Once again John Stewart and the writers at The Daily Show come with some of the best analysis of the political hypocrisy surrounding the occupy Wall Street movement.  Republicans are more than happy to divide Americans when it comes to gays, liberals, the media, the poor, but criticizing the super rich who have wrecked the economy and were repaid with trillions in bailout money is beyond the pale for these class warriors.

UPDATE:

The guys over at The Colbert Report continued on the theme of Republican hypocrisy concerning the current economic situation caused by Wall Street.  The GOP nominees are quick to label those in the Occupy Wall Street movement as lazy bums who can and should go out and get a job yet they constantly ask the Obama administration, “Where are the jobs?”

Technorati Tags: economy, Occupy Wall Street, politics, Republicans, The Daily Show, Wall Street, Wall Street bailout

Related posts:

1. Republican Hypocrisy
2. Bernie Sanders vs. Geithner
3. The Great Financial Swindle
4. The Daily Show, CNN and the failure of cable news
5. The Daily Show exposes right wing hypocrisy

Bill Moyers recently covered what was happening at the time.  Watch his video essay on the subject:

Technorati Tags: Bill Moyers, Democrats, Iraq, Iraq war authorization, Journal, war

Related posts:

1. Rachel Maddow reviews lead up to the Iraq War
2. The Time Horizon, Now Playing in Most Major Media Outlets
3. It’s been a long time
4. Success, Lipstick and the Surge in Iraq

[I]t’s really a wondrous, and repugnant, sight to behold the Bush-following lynch mobs on the Right melodramatically defend the Virtues of Privacy and the Rule of Law. These, of course, are the same authoritarians who have cheered on every last expansion of the Lawless Surveillance State of the last eight years — put their fists in the air with glee as the Federal Government seized the power to listen to innocent Americans’ telephone calls; read our emails; obtain our banking, credit card, and library records; and create vast data bases of every call we make and receive and every prescription we fill and every instance of travel and other vast categories of information that remain largely unknown — all without warrants or oversight of any kind and often in clear violation of the law.

[. . . .]

As despicable as I personally find the Palin hacking to be, it pales in comparison to the Bush crimes, because when someone runs for President or Vice President, they voluntarily cede vast amounts of their personal privacy, which is why they’re required to disclose things like their medical records, tax returns, assocational history, and other financial documents — all information that private Americans, at least in theory in the pre-Bush era, had the right to keep private. Those subjected to Bush’s illegal surveillance programs have done nothing to cede their privacy — other than live in a country which has decided to abolish most privacy protections.

Technorati Tags: civil liberties, Election 2008, Republicans

Related posts:

1. Republican Hypocrisy

Technorati Tags: Democrats, Election 2008, Lipstick on a Pig, Republicans

Related posts:

1. Success, Lipstick and the Surge in Iraq
2. The real America
3. Issues and the US Presidential Race
4. Rachel Maddow reviews lead up to the Iraq War
5. Republican Hypocrisy

The greatest myth promoted by Bush in his speech [at the National Defense University] was found in this line: “Political reconciliation is moving forward, and the Iraqi government has passed several major pieces of legislation.” By overstating the meagre steps taken by Iraq’s leaders in barely passing a few relatively insignificant laws in their parliament, Bush’s statement ranks right up there with his 2003 “mission accomplished” speech and vice-president Dick Cheney’s assertion that the insurgency was in its “last throes” in 2005.

Katulis continues:

The surge has frozen into place the accelerated fragmentation that Iraq underwent in 2006 and 2007 and has created disincentives to bridge central divisions between Iraqi factions. Moreover, rather than advancing Iraq’s political transition and facilitating power-sharing deals among Iraq’s factions, the surge has produced an oil revenue-fuelled, Shia-dominated national government with close ties to Iran. This national government shows few signs of seeking to compromise and share meaningful power with other frustrated political factions.

So much for political reconciliation.  Rather than furthering steps toward some form of power sharing, the surge has solidified the divisions unleashed by the invasion and occupation of Iraq.  But McCain, Bush, and the media will inevitably make the case that at least the surge has reduced violence.  This is the core of the “surge worked” hypothesis, yet it rests on a basic logical fallacy.  Just because Y came after X, it doesn’t follow that X caused Y.  Professor Juan Cole recently pointed this out with regards to media commentary on the surge.

