home / subscribe / donate / books / archives / search / links / feedback / events / faq
The New Print Edition of CounterPunch, Only for Our Newsletter Subscribers!
How Bush Pushed Up Oil Prices
No newspaper has run the headline, “Bush to American drivers: drop dead!"It’s the biggest press failure since WMD. In fact Bush could easily cut oil prices in half. EXCLUSIVE to subscribers in our latest newsletter Michael Hudson lays out in detail exactly how the Great Oil Price scam works, and who’s benefitting. In 2003 he was on Don Rumsfeld’s bench urging war. Now he’s reinvented himself, yet again. Alexander Cockburn on the twists and turns of a pet intellectual of the Establishment, Fareed Zakaria. Copper, cobalt and zinc and villainy in the Congo: Colette Braeckman gives CounterPunchers the latest chapter in “the race for Africa". Get your copy today by subscribing online or calling 1-800-840-3683 Contributions to CounterPunch are tax-deductible. Click here to make a donation. If you find our site useful please: Subscribe Now! CounterPunch books and gear make great presents.
|
Today's Stories July 29, 2008 John Ross July 28, 2008 Dr. Bryant Welch Kathy Kelly Mike Whitney Peter Morici Christopher Brauchli Clifton Ross Stephen Lendman Website of the Day July 26 / 27, 2008 Alexander Cockburn Jeffrey St. Clair James G. Abourezk Joseph Nevins Uri Avnery Linn Washington, Jr. David Yearsley Binoy Kampmark Saul Landau Joshua Frank Brendan Cooney Jonathan Cook Robert Fantina Lee Sustar Michael Winship David Macaray Missy Beattie Robert Weissman Kim Nicolini Poets' Basement Website of the Weekend July 25, 2008 Harvey Wasserman Paul Craig Roberts Alan Farago Paul D'Amato Gary Leupp Niranjan Ramakrishnan Mike Whitney Paul Krassner Mike Roselle Website of the Day July 24, 2008 Greg Moses Andy Worthington James Bovard Joe Bageant George Wuerthner DC Larson William Willers David Macaray Website of the Day July 23, 2008 Winslow T. Wheeler Paul Craig Roberts Ralph Nader Mike Whitney Susie Day Website of the Day July 22, 2008 Nikolas Kozloff Patrick Cockburn Soldz, Olson, Reisner Arrigo and Welch Moshe Adler Martha Rosenberg Dan Bacher Harvey Wasserman Anthony Papa Binoy Kampmark Website of the Day July 21, 2008 Ishmael Reed Mike Whitney Andy Worthington Scott Pellegrino John Ross Robert Weitzel Mike Stark Website of the Day July 19 / 20, 2008 Alexander Cockburn Jeffrey St. Clair Dave Lindorff Saul Landau Ron Jacobs Uri Avnery Neve Gordon Roane Carey Robert Fantina Christopher Brauchli Fred Gardner David Macaray Richard L. Hutto Bill Moyers / Ronnie Cummins David Yearsley Alison McKenna Wajahat Ali Poets' Basement Website of the Day July 18, 2008 Corey D. B. Walker Mike Whitney Robert Bryce Mike Roselle Bouthaina Shaaban Eve Spangler Website of the Day
July 17, 2008 Paul Craig Roberts James G. Abourezk Ralph Nader Allan J. Lichtman Andy Worthington"Screwed Up" and"Abused": Omar Khadr's Interrogations at Gitmo Ronnie Cummins
July 16, 2008 Jeffrey St. Clair Paul Craig Roberts Conn Hallinan Dave Lindorff William S. Lind Christopher Brauchli Website of the Day
July 15, 2008 Michael Hudson Brian Cloughley Patrick Cockburn John Ross Howard Lisnoff Website of the Day July 14, 2008 Uri Avnery Paul Craig Roberts Trish Schuh Patrick Cockburn Mike Whitney Alan Farago Seth Sandronsky Phyllis Pollack Website of the Day July 12 / 13, 2008 Alexander Cockburn Jeffrey St. Clair James Abourezk Nicole Colson Stan Cox Ismael Hossein-Zadeh Wajahat Ali / John Stauber Alan Farago Missy Beattie Robert Fantina Rannie Amiri Gregory Kafoury Fran Shor Martha Rosenberg David Macaray Andrew Wimmer Ron Jacobs Farzana Versey Kim Nicolini Poets' Basement Website of the Weekend July 11, 2008 Kevin Alexander Gray Sasan Fayazmanesh Peter Morici Mike Whitney Manuel Garcia, Jr. Robert Weissman Ramzy Baroud Kelly Overton Adrian Burgos Website of the Day July 10, 2008 Brian McKenna Paul Craig Roberts Saul Landau Ron Jacobs Joshua Frank Peter Morici Alan Maass Robert Weissman William Blum Alan Farago Website of the Day July 9, 2008 Ismael Hossein-Zadeh Luis Rodriguez Sheldon Richman Fatemeh Keshavarz Chad Hanson Sen. Russ Feingold Niranjan Ramakrishnan Dave Lindorff Stanley Heller Philip Rizk Website of the Day July 8, 2008 Nikolas Kozloff Laura Carlsen Mike Whitney Andy Worthington Patrick Irelan Chellis Glendinning David Macaray Dave Lindorff John Chuckman Phillip Doe Website of the Day July 7, 2008 Patrick Bond Kathy Kelly Andy Worthington Clifton Ross Elizabeth Schulte Ralph Nader Dave Lindorff Binoy Kampmark Stephen Fleischman Website of the Day July 5 / 6, 2008 Alexander Cockburn Jeffrey St. Clair / Patrick Cockburn Mike Whitney Robert Fantina Binoy Kampmark Rannie Amiri Eric Ruder Brian Cloughley William Blum Frank Barat Christopher Brauchli David Yearsley Ron Jacobs Karim Makdisi Wendy Thompson / N. D. Jayaprakash Ramzy Baroud Kelly Overton Richard Neville Poets' Basement Website of the Weekend
July 4, 2008 Kathy Kelly Dave Lindorff Paul Krassner Jackie Corr Laray Polk Dan Bacher Walter Brasch Charles Modiano Website of the Day July 3, 2008 Sharon Smith Andy Worthington Laura Carlsen Peter Morici Ramzi Kysia Martha Rosenberg Anne Landman Dave Zirin Kristin Bricker Website of the Day
July 2, 2008 Patrick Irelan Vijay Prashad Brian Cloughley Ralph Nader Robert Fantina Dave Lindorff Parvez Ahmed Robert Bryce Website of the Day July 1, 2008 Alexander Cockburn Mike Whitney Douglas Macgregor Steven Higgs Andy Worthington Binoy Kampmark Dave Lindorff Roger Burbach Richard W. Behan Gary Leupp Website of the Day |
July 29, 2008 The Bush-Obama ConvergenceA New Consensus on Iraq?By
ERIC RUDER In late July, newspaper headlines announced that the Bush administration and Iraqi officials had agreed on a "general time horizon for meeting aspirational goals" for the withdrawal of U.S. troops. The fuzzy phraseology allows the Bush administration to deny that it had agreed to a "timetable" for withdrawal--something it has repeatedly denounced as "irresponsible" when advocated by Democrats. Meanwhile, Barack Obama, who has promised to withdraw U.S. combat troops from Iraq by late 2010 if he becomes president, captured the world's attention with whirlwind tour that took him to Baghdad for meetings with Iraqi politicians and U.S. military leaders. Shortly before he arrived, an interview with Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki in Germany's Der Spiegel made headlines because Maliki basically endorsed Obama's 2010 timeline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops--and made the pointed remark that "he who wants to exit in a quicker way has a better assessment of the situation in Iraq." The sudden convergence of Obama, Maliki and the Bush administration on Iraq left Republican presidential candidate John McCain out in the cold. For months, he has attacked Obama for failing to understand what's at stake in Iraq with his 16-month withdrawal proposal. But suddenly, McCain looks like the one who's out of step--with the heads of state in both the U.S. and Iraq. As news of Maliki's praise of Obama sunk in, McCain stuck to his script. "The fact is, if we had done what Senator Obama wanted to do, we would have lost," McCain said. "And we would have faced a wider war. And we would have had greater problems in Afghanistan and the entire region. And Iran would have increased their influence." That perfectly describes the situation that already exists--as a direct product of the U.S. war on Iraq. At the same time, McCain might be trying to change direction. "If there is any fixed position in John McCain's policy agenda, it's that we must never, ever, set a timetable for leaving Iraq," observed the Chicago Tribune's Steve Chapman. "So it was a surprise to hear him say Monday [July 21], when asked if our troops might depart in the next two years, 'Oh, I think they could be largely withdrawn, as I've said.'" * * * ALL THIS raises larger questions: What's behind the new consensus on Iraq? And beyond surface appearances, what policy are the various players actually converging around? There are three chief factors to consider: the U.S. political and media establishment's mantra about the "success of the surge," the political pressures of approaching elections in both the U.S. and Iraq, and the fundamental continuity of the foreign policy assumptions guiding both the Democratic and Republican Parties. The U.S. mainstream media has settled on the following description of life in Iraq in 2008: The troop surge, begun by the U.S. in early 2007, has enjoyed enormous success. Violence in Iraq is down. This must mean that the Iraqi government is better able to provide security. But using the single measure of a declining body count to assess conditions in Iraq today misses the larger picture, which is grimmer, according to journalist Patrick Cockburn: In June, 554 Iraqi civilians and security were killed, compared with 1,642 a year earlier. The sectarian civil war between Sunni and Shia, which was at its height between the end of 2005 and the first half of 2007, has ebbed. This is not so much because of the surge, but because there is nobody left to kill. Baghdad has become a largely Shia city. There are few mixed areas remaining. Iraq expert Juan Cole makes a similar point:
Why a return to the bad situation in late 2005 and early 2006 should be greeted by the GOP as the veritable coming of the Messiah is beyond me. Entirely absent from the discussion of the "great strides" Iraq has made is the continuing crisis of life for Iraqis--lack of electricity during the sweltering summer months, skyrocketing food prices, mass unemployment, a massive refugee crisis. But the endless repetition about the success of the surge has produced a certain contradictory pressure for U.S. politicians. If the situation in Iraq is improving, why should U.S. troops stay? That brings us to the even more important factor of approaching elections in the U.S. and Iraq. Two-thirds or more of the U.S. public want the troops to come home--quickly. So it's easy to see why Obama would promise to withdraw U.S. combat troops--even as he attaches a number of qualifications, conditions and contingencies that will leave a residual force of many tens of thousands of troops in Iraq, possibly increase the number of private contractors, and even allow for the launching of new offensives into or from Iraq as "conditions on the ground demand it." But the U.S. elections don't directly affect the outgoing Bush administration. So why would Bush finally agree to a "time horizon for meeting aspirational goals"? Because Bush administration officials and Maliki are currently negotiating a so-called "status of forces agreement" (SOFA) that will govern the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq after the UN mandate covering the American presence in Iraq runs out on December 30. This negotiation has become an issue in the coming Iraqi elections, which were originally scheduled for October, but will almost certainly be postponed to 2009 because of sharp disagreements among Iraq's Sunni, Shia and Kurdish legislators about how to organize the vote. Nevertheless, Maliki is under enormous pressure to set a timetable for U.S. withdrawal, or risk a defeat for his Dawa Party at election time. A similar dynamic accompanied Iraq's parliamentary elections in January 2005 when all the main contenders publicly called for a timetable for U.S. withdrawal to curry favor with Iraq's voters--leading to much hand-wringing in the U.S. military and intelligence communities. In truth, Iraq's puppet government depends on the U.S. military's presence to keep its grip on power, so the promises to throw the U.S. out have to be understood in light of domestic political pressures--a fact that war planners in the U.S. have absorbed. That's why the SOFA negotiations include talk of a timetable, while at the same time detailing other conditions totally at odds with a withdrawal of U.S. forces, such as continued American control of Iraqi air space, exemptions of U.S. personnel from legal prosecution in Iraq, the right of the U.S. to launch military strikes at its own discretion, and a continued presence in well-fortified bases and the massive U.S. embassy in Baghdad. * * * BEYOND THE media echo chamber and the alignment of election pressures on politicians in both Iraq and the U.S., the more important factor driving the new consensus on Iraq is the rarely acknowledged fact of American politics--whatever their rhetorical differences, the Democratic Party is guided by the same foreign policy goals as the Republican Party, even if the methods for accomplishing those goals differ in important respects. Obama's foreign policy remains committed to the pursuit of U.S. interests in the Middle East and beyond, in collaboration with allies when possible and without their approval whenever it's deemed necessary. Obama wants to increase the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan. So does the Bush administration. Obama says it's time to talk with Iran face-to-face. And so does the Bush administration. Obama recently repeated his threat to take a harder line with Pakistan than the administration has, pledging to carry out unilateral military strikes inside Pakistan if Obama were to receive "actionable intelligence against high-value al-Qaeda targets, and the Pakistani government was unwilling to go after those targets." Foreign policy analyst Madhavi Bhasin argues that a careful look at Obama's positions--as well as the views of those who make up his foreign policy team--reveals a platform that deviates not at all from the reigning orthodoxy of the American foreign policy establishment: In his speeches, Obama has discreetly supported the idea of a Concert of Democracies by calling for the need to strengthen institutions and invigorate alliances and partnerships for meeting the global threats. He seeks to build an America that fights immediate evil, promotes an ultimate good and leads the world. Does this sound any different from the promises made by President Bush and reasserted by Senator McCain? No matter who becomes the next president, the U.S. will continue its policies of political, economic and strategic intervention in countries that appear threatening, while courting greater support from its allies. With either a Democratic or Republican president at the helm of affairs, the U.S. may be expected to continue a policy of "aggressive internationalism." Eric Ruder writes for the Socialist Worker.
|
Now Available from CounterPunch Books!
RED STATE REBELS: Edited by ![]() Buy End Times Now! CounterPunch Books of the Crossroads: HOW THE IRISH INVENTED SLANG By Daniel Cassidy AMERICAN BOOK AWARD! ![]() Click Here to Buy! Click Here for Dates & Venues Michael Neumann's Devastating Rebuttal of Alan Dershowitz ![]() Click Here to Buy! Saul Landau's Bush and Botox World with a Foreword by Gore Vidal ![]() Click Here to Order! How They Made a Killing on the War on Terrorism ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
![]() Humanitarian Imperialism By Jean Bricmont ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() CITY BEAUTIFUL By Tennessee Reed ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |