|
|
home / subscribe / donate / tower / books / archives / search / links / feedback / events / faq
|
Here's the second in Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair's series as they describe Hillary Clinton's years in Little Rock and her narrow escape from federal charges that would have destroyed her political career for ever. PLUS KEVIN ALEXANDER GRAY on how Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards are failing Black America even as they hunt for votes in So uth Carolina's "Black Primary." Get your copy today by subscribing online or calling 1-800-840-3683 Remember contributions to CounterPunch are tax-deductible. Click here to make a donation. If you find our site useful please: Subscribe Now
|
|
Today's Stories August 13, 2007 Kathy
Kelly August 11 / 12, 2007 Alexander
Cockburn Stan
Goff Ralph
Nader Vijay
Prashad Greg
Moses Alan
Farago Patrick
Cockburn Ben
Tripp Robert
Fantina John
Ross Seth
Sandronsky Paul
Krassner Website
of the Weekend
August 10, 2007 Paul
Craig Roberts Stan
Goff Marjorie
Cohn Saul
Landau Chris
Floyd Daniel
Ellsberg Anthony
Papa Farzana
Versey Sgt.
Kevin Benderman Nuri
Nuri Website
of the Day
August 9, 2007 Stan
Goff Paul
Craig Roberts Alan
Farago William
S. Lind Doug
Giebel Harvey
Wasserman Jacob
Hill Raul
Zibechi Dave
Zirin Website
of the Day
August 8, 2007 Andy
Worthington Jeff
Halper Greg
Moses Nurit
Peled-Elhanan Sukant
Chandan Robert
Fisk George
H. Strauss D.K.
Wilson Bill
Day Tim
Campbell Website
of the Day
August 7, 2007 Patrick
Cockburn Andy
Worthington Kathy
Kelly Stan
Cox Sonja
Karkar Sen.
Russ Feingold Alan
Farago Norman
Solomon Binoy
Kampmark Dave
Lindorff John
Stauber Website
of the Day August 6, 2007 Bill
Quigley Kathy
Rentenbach Uri
Avnery Col.
Dan Smith Ralph
Nader James
Neshewat D.K.
Wilson Greg
Moses Fidel
Castro Mike
Whitney
August 4 / 5, 2007 Alexander
Cockburn Peter
Linebaugh Saul
Landau Alan
Farago Dave
Zirin Barucha
Calamity Peller Anthony
DiMaggio Dave
Lindorff Fred
Gardner Nicola
Nasser Benjamin
Dangl Rannie
Amiri Daniel
Gross Sherwood
Ross Manuel
Garcia, Jr Missy
Beattie Ron
Jacobs Website
of the Weekend
August 3, 2007 Gabriel
Matthew Schivone Jonathan
Cook Patrick
Cockburn Little
Steven Van Zandt Christopher
Brauchli D.
K. Wilson Linda
Ford and Ira Glunts Kelly
Overton Monica
Benderman Manuel
Garcia, Jr. Website
of the Day
August 2, 2007 Paul
Craig Roberts Stanley Heller Eric
Ruder Robert
Fantina Alan
Farago Chris
Floyd Franklin
Lamb Sen.
Russ Feingold Anthony
Papa Norman
Solomon Website
of the Day
August 1, 2007 Debbie Nathan Fred
Gardner Gary
Leupp David
Rosen Winston
Warfield Daniel
McBride Glen
Ford Thomas
P. Healy John
V. Whitbeck David
Krieger Website
of the Day
July 31, 2007 Kathy
Kelly Clancy Sigal Paul Krassner Joe
DeRaymond Diane
Christian Chris
Floyd Ramzy
Baroud Alan
Farago Fidel
Castro Dan
Bacher
July 30, 2007 Marjorie Cohn: Independent Counsel Time Patrick Cockburn Peter Quinn Uri Avnery John Ross Ron
Jacobs David
Vest Jeffrey
St. Clair Website
of the Day
July 28 / 29, 2007 Alexander
Cockburn Ralph
Nader Robert
Fantina Fred
Gardner
July 27, 2007 John
Ross Arthur
Neslen Dave
Lindorff Julene
Blair Christopher
Brauchli Jesse
Hagopian Charles
Modiano Bill
Day Walter
Brasch M.D.
Mitchell Website
of the Day
July 26, 2007 Kathleen
Christison Andy
Worthington Clancy
Chassay Marjorie
Cohn Susie
Day David
Price Marie
Trigona Norman
Solomon William
S. Lind Natsu
Saito John
Stauber Website
of the Day
July 25, 2007 Andy
Worthington Gary
Leupp Ray
McGovern Dr.