The reality is far more complex than this simplistic narrative.  An important factor to declining levels of violence was the so-called Sunni Awakening movement in Anbar province in which the US allied with, armed, and paid Sunni insurgents to fight Al-Qaeda.  But this began before the surge, and there is no reason to believe this strategy required an increased troop level.  Cole agrees:

In al-Anbar Province, among the more violent in Iraq in earlier years, the bribing of former Sunni guerrillas to join US-sponsored Awakening Councils had a big calming effect. This technique could have been used much earlier than 2006, indeed, could have been deployed from 2003, and might have forestalled large numbers of deaths. Condi Rice forbade US military officers from dealing in this way with the Sunnis for fear of alienating US Shiite allies such as Ahmad Chalabi. The technique was independent of the troop escalation. Indeed, it depended on there not being much of a troop escalation in that province. Had large numbers of US soldiers been committed to simply fight the Sunnis or engage in search and destroy missions, they would have stirred up and reinforced the guerrilla movement.

An additional reason for the reduced violence in Iraq has been the unilateral cease-fire of the Mahdi Army ordered by Moqtada al-Sadr.  Gen. Patraeus even admits this fact, stating that the “Sadr trend stands for service to the people,” and that he hopes Sadr’s organization will become “constructive partners in the way ahead.”  While Patraeus would like to see the cease-fire as a result of the surge, the reality is again more complicated.  Cole sees the successful ethnic cleansing of Baghdad – in which it has become a mostly Shiite city with almost no mixed communities and others separated by walls – as an important reason for the Mahdi Army’s cessation of hostilities because this was one of their major aims.  As well, their pro-Iranian Shiite rivals, which include the Iraqi state, were becoming much more powerful militarily in relation to Moqtada al-Sadr’s organization.

Ethnic cleansing in Iraq points to a darker aspect of the surge, in which what so many call “success” is the result of brutality and violence.  Robert Parry also makes this point:

With the total Iraqi death toll estimated in the hundreds of thousands and many more Iraqis horribly maimed, the society has been deeply traumatized. As tyrants have learned throughout history, at some point violent repression does work.

But this dark side of the “successful surge” is excluded from the U.S. political debate. As during the pre-invasion period, the Washington press corps acts more like Bush’s propagandists than anything close to skeptical journalists.

Instead media commentators waste our time with meaningless questions and speculation about what Barack Obama actually meant when making a comment about lipstick on a pig.  Well all I can say, at least there are alternatives to the he-said-she-said style of reporting that passes for journalism and analysis.  The following video is a commentary by Aijaz Ahmad from TheRealNews.com.  It was originally broadcast following Bush’s State of the Union address in early 2008.  Ahmad covers some of the issues I mention above and provides compelling reasons to question much of the conventional wisdom.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Technorati Tags: Election 2008, George W. Bush, Iraq, Iraq surge, media, propaganda

Related posts:

1. Iraq, Oil and the Denial of the Obvious
2. Rachel Maddow reviews lead up to the Iraq War
3. More on the media and Iraq
4. Obama’s Response to Lipstick On A Pig “Controversy”
5. Chomsky on US rights and responsibilities in Iraq

Click here to view the embedded video.

Technorati Tags: elections, George W. Bush, media, Republicans, The Daily Show

Related posts:

1. Republican hypocrits demand Americans take to the streets, but…
2. The Daily Show exposes right wing hypocrisy
3. Join the National Synchronized Bush Flush
4. Issues and the US Presidential Race
5. Sarah Palin’s Leaked Emails and Right Wing Hypocrisy

Rick Davis, a long-time Washington lobbyist and currently John McCain’s campaign manager, recently told The Washington Post, “This election is not about issues. This election is about a composite view of what people take away from these candidates.” It was a somewhat rare and candid admission by a high level party operative to how the political process actually operates in the United States. While Davis’ comments might seem specific to this election, both major parties have for years preferred to avoid real issues – universal health care, the militaristic state, corporate crime and domination, a growing prison-industrial complex, to name a few – instead choosing to emphasize the personal qualities and style of candidates, especially when it comes to presidential elections. As in advertising, which permeates American’s consumerist culture, the PR surrounding political campaigns is more about feelings and emotions, faith and brand identity than it is about the issues most important to the public.

Mainstream media coverage plays right along with the charade. In fact, it is the perfect vehicle for the branding of hollow political figures. Talk mostly revolves around questions like “Did he or she win over the public with this or that speech?” “How was the presentation?” “Does he come across as an elitist?” And on and on. It’s simple pundit-driven “journalism,” easy to produce, providing the illusion of substance while serving corporate masters.

When public opinion conflicts with elite interests, the public is silenced. Those seeking office know who their paymasters are, and if any issue supported by large portions of the population but opposed by corporate power gets through media filters, it is framed in such a way to be stripped of any substance. For example, take universal health care. For years large majorities of the American public have been in favor of it. So large in fact it can’t be ignored or easily swept under the rug. Ever since Bill Clinton – who was elected in large part for proposing universal coverage – eventually bowed to the insurance industry and HMOs and failed to make the necessary changes, any and all subsequent reform proposals, if even made, only give lip service to the idea of health care for all while doing everything to avoid making the real changes necessary.

