncanmcfarlane.org//who's_right_on_Iraq/torture/ as well as sources listed in it

(11) = USA Today 06 Oct 2008, ‘Bush approval rating hits record low’, http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-10-06-bush-approval_N.htm

(12) = Miami Herald 13 Sep 2008, ‘Palin could rob McCain of Jewish vote’,
http://www.miamiherald.com/423/story/684750.html

(13) = CNN 9 Sep 2008, ‘Pastor: GOP may be downplaying Palin's religious beliefs’,
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/08/palin.pastor/index.html?section=cnn_latest

(14) = Los Angeles Times 23 Sep 2008, ‘Into the wild of Wasilla, Alaska, where Sarah Palin once ruled’, http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-lopez23-2008sep23,0,3506838,full.column (see 3rd from last paragraph)

(15) = See (3) and (4) above

(16) = Associated Press 4 Sep 2008, ‘Sarah Palin told ministry students: Iraq troops on task ‘from God’, http://www.bostonherald.com/news/national/politics/2008/view.bg?articleid=1116928&srvc=rss

(17) = Times 16 Sep 2008, ‘Palin linked electoral success to prayer of Kenyan witchhunter’, http://timesonline.typepad.com/uselections/2008/09/palin-linked-el.html


(18) = BBC News 21 May 2008 'Witches' burnt to death in Kenya’,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7413268.stm (cited by Irregular Times 17 Sep 2008, ‘Sarah Palin, How Is Stoning Women Feminist?’, http://irregulartimes.com/index.php/archives/2008/09/17/sarah-palin-how-is-stoning-women-feminist/ )


(19) = NYT 02 Oct 2008, ‘Transcript: The Vice-Presidential Debate’,
http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/president/debates/transcripts/vice-presidential-debate.html (link to video if the debate is on the same page)

Palining Around With Terrorists

Obama knew a man involved who was involved in terrorism 40 years ago, when Obama was 8. The Bush administration have been funding and arming dictators and terrorist groups who continue to kill Americans today - and murdered Daniel Pearl. Instead of punishing them they give them more money and more weapons - and McCain and Palin support those actions and would continue them.


Sarah Palin claims Obama will “pal around with terrorists who targeted their own country” on the basis that Bill Ayers sat on the same community council as Obama and donated money to his campaign. Obama was about eight years old when Ayers was involved with Weathermen bombing plots in the US in the late 1960s and early 1970s. When he found out about Ayers’ past actions he called them wrong and “detestable” (1).

Palin and McCain, meanwhile, vocally support the Bush administration, who, while talking about “freedom” and “democracy”, supported and funded the military dictatorship of General Musharraf until he resigned in August. Musharraf was a staunch ally of the Taliban. When the US invasion of Afghanistan began Musharraf warned the Northern Alliance against ‘taking advantage’ of this to force the Taliban out of government (2). Pakistani journalist and author Ahmed Rashid found that Pakistan’s ISI military intelligence kept arming and supporting the Taliban long after the invasion (3). So the Bush administration was indirectly arming and funding the Taliban and other Islamic extremists used by the ISI to intimidate Pakistan’s secular opposition and carry out terrorist attacks in India and Kashmir.

In January 2002 the American journalist Daniel Pearl was investigating links between the ISI, the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Pakistan. He was kidnapped and beheaded. Before they killed him his kidnappers demanded that the US release F-16 jets to Pakistan’s military. Musharraf had made the same request to Bush in a meeting in November 2001 before Pearl’s murder – and repeated it at another meeting afterwards, in Februrary 2002. Musharraf and his military government also often suggested Pearl had “got himself into this trouble” by being “over-intrusive”. Bush rewarded the murder by giving Musharraf the F-16s. Musharraf refused to extradite the kidnappers’ leader – Omar Sheikh of the ISI-backed Harkat Ul Ansar. Al Qaeda and the ISI also seem to have been involved in the Pearl kidnapping plot (4), (5).

A confession (probably false) was later extracted, after torture, from another Al Qaeda suspect, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (6). This was intended to save embarrassing questions for both Musharraf and the Bush administration.

So the Bush administration have funded and armed people who murdered an American journalist and fund and arm Taliban fighters who are killing American troops in Afghanistan; and John McCain and Sarah Palin have supported these actions.

It may well be that Bush, Cheney, McCain and Palin didn’t realise they were handing arms and money to people who were handing it on to the Taliban and Al Qaeda. They should have known though. They were not eight years old when these events took place. The terrorism which was killing Americans wasn’t 40 years in the past either.

John McCain claims his experience on foreign policy issues makes him a ‘safer’ choice than Obama, but all the facts suggest otherwise. He has shown disastrously bad judgement in supporting Musharraf and Pakistan’s military – judgement that resulted in Americans being killed in Pakistan and Afghanistan. He’s shown the same bad judgement on Iraq and on the economy.

We might expect the US media to give this more coverage – but then one of Fox News’ most high profile reporters is Oliver North – who notoriously was involved in organising CIA operations arming Iran and smuggling cocaine into the US in order to fund death squads in Nicaragua and El Salvador in the 1980s. The FBI and other investigators found cocaine was smuggled into the US on the same planes that smuggled the arms for the contras ; so much for ‘fair and balanced’ (7), (8), (9), (10).

American Presidents, Republican and Democrat (like many other governments) have a long history of assuming that their enemy’s enemy is their friend and ending up supporting dictators, terrorists and murderers who later become a threat. Saddam Hussein, Noriega and Osama Bin Laden are examples. Bin Laden’s account of the beginning of his operations with the Mujahedin in Afghanistan against the Soviets in the 1980s was that ““I settled in Pakistan in the Afghan border region. There I received volunteers [from Arab and Muslim countries]...these volunteers were trained by Pakistani and American officers. The weapons were supplied by the Americans, the money by the Saudis.” (11).

In the early 1990s the US, Pakistani and Saudi governments and intelligence agencies were once again co-operating, this time to try to get the Taliban (Sunni extremists) into government in Afghanistan in order to reduce the Iranian (Shia) government’s influence there and the Indian government’s influence also. Within a few years the Taliban were providing a haven for Al Qa’ida and the Clinton administration had realised it had made a serious mistake in supporting them (12).

Today the Bush administration are not only blindly backing Pakistan’s military and ISI but also ordering the CIA to back Sunni extremist groups like Jundullah on the border between Pakistan and Iran. Jundullah have the same beliefs and methods as Al Qaeda. Just now they’re targeting the Iranian Shia government and military with bombings and beheadings (13). In the future it may well be Americans who are their targets.

Barack Obama has shown good judgement in opposing Musharraf and the Iraq war. He has a chance to avoid the mistakes made by past Presidents of supporting terrorist groups and dictatorships. Bush and Cheney have only repeated them – and McCain and Palin have supported every one of those mistakes.