Susan Block Joshua
Frank Tina
Richards Ben
Terrall Farzana
Versey Mohammad
Ali Salih Laura
Carlsen Ron
Jacobs Sunsara
Taylor Website
of the Day
Saul
Landau Kathy
Kelly Russell
Mokhiber M.
Shahid Alam Patrick
Cockburn and Anne Penketh Dave
Lindorff Binoy
Kampmark Richard
Neville Cindy
Sheehan Evelyn
Pringle Norman
Solomon CP
Newswire Website
of the Day
July 23, 2007 Andy
Worthington Uri
Avnery Patrick
Cockburn Sousan
Hammad John
Walsh Harvey
Wasserman Martha
Rosenberg Collin Baber
Reza
Fiyouzat Stephen
Lendman Website
of the Day
July 21 / 22, 2007 Alexander
Cockburn Werther Ralph
Nader David
Keen Fred
Gardner Gary
Leupp Robert
Fantina Saker Rannie
Amiri Mike
Whitney Dr.
Susan Rosenthal, MD Monica
Benderman Dan
Bacher Michael
Baney Missy
Beattie Ron
Jacobs Adam
Engel Thomas
Naylor Poets'
Basement Website
of the Weekend
July 20, 2007 Eliza
Szabo Pam
Martens Alan
Farago Harvey
Wasserman Marjorie
Cohn Dave
Zirin Anthony
DiMaggio Scott
Liebertz Linn
Washington, Jr. Bill
Piper / Anthony Papa Ramzy
Baroud Website
of the Day
July 19, 2007 Patrick
Cockburn Remi
Kanazi Winslow
T. Wheeler Sharon
Smith Dave
Lindorff Conn
Hallinan D.
K. Wilson Joshua
Frank Norman
Solomon Russell
Hoffman Ray
McGovern Website
of the Day July 18, 2007 Brenda
Norrell Col.
Dan Smith Martha
Rosenberg Conn
Hallinan Binoy
Kampmark Patrick
Bond / Tom
Johnson Paul
Craig Roberts Bob
Quellos Felice
Pace Robert
Weissman CP
Newswire Website
of the Day
July 17, 2007 Patrick
Cockburn Marjorie
Cohn Evelyn
Pringle David
Rosen Susan
Miller Franklin
Lamb Don
Monkerud Harvey
Wasserman Russell
Hoffman Dave
Lindorff Dave
Zirin Website
of the Day
July 16, 2007 Gary
Leupp Ellen
Cantarow Paul
Craig Roberts Allan
J. Lichtman Dan
Bacher Patrick
Cockburn Manuel
Garcia, Jr. James
Brooks Liaquat
Ali Khan Julie
Flint Website
of the Day
July 14 / 15. 2007 Alexander
Cockburn Andy
Worthington Ralph
Nader Robert
Fantina Ron
Jacobs Joshua
Frank Conn
Hallinan Dr.
Susan Rosenthal, MD John
Ross Fred
Gardner Rannie
Amiri Charles
Modiano Anthony
DiMaggio China
Hand Missy
Comley Beattie Dr.
James J. Murtagh, Jr. Kenneth
Rexroth Poets'
Basement Website
of the Weekend
July 13, 2007 Patrick
Cockburn Winslow
T. Wheeler Imran
Khan Todd
Chretien Sam
Husseini Dr.
Herman Mindshaftgap Anthony
Papa D.
K. Wilson David
Michael Green Website
of the Day
July 12, 2007 Paul
Craig Roberts Robert Jensen Dr. Susan Block Joshua Frank John Chuckman Corporate Crime
Reporter Mike Whitney Nicola Nasser Richard Rhames William S.