Such is politics and democracy in America, a corporate friendly environment indeed.

UPDATE:

Glenn Greenwald at Salon.com has a slightly different take on this subject than I do.  Where I see the depoliticization of politics as a much more bipartisan issue, he points to the Republicans as the main culprits:

Ever since Ronald Reagan’s election, this is what the Republicans do every four years. They render issues irrelevant and convert campaigns into cultural wars and personality referenda. They converted our elections into tawdry reality shows long before networks realized their entertainment value. And every four years, Democrats seems shocked and paralyzed by all of this and desperately delude themselves into believing that mean-spirited “negativity” and nastiness will alienate voters, while the media swoons at the potency of these attacks.

While he certainly is correct in his assessment of the GOP’s approach, it seems to me one of the reasons the Democrats cave in is because they are unwilling to push a truly democratic, issues-based politics to the fore.  Basically limited to rhetorical promises at best, Democrats are easily exposed as the hollow populists most of the country sees them to be.  You see, they play the corporate game as well, which limits the depth and reach their campaigns can actually go.

Greenwald takes the stance of a “realist,” which is understandable.  He knows that “cultural tribalism, resentment and alienation are very powerful influences in how people think.”  This is certainly true, but is the most effective response more tribalism, more attacks, an increased focus on qualities and style?  I doubt Greenwald thinks so.  But it’s not so clear what he proposes the Democrats should do.  He rightly deplores the empty, personal attack strategy of the GOP, and calls for a more combative (defensive?) approach:

Democrats have clearly decided (yet again) to cede that lowly playing field to the GOP and are hoping (yet again) that those personality and cultural issues are not enough to outweigh the country’s dislike of Republican policies…. If John McCain remains — even from the mouths of Democrats — the Honored, Honorable, Principled, Heroic Maverick, the GOP chances will be as high as they can be.

As I see it, what is needed to win is not more attention to personality and qualities, but rather a greater focus on the fundamental changes we know are needed.  But the liberal wing of the corporate power structure will never be able to go that far.

Technorati Tags: debate, Democrats, Election 2008, elections, media, politics

Related posts:

1. Obama’s Response to Lipstick On A Pig “Controversy”
2. Republican Hypocrisy

Mayer writes, according to the New York Times who along with the Washington Post obtained an advance copy of the book, that the Red Cross “warned that the abuse constituted war crimes, placing the highest officials in the U.S. government in jeopardy of being prosecuted.” Perhaps in a truly just world this would happen. But I wouldn’t count on it, at least not in the United States, where lawlessness like this when committed by the powerful is merely seen to be a political difference at best and rewarded or justified at worst.

The Washington Post goes into further detail about the CIA report on Guantanamo:

The classified CIA report described by Mayer was prepared in the summer of 2002 by a senior CIA analyst who was invited to the prison camp in Cuba to help Defense Department officials grapple with a major problem: They were gleaning very little useful information from the roughly 600 detainees in custody at the time. After a study involving dozens of detainees, the analyst came up with an answer: A large fraction of them “had no connection with terrorism whatsoever,” Mayer writes, citing officials familiar with the report. Many were essentially bystanders who had been swept up in dragnets or turned over to the U.S. military by bounty hunters. Previous published reports have described the CIA analyst’s visit but have not provided details of its findings.

According to Mayer, the analyst estimated that a full third of the camp’s detainees were there by mistake. When told of those findings, the top military commander at Guantanamo at the time, Major Gen. Michael Dunlavey, not only agreed with the assessment but suggested that an even higher percentage of detentions — up to half – were in error. Later, an academic study by Seton Hall University Law School concluded that 55 percent of detainees had never engaged in hostile acts against the United States, and only 8 percent had any association with al-Qaeda.

What was the administration’s response to these assessments? Apparently Vice President Cheney’s staff director David Addington simply stated “The president has determined that they are ALL enemy combatants. We are not going to revisit it.” And that was that. What the dear leader says is true is all that matters. Damn the facts. If our imperial president calls torture simply a humane form of interrogation, then that’s what it is. And if innocent people illegally held – and possibly subject to these interrogation techniques – are deemed “enemy combatants,” that’s what they are. Case closed.

None of this is really a surprise. As Glenn Greenwald points out:

This is what a country becomes when it decides that it will not live under the rule of law, when it communicates to its political leaders that they are free to do whatever they want — including breaking our laws — and there will be no consequences. There are two choices and only two choices for every country — live under the rule of law or live under the rule of men. We’ve collectively decided that our most powerful political leaders are not bound by our laws — that when they break the law, there will be no consequences.

Truer words couldn’t have been spoken. As we see now impeachment is “off the table” according to the Democrats. The President’s illegal surveillance program has been sