Bernie Sanders Bests Hillary In 2nd Dem Debate

While not quite a 'cakewalk', Bernie Sanders' debate performance last night was certainly stronger than Hillary's and showed confident  command of security issues outside of his stock inequality arguments.  Sure,  the politically clueless will likely dump on the Vermonter and get hysterical about socialism (while ignoring their pet carny barker fascist, 'The Donna') but  the rest of us can take comfort in seeing how a real debate is conducted by adults - after the Reeptard, juvenile delinquent fiasco last week.

The 2nd Dem debate on CBS altered the format of questions at the last minute to take into account the Paris Terror attacks. It was good, as well as insightful and timely, as it afforded us the opportunity to see the three candidates with minimal time for preparation, especially as regards the first phase of questions asked by Face the Nation" anchor John Dickerson . He was joined by CBS News Congressional Correspondent Nancy Cordes, KCCI anchor Kevin Cooney and the Des Moines Register's political columnist, Kathie Obradovich.

Dickerson handled all the questions in the first part, based on the candidates' security proposals in the wake of he ISIS attack  in Paris on Friday. All of them agreed that a collaborative effort was called for, that the U.S. had to work with other nations to bring ISIS down and not try to be the world's cop and 'go it alone'. (Of course, ever since JFK's Pax Americana speech in June, 1963, warning of this very tendency,  the American Right has had him in its sights,  finally realizing he was not the 'cold warrior" they had always fancied him to be.).

It was especially fascinating to see Hillary hedge and squirm in response to Dickerson's probing about whether the Obama administration (which she was a part of ) underestimated the radical Islamists, and especially after chasing Qaddaffi from Libya. One thing we saw from last night, Hillary knows how to tap dance - even if she can't answer questions directly. (As journalist Bob Herbert noted this morning on MSNBC Hillary is taking it from the Right on the Benghazi episode, and from the Left over her vote for the war in Iraq. The latter event, of course, was responsible for destabilizing Iraq and paving the way for ISIS.)

Bernie Sanders hit the ground running in his responses,  rightly emphasizing the Muslim world must be involved too - they can't just sit by the sidelines as the West acts. If there are any good Muslims in the region, they need to come to the fore and help deal with the bad ones, the jihadis. Else admit they are also jihadis, waiting to take it to the West.  Sanders' points are even more germane now in the clear light of a new day, since as geopolitical expert Hillary  Mann Leavitt noted this morning, the ISIS attacks are not intended to "take away our freedoms", but to change our policy. In other words, their desire is to get the West to go off half cocked and unilaterally launch a full scale war without ANY Muslim allies involved - so they can garner recruits and justify full out jihad. This is why it is essential that taking out the ISIS bugs be a full collaborative effort, not just with NATO and Russia involved, but ALL the Muslim nations in the region too. Let them also contribute "boots on the ground", bombing attacks whatever.

Hillary herself was more or less out in left field and hedging much of the time, often not answering Dickerson's questions directly but giving her own digressive speeches. Including warning that China and Russia still posed threats so heck, we couldn't just stop diverting billions to our nuclear weapons stockpile (Bernie made the point that some of those hundreds of billions could go to fighting ISIS).

Hillary also dashed the hopes of many of us  that she'd be willing to cooperate with Putin and Russia to fight the jihadists.  Why would she when her own underling (Victoria Nuland) at State,  helped oust Viktor Yanukovich in the Ukraine? As I told wifey, if she is elected watch for her to start a dustup and facedown with Putin. She can't help it, the 'neocon-ish warhawk' is in her DNA.

Meanwhile, Dickerson couldn't trip up Bernie when he referred to the last Dem debate and Bernie's answer that climate change is the biggest security threat. He expected Sanders to backtrack, especially after the Paris attacks, but he just doubled down. He informed the audience that climate change in fact was largely responsible also for the Syrian crisis and civil war as it forced millions to flee lands that had become uninhabitable, no longer arable.  As those millions migrated, it brought them into conflict with people in other areas - namely pro-Assad residents.

Bernie was perhaps also  referring to this news from several months ago,

http://www.zmescience.com/ecology/climate/climate-change-security-risk-pentagon-0563675/


which I doubt most of the audience had heard before

Excerpt:

"the Department of Defense issued a report in which it highlights the global security implications of climate change. In the report, the authors note that climate change will exacerbate current world problems like ” poverty, social tensions, environmental degradation, ineffectual leadership and weak political institutions that threaten stability in a number of countries.”

Sanders also observed the Pentagon budget is now over $600 billion a year, and certainly doesn't need to be expanded. My one complaint - which I posted before - is that he didn't also come out and state it needs to be cut. This would have had much relevance in the later "Middle Class" segment where he was asked how he would pay for all his programs including: free college, expanding Social Security and a single payer health system. Alas, his proposal for taxing the richest at higher rates (he didn't say how high but conceded they'd be less than Ike - at 91 percent- e.g. ."Well, I'm less a socialist than Ike") would still not be enough to provide the needed $$$. He'd have to surely cut  in half the defense budget back to 2.0 percent of GDP (from 4 % now), which is greater than the next ten nations combined.

On the issue of Wall Street, both Sanders and Martin O'Malley clearly had Hillary boxed into a corner, given she's received millions of bucks in campaign donations. The implication of Dickerson was that the contributors will expect something in return from her and they will. Hillary tried her best to sashay out of such admission by proffering deflections such as "standing up"  for the WTC  traders and the Street after 9/11. Implying there were 'bigger fish to fry' than little campaign donations and possible quid pro quo .  Then she claimed she had received hundreds of thousands of  donations adding: "I’m very proud that for the first time a majority of my donors are women, 60 percent" - clearly playing the gender card.

But Bernie wasn't letting it slide, noting that:

"I have never heard a candidate, never, who has received huge amounts of money from oil, from coal, from Wall Street, from the military-industrial complex, not one candidate say, oh, these campaign contributions will not influence me. I’m going to be independent. Well, why do they make millions of dollars of campaign contributions? They expect to get something. Everybody knows that. Once again, I am running a campaign differently than any other candidate. We are relying on small campaign donors, 750,000 of them, 30 bucks apiece. That’s who I’m indebted to.”

 Indeed, the history of such donations has proved otherwise and was reflected in many of or loophole-filled laws. (Author William Greider once referred to them as "Hollow laws" in his book, Who Will Tell The People- The Betrayal Of American Democracy.)

As the NY Times observed regarding her forlorn tactics:

"Middle-class Americans associate Wall Street with the 2008 meltdown of the economy that cost so many their homes and savings. In the debate Mrs. Clinton repeatedly referred to her plan for reining in banks, but offered precious few specifics. This is what happens when Hillary Clinton the candidate gets complacent. The debate moderator, Mr. Dickerson, had even tipped her off before a commercial break that the next topic was Wall Street.

Her effort to tug on Americans’ heartstrings instead of explaining her Wall Street ties — on a day that the scars of 9/11 were exposed anew — was at best botched rhetoric. At worst it was the type of cynical move that Mrs. Clinton would have condemned in Republicans."

On the issue of the Affordable Care Act, all the candidates agreed it could be better and at least Hillary did herself proud by arguing that Medicare ought to be able to bargain for the best drug prices just like the VA. One wonders why this hasn't been pushed even more, given previous estimates by the GAO estimate the savings at nearly $200 b over ten years. But hey, maybe because the loony Right would get even more hysterical and call it "socialism" failing to appreciate the VA benefits are even more "socialistic" since they are entirely run by gov't (Medicare conjoins with private insurers to deliver care.)

Bernie then described how he'd accompanied seniors in his state of VT in the 1990s to Canada to get drugs at one tenth the price as in the U.S. I also recall having read of those expeditions which were made in other states too. That option was foreclosed by the Bushies in 2003 with the passage of the Medicare Modernization Act that prohibited any drug purchases from Canada and also bargaining like the VA does for lower prices. (The Affordable Care Act, after an $80b deal with PhrMA also denied those options)

The result has been a ridiculous game played every year by the drug companies changing drug prices and their respective tiers including making seniors pay more for generics (by changing the tier, e.g. from 1 to 3) to preserve profits. (I ought to know- I just got a generic gout prescription that cost me $169 for 30 pills, which used to be $15.) So no surprise many of us are outraged at what we have to pay for some of these damned drugs.