Lind Website of the Day
July 11, 2007 Patrick
Cockburn Richard
Neville Debra
McNutt John
V. Walsh Scott
Liebertz George
C. Wilson James
McEnteer Philip
Rizk Johnny
Hazard Dave
Lindorff Website
of the Day
July 10, 2007 James
Ridgeway Tariq
Ali Javed
Hussein William
Blum Ralph
Nader Jay
Arena Anthony
DiMaggio Eva
Liddell Jerry
Kroth Alice
Woodward Nikolas
Kozloff Paul
Shannon Website
of the Day
July 9, 2007 Fidel
Castro Diana
Johnstone John
Walsh Uri
Avnery Ramzy
Baroud John
Ripton Stephen
Lendman Bruce
Jackson Michael
Donnelly Doug
Giebel Website
of the Day
Saul
Landau Ismael
Hossein-zadeh Fawzia
Afzal-Khan John
Ross Pat
Williams Rannie
Amiri Farzana
Versey Bart
Gruzalski Paul
Rockwell Reza
Fiyouzat Monica
Benderman Kenneth
Couesbouc Dave
Lindorff Charles
Modiano Missy
Beattie Dal
LaMagna Jean
Gerard Anne
Dachel Ron
Jacobs Poets'
Basement Website
of the Day
Daniel
Ellsberg Gary
Leupp Harvey
Wasserman Omer
Subhani Marjorie
Cohn Christopher
Brauchli David
Michael Green China
Hand Renee
Saucedo Corporate
Crime Reporter Website
of the Day
July 5, 2007 Andy
Worthington Mike
Stark Norman
Solomon Michael
Schwartz Susie
Day Jacob
Hornberger Bill
Hatch Don
Fitz John
Wright Website
of the Day
July 4, 2007 St.
Clair / Frank Vijay
Prashad Carl
G. Estabrook Ron
Jacobs David
R. Dow Claudia
Johnson William
S. Lind Gregory
Afghani Paul
Edwards D.
K. Wilson Niranjan
Ramakrishnan Thomas
Jefferson Cindy
Sheehan Website
of the Day
Bill
Quigley Gary
Leupp Lynda
Brayer Richard
Thieme Helen
Redmond David
Swanson Jacob
Hornberger Ayesha
Ijaz Khan Franklin
Lamb Ray
McGovern Kevin
Zeese Dave
Lindorff Website
of the Day
Subscribe Online
|
August 13, 2007 The Bipartisan Guarantee of More War in IraqNo Light, Just TunnelBy CHRIS FLOYD Our text for today is from the New York Times:
My word, this is certainly a surprise! Who ever would have thought that the most "serious" Democratic candidates would take such a position? Why, I suppose this means that if a "serious" Democrat gets elected president, the war crime in Iraq (which is what the old-timers used to call it when you aggressively invaded a country that hadn't attacked you and occupied their land with your troops) will go on -- just the same as if a "serious" Republican gets elected! And they say there is no unity in our politics, no bipartisan consensus in Washington! The NYT article is a hoot and a half -- or it would be, if the farce was not spattered with so much blood. Dig, if you will, this serious knitting of analytical brows:
Grave challenges, indeed. But why do they await the next president, when they are happening right now -- when, in fact, they were guaranteed to happen as soon as the criminal action was launched? The very serious John Edwards says, seriously, that he would keep an unspecified number of troops on hand because "we have to be prepared for the worst possibility that you never hear anyone talking about, which is the possibility that genocide breaks out and the Shi'a try to systematically eliminate the Sunni." But of course, Mr. Edwards himself is noticeably reticent on the subject of the genocide that's going on over there right now: the genocide against the Iraqi people. The number of deaths caused by the war that Bush launched is nearing or has surpassed one million. At least 4 million have fled their homes (an equivalent number in the US would be around 50 million), with most of them living in great hardship in places where they are not wanted. (But not in the United States, of course, which has allowed in the barest trickle of Iraqis since we destroyed their country.) The nation is nearing a state of collapse as a direct result of the war that was launched by Bush, approved by Congress, countenanced by the American people and set to continue under every "serious" Democratic candidate running for president. Oxfam's recent study of the humanitarian catastrophe put in plainly:
What's more, the national power grid is breaking down -- in the midst of summer temperatures that make the US heat wave look like a wintry chill, as the BBC reports:
And what is the answer of the occupying power to this crisis? Not surprisingly, it is an echo of Vice President Cheney's famous remarks to Senator Pat Leahy on the floor of the Senate: GFY.
So the Iraqis don't have the money to rebuild the infrastructure destroyed by the war launched by the Americans -- doubtless because billions upon billions of reconstruction dollars have been looted by the crony conquistadors and their local bagmen. The Pentagon knows the Iraqis don't have the money to rebuild the infrastructure destroyed by the war launched by the Americans; but they don't care. Bush doesn't care. The Democratic leaders in Congress don't care. The "serious" Democratic candidates don't care. Thousands of innocent Iraqis -- the young, the sick, the injured, the poor, the abandoned -- will be added to the death count this summer from this collapse of basic services. But none of this is an American responsibility. Not the collapse of the state, not the collapse of the society, not the plunge into wholesale sectarian violence by forces being armed on all sides by the Americans. No, it's all the Iraqis' responsibility now. This unspeakably hideous attitude
is not just the stance of the Pentagon, of course; it's also
the credo the most serious Democratic candidate of all, the breakaway
leader for the nomination, Hillary Clinton. As the Times tells
us: We invaded your country. We occupied your country. We wrote your constitution, in which the arbitrary decrees of our colonial viceroy were imposed as fundamental law. We looted your money. We armed your sectarians. And we are going to keep a large number of troops in your country, come what may. But we aren't going to baby-sit you anymore. No, if you don't get your act together -- and sign the goddamned Oil Law already -- we are just going to withdraw to our permanent bases and watch you kill each other. -- That is the sum total of the leading Democratic candidate's position on Iraq. It is of course an incoherent mish-mash, because it is just a smokescreen to obscure Clinton's true policy: to continue the war, largely as it is being fought now. Such a course is absolutely inevitable if you leave American forces in Iraq, to "fight terrorism," to "keep the civil war from spilling across the border," to "protect American personnel" (including, er, the troops you have left in the country), and so on. How will you "fight terrorism" in Iraq without raiding residential areas where "terrorist units" are located and launching airstrikes on "terrorist targets" and rounding up "suspected terrorists" and subjecting them to "strenuous interrogation" without charges in mass prisons and mounting checkpoints to check for terrorists and wreaking the usual "collateral damage" from "force protection" incidents? In other words, how you will operate any differently than the Bush-led operation in Iraq right now? The only difference under Clinton and her "serious" rivals is that there will be fewer troops -- which will actually mean an increased reliance on airstrikes, and hair-trigger "force protection," and even more mercenaries to fill the gaps. And if the mission of your "residual force" is to "prevent genocide" (that is, a different genocide from the one going on now), how will you do that without intervening -- with airstrikes, troops, checkpoints, arrests, interrogations, "force protection," the whole schmeer -- on behalf of one side or the other? Or both sides? And again, how will this be different from what's going on now? I've said it before and I'll say it again: anyone who advocates leaving even a "residual force" of American troops is Iraq is actually supporting the continuation of the war, on largely the same terms as it is being waged now. There is no "middle way," there is no magic, bipartisan compromise. There is only no war, or more war. American troops were sent into Iraq on a criminal mission, an act of aggression that was the moral and legal equivalent of the Nazi invasion of Poland or the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Their continued presence in Iraq only exacerbates all the evils that the "serious" people say will happen if America withdraws. (As if these things weren't happening in Iraq right now.) The Iraqis will never hammer out any kind of political accommodation as long as American troops are in the country, dividing the nation into "collaborators" and "insurgents" just by their very presence (much less by their alliance with one faction or another). The Iraqis will never come to any kind of fair agreement on the distribution of the nation's oil wealth as long as American troop are in the country, emblems of the nearly universal (and certainly correct) belief among Iraqis that the West is out to steal their oil. It may be too late for any kind of accommodation or agreement now. The ruination that Bush and his willing executioners in Congress have brought to Iraq may be irreparable. As for "destabilizing the region," the war crime has already done that. (Indeed, it was one of the aims of the invasion, as its architects and champions once boasted. "Creative destruction" was the phrase used by the very serious Michael Leeden, I believe.) There will be an inevitable escalation of the proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia that is now going on the country; but that will happen no matter what. Sectarian violence will also continue to spiral no matter what, with one possible exception: if the Americans leave the country and are no longer there arming the factions, stirring them up, setting one against the other, and killing and imprisoning civilians, thereby radicalizing more and more Iraqis every day. The only possible chance Iraq has to see a lessening of sectarian violence lies in the complete withdrawal of American troops. What would happen next? Well, I think a windfall profits tax on the oil companies and the weapons peddlers -- and the private equity sharks like Carlyle and Wall Street firms and investment banks who have gorged themselves with blood money like big ole ticks on a hand -- would produce a very sizable fund for the massive reparations the United States should pay to the Iraqis for destroying their country and murdering their people. Special prosecutors investigating the origins and conduct of the war would also be in order: a Homeland Nuremberg, on national TV -- bigger and better than the Watergate hearings! But we all know that none of that is going to happen. Certainly not the reparations, the investigations and prosecutions -- not in a million years, not in the "shining city on a hill." Nor will an American withdrawal -- which, as I said, is the only hope Iraq has of lessening the hell that now rages there. The sainted General Petraeus -- who has been one of the most egregiously mendacious blowhards touting the war's "success" for years -- is now telling U.S. lawmakers that his "surge" strategy will take 9-10 years to work, as The Hill reports.So anyone relying on Petraeus -- as Bush and all the "serious" Republicans are doing -- is buying into at least 10 more years of the present situation. And as we outlined above, anyone touting a "residual force" is essentially doing the same thing. Moreover, the same strategic and economic concerns that motivated the invasion in the first place will still obtain for the next president. In order to "preserve America's sacred way of life," the United States must have privileged access to the world's oil heartlands. The latter will not only allow America to continue using a vastly disproportionate share of the world's energy resources but also be a vital asset in containing the growth of any potential rivals and putting the squeeze on recalcitrant client states (or allies) who get out of line. No president dedicated to maintaining America's global dominance -- via a worldwide empire of military bases and a gargantuan war machine far surpassing that of any other nation -- can afford to willingly give up control of Iraq to a Shiite majority closely allied with Iran. (Unless of course there is a favorable "regime change" in Tehran.) This is part of the evil genius behind the Bush Regime's invasion of Iraq: it essentially commits any Establishment candidate -- one pledged to the aforesaid military-based global dominance (as all of the "serious" candidates of both parties are) -- to continuing the Bushists' policies. Now that the Rubicon of invading Iraq has been crossed, there is no going back. Saddam Hussein was a neutral in the war for energy supremacy: he could be counted on to sell his oil to anyone -- indeed, the United States was his best customer, even during the sanctions regime, even as Bush was building up his invasion force. But a sectarian-based Iraqi government allied with Iran -- or some other unknown quantity seizing power in the vacuum created by the invasion -- could very well curtail or cut off the flow to America for ideological reasons. If you are committed to American hegemony, American empire, then you will have to stay militarily involved in Iraq, now that Bush has led America into it. What's more, the logic of imperial geopolitics will lead inexorably to an attack on Iran as well, to secure the now-necessary dominion over Iraq. Most people persist in believing that the Bush Administration has "mishandled" or "bungled" the war in Iraq, when in fact they have achieved almost all of their goals. They have vastly enriched their cronies. They have installed a U.S. military presence in Iraq. They have expanded the size, power and scope of the armed forces and the intelligence services (which now have their own secret armies) beyond the wildest dreams of the most hawkish Cold War militarist. They have not only gutted the Constitution but proved that you can get away with it -- an invaluable lesson for dictators to come. And, as noted, they have committed the American Establishment to continuing the radical course they have set in motion -- because the Establishment will never allow the election of any candidate who would seek to institute the rollback of the empire and the restoration of genuine constitutional government. Especially as the latter would entail bringing justice to the war makers and the war profiteers, all of them honored stalwarts of the Establishment. Thus turning over ostensible authority to a "sovereign" Iraqi government was another masterstroke by the Bushists, a truly audacious scam. While still occupying the country and controlling its affairs, the United States has divested itself of the legal responsibilities of an occupying power. The leaders of both parties in Washington are now busy washing their hands of the blood they have shed, putting the onus on the occupied, co-opted and controlled nation to "put its own house in order." But of course, the Iraqis don't own their house anymore; the largest and most powerful armed force in the world is squatting there, and will keep squatting there for years to come, if the "serious" leaders of both parties have their way. And they will. Chris Floyd is an American journalist based in
the UK. He is the author of Empire Burlesque: High Crimes
and Low Comedy in the Bush Imperium. He writes the Empire
Burlesque blog.
|
CounterPunch Books of the Crossroads: HOW THE IRISH INVENTED SLANG By Daniel Cassidy  Click Here to Buy! How the Press Failed The Gang's All Here: Judy Miller, Bob Woodward, Rupert Murdoch, Bill O'Reilly...End Times Leaves No Reputation Unstained!  Buy End Times Now! CounterPunch Books! Saul Landau's Bush and Botox World with a Foreword by Gore Vidal  Click Here to Order!  Michael Neumann's Devastating Rebuttal of Alan Dershowitz Grand Theft Pentagon: Tales of Greed and Profiteering in the War on Terror by Jeffrey St. Clair           The Occupation by Patrick Cockburn   Humanitarian Imperialism By Jean Bricmont               CITY BEAUTIFUL By Tennessee Reed        Bruce Springsteen On Tour By Dave Marsh                   |