(1) = CNN 05 Oct 2008 , ‘Obama campaign rejects Palin 'terrorist' gibe’,
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/05/palin.obama.terrorist.claim/index.html

(2) = New York Times 09 Oct 2001 , 'Pakistani Is Already Calling on U.S. to End Airstrikes Quickly', http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D01E3D9113CF93AA35753C1A9679C8B63


(3) = Ahmed Rashid (2008) , ‘Descent Into Chaos’, Penguin, London & NY 2008, pages 77-78, 48, 50, 114, 116

(4) = Wall Street Journal 24 Feb 2002, ‘Reporter Daniel Pearl Is Dead,
Killed by His Captors in Pakistan’, http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/pearl-022102.htm
(see 5th paragraph which reads ‘The group…also called for the U.S. to turn over F-16 fighter jets purchased by Pakistan in the late 1980s but never delivered’.

(5) = Ahmed Rashid (2008) , ‘Descent Into Chaos’, Penguin, London & NY 2008, pages 86 (Musharraf requests Bush release F-16s to him in 2001), 149 (February 2002 – Musharraf makes same demand after Pearl’s murder) , 113-114, 151-153

(6) = Ahmed Rashid (2008) , ‘Descent Into Chaos’, Penguin, London & NY 2008,p153, 427

(7) = Fox News 21 Jun 2007, ‘Bio – Oliver North’, http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,50566,00.html

(8) = Cockburn, Alexander & St. Clair, Jeffrey (1998), ‘Whiteout – The CIA, Drugs and the Press’, Verso, London & N.Y , 1998, Chapters 12 & 13

(9) = Scott, Peter Dale & Marshall, Jonathan (1998) ‘Cocaine Politics – Drugs, Armies and the CIA in Central America (1998 edition)’, University of California Press, Berkeley, London & Los Angeles, 1998

(10) = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_North#Involvement_with_drug_trafficking
(this is a wikipedia entry but provides reliable sources - including the Kerry report - a congressional inquiry into links between drug traffickers, the contras and the CIA - and FBI investigations)

(11) = AFP 27 Aug 1998 ‘Laden planned a global revolution in 1995’ cited by Ahmed Rashid (2001) ‘Taliban’, Pan MacMillan, London, 20001, Chapter 10 p132 & 258

(12) = Ahmed Rashid (2001) ‘Taliban’, Pan MacMillan, London, 20001

(13) = ABC News 03 Apr 2007 , ‘ABC News Exclusive: The Secret War Against Iran’, http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/04/abc_news_exclus.html
A CIA spokesperson said ‘the US provides no funding to Jundullah’ – which may well mean that the funding comes from the Saudis and/or is indirect through funding for Pakistan’s military – as with the Mujahedin in the 80s and the Taliban in the early 90s

Polls show those opposed to bail-out bill mostly haven't been told it's for money the banks will have to pay back - and think it's the blank cheque Bush and Paulson wanted before the Democrats refused it

Polls show that the reason congress voted against the bail-out bill on Monday was that many Americans haven’t been told that it’s not the blank cheque to the banks originally proposed by Bush and US Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson. Obama and other Democratic Congressional leaders rejected that proposal and got agreement with Republican congressional leaders on making the money not a grant but a series of loans, to eventually be repaid in full plus interest once the banks started making a profit again. The bill congress voted on was for this loan with conditions including congressional oversight of the programme, a ban on excessive pay and bonuses for bank executives, federal powers to prevent banks unfairly foreclosing on peoples’ mortgages and a plan to recoup any potential losses from taxation on financial sector firms (1).

A Rasmussen poll taken just before congress voted showed that 33% of Americans back the bail-out and 32% oppose it . It also found that two-thirds of people who knew the bill is for a loan that the banks have to repay two-thirds support it, while two-thirds of people who didn’t knew the money will be repaid oppose it (2). (A poll after the vote showed opinion still evenly split(2a).)

The modified bill isn't allowing bankers or the wealthy to blackmail anyone or get off with massive irresponsibility. It's making them pay back everything with interest, accept regulation, limit executive pay and protect people with mortgages.

Not going ahead with this conditional loan bill risks another Great Depression. The free market extremist economists of 1929 told governments not to intervene and to let the market fix itself after the 1929 Crash. The Great Depression was the result - and it affected many millions of ordinary people and caused unemployment, poverty, hunger and loss of homes for them (3, 4, 5).

So why risk that in order to punish the bankers when, by supporting the bill Obama got a deal with Bush on, ordinary Americans could avoid that risk and get their money back plus interest in the long term?

(1) = Guardian 29 Sep 2008, ‘Theme is reform, not rescue, as Paulson plan goes through shredder’,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/sep/29/wallstreet.useconomy

(2) = Rasmussen Reports 29 Sep 2008, ‘Opposition to Bailout Plan Falls Dramatically’, http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/general_business/opposition_to_bailout_plan_falls_dramatically

(2a) = Rasmussen Reports 30 Sep 2008, ‘Voters Divided On Whether Wall Street Should Clean Up its Own Mess’,
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/general_business/voters_divided_on_whether_wall_street_should_clean_up_its_own_mess

(3) = Galbraith, J.K (1987) ‘A History of Economics’ , Penguin , London & NY, 1991, Chapters 15-17

(4) = Galbraith, J.K (1954) ‘The Great Crash 1929’, Penguin, London & NY, 1992

(5) = Galbraith, J.K. (1975) , ‘Money : Whence it came from, where it went’, Penguin, London and NY

Should We Bail Out on Bailing Out the Banks? Not if we don’t want to all go down with them in another Great Depression. The Bail-out Bill offers them a loan they have to repay gradually – with interest – and protection for ordinary Americans

Yes It’s An Unfair Situation

It’s completely true that de-regulation by governments (and possibly to some extent the wrong kind of regulation) caused this crisis. It’s true that bankers and mortgage brokers acted irresponsibly too in taking commissions and bonuses for short term gains from loans and mortgages which they knew were unlikely ever to be paid off.

It’s true that the effects are unfair on people who weren’t responsible for those decisions and that ordinary people were being asked by the Bush administration to pay from their taxes (or from their money being devalued by printing more money)
for the irresponsibility of the government and some very wealthy people.

The banks and the stock market traders have been utterly irresponsible , have lobbied governments to de-regulate – and governments – Republican and Democrat, Conservative and Labour, have irresponsibly agreed for the last 28 years. When the banks fail they believe they can blackmail taxpayers into bailing them out to prevent them dragging the whole economy down with them. This has happened many times around the world with Hedge Funds and other financial institutions. So ordinary people on both sides of the Atlantic have been understandably angry at their taxes being used to bail out the wealthiest people in the country, on the basis that it isn’t fair – and they’re right it’s not. Opponents of the bail-out also point out that if their own small business went under the government wouldn’t bail it out. So why should their taxes help bail out big banks or the results of governments’ decisions they ask?

If the banks go down we all go down with them though

The bail-outs have to go ahead though because otherwise panic will continue to spread and more banks will collapse and more people will lose some or all of their life savings or their jobs or their houses. The Great Crash of 1929 started with a rumour about one bank. People began to panic and soon everyone with money in that bank withdrew it all at once. Every bank gives loans and mortgages which total more than the amount of money deposited by their customers. This doesn’t really have any harmful effects as long as most of the banks customers don’t come and demand to withdraw all their money at once (which they almost never do). This may sound worrying as there’s a certain amount of ‘imaginary’ money involved. However this is usually loaned out to people who have just bought a new house and will eventually pay off the mortgage plus interest, or who are setting up a new business or developing a new technology which will create lots of new jobs in the long term (and also repay the loan they took out plus interest). So the ‘imaginary’ money actually allows the ‘real’ economy to grow faster (and when it comes right down to it all money and the value of everything is a matter of how much people will pay for it at that moment).

It’s true that many mortgages and loans were made to people who couldn’t afford to repay them. While many of them have been asked to take ‘their share of the blame’ it’s unlikely that they would have taken on debts they could never repay or ‘variable rate mortgages’ (i.e low interest rate at the start, then it rockets up after a couple of years – or according to variation in base interest rates) if the people selling them to them had told them the full facts and all their options (e.g to take out a fixed rate mortgage). Since the mortgage brokers often got a commission for each mortgage they got someone to take out the long term consequences weren’t of much interest to some of them. Some also claim that government regulations in the US which required banks and other lending institutions to give a certain percentage of loans and mortgages to people from ethnic minorities (mostly on lower incomes) and low income groups with little collateral (i.e whose houses weren’t worth much). This may have been a factor, though companies in the past have been very good at evading regulations they didn’t like by interpreting them the way they wanted to – so it’s unlikely banks gave out many such loans unless they also wanted to because they valued short term profits over long term consequences.

This isn’t a blank cheque – if it’s passed the banks have to re-pay the money eventually and their debtors and mortgage holders will be protected, plus…

So the Democratic leadership in congress (including Senator Obama) demanded that any deal include proper regulation and oversight of the financial industry to prevent a repeat of the crisis. They also demanded that it include some protection for people with mortgaged houses and the condition that when the banks start making a profit again they’d have to start using some of those profits to re-pay the loan from the government – and pay interest on that loan. They also included conditions limiting pay and bonuses for bank managers, so they couldn’t continue rewarding themselves despite having created an international disaster.

There’s no way they could have justified the initial Bush administration plan – which was that tax-payers give the banks a $700 billion blank cheque, with no new regulation, no conditions, no safe-guards for debtors or mortgage-holders – many of whom would risk bankruptcy or losing their home after their taxes paid to bail-out the banks and building societies.

This was agreed on by the Bush administration and the leaders of both parties in congress. Yet when it came to the vote two-thirds of Republicans and one-third of Democrats voted against the bill.

So why did so many congressmen vote against the bail-out bill?

Some Republicans voted from an extreme ideological ‘free market’ view-point which argues (against all history and the Great Depression) that all problems in the economy are caused by government regulation and so the best thing to do is let the wonderful free market fix itself or ‘make an adjustment’ auto-magically. They see any government regulation of or intervention in the economy as a ‘restriction on freedom’ or even as ‘tyranny’. The trouble with this is that, as the Great Depression and John Maynard Keynes showed, the ‘adjustment’ may be to a new equilibrium by itself, but that may well be one in which many more people are unemployed and the economy is much smaller due to a vicious circle of unemployment reducing the amount of money spent causing more unemployment. Unemployment, extreme poverty and dying young after suffering those and resultant stress, malnutrition and illness are a much worse form of ‘tyranny’ than regulating the economy could ever be.

Senator John McCain even backed a plan by some of the right wing among Republicans in congress which contained no provisions for any of the $700 billion ever to be repaid, no protection for people with mortgages or loans that might get called in after the bail-out and a suspension of capital gains tax for 2 years – basically another tax cut that would mostly benefit only the very wealthy. This also almost sabotaged the deal that had already been agreed. Then McCain pretended he had tried to ensure ordinary taxpayers were protected.

Some Democrats probably similarly had an ideological view that it’s unfair for ordinary people to have to bail out the wealthiest. While I’ve sympathy for that view-point the trouble is that if there isn’t a bail-out then almost everyone will suffer from the likely economic collapse – from the richest to the poorest. In 1929 when the Great Crash in the stock market took place many people were unconcerned and thought the bankers had got what they deserved – only later realising they had lost most or all of their own savings as a result.

However I suspect most people in congress who voted against the bill had neither of the above as their main reason. They’ve been getting mail and phone calls and emails from their constituents – and most are asking them not to vote for a bail-out as they see it as unfair that they should have to pay to bail-out banks which, in reversed circumstances, would fore-close on their loan or mortgage. (This doesn't mean the majority of Americans oppose a bail-out - a poll by Zogby polling on 21st September found voters split 46% for and 46% against on whether to back Bush's initial bail-out plan - and that was before all the changes to it negotiated by Obama and the Democrats. So it just means those opposed to any bail-out on any conditions are the ones actively campaigning and lobbying their congress people against it)

I suspect most members of congress know the bail-out has to happen but also know most voters are against it and that there are Presidential and congressional elections coming up. So they gambled that enough of their colleagues would vote for the bail-out for it to go ahead and prevent further damage to the economy and people’s savings and investments, so they could vote against it and get the best of both worlds – economic crisis averted while avoiding voting for the unpopular measure needed to avert it. (This type of behaviour is known as ‘free riding’.)

Some Republican leaders blamed a ‘partisan’ speech before the vote by Democratic Party House Speaker Nancy Pelosi which had blamed the Bush administration. While this may have been a factor I’d have to agree with the Democrat who said it was ‘unbelievably petty’ to decide to punish the whole country because your feelings had been hurt by something someone said (I’d only add it’s likely to punish people in other countries too).

Most Americans who know what the bail-out bill now includes are for it

A poll by Rasmussen polling has found that

"Those who understand that taxpayers will eventually get much of the money back support the bailout by a 2-to-1 margin. Those who incorrectly believe the government will not be getting money back oppose the bailout by a 62% to 18% margin"

The Choice We’re Facing

It’s been shown over and over again through-out history that companies and banks and markets which aren’t regulated by governments collapse and destroy themselves sooner or later – and that the only solution is government intervention and then re-establishing regulation. The suffering caused by economic collapse itself is bad enough – as with the mass unemployment, poverty and hunger of the 1920s and early 1930s. A soar in support for extreme undemocratic political movements – fascism, communism and Nazism – followed (Poverty and suffering caused by civil war in Afghanistan and dictatorship and economic sanctions in Iraq have had similar effects).

Then, when enough people were desperate enough to support any party that would intervene in the economy and give them an income from a job or welfare those extreme parties came to power. Then they started World War Two.

What began in 1929 with the Great Crash of the stock market in the US has come close to happening in the present – but this time we know what we should do to stop this disaster and what will make it worse.

We can still prevent it. Extreme ideologies should not be allowed to blind us to the lessons of the Great Depression – and those manoeuvring for votes in an election year should consider what the result may be if they play chicken with one another for too long. Those congressmen who vote against a deal may gain votes in the short term – but if their actions prevent a bail-out and lead to most of their voters losing their jobs, their houses and their life savings those members of congress can be sure it won’t be long till they’re kicked out of office and replaced by the same voters with someone who will intervene to protect their interests.

Members of congress have also been contacted by massive numbers of voters from their districts asking them to vote against the bail-out. If they continue to get a majority of congress to vote down the bail-out though then they all risk losing their own jobs, investments, pensions and savings the same way people did after the 1929 crash. The Rasmussen poll shows Americans who know what the bail-out bill includes are for it by a 2 to 1 margin. Only among those who wrongly think it's a blank cheque is there a majority against it. So those who're for the conditional bail-out need to contact their congress-people asking them to vote for the bill - and set up their own blogs and websites campaigning for it, so congress people don't get the false impression that most people oppose it just because its opponents are the most vocal.

The bill includes full eventual repayment of the $700 bn – plus interest; it protects people in debt or with mortgages; it regulates the banks so this can’t happen again; it limits bank managers’ pay and bonuses so they aren’t rewarded for this. It’s the smart thing to do. It doesn’t let the big money institutions blackmail us into giving them a blank cheque, but it means we don’t all go down with them either.

Voters in the US could even demand that when some of the banks start making a profit again and the government starts taking a share of those profits in repayment that it then return that money to every US citizen in equal payments, much like the one-off, token 'economic stimulus' payments to every American made by the Bush administration, but continuing until the $700 billion plus interest is re-paid.

The Lecturer Has No Clothes

Blair’s recent appearance on the Daily Show showed that he still has his facts wrong and his theories are still delusional. He learned nothing in his decade as Prime Minister, yet Yale University is now letting him teach undergraduates who are being groomed to run Washington’s foreign policy.

After seeing Tony Blair interviewed on the Daily Show it’s clear that not only was he ignorant on foreign policy on coming into government – but that he’s managed to maintain either total ignorance even after a decade’s experience as Prime Minister – either that or he’s very dishonest.

On one visit to Iran in 2006 Blair was asked by an Iranian student who Mohammed Mossadeq was. He replied that he had no idea. Mossadeq was the first (and only) democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran after World War Two. He was overthrown in 1953 by the military dictatorship of the Shah with aid from the CIA and MI6 after Mossadeq’s government put forward a bill to nationalise Anglo-Iranian oil (now BP) when that company refused to give a fair share of profits to Iran in taxes or to increase wages for its Iranian employees – who lived in wooden shacks on slave wages.
the UK's Channel 4 News anchor John Snow has also said Blair had no idea who Mossadeq was in conversations (1).

On the Daily Show on Friday (19th September) Blair told John Stewart that Hamas, Al Qaeda and Iranian backed Shia militias are “all part of the same movement” which we’re fighting “in Iraq and in Afghanistan.” (2). No-one can have told Hamas, who were involved in a fight against the Al Qaeda inspired ‘Army of Islam’ in Gaza on 16th September (the day before the interview). Several people died (3).

Blair is relying on the (highly unreliable) claims of the Israeli government and Mahmoud Abbas of Fatah, the latter being involved in a civil war with Hamas. Previously Israel have said Fatah are linked to terrorism and not to be trusted – but after Hamas’ election victory the propaganda line changed and Fatah became ‘the forces of peace’ as Israel allowed Egypt to arm Fatah forces with AK47s by the thousand (4).

Blair did concede that many members of Hamas merely wanted a Palestinian state – but rather than thinking we should negotiate with them to isolate any who might want to ally with Al Qaeda he seemed to think a strategy treating them all as part of Al Qaeda was the best one – a strategy calculated to try to create a self-fulfilling prophecy of the worst possible outcome.

Blair was certainly right that there are Iranian backed militias in Afghanistan and Iraq, but the ones in Afghanistan are our allies. They’re members of the ‘Northern Alliance’ (or United Front), our allies against the Taliban. The Shia militias in Iraq are fighting both our forces and Al Qaeda. Neither they nor the Iranian government are allied to Al Qaeda, who follow an extreme version of Sunni Islam. Some in Al Qaeda see all Shia (like the Iranian regime) as heretics to be slaughtered. So there’s no love between Al Qaeda and the Iranian government (5), (6), (7).

So once again Blair’s conspiracy theory about all Islamic fundamentalist groups and governments being one undifferentiated enemy that we have to fight as if they were all part of Al Qa’ida looks not only totally wrong but also the worst possible advice to follow.

Bush, Blair and Cheney have always been out of touch with reality though. They backed Musharraf as military dictator of Pakistan and heaped him and Pakistan’s ISI military intelligence with vast amounts of money in military aid while both double-crossed them by continuing to train, fund and share intelligence with the Taliban as their counter to the Indian backed Northern Alliance in Afghanistan (8), (9), (10).

At the same time Musharraf and the ISI followed past western-backed military dictators of Pakistan by backing Islamic extremist parties and armed fundamentalist terrorist groups in Pakistan itself to try to keep civilian politicians getting power back from the military government. They did the same in Kashmir and India as part of their crazy attempt to defeat the much stronger Indian military by the indirect approach of backing terrorist groups (11), (12), (13).

If you feel charitable towards Tony Blair or Bush or Cheney you could say they’re all ignorant or mistaken on all these points. If not they’re outright liars who are deliberately dumbing down the world. Either way it’s a big mistake to treat their wildly inaccurate claims and theories as a guide to policy. They are no wise elder statesmen but the joint architects of one bloody disaster and loss of human life after another.

Despite this Blair has not only been appointed Middle East Peace Envoy for the G8 but Yale University have also given him a position as a lecturer, but that’s obviously not because he has much to teach anyone – except how to obey orders from the right wing of the Republican party and the big multinational oil and arms firms, no matter the cost in other peoples’ lives. That can’t do anything but make people wonder whether experts who graduate from Yale University in the future are knowledgeable about anything except doing what they’re told.

Blair was dangerously unqualified to be Prime Minister not only because he didn’t know any, even recent, history of the Middle East but also because he had no interest in learning about it and based his actions on whatever conspiracy theory he could cobble together to justify doing what whoever happened to be President of the US at the time wanted to do. He’s dangerously unqualified to be a Middle East Peace Envoy for the same reasons. He has nothing to teach potential future politicians except as an example of what terrible mistakes and delusions to avoid.


(1) = Independent 7 Aug 2006, ‘Johann Hari : Tony Blair's tragedy is to be right about Islam, and wrong about the United States’, link

(2) Daily Show 18 Sep 2008, http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=185186&title=tony-blair-pt.-2&byDate=true (see especially 6 mins 30 seconds to 7 mins 45 seconds)

(3) = International Herald Tribune 17 Sep 2008, ‘Hamas strikes at Gaza clan known for criminal activity’, http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/09/17/africa/17gaza.php

(4) = Haaretz (Israel) 28 Dec 2006 , ‘Israeli defense official: Fatah arms transfer bolsters forces of peace’, http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/806603.html

(5) = Rashid , Ahmed(2001) 'Taliban' Tauris,London ,2001

(6) = Rashid, Ahmed (2008) 'Descent into Chaos'

(7) = Gerges, Fawaz A. (2005) ‘The Far Enemy: Why Jihad went Global’, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge & New York 2005

(8) = Haqqani, Husain (2005) , ‘Pakistan : Between Mosque and Military’ , Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Washington D.C. , 2005

(9) = Rashid , Ahmed(2001) 'Taliban' Tauris,London ,2001

(10)= Rashid, Ahmed (2008) 'Descent into Chaos'

(11) = see (8) above

(12) = see (9) above

(13) = see (10) above

McCain and Palin's Racist Friends

The above sign was placed by one Andy Lacasse - a 78 year old Korean war veteran living in Florida.

We can clearly see his racial superiority not only in his confused belief that Obama is a Muslim (he has in fact been a Christian all his life) but in his awsome inability to distinguish between a religion and a type of cloth.

Lacasse wasn't finished there though. To underline his membership of the master race he went on to tell a local news station :
"I got nothing good to say about Obama. If I see anybody touching that sign, I got a club sitting right over there."(1).

Eloquently put, sir. Eloquently put.

During the Korean war other veterans and historians say they obeyed orders from the highest level to shoot unarmed refugees by the thousand while sergeants screamed 'kill 'em all'; men, women, children - all unarmed. Still - they weren't the same race as Andy Lacasse. Not even half-breeds. Just 'gooks' - a term of abuse that developed first in World War Two and the Korean War - and continued during Vietnam. Some other veterans still have nightmares about it (2), (3).

According to US veterans of the Iraq war the equivalent form of abuse which US army recruits are encouraged to use is 'Hajii'; so if an Iraqi civilian is killed it was 'just a Hajii' , not a human like one of us (4), (5). At least three hundred civilians were killed in the US assault on the Iraqi town of Fallujah in April 2004 alone, many killed by American snipers targeting ambulances and civilians(6), (7). American veterans say they're still being killed by all sides - including Coalition forces - today (8). Obama has opposed the Iraq war from the start. McCain still supports it and Palin prays it is 'a mission from God'.

Korean civilians huddled in fear during the Korean war. Many thousands were killed by US forces on the orders of commanders, just in case one spy might get through among all the refugees

Iraqi children in hospital in Samarra after a US/Coalition/Iraqi government offensive in 2004. Of 70 bodies in Samarra General hospital on one day of the offensive 23 were children and 18 women (9).

What's most inspiring is that this veteran of a 20th century war, living in the 21st century in a country where around a third of the population own two or more automatic weapons, has remained true to his racial heritage by relying on a pre-pre-pre-pre-historic weapon. Not a weapon used by those inferior homo sapiens hunter gatherers. No bows. No throwing spears or Atlatls. No - an honest to goodness club as used by homo habilis (handy man) before all those filthy homo sapiens began walking upright and making 'tools' and 'weapons'. Andy Lacasse is racially pure. Not a single human gene to pollute the knuckle dragging. Pure homo habilis. Even cave-men were racially impure compared to him - far too much human in 'em.

What's even sadder though is that John McCain and Sarah Palin have not said they don't want racist votes. They've not made it clear that Obama is not and never has been a Muslim - or that most Muslims are not terrorists. They're quite happy to quietly allow racism and religious bigotry to be core planks of their campaign. In fact many of the lies about Obama, much of the bigotry, is spread by email by Christian fundamentalists in the US - people of similar beliefs to Sarah Palin who has said she prays that the Iraq war is a "mission from God" and whose minister (whose views she has not disowned) says that anyone who has criticised President Bush will "burn in hell".

McCain and Palin are also happy to use sexism against Obama, with the sexist argument that women voters should vote for a woman rather than a man, irrespective of what policies they support and what policies the candidate supports (Palin's and McCain's policies mostly being the opposite of not only Obama's but also Clinton's policies).

Racist votes, sexist votes, the votes of backward dinosaurs - they'll accept them all without ever criticising any of it - then they'll tell you they stand for principles and American values.

If they really stood for American values wouldn't they tell racists like Andy Lacasse and the many like him, but less blatant, that they condemn all racism and bigotry and don't want the votes of anyone who's voting because of a candidate's race, religion or gender?

Is this how the Republican Party really wants to end? On political life support from it's racist friends?

Iraq veteran Joshua Key has a message for McCain and Palin. In his book 'A Deserter's tale' he wrote : "I never thought I would lose my country and never dreamed it would lose me. I was raised as a patriotic American, taught to respect my government and believe in my President.A decade ago I would have laughed out loud if somebody had predicted that I would live as a fugitive in my own country and turn my wife and children into refugees as I fled with them across the border"

If McCain and Palin are elected then real patriots like Joshua Key, who risked their lives for what turned out to be lies, will continue to be forced into exile, while racists prosper and pointless wars kill more Americans and more non-Americans alike.

Sources

(1) = Channel 13 Sep 2008, 'Obama Sign In Yard Stirs Up Neighbors', http://www.cfnews13.com/News/Local/2008/9/10/obama_sign_in_yard_stirs_up_neighbors.html?refresh=1

(2) = BBC History, 'Kill 'em All': The American Military in Korea'
By Jeremy Williams (following on from a 1999 investigative report by the Associated Press) http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/coldwar/korea_usa_01.shtml

(3) = Hastings , Max (1987) 'The Korean War' PanMacMillan , London , 2000, pages 290 , 301 ,306-308

(4) = Guardian 29 Mar 2006, ‘'If you start looking at them as humans, then how are you gonna kill them?'’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1741699,00.html ; Also see The Nation 30 Jul 2007, ‘The Other War: Iraq Vets Bear Witness’ ,
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070730/hedges

(5) = Key, Joshua & Hill, Lawrence (2007) ,'The Deserter's Tale: The Story of an Ordinary Soldier Who Walked Away from the War in Iraq' Atlantic Monthly Press, 2007


(6) = Iraq Body Count 26 Oct 2004, 'No Longer Unknowable: Falluja's April Civilian Toll is 600', http://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/reference/press-releases/9/

(7) = BBC News 23 Apr 2004, 'Picture emerges of Falluja siege', http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3653223.stm

(8) = See (4) above and also http://www.duncanmcfarlane.org/who's_right_on_Iraq/bothsides/ and http://www.duncanmcfarlane.org/replytogray/Iraq/ and sources in links for both.

(9) = The Independent 04 Oct 2004, 'Civilians bear brunt as Samarra 'pacified'',
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/civilians-bear-brunt-as-samarra-pacified-550807.html

Three actions we can take for Georgia

While there's plenty of blame to go round, who is to blame for starting the war between Georgia and Russia is now irrelevant. Georgian forces have been utterly defeated and Russian forces are in control in Georgia, Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

They were always committing as many war crimes as the Georgians - now the Russians and their Ossetian, Chechen, Abkhazian and other militias are the only ones committing these crimes (1), (2), (3). Russian claims to be withdrawing their forces also seem to be empty (4).

The same Russian troops and pro-Russian Chechen militia-men who tortured, stole, murdered and raped their way across Chechnya for a decade, when Chechnya attempted to declare independence from the Russian Federation, are now burning Georgian villages, raping women and stealing from and firing at journalists, UN staff and foreign aid workers in central Georgia and South Ossetia - or at least the militia-men are while the Russian regulars (probably under orders from superiors) let them. Georgian men and boys considered 'of military age' are being taken away to unknown fates - possibly killed (5), (6), (7), (8), (9).

The EU and the US aren't prepared to put troops in to stop this, given the serious risk of a major war - and possibly even nuclear war. There are still actions we and our governments can take (one already taken by Bush being to send unarmed troops to Tbilisi to discourage Russian forces from entering it).

First our governments can put forward a motion to the General Assembly of the UN calling for an immediate withdrawal of Russian forces (including all militias allied to them) from central Georgia and from those villages in South Ossetia mostly inhabited by Georgians. The motion should also provide authority for the deployment of a UN peacekeeping force to deploy on both sides of the border between the South Ossetian region and central Georgia and along the main roads from Tbilisi airport to South Ossetia to protect civilians and allow humanitarian aid to be distributed.
This will not have the same weight as a UN Security Council motion but the Russian government will be unable to veto it and it's the next best thing to a UNSC motion.

A second motion should call for the future of South Ossetia and Abkhazia to be determined by referenda organised by the UN on independence, autonomy within Georgia or re-unification with Georgia. If these republics vote to become independent they can hold their own referenda on whether to then join the Russian federation. Russia cannot be allowed to conquer territory through war in breach of the UN Charter.

Second they could expel Russia from the G8 economic policy making group and refuse it entry to the World Trade Organisation. Third we could make it clear EU governments won't pay for Russian oil or gas until Russian forces and allied militias withdraw from central Georgian and allow UN peacekeepers into it and South Ossetia. Since Russia's economy is heavily dependent on oil and gas exports this would hurt Russia's economy as much as the EU's. They may be able to re-direct some exports to China and the far East - but the price they get for them would drop.

Georgian civilians lives are important enough to make it worth suffering power cuts until the Russian government relents or we can get alternative energy sources or reduce energy use through energy efficiency measures like government subsidised home insulation. It's also necessary to send a message to Russia that while we accept its right to defend itself and Russian citizens in South Ossetia we won't stand by, mute while they annexe territory by force or let militias murder civilians.

Of course we can also donate to the ICRC or other charities providing aid to Georgians, Ossetians and others - but the first three measures would make it easier and safer to get more aid to those who need it as soon as it's needed.

(1) = Herald (Scotland), 'Civilians allege militias raped and killed',
http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/display.var.2426955.0.0.php

(2) = Human Rights Watch 14 Aug 2008, 'Russia/Georgia: Investigate Civilian Deaths
High Toll from Attacks on Populated Areas', http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2008/08/13/russia19620.htm

(3) = Human Rights Watch 15 Aug 2008, 'Georgia: Russian Cluster Bombs Kill Civilians'http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2008/08/14/georgi19625.htm

(4) = BBC News 15 Aug 2008, 'Day-by-day: Georgia-Russia crisis',
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7551576.stm

(5) = see (1) above

(6) = Channel 4 News 14 Aug 2008, 'War of words breaks out between Russia and the US; tanks remain in Gori', http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/politics/international_politics/war+of+words+breaks+out+between+russia+and+the+us+tanks+remain+in+gori/2400822 , (see first video on that page)

(7) = Human Rights Watch 13 Aug 2008, 'Georgian Villages in South Ossetia Burnt, Looted', http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2008/08/13/georgi19607.htm

(8) = Amnesty International 14 aug 2008, 'Georgia, Russia: Suffering of civilians must stop and abuses must be investigated', http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/EUR56/007/2008/en/4dfeef19-6a25-11dd-8e5e-43ea85d15a69/eur560072008eng.html

(9) = Amnesty International 14 Aug 2008, 'Civilians vulnerable after hostilities in Georgia', http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/news/civilians-vulnerable-after-hostilities-georgia-20080814

I should have said we should favour the weaker side as their civilians are likely to make up most of the victims of any conflict

I've made a mistake in saying the EU should stay entirely neutral in the conflict between Georgia and Russia.

I still suspect President Saakashvili of Georgia wanted this conflict, thinking it might bring enough pressure on Russia from the EU and US to get Russian troops to leave South Ossetia and Abkhazia and allow him to fulfill his election pledge to re-unify Georgia, despite the majority of the populations of South Ossetia and Abkhazia never having wanted to be part of Georgia - and fearing a repeat of the ethnic cleansing carried out by both sides in the 1992 civil war.

I still suspect the Bush administration has fuelled the conflict by encouraging Saakashvili not to compromise with the Russians or separatists and vague but tough sounding promises of support.

However the Russian government and the South Ossetian and Abkhazian militias all have a record of ethnic cleansing and human rights abuses as bad and probably even worse than that of the Georgian government - and South Ossetian forces bombardment of Georgian villages on August 1st may have been co-ordinated with Russian forces which built up rapidly in the area in the months before war broke out. What's more Russia's military is so much larger and better equipped than Georgia's was that it should have been obvious that Russian forces would win and so the biggest threat was of Russian and South Ossetian forces killing Georgian civilians rather than Georgian forces killing South Ossetians.

Western journalists and UN observers have reported that Russian forces are standing by while South Ossetian militia-men steal from, rape and murder Georgian civilians (e.g watch the first video on this page from Channel 4 News, UK).
HRW Report the militias have burned Georgian villages in South Ossetia.

Nor do Russian forces have any right to still be in the main part of Georgia - where the majority of the population want to be part of Georgia, or to have continued airstrikes even after the Georgian military was defeated. Human Rights Watch observers say Russian planes have killed civilians by using cluster bombs on Georgian towns. This is a war crime - just like the same practice by NATO forces in Kosovo in 1999 - and one war crime does not cancel out another. Both sides have also used rocket launchers in town centres, killing civilians - the Russians in Gori in Georgia and (before Georgian forces' defeat) by both sides in Tkhsinvali in South Ossetia.
Russia's government and military are responsible for this and for the actions of the Ossetian militia-men they arm, train and fight alongside.

Russian troops have also aided Ossetian civilians in south Ossetia to escape from the war zone to North Ossetia - but this may be as much for propaganda value as for humanitarian motives.

This all seems like another set of moves in the international chess game among governments for power and influence. None of the players can be entirely absolved of responsibility for treating their own and other countries' people as pawns whose lives can be sacrificed to achieve 'strategic aims, but when, as with Georgia and Russia, the two sides are so unequal in power, we should favour the weaker side to try and prevent the stronger one allowing its proxies to run riot killing Georgian civilians.

That probably requires a new UN peacekeeping force in a zone on either side of the border between central Georgia and South Ossetia. This would help humanitarian aid and observers to get to civilians and internally displaced refugees of all ethnic groups. A UN General Assembly resolution calling for this and for Russian forces to withdraw back to their positions of July 31st this year and prevent Ossetian militias targeting Georgian civilians in Ossetia could also be put forward, since Russia could veto any Security Council resolution.

The Russian government is in the ascendant now - but it should remember it may need to build up good will for when the wheel of fortune turns again

It seems now that Russian regulars and Ossetian and Abkhaz militias are burning Georgian villages on the road to Tbilisi.

Ideally the soveriegnty of democratic states should be upheld unless their governments have started killing instead of protecting their own citizens. The UN's Responsibility to Protect report called this 'conditional sovereignty' - meaning that a government's sovereignty is not absolute but conditional on it carrying out its responsibility to protect the lives of its own citizens.

The report laid out a duty to intervene militarily if necessary to prevent other governments killing civilians - but also made it clear that this should only be done if widespread massacres or genocide were taking place, since otherwise military intervention would be likely to kill more people than it saved. Since in every conflict around half the casualties are civilians this is a wise provision.

The west is not prepared to go to war over Georgia - a country which is not an EU or NATO member and whose government's democratic and human rights record is almost as bad as Russia's and includes ethnic cleansing of Ossetians in the 1992 civil war just as Ossetian separatists and Russian forces seem to be forcing out Georgians. Russia is prepared to go to war to re-establish it's influence over a former client state of the Soviet Union and a part of the Russian Empire before that.

In these circumstances any NATO military intervention would only change who was ethnically cleansing or massacring who - and probably expand the war into other countries and lead to a huge rise in casualties. Without clear evidence of one side committing large scale massacres against the other's civilians it would also be likely to end up killing more people - and more civilians - than it saved.

Russia's claim that it's motives are humanitarian - to prevent the massacre of Ossetian civilians in South Ossetia by Georgian forces - is dubious. There is no doubt that in the civil war of the early 1990s Georgian forces targeted Ossetian civilians and vice-versa - and the same has probably happened again now, but Human Rights Watch reports that Russian claims of 1,500 to 2,000 civilians killed by Georgian rocket attacks are exaggerations - and are causing revenge attacks on Georgian civilians by Ossetian militias.

Russian public opinion may have been brought behind military action by the argument that Russia must protect Ossetians with Russian citizenship, but Putin has never shown any concern for the lives or human rights of Chechen - or Georgian - civilians so the humanitarian war claim is weak.

Control of the Baku-Ceyhan pipeline and preventing Georgia joining NATO or the EU are probably his main motives.

The option of economic sanctions on Russia or expelling it from the G8 have also been raised, but Russia would almost certainly respond by cutting off gas supplies to the EU, leading to, at the least, black outs across much of Europe. So this is unlikely.

So the options are limited to putting some troops into Tbilisi - which Bush is already doing by sending them to For once this seems like a well judged move by Washington, making it clear that it will not stand for Russian troops entering Tbilisi and overthrowing its government, but without threatening Russia.

The only other thing we can do is warn the Russians that the wheel will keep turning.
The Russian government were enraged by NATO's similar campaign in Kosovo and Serbia in 1999 and by Kosovo's declaration of independence under the protection of NATO peacekeepers. Their proposal now for referenda on independence and joining the Russian federation in the South Ossetian and Abkhazian regions of what Georgia claims is its territory may be revenge for Kosovo.

The US has lost a lot of respect and influence internationally and made many enemies through its ruthless invasion of Iraq. The US is undoubtedly the world's strongest power but as it's power wanes it will have to rely more and more on the good-will which it's current administration has squandered through ruthless brutality. Even Clinton's decision to allow a third phase of bombing of civilian targets in Kosovo and Serbia had a similar effect.

Russia's government should consider whether it's now about to make the same mistake - and remember that the wheel of fortune will turn again. With new technologies, such as a breakthrough in solar power's use to fuel hydrogen cells, Russian oil and gas may one day not be so vital to the EU - so in the present Russia would be wise to build up good-will with other states that it may well need in future rather than squander it through reliance on force alone.

Apart from that it should consider whether it is now aiding or committing exactly the same crimes it accuses Saakashvili and his forces of.

Nations don't die or grieve - People Do - so why kill and die for empty words?

What the fighting in Georgia comes down to is a struggle between competing nationalisms. Russian nationalists believe this war shows Russia is a 'Great Power' again, it's past 'humiliations' put behind it, just as American nationalists believed the 1991 Iraq war had 'exorcised the ghost of Vietnam'. Saakashvili as a Georgian nationalist hoped to reassert Georgian 'sovereignty' and 'national unity' by reintegrating the secessionist region of South Ossetia into Georgia.
If success in imposing their will on other people by killing large numbers of them - half of whom are always civilians - gives anyone a feeling of 'pride' it's a sad reflection on them.

At the end of the day all these 'nations' , 'sovereignties','prides' and 'humiliations' are just abstract ideas compounded by primitive instincts. No nation ever suffered the agony of physical pain that actual wounded and dying people do. No nation ever grieved its 'humiliation' the way someone grieves the death of a loved one.

There is no moral high ground for either side either. In the 1992-4 civil war Georgian forces ethnically cleansed Ossetian and Abkhazian civilians. Ossetian and Abkhazian paramilitaries have almost certainly done the same now. Putin and the Russians may provide protection to Ossetians but its unlikely they provide much to Georgians in South Ossetia, especially given the history of massacres and systematic torture of Chechen civilians by Russian forces under Putin in Chechnya.

So it's merely sickening for either side's political leaders to talk of high principles - 'the nation', 'pride', 'sovereignty', 'preventing genocide' while the fighting goes on. If Russia's or Georgia's governments want the respect of the world the best way to get it would be to end all military action and negotiate whatever compromises they each need to make to satisfy both sides. Above all they need to start talking and stop killing now.

If that means abstract ideas like 'sovereignty' or 'the pride of the nation' need to be compromised by both sides those are casualties far more acceptable than one more life.

Saakashvili's conditional unconditional ceasefire

It turns out that Saakashvili's ceasefire offer includes a demand for Russian withdrawal from South Ossetia. He must know they'll refuse.

The Herald newspaper reports :

Yesterday's military developments came as Saakashvili said he had signed an internationally-brokered ceasefire proposal that will be taken to Moscow by the French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner and Finnish Foreign Minister Alexander Stubb.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy will also visit Moscow today in another attempt to broker a ceasefire.

A Georgian National Security Council official said the document signed by Saakashvili called for an unconditional ceasefire, a non-use of force agreement and a withdrawal of Russian troops from Georgian territory, including the South Ossetia region.

Whether Russia will agree to a ceasefire even if Georgia makes an unconditional offer remains to be seen. Putin may well be aiming at installing a pro-Russian government in Georgia anyway, but until Saakashvili makes a genuine unconditional ceasefire offer we won't know, it'll be impossible for the EU to put much effective pressure on Russia and people will keep dying.

So does Saakashvili want peace or is he determined to try to reconquer South Ossetia at all costs?

P.S on South Ossetia, Georgia and Russia

After the confirmation that Russian troops have invaded the main part of Georgia - and a reply from Ola Szkudlapska on my first post on South Ossetia - i'd like to make it clear that i don't think Russian forces have any right to be in any part of Georgia outside of Abkhazia and South Ossetia and also that Russian airstrikes on civilians are not justified in any way.

I also realise that Putin and the Russian government are attempting to re-build the Russian empire that never ended, even under the Soviet Union.

Saakashvili's government is guilty of human rights abuses - including attacks on civilians in South Ossetia, dubious elections and jailing of political opponents - but then so is the Russian government on an even larger scale.

The overthrow of the Georgian government by military force would make things worse, not better and western governments are right to call on Russia not to take any such action and to withdraw its troops from central Georgia.

This is not another Prague Spring – More Like Another Yugoslavia and the New Great Game

Georgia’s President Saakashvili has presented the war between Georgia and Russia as another Prague Spring or German invasion of Poland, as ‘freedom’ threatened by dictatorship (1). Certainly Russia’s elections are rigged and it has a bad human rights record. Georgia’s not much different though. OSCE election monitors found that the Presidential elections in Georgia in January this year involved intimidation of voters, effectively bribery through handouts of ‘social vouchers’ and that many complaints of electoral “irregularities” were never properly investigated (2). Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch report that Georgian police have carried out violent attacks on peaceful anti-government protests and torture prisoners (sometimes to death) – just like Russian police. Political opponents of the Georgian government have also been jailed after unfair trials, just as in Russia. (3), (4).

The fighting in South Ossetia and Georgia is not the result of an attack by Russia on Georgia but an attack by Georgian forces on the separatist ‘Republic of South Ossetia’. South Ossetia has many Ossetians who want to be part of Russia among its population (North Ossetia being a Republic within Russia).

There have been Russian troops in Georgia’s separatist regions of Ossetia and Abkhazia since separatist groups in both defeated Georgian forces in a civil war in 1992, the year after the collapse of the Soviet Union. During that civil war both sides targeted civilians, leading to 100,000 Ossetians fleeing from South Ossetia to Russian North Ossetia and thousands of Georgians fleeing towards Tbilisi in Georgia. This will almost certainly be matched by more ‘ethnic cleansing’ in the current fighting (5), (6).

Neither South Ossetia nor Abkhazia have been formally recognized as independent states by any government – not even Russia’s, but they have had independence in practice, guarded by Russian ‘peacekeepers’ for over a decade. This is not that different from the status of Kosovo, formally part of Yugoslavia, then Serbia, but in practice independent under NATO peacekeeping forces until its formal recognition as an independent state by the US and various EU governments this year. This may have heightened the Georgian government’s fear of South Ossetia being formally recognized as independent by Russia.

Georgia’s President Saakashvili was well aware of the presence of Russian forces and must have known that any movement by Georgian forces into South Ossetia would mean war with Russia. He would also be aware that Georgian forces would almost certainly lose that war. So his aim must have been to raise the profile of the South Ossetian issue and get international pressure for the withdrawal of Russian troops from the region. The Bush administration may well have promised him support – certainly political support such as the UN Security Council tabled by the US condemning Russian actions in Georgia - and possibly even arms and training for Georgian forces.

Georgia has applied for membership of NATO – something the Russian government is keen to prevent. The Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline bringing Caspian oil and gas to the Mediterranean also passes through Georgia’s capital Tbilisi – making influence over Georgia’s government a prize for both Russia and the US and EU to fight over (7), (8). A Georgian government spokesmen interviewed on the BBC’s News 24 presented Russian troops’ presence as a threat to western energy supplies from the Caspian (9).

This is not another Prague Spring. It’s more similar to the break-up of Yugoslavia, in which both Croat and Serb forces under extreme nationalist authoritarian governments committed atrocities against civilians euphemized as ‘ethnic cleansing’ – or Afghanistan, where conflict over another potential oil pipeline route providing western companies with an export route for former Soviet republics’ oil and gas is one ulterior motive for the conflict.

The best response the EU and the British government could make would be to remain neutral and call for a ceasefire involving the withdrawal of all Russian troops from Georgia (excluding South Ossetia and Abkhazia) and a negotiated solution to both the Ossetian and the Abkhazian issues – allowing either autonomy or autonomy leading to independence for both. War will only lead to the killing and ethnic cleansing of civilians by both sides – and then by whichever wins.


(1) = BBC 9 Aug 2008, ‘No quick fix to S Ossetia conflict’,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7550780.stm

(2) = Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights
GEORGIA EXTRAORDINARY PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION 5 January 2008
OSCE/ODIHR Election Observation Mission Final Report ,
http://www.osce.org/documents/odihr/2008/03/29982_en.pdf

(3) = Amnesty International Report 2008 – Georgia ,
http://thereport.amnesty.org/eng/regions/europe-and-central-asia/georgia

(4) = Human Rights Watch reports on Georgia,
http://hrw.org/doc/?t=europe&c=georgi

(5) = Human Rights Watch 1992, ‘BLOODSHED IN THE CAUCASUS
Violations of Humanitarian Law and Human Rights in
the Georgia-South Ossetia Conflict’,
http://www.hrw.org/reports/pdfs/g/georgia/georgia.923/georgia923full.pdf

(6) = Kleveman, Lutz (2003) , ‘The New Great Game’, Chapter 3, pages 31-50

(7) = Kleveman, Lutz (2003) , ‘The New Great Game’, Chapter 3, pages 31-50

(8) = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan_pipeline

(9) = BBC News 24 10 Aug 2008

Policy Changes - or clear policy positions from politicians - would make a difference - vague talk about 'change' or a change of Prime Minister or Party in Government will make none in themselves

David Miliband’s Guardian article was remarkable only for recycling Blairite rhetoric from 1997 and for the complete absence of any clear policy positions whatsoever, making it fairly obvious that his policies don’t differ from Blair’s, Brown’s, Cameron’s or most of the Lib Dem’s.

His ‘for the many not the few’ rhetoric repeats the existing gap between rhetoric and policy.

Do we need yet another politician who talks about change while failing to explain what kind of change and continuing to back the same disastrous policies? Do we need another politician who won’t do anything significant about the two main causes of unemployment – the shortage of apprenticeships in trades and unconditional trade deals with repressive governments like China’s that allow them to keep jailing, torturing and organ harvesting their own people and banning independent trade unions? Trade deals that exploit people abroad on slave labour, 19th century, wages and conditions which allow their country’s exports to undercut ours on price and cause unemployment here?

Do we want to keep paying more taxes to increase NHS spending only for the result to be cuts in the total number of beds and staff as all the new money goes to PFI consortia and investors? Do we want to keep paying to subsidise private rail companies with public money while they raise our train fares at rates several times higher than inflation?

Do we want to keep increasing taxes on the majority to fund tax cuts for high earners and big firms?

Do we want more nuclear power stations when the current cost of decommissioning the old ones is an estimated £73 billion and rising, plus more leukaemia deaths? Even when a recent report found that relatively modest increases in government subsidies to help with energy saving measures such as home insulation could save as much energy annually as five nuclear power stations could produce?

Do we want another war against a non-existent ‘threat’ from a Middle Eastern country, despite it’s government having shown itself unwilling to commit suicide in the past and willing to negotiate, so a ‘threat’ easily deterred, then negotiated with?

If so vote for Brown, or Miliband, or Cameron, or for the Lib Dems (who, to be fair, are at least against war on Iran). Everyone has their own preferences on personalities, but at the end of the day rivalries between different personalities in politics are trivia. What matters are the policies – they are what make a difference to people’s lives – or cause their deaths. A new Prime Minister or a new party in government will make no difference without real policy change.