at-Largely

Iran Hits the Fan Says Buchanan

by Jeff Huber

You can rest easy.  Political pundit and former presidential candidate Pat Buchanan predicted on Sunday that there is a "Fifty-fifty chance of U.S. air strikes on Iran by October."  I just love the all out commitment involved in making a fifty-fifty prediction: there’s a hundred percent chance you’ll be right.  Of course, the very fact that Pat Buchanan mentions something might happen means the odds are that it won’t. 

Don’t get complacent, though.  Just like the cataclysmic natural disaster that strikes every century or so, once in a blue moon it turns out that Pat Buchanan knew what the hell he was talking about. 

Similarly, we might expect that the Bush administration knows that attacking Iran would be the worst imaginable thing they could do—for the Bush legacy, for U.S. foreign policy, and for stability in the Middle East.  A strike on Iran would be an act of sheer lunacy; so the Bush administration might just do it. 

The Really Long War

Posted by Jeff Huber

“The United States is a nation engaged in what will be a long war.” – Quadrennial Defense Review Report (February 6, 2006)

“No nation has ever profited from a long war.” – Sun Tzu (long ago)

The 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review Report noted that it was “imperative” for the Department of Defense to “hedge against uncertainty over the next 20 years.”  The DoD will have to hedge a sight longer than 20 years if John McCain gets himself elected in November.  McCain has “no objection” to American troops staying in Iraq for a hundred, a thousand, or heck, make it an even million years.  He’s not likely to meet a lot of resistance to that policy from the Pentagon.  Ten thousand centuries’ worth of job security doesn’t grow on trees.

Our old playmates Russia and China won’t object to McCain’s plans for a million-year replay of the Cold War either.  The only concern they have on that score is McCain’s penchant for either changing his mind or forgetting what he said in the first place.

Trickle down to a financial meltdown...

Since everyone is busy remembering Ronald Reagan fondly these days, perhaps the financial meltdown might shock them into reality, maybe ever so slightly. You do recall voodoo economics, the trickle-down theory of creationism, right? Well, to put it rather in less "voodooish" terms, all trickle-down economics really did was to provide a less offensive talking point to describe the  actual  and far more sinister motive behind it.

In reality, trickle-down is double-speak for the rich taking a piss on the poor. Under the Bush administration, it is double-speak for what happens when you rob the US treasury blind, and borrow from the Chinese Communists, the Saudi terrorism financiers and anyone else who is willing to lend you their platinum credit card so you can go on to fund your corporate cronies. I wonder what little Ronnie would have said if he knew how much of the US  is owned by Communist China and Saudi Arabia? Regardless of what Reagan would have thought, what is evident is the world is not pleased. So, against the Bush pissing down policy, here is the news as the world markets panic:

"Fears that the United States is in a recession reverberated around the world on Monday, sending stock markets from Bombay to Frankfurt into a tailspin and puncturing the hopes of many investors that Europe and Asia will be able to sidestep an American downturn.

On a day when United States markets were closed in observance of Martin Luther King’s Birthday, the world’s eyes were trained nervously on the United States. Investors reacted with what many analysts described as panic to the multiplying signs of weakness in the American economy."

But I thought John Fund said that the economy was lovely? Did not Bush say that the economy was doing peachy? Those of us not in the upper echelons of "peachy" society - who are busy saving to buy gas for a car we can no longer afford to insure, while watching the value of our homes dive as we walk a tight rope between buying food and buying health - really did not ever matter all that much. Yet so long as the rich investors had a few bucks to gamble with, then at least this bunch in the Bush administration could continue to sell the notion of a vibrant economy to itself and its corporate backers. Now what boys and girls?

Here is what. Just like the pretense that we are winning the war on terrorism, and just like the pretense that there is no global warming, and just like the pretense that Conservative economics is anything other than a ponzi scheme, we can also keep pretending that there is no recession all the way to a financial meltdown, because those who brought about these circumstances have long since redistributed our money - public money - to the private sector. Oh, and just like voodoo economics, "private sector" is double-speak for oligarchy.

SECAF and the Psychedelic Yonder

Posted by Jeff Huber

"Isn't it odd that after a terrorist attack that relied on $2 box-cutters, we are redoubling our pursuit of fantastical weaponry?"

-- Robert Scheer

In January 2007, the Chinese shot down one of their own weather satellites in a test of their anti-satellite (ASAT) weapons system.  Based on Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne's reaction to it, you wonder what sky he thinks his pilots fly in. 

At a September 19, 2007 meeting of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a defense policy think tank, Wynn called China's ASAT test an "egregious act."  "We were not surprised, we were shocked," he said of the test.  It's not entirely clear whom he was referring to as "we."  Maybe he meant him and his best friend, because not too many people should have been shocked or surprised about the test.