Bernie's point, which wifey and I applauded (since she is as much a victim) was overhauling the entire PhrmA price gouging constellation and forcing them to simplify as well as rationalize drug prices so seniors don't have to do twenty five hours of research each year to ensure they're not getting screwed over by keeping their current drug plan. In many cases while the senior finds the monthly premiums do go down, the tiers of the drugs he needs are changed so he still ends up paying more. Only careful research, consuming many hours of time, enables him to see another Part D plan may be better so he signs on - but then they may change tiers for their own drugs next time!

All in all Bernie Sanders delivered a sound, presidential performance that has to please his supporters, especially that he wasn't about to let many of Hillary's absurd responses just slide. If some still weren't convinced he didn't yet measure up to "Hill" this ought to be Exhibit A to disprove it, and they need to watch the debate again if in doubt. As for the Right wing critics, since they are mentally  'off the reservation' anyway, committed to loony tune carny barkers, fascists and xenophobes, there is little hope reason can make a dent in their misperceptions.

See also:

http://www.salon.com/2015/11/15/here_come_the_paris_truthers_paranoia_the_american_right_and_the_missing_complexity_from_our_terrorism_debate/

And:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/william-rivers-pitt/64832/hillary-clinton-goes-bush-league

NO - The U.S. Neolibs Will Not Start A WAR With China Over Spratly Islands!

Satellite image of Chinese islands under construction. Neoliberal globalists refer to the scene as "Mischief reef". (Obviously forgetting their own mischief with the TPP!)

Why is it that the U.S. Neoliberals are always out to teach other nations lessons? How about instead they plow through recent history and begin imparting lessons to themselves? Lessons about how too much secrecy (such as to do with full disclosure on the TPP, and JFK assassination files) impels distrust of the government. Lessons about how we already lost two "wars" and can't be serious about plowing more trillions down the drain when our bridges, roads are collapsing.  Lessons about how our educational system is becoming the laughingstock of the world - indicated by the fact most middle or even HS kids couldn't locate the Spratly Islands if their lives depended on it.

Last year, of course, it was all about teaching those terrible, brutal Russkies lessons after they went in and took the Crimea - which they had every right to do after the U.S. and its NATO puppets instigated a coup in the Ukraine - deposing Viktor Yanukovych and installing a fascist -neo-Nazi gov't.  See e .g.
http://www.latimes.com/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-us-intelligence-russia-ukraine-20140303,0,4657644.story#axzz2uy8lfu8m

Even as recently as a few weeks ago, the NATO Neoliberal Imperium was antagonizing the Russians with their jets when the former were simply probing NATO's expanding airspace. (As any nation would do - even the U.S.  -  if its sphere of influence was being undermined and usurped.  Say with Russian-made anti-missile batteries installed in Cuba.) And please recall here, for those with short memories, that the deal (in 1991) was NO NATO expansion to the east in return for dissolution of the Soviet Union. But within two nanoseconds Bush Sr. broke that promise to Mikhail Gorbachev.

Now China has become the new "bad boy"  to whom the big 'cop of the world' wants to teach lessons concerning geopolitical overreach (a hoot in itself, given U.S. actions in the Ukraine and deposing Yanukovych).  Mind you - China is also the nation that holds or controls one -third of our debt, via bonds held. DO we really want to piss these guys off?

To show Chinese leaders “who’s the boss”,  Defense  Secretary Ash Carter has threatened to deploy US warships and surveillance aircraft to within twelve miles of the islands that China claims are within their territorial waters. But here's the ironic kicker:  the US is challenging China under the provisions of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, a document the US has stubbornly refused to ratify.

The inquiring mind must ask why all the huff and puff? Why does Washington care so much about a few miserable acres of sand piled up on reefs in the South China Sea? What danger does that pose to US national security? For a point of reference, haven’t Vietnam, Taiwan and the Philippines all engaged in similar “land reclamation” activities without raising hackles in DC? So why the visceral reaction to the Chinese?

Another interesting twist: While the U.S. has warned it will intervene in an East China Sea conflict if necessary - Washington has made no similar pledges to partners in the region including: the Philippines. So what gives? What's the reason for this inchoate rhetoric and saber rattling?

Well, because China is an actual rival  power as well as a threat to the current Neoliberal unipolar world order (just as Russia is).   You see, the Neoliberals want world domination - all nations living under one mega-market 'jackboot' and with corporations (actually multinational corporations) at the helm. And the passage of the Trans Pacific Partnership would be the nail in the coffin after NAFTA.  SO no, China cannot be allowed to impose its own hegemony in the area - never mind that is its sphere of influence - just as the Caribbean Sea is for the U.S.

