Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
November 8, 2006
Some Issues

The 2006 election is over and in 6 or 7 weeks, the end-result may be in. Until then I’ll stick to my prediction. As one could expect, the Democrats have already begun their typical party infights with the party right side trying to screw the voters and the activists, now that their part is done.

But let us look ahead and at two recent other issues.

The next election in 2008 will of course be about Iraq. The unsolved and hard to be discussed question will be if, when and how to declare victory and retreat from Baghdad.

I exspect a run McCain/Lieberman versus Clinton/Obama – both pairs with an unspoken agenda to escalate that war one way or another. Unitil then – lots of constitutional crisis over the phantasy of "the unitary executive".

The UN sanctions on Iran seem not to materialize. The US wants a military option included, of course never to be used, it says, but others won’t agree. And why should they trust any US commitment, when its ambassador publicly lies about their positions:

“I don’t know how we’re going to work it out because the Russian version is very different than what we think the foreign ministers agreed to,” Mr. Bolton said.
[…]
Contesting Mr. Bolton’s point, Mr. Churkin said, “We believe that our attitude, approach and our proposals are fully in conformity with the understanding by the ministers.”

Siding with the Russian, Mr. Wang said, “The readout that we are hearing from the ambassadors here is not the same that we agreed to.”

Upps – looks like Bolton screwed up again.

On the dark side of the day is the Israeli "repositioning" out of the Gaza strip. Like the war on Libanon this was a totally useless and unproductive endevour for the Israeli side and a tragedy for the Palestine people.

Just like the IDF left Lebanon with a shower of millions of cluster bomblets, their current goodbye to Gaza was deadly. They killed 18 members of one family, including 8 children  by shelling them with a salvo of 155 mm’s.

"Sorry, wrong coordinates" the IDF says.

Sure – want to buy this bridge here too?

Comments

b
about your prediction. I am the first here, so far as i know, to declare barely dem house/no senate.
believe me. happy i’m wrong.

Posted by: slothrop | Nov 8 2006 18:03 utc | 1

i also disagree the belief u.s. won’t attack iran. the u.s. is now trapped in iraq and even under dem scrutiny, the war will be lost, as rgiap says, when the u.s. military is defeated. 100 deaths per month is really nothing. the u.s. is far from defeated and will continue to occupy iraq and continue to build-up military encirclement of iran.
meanwhile, the dems will successfully disarm antiwar left activism by offering a mostly ceremonial pursuit of the war criminals. but the war will surely continue.

Posted by: slothrop | Nov 8 2006 18:11 utc | 2

slothrop, tom engelhardt agrees about iran. he thinks come 2007 we should be on a death watch. his word for what can happen is “bush unbound”. recommend his post today on the “Plebiscite”, the lead up to it, and the aftermath.

Posted by: conchita | Nov 8 2006 18:48 utc | 3

Bolton has been conciliatory (for him) for about two months now. Gossip speaks of the new diplomacy of Miz Rice. Who knows.
I’ll keep my mouth shut about Iran. Just being discrete and tryin’ not to clog the thread.

Posted by: Noirette | Nov 8 2006 19:24 utc | 4

Engelhardt certainly (as always) nails it. The real kickers come in the last pars:
“In fact, I have my doubts that a Democratic Congress with a Democratic president in tow could even do something modestly small like shutting down Guantanamo, no less begin to deal with the empire of bases that undergirds our failing Outlaw Empire abroad. So, from time to time, take your eyes off what passes for politics and check out the facts on the ground. That way you’ll have a better sense of where our world is actually heading.
An optimist could look at yesterday’s election and think This election will be the one where amerikans come to understand that when they vote for a candidate they are affirming their support for all the declared major positions that candidate and his/her party holds.”
Without picking over all the rationalisations which amerikans with a conscience relied upon to try and justify giving their vote to the other bunch of imperialist pro-zionist, anti-humanist candidates running yesterday there was one common thread to them all.
That is that it is ‘ethically OK’ to give one’s support to a politician whose point of view is not ‘ethically OK’.
What wannabe political hacks used to call realpolitik in open/cynical? adulation of the US propagandist’s caricature of soviet political functionaries as cold-hearted number crunchers focused entirely upon outcomes.
I appreciate that in massive constituencies like the US where 1 vote appears to be infinitesimal compared to the tens of millions of ballots being cast, that one can feel sufficiently disconnected from the process to vote for the ‘least worst’ amongst the universally hyped front runners rather than treat the vote as one of the few vehicles of self expression, particularly ethical self expression, that an individual has in a vast society.

Posted by: Debs is dead | Nov 8 2006 20:34 utc | 5

Debs is dead
That is that it is ‘ethically OK’ to give one’s support to a politician whose point of view is not ‘ethically OK’.
As can be seen on any discussion of Israel – there are a whole lot of people who do not have this ethics problem. For those who do, I think that you are being unfair.
The first step is to realise that the US is not a democracy. You are not necessarily correct in thinking that anyone thinks that it is ‘ethically OK’, but rather:
“Boy am I screwed. Damned if I do, damned if I don’t.” The option of saying – Screw this – I’d rather stand naked than vote for either of these assholes just isn’t there.

Posted by: edwin | Nov 8 2006 21:10 utc | 6

deb’s has never heard of sophie’s choice either

Posted by: annie | Nov 8 2006 21:19 utc | 7

I don’t know that it is quite that bad yet annie, but great point

Posted by: dan of steele | Nov 8 2006 21:35 utc | 8

That is that it is ‘ethically OK’ to give one’s support to a politician whose point of view is not ‘ethically OK’.
As opposed to the notion that it is ethically OK to stand on the sidelines and whine while people are being made into sausage.

Posted by: citizen k | Nov 8 2006 22:08 utc | 9

Israel ‘apology’ as Palestine mourns dead

Israel has apologised for an artillery barrage which killed 18 civilians including eight children in Gaza, as the Palestinian government declared three days of mourning to commemorate those who died.
At least 13 members of one extended family died as they were sleeping when tank fire hit their home in Wednesday’s incident.
The killings happened a day after Israel started to withdraw its tanks from Beit Hanoun in northern Gaza after a week-long offensive in which dozens of people died.
Tzipi Livni, the Israeli foreign minister, called the deaths in Beit Hanoun “a regrettable incident”.
“The Israeli military does not intend to harm civilians – that is never our aim. But in the framework of such things, incidents like these happen,” Livni said.

Rather it appears that harming civilians is always their aim.
International anger at Israeli attack

The death of 18 Palestinians, including eight children, during an Israeli attack in Beit Hanoun has provoked condemnation from around the world.
The special UN envoy for the Middle East, Alvaro de Soto, said he was “deeply shocked and appalled” by the shelling of civilian homes by Israeli forces.

They are “shocked… shocked!” that the Israelis are marching down the genocidal path they have been marching down in broad daylight supported to the hilt by corrupt US regimes and by the western Europeans as well for lo, these many years.
Rahm Emanuel is the man to publicize. Shine the spotlight on him, on Schumer, on Clinton, on Pelosi. The demand to the new Demoplican majority must be to defund the US/Israeli war in the Middle East along both its Iraqi and Palestinian fronts NOW!
Defund it. It will end.
We do want it to end, right?

Posted by: John Francis Lee | Nov 8 2006 22:57 utc | 10

An optimist could look at yesterday’s election and think This election will be the one where amerikans come to understand that when they vote for a candidate they are affirming their support for all the declared major positions that candidate and his/her party holds.”
this is unmitigated bullshit. that’s not optimism, that fantasy land. does anyone think the religious right votes for everything the repukes stand for? or every republican in office, for that matter?
debs, you have exhibited, over and over, that you have nothing but hatred for the United States, so who should give a fuck about your tsk-tsking about those who are willing to get into the muck of politics to actually do something that might change things?
oh, and now’s the time for you backpeddle on what you say because “certain people” take things in the wrong way, again after you unremittingly assert you know that everything is a racist, zionist plot.

Posted by: fauxreal | Nov 8 2006 22:58 utc | 11

“Top Republicans in Washington will give Sen. George Allen a few days to take stock of his legal and political options before beginning to pressure him to concede to James Webb. Senior Republican officials and White House aides believe that Webb won the race. Several outside advisers to Allen want him to make the decision quickly; others in his campaign want to make sure that there’s no chance a cache of new votes will turn up. One question: when will (will?) the AP call the race?”
Above from Crooks and Liars.
My brother just called me and said he heard that a concession from Allen may come as soon as tomorrow afternoon. Sorry can’t find any links on that.
Anyone else?

Posted by: beq | Nov 9 2006 2:13 utc | 12

Yep – it’s being reported all over the place now. Webb has won, Dems will control the Senate.
I share the skepticism, perhaps even cynicism, of many posters here, yet I also am hopeful that having dems in control of floor time and the legislative agenda will be a productive change. Even if many of them are just as sleazy and reactionary as republicans, there are also many with backbone who have been itching to get their hands back on the levers.
In addition to screening judges, the Senate screens and votes on all high level executive branch political appointments. Some bad ones will still get through, but not many.
And, the dems have said they will reinstate the old “pay as you go” (PAYGO) spending rules from the ’90s, which means no more tax cut and mandatory spending giveaways unless they are paid for with cuts or tax hikes elsewhere. This topic has not been discussed in the news, but it is a big deal for moving towards a saner American fiscal policy.
I share the skepticism so many others have expresed that these election outcomes will have a dramatic effect on U.S. foreign policy, but for the moment I’ll just watch and wait.

Posted by: Maxcrat | Nov 9 2006 2:46 utc | 13

stan goff: Honeymoon? Ha!

The first impresson I have to note is that the Democratic Party as an institution is a corporate-and-Wall-Street-funded behemoth of rank opportunism. They used the growing opposition to Bush’s energy war in Iraq as a battering ram, but in the process of making this breach will probably sacrifice the interests of women, African Americans, and immigrants to glide the winds of white xenophobia and thuggish patriachy that swirl over the post-Nixon Republican South.
The greatest downside of this election for the (institutional) Democratic Party is that the very issue that factored most heavily in this essentially anti-Repbulican election is opposition to a war for which have so far been able to wriggle free from responsibility. It is a downside because now anti-war forces will re-focus on them. I say that not merely as a prediction, but as a call to arms. Right now, I don’t give a rat’s ass if the Dems get figuratively slaughtered in 2008. There is a literal slaughter taking place every day in Iraq, in an unwinnable war, and we cannot allow the institutional opportunism of the Democratic Party to seek comfortable shelter behind a pending report (which is what they will inevitably do). All efforts of the antiwar movement need to be redoubled to break through the corporate media with explanations about why the US occupation must end NOW, unilaterally and completely, and to turn this into a moral and political litmus test prior to 2008 for any member of Congress. Outing Democrats for their ducking-and-dodging on this issue must be ruthless and relentless.
Note to the Democratic party: We now have you firmly in our sights, exposed. Ain’t gonna be no honeymoon. We’re not hearing that you need time. Not with the bodies piling up every day.

Posted by: b real | Nov 9 2006 4:57 utc | 14

RE Israel:
My opinion is that the Israeli government/IDF is being managed by moral and strategic cripples who are unable to think themselves out of a trap that “retaliatory” devastation is ok because they are mad and can’t think of anything better to do. They are like dogs that keep running in front of cars because they remember how pissed off they were about being run over the week before. But I find all of these international gasp-fits to be ridiculous. If the US government was only killing 20 innocent civilians a week in Iraq it would be a major humanitarian advance. It would be more interesting to see some plausible proposals for change/action than the usual gasps.
Frankly, those supporting the morally compromised Democrats in the US this election have more chance of actually doing something to save civilian lives than all the foot stomping PC cheerleaders together. If the non-US ones would push their governments to actually DO SOMETHING like put humanitarian support in harms way or accept Palestinian refugees (because, unlike the various romantic religious morons who have pushed this conflict for the last 50 years, I do not believe that being a prosperous immigrant in New Zealand would be a defeat for a Palestinian family compared to being shelled in tents in Gaza. There is nothing sacred about that blood soaked piece of dirt) they could earn something more than scorn.

Posted by: citizen k | Nov 9 2006 13:55 utc | 15