Reds: The Target Edition

Target inc., went screaming into the night after "critics" stomped their feet and demanded that an image in their shops be covered up before the children see it.

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Target Corp said on Friday it had pulled a CD carrying case bearing Ernesto "Che" Guevara's image after an outcry by critics who label the Marxist revolutionary a murderer and totalitarian symbol.

Target had touted a music disc carrying case for Che admirers emblazoned with the Argentine-born guerrilla's iconic 1960 portrait by Alberto Diaz, or "Korda." A set of small earphones was superimposed on the image, suggesting he was tuned in to an iPod or other music player.

"It is never our intent to offend any of our guests through the merchandise we carry," Target said in a statement. "We have made the decision to remove this item from our shelves and we sincerely apologize for any discomfort this situation may have caused our guests."

Yes, the irony. A company who imports slave labor produced products from the world's leading Communist regime (China) censors a CD which only shows a photo of an already dead Communist.  The critics who are offended by a symbol but are willing to buy products produced by the real thing offend me. Will target remove them from their stores to appease me? Hypocrites.

But wait, who are the critics? Ah, Investor's Business Daily, who apparently ask (and I kid you not):

"What next? Hitler backpacks? Pol Pot cookware? Pinochet pantyhose?" wrote Investor's Business Daily in an editorial earlier this month, citing the Guevara case as a model of "tyrant-chic."

Apparently the offended party is Wall Street and they of course have no problem with Communism or supporting it.  I know what actual Communism is and I can say with near certainty that Hitler and Pinochet were not remotely left leaning. Hitler took over the Socialist part, but there is no doubt he was a fascist. Pinochet was a right wing dictator that the US installed and backed.

As a former Soviet citizen, it is offensive to me that Capitalism is seen as the antithesis to tyranny. I felt oppressed by the Soviets and I feel oppressed by the Capitalists, in different ways of course. As an American citizen I am offended by the power that corporate apparatchiks have in our every day lives. As a customer, I am offended by Target's ridiculous censorship ploy. Because if they really did not want to support tyranny, they could do it in more meaningful ways, like by actually not supporting tyranny. As for Investor's Business Daily, they offend me more than Che did or does now on the cover of a CD. Why? Anyone who does not see why or understand why offends me on moral grounds.

Cross posted on my HuffPo blog.

Harsh sanctions, or not, up to you

UN Security Council passed sanctions against Iran today, sending a harsh message:

The resolution has been in the works since Iran flouted the Security Council’s call for a “full and sustained suspension” of nuclear activities by Aug. 31. It is weaker than proposals in earlier drafts, which started circulating in October, after repeated changes intended to placate Russia, which has strong economic ties with Iran. Throughout the process, Russia’s objections were often seconded by China.

Uranium enrichment is the first step in making fuel that can be used for nuclear power plants, or for nuclear weapons. Tehran has maintained that it has the right to pursue its nuclear program, which it says is aimed at generating electricity.

The measure would freeze the assets of 12 Iranians and 11 companies that are said to be involved in nuclear and ballistic missile programs. It also would give a new committee the authority to amend the list in the future.

Or just a mild message really, ya know, sort of sanctions

The final version of the text, however, qualifies the asset freeze in some respects, for example by giving countries more latitude to unfreeze certain assets than previous drafts would have allowed.

In another nod to Russia’s concerns, the resolution was amended to exclude any sanctions against a nuclear power plant that Russia is building at Bushehr, in southern Iran.

In other news, Halliburton still has an office in Tehran. I hope they are not one of the companies on the list. Oh wait, they are American. Phew, that was a close call.

US to China: Want some nuke reactors?

Did anyone ever think that the US would build nuclear reactors for a communist country? This big business model is truly fascinating.  If you said no, I have one word for you: Surprise:

"Westinghouse, the nuclear-plant builder sold by British Nuclear Fuels earlier this year, has won a billion-dollar contract to build reactors in China.

The deal, worth about $8bn (£4.1bn), is for four nuclear plants - two at Sanmen in Zhejiang province, with another two at Yangjiang in Guangdong.

An expected decline in fossil fuels and increasing energy demands have prompted many nations to focus on nuclear power.

Analysts said that the deal may also help soothe trade tensions with the US.

<snip>

China is having to look at ways of safeguarding its energy independence as world oil supplies are squeezed, and its growing population and booming economy increase its thirst for energy.

At the same time, many experts have claimed that nuclear power is one of the most efficient and environmentally friendly ways of meeting a population's energy needs.

This view is proving controversial and has been contested by environmental groups, which claim that the risks of an accident and cost of dealing with radioactive waste far outweigh any benefits.

Even so, demand for nuclear power plants is on the increase, and the International Energy Agency estimates that more than $200bn will be spent by 2030 on harnessing the atom for energy output.                     "

Strange really, but is this not the same argument that Iran is making?