Strip away the fact the U.S. hasn't ratified the Sea treaty under which it purports to act, and the underlying Neoliberal dynamics, and the whole thing becomes  a joke. In a symmetrical perspective,  Carter’s claim that he’s defending the lofty principal of “freedom of navigation” is a joke. Why? China has never blocked shipping lanes or seized boats sailing in international waters. Never. The same cannot be said of the United States that just recently blocked an Iranian ship loaded with humanitarian relief–food, water and critical medical supplies–headed to starving refugees in Yemen. Of course, when the US does it, it’s okay.

Again, a double standard in the world - one for the Neoliberal superpower- the other for any nations bold or ballsy enough to challenge its perceived planetary dominion, whether the Russians or the Chinese.

The reality is that, leaving out the fulsome rhetoric,  Washington doesn’t give two shits or an ounce of shinola about the Spratly Islands; it’s just a pretext to slap China around and show them who’s running the show in their own backyard. Carter even admitted as much in a statement when he insisted that the US plans to be “the principal security power in the Asia-Pacific for decades to come.”

Seriously? That's not even your goddamned territory! Check the map! That's China's domain, Roscoe! Are you really going to try to bully -boy the primary nation holding U.S. bond notes? Which if they wanted - could call them in and reduce this whole country to beggary without firing a freaking shot! (Besides, where do you suppose the money is coming from to spend on our defense, whether the F-35 or new aircraft carriers?)

 Whether China or Russia, or everyone in between  - we all  know how this bellicose stance of the unipolar order translates: “This is our planet, so you’d better shape up or you’re going to find yourself in a world of hurt.”

 But let us recall that it was John F. Kennedy who warned, in his June 1963 speech at American University, that the U.S. cannot and must not seek to be the cop of the entire world, imposing its will with American weapons of war. In that memorable speech, Kennedy proclaimed:

"What kind of peace do I mean and what kind "of a peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war. Not the peace of the grave or the security of the slave. I am talking about genuine peace, the kind of peace that makes life on earth worth living, and the kind that enables men and nations to grow, and to hope, and build a better life for their children -- not merely peace for Americans but peace for all men and women, not merely peace in our time but peace in all time"

Most poignant, Kennedy's words rejecting unipolar orders:

"Let us not be blind to our differences, but let us also direct attention to our common interests and the means by which those differences can be resolved. And if we cannot end now our differences, at least we can help make the world safe for diversity. For in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children's futures. And we are all mortal."

And then:

Our primary long-range interest is general and complete disarmament- designed to take place by stages, permitting parallel political developments to build the new institutions of peace which would take the place of arms.

Doubtless, most of the eyes and ears of the then U.S. military establishment either disbelieved Kennedy’s words or thought he was simply playing to the audience of young, graduating Catholic idealists. However, barely two months later their cynical clocks were cleaned when Kennedy announced the agreement on the Nuclear Test Ban treaty with Nikita Khrushchev.  This was also the final straw that most American conservatives couldn't take - and so began a 50+ years long media and PR war to try to denigrate Kennedy's achievements, or make him into one of them (the 'cold warrior' myth).  Not to mention deflecting attention away from the national security state that conservatives like John McAdams prize - hence to peddle the "lone nut" myth ad infinitum.

Here’s the skinny: Washington has abandoned its China policy of “containment” and moved on to Plan B: Isolation, intimidation and confrontation. In the opinion of one blogger (Mike Whitney), this is why the powerbrokers (mainly neocons) behind Obama dumped Hagel:

"Hagel just wasn’t hawkish enough for the job. They wanted a died-in-the-wool, warmongering neocon, like Carter, who is, quite likely, the most dangerous man in the world."

I don't know about that "most dangerous" aspect, but parsed through the prism of Kennedy's words in his Pax Americana speech, he could be. Kennedy wasn't shy about nuclear weapons being the most serious threat to humanity - so any words, actions that increase the threat indicate maximal danger.

Whitney goes on with his surmise:

"Carter’s assignment is to implement the belligerent new policy of incitement and conflict. His actions will prove to the skeptics that Washington is no longer interested in integrating China into the US-led system. Rather, China has become the biggest threat to Washington’s plan to pivot to Asia."

To reinforce that take, he cites  an Obama quote lifted up from blogger Tom Engelhardt’s post, “Superpower in Distress”:


“After a decade in which we fought two wars that cost us dearly, in blood and treasure, the United States is turning our attention to the vast potential of the Asia Pacific region….As we end today’s wars, I have directed my national security team to make our presence and mission in the Asia Pacific a top priority.”

Whitney adds that the so called pivot is Washington’s “top priority”, which means that China’s unprecedented ascendency must be slowed and its regional influence curtailed. Thus, the dust up over the Spratly Islands

I would also add that this is why Obama is so recklessly pushing the TPP which nearly his entire party is opposed to. The TPP not only leaves China out (in many ways explainable since there's already massive trade with it) but more importantly to build up trade with partners in the region outside of China - which may also include funneling of military aid, such as the deals in eastern Europe that allowed NATO to expand.

Seen in a geopolitical sense, in terms of the Neoliberal imperative, all these moves make collective sense. For the Neoliberal idiom to rule the world all non-cooperative nation states must be subdued and brought to heel.  Kennedy himself, if alive today, would be aghast, not only that his warnings about Pax Americana were ignored - but that the appeal to diversity was being ground under the ubiquitous Neoliberal  jackboot. And he'd be turning over in his grave now on learning a "progressive" President has essentially torpedoed a treaty for nuclear non-proliferation.

See also:
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/chris-floyd/62471/progressive-apocalypse-obama-opens-door-to-nuclear-nightmare

And:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/russ-wellen/62465/the-nuclear-non-proliferation-treaty-review-conference-goes-down-in-flames

Have Americans - Especially Their Government - Learned Anything From 9/11?

“Americans are apt to scoff at the idea that a military coup in the U.S, as so often happens in Latin American countries, could ever replace our government. But that is an idea that has grounds for consideration.”  Lee Harvey Oswald, from his July 27, 1963 talk given at  The Jesuit House of Studies, Spring Hill College, Mobile AL.

“Of all the enemies to public liberty, war is perhaps the most to be dreaded because it comprises the germ of every other. As the parent of armies, war encourages debts and taxes, the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few”-        James Madison

Is it possible that one of the things that may have signed Lee Oswald's death warrant - was his little known talk at the Jesuit House of Studies at Spring Hill College, Mobile? James Douglass in his stirring book, JFK and the Unspeakable, certainly put that out there to consider (p. 331) though he also does acknowledge that Lee may never have actually verbalized outwardly the content in his notes. But does it matter? If indeed the CIA was in the process of sheepdipping him, as noted by John Newman ('Oswald and the CIA') then whether he actually said the key words may be immaterial. He had disclosed himself as a threat that had to be eliminated - preferably after his arrest for a murder he didn't commit.

This is a critical observation because many deep politics observers believe that the country rapidly mutated into a military -security state in the wake of Kennedy's assassination. (For a plausible scenario of how it could have transpired via conspiracy, rent or buy the excellent 1973 movie, Executive Action.)


In his American University speech, JFK noted:

“Our primary long-range interest is general and complete disarmament- designed to take place by stages, permitting parallel political developments to build the new institutions of peace which would take the place of arms”.


This could not have pleased the warmongers, especially among his Joint Chiefs - who had already been appalled at his failure to bomb and invade Cuba during the height of the Cuban Missile Crisis some eight months earlier.

Anyway, the point of this post is that the U.S. not only emerged as a hyper-militant state (empire)  after Kennedy's death, aggressively launching an illegal war in Vietnam - but a national security state as well. The two in concert incepted a toxic policy paranoia that has generated blowback over more than three decades.  In the case of Vietnam, the security state propelled LBJ's retraction of  JFK's National Security Memorandum 263 ( which would have evacuated all personnel). Worse, LBJ  used a security -state developed bogus ploy:  the alleged North Vietnamese firing on the Maddox and Turner Joy in Aug, 1964 to justify a full scale war which led to 58,000 Americans killed.  Vietnam also launched the weasel ploy of  congress "authorizing" further military actions - when actual wars would have been declared, as per the Constitution. All of this in concert, together with how and where the U.S. has stuck its nose in other nations' business (when Kennedy rejected any 'Pax Americana') makes one wonder if American leaders even grasp the concept of 'blowback'.

In a September 13, 2001 interview with the magazine In These Times, Chalmers Johnson (the author of ‘Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire’) was said to “have seen the September 11 catastrophe coming”.  Johnson’s 2000 book argued that U.S. interventionist foreign policy and military overextension would lead to unintended and unpredictable consequences. A year later, his warning seemed eerily prescient. Though JFK wasn’t so prescient in a specific context, his American University Pax Americana  speech, he generically prefigured the horrific consequences if the U.S. insisted on being the policeman of the world, enforcing peace with American weapons of war.    Also, holding the rest of the world up to standards it didn't follow itself!

This speech probably set the foundation for Kennedy’s plan (under NSAM-263) to pull out of Vietnam (after the 1964 elections,  when political repercussions would be minimal). He could likely see that if, indeed, the U.S. remained in Vietnam, the perils of a much wider war, along with consolidation of the military-industrial-oil complex,  would be unavoidable.


Back to Chalmers Johnson and some of the answers to questions he gave in his In These Times interview:

Q1. Is what happened on September 11 an example of blowback?


Of course it is. That's exactly what my book was written for: It was a warning to my fellow Americans, a year ago, that our foreign policy was going to produce something like this. It's important to stress, contrary to what people in Washington and the media are saying, that this was not an attack on the United States: This was an attack on American foreign policy. It was an example of the strategies of the weak against the overwhelmingly powerful.


Q2. Osama bin Laden has been named the primary suspect in these attacks. In the first chapter of Blowback, you talk about earlier American attacks on Osama bin Laden as an example of "a spiral of destructive behavior."


I heard Sen. John McCain say this morning that the people of Afghanistan have nothing to worry about if they would just turn over Osama bin Laden and cooperate with us. ... Where was he during the '80s, when we and the Soviet Union were destroying Afghanistan? Our efforts were to hire people like bin Laden to come from Saudi Arabia and help give the Soviet Union a Vietnam-like experience.


Don't get me wrong. Everyone understands that the people of New York, the people of Washington, the people on the airplanes were innocent bystanders—and that is the nature of this kind of warfare. Our Department of Defense invented the phrase "collateral damage" to deal with the dead Iraqis and the dead Serbs as a result of our bombings of their countries. ... I know it sounds cruel to say, but the people of New York were collateral damage of American foreign policy. It was inevitable that something like this would come back.
 
Q.3 You implied that this type of terrorist warfare seems to be the warfare of the future. I assume that you would expect to see more?


No nation can hope to beat the United States on American terms. Therefore you must devise a strategy that essentially makes our overwhelming military capability worthless. I think they have managed to do so.

People in Washington are continually talking about declaring war—but declaring war on whom? They don't know. If they are going to go out and attack Afghanistan, it will simply produce a further cycle of blowback and retaliation. In the meantime, it will also even further inflame the entire Middle East.


Q.4 If not military force, then what could be effective against this type of terrorist warfare?

What we need to find out is: what are we doing that is provoking this? Is there any flexibility in our policy? Couldn't we alter our policies somewhat? Couldn't we make it our business to try to stay out of fratricidal and hate-laden conflicts? And then, to the extent that we are still the victim of terrorism (which we always will be) then we need a much greater analytic effort to defend ourselves, and that should not be impossible to craft.

Clearly, what happened on September 11 was an almost catastrophic failure of intelligence by extremely expensive agencies that do not do anything. And so far, the American reaction seems to be to target the Bill of Rights more than anything else. Retaliation is not the answer. It hasn't worked for Israel it has only exacerbated the situation. It won't work for us.


Q.5 Is it possible that blowback may take place internally as well as externally?


The greatest danger we have now is militarism in America. We have this huge, overpowering, unbelievably expensive military establishment. It is something from the days of Washington's farewell address to Eisenhower's invention of the phrase "military-industrial complex" that seasoned U.S. leaders have warned against—the threat of a huge military establishment to the liberty of our citizens.

I fear that from this we are going to get even more militarism. That is, more and more functions—including domestic police functions—will be transferred from civilian institutions to the military, and the military will have ever greater authority in our society. We know how that will end based on history, especially of the Roman and British Empires. We're talking here about military overstretch, and the attendant weaknesses of the imperial structure (including continuous financing) that will ultimately lead to total collapse.
--------

Of course, Johnson’s prediction that we’re going to “get even more militarism” has come to pass, what with the pre-emptive invasion of Iraq (violating Article VI of the Nuremberg laws) and now the drums beating ever louder for an attack on Syria - which will really let loose the dogs of blowback if Chalmers Johnson's answers are to be believed - and I do believe them whole heartedly.

Fortunately, the Russians and Vladimir Putin have proposed a way out of the Syria mess, which requires the Syrian regime to declare all stockpiles of chemical weapons, and ultimately subject them to capture or destruction. There would then be a basis for UN inspectors to get on the ground in Syria and do assays and inspections. Of course, this will take time and so the Amerikkan Empire purveyors and blowback inceptors are already huffing and puffing that "it's all a ploy". This because Russia retracted a resolution regarding inspections yesterday. But what none of the pundits said, except Chris Hayes, is that the Russians (rightfully) want NO resolutions done with a U.S. "gun" pointed to anyone's head, whether Russia's or Syria's. Do the resolution, sure, but not under threat that if such and such markers aren't met and 'x' hoops aren't jumped through in 'y' time, an attack will ensue,

The question then is have American leaders learned the lessons of blowback from their policies, which led directly to 9/11? (In that case the establishment of American bases in Saudi Arabia, left from the Gulf War.))

The answer will hinge on what we see Obama and his bunch do now, given the Russian Syrian proposal. Wifey - who watched his speech- told me he was accepting of the deal, and very humble. He actually acknowledged that the U.S. "cannot be the policeman of the world."  This at least discloses Obama might have partially learned the lessons of 9/11 but I need to see more than words. I want to see a firm leash put on the military dogs preventing them from being unleashed after Assad or Syria, if certain artificial time limits or conditions aren't met. (And again, bear in mind I already made the case the U.S. has no moral authority to be bossing around anyone, "punishing" or anything else, e.g. http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/08/the-us-lacks-moral-authority-to-launch.html

Will we see more 9/11s? Will we see an increased consolidation of the military -surveillance state even beyond what exists now, which as David Lindorff put it in one blog - surpasses even the excesses depicted in Orwell's '1984'?

That depends on how this Syrian crisis plays out.

The whole world is watching, and all American citizens ought to stay tuned as well!

See also: http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/dave-lindorff/51567/a-people-s-victory-over-syrian-attack-plan-in-historic-first-american-empire-is-blocked-at-the-starti

The U.S. Lacks The Moral Authority to Launch Any Unilateral Attack

"The United States, as the world knows, will never start a war. We do not want a war. We do not now expect a war. This generation of Americans has already had enough—more than enough—of war and hate and oppression."- John F. Kennedy, June 10, 1963 (Speech at American University)

"Let him who is without sin among you cast the first stone" -  John 8:7

Is the U.S. "without sin" in the sense that it has any moral authority to "cast the first stone" in a unilateral attack on Syria? Hardly! The problem is most Americans are too forgetful of past hideous U.S. war crimes.

Yes, you heard that correctly! The exasperating thing about the U.S. to a citizen invested in its adherence to its own principles, is the recurring hypocrisy and double standards. Case in point is "the war on terror".  While the Bushistas marked al Qaeda as the supremo terrorists in the world, they had no problem pardoning the perpetrators (or letting them off on less serious crimes) of the most horrific terror episode before 9/11: the bombing of Cubana Arlines Flight CU-455 off the coast of Barbados. This is personal to me, because I was there on Paradise Beach on Oct. 6, 1976 with my 5 nieces. I won't even begin to describe the blood and horrors we beheld but I warrant they far exceeded what any smarmy ass hate blogger claims he saw in the Army or Marines. In fact, I will bet he didn't see any blood at all as a cook and bottle washer. Wait! On second thought, they probably did see some blood after accidentally cutting a fat paw whle slicing tomatoes!

Anyway, last night on Chris Hayes'  'All In', Amy Goodman reminded memory -challenged Americans of our own violations of international norms over the years. She thereby showed that unless we have adhered impeccably to our own standards we have no business hectoring or lecturing other nations on right or wrong. And certainly not launching any unilateral attacks based on the presumption WE are the unsullied moral guardians, or police of the planet! She listed a number of examples, including:


- The use of napalm and Agent orange during the Vietnam war (itself an illegal operation based on LBJ exploiting a bogus attack which was itself provoked by the U.S.)

In the case of those two horrendous chemicals, and for those who don't know:

"napalm is a mixture of plastic polystyrene, hydrocarbon benzene, and gasoline. This mixture creates a jelly-like substance that, when ignited, sticks to practically anything and burns up to ten minutes. The effects of napalm on the human body are unbearably painful and almost always cause death among its victims. “Napalm is the most terrible pain you can ever imagine” said Kim Phúc, a survivor from a napalm bombing. “Water boils at 212°F. Napalm generates temperatures 1,500°F to 2,200°F.” Kim Phúc sustained third degree burns to portions of her body. She was one of the only survivors of such extreme measures "


The preceding is from the website: http://vietnamawbb.weebly.com/napalm-agent-orange.html

Is anyone in his or her right mind going to now claim - based on the above description- that napalm is less terrible than the nerve agents Kerry claims were used on a Syrian opposition enclave? If so, believe me, that's an argument you do not wish to get into!

What about Agent Orange? According to the same site:

"Agent Orange is a toxic chemical herbicide that was used from about 1965 – 1970 in the Vietnam War. It was one of the main mixtures used during Operation Ranch Hand. Operation Ranch Hand was intended to deprive Vietnamese farmers and guerilla fighters of clean food and water in hopes they would relocate to areas more heavily controlled by the U.S. By the end of the operation over twenty million gallons of herbicides and defoliants were sprayed over forests and fields."
     Agent Orange is fifty times more concentrated than normal agricultural herbicides; this extreme intensity completely destroyed all plants in the area. Agent Orange not only had devastating effects on agriculture but also on people and animals. The Vietnam Red Cross recorded over 4.8 million deaths and 400,000 children born with birth defects due to exposure to Agent Orange.
    Agent Orange was later determined to be in violation of the Geneva Contract".

The problem again, is too many Americans, including Presidents, are oblivious to our own bloody history in violating international norms and standards which, if they knew or took them to heart- would halt them from their own precipitous actions violating such norms.

Amy then referenced how the U.S. in the 1980s, not only dispatched nerve agents to Saddam (when he was still a useful pal) but actually helped him target Iranians - giving him the coordinates- during the bloody Iran-Iraq war.

Finally, Amy referenced the horrific use of white phosphorus in Fallujah, Iraq  e.g.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75DsfSOeBSQ

Laughably, critics of the preceding as well as the film Fallujah, The Hidden Massacre , try to argue that white phosphorus is not considered a "chemical weapon" under the Chemical Weapons Convention but an incendiary weapon . Oh, OH, excuse the hell out of me! So then it's preferable to be burned alive than gassed? Give me a break!  Again, we have irrational, baseless and skewed arguments that seek to analogously invoke the  egregious ruse of "picking gnat shit out of pepper" (according to one famous quote by former congressman Hale Boggs, referring to the inconsistencies in the Warren Commission Report).

JFK warned in his June 10, 1963 speech at American University (See http://www.jfklibrary.org/Asset-Viewer/BWC7I4C9QUmLG9J6I8oy8w.aspx  ) that no kind of peace could be forced on the world using American weapons of war. Yet since his speech, the U.S. has progressively adopted the role of planetary cop and done just that, often invoking bogus "laws" or "war resolutions" to justify unilateral action outside the UN or even congress.

Among the key excerpts more Americans (and American Presidents!) need to take to heart:

"What kind of peace do I mean and what kind of a peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war. Not the peace of the grave or the security of the slave. I am talking about genuine peace, the kind of peace that makes life on earth worth living, and the kind that enables men and nations to grow, and to hope, and build a better life for their children—not merely peace for Americans but peace for all men and women, not merely peace in our time but peace in all time."


"First  examine our attitude towards peace itself. Too many of us think it is impossible. Too many think it is unreal. But that is a dangerous, defeatist belief. It leads to the conclusion that war is inevitable, that mankind is doomed, that we are gripped by forces we cannot control. We need not accept that view. Our problems are manmade; therefore, they can be solved by man. And man can be as big as he wants. No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings."

We have no business, not with our sordid past of numerous violations of international norms,  of launching any unilateral attacks on any country  - no matter what the excuse or rationalization. Obama would do well to consider that before issuing the go ahead for an attack that may escalate to the point we may all regret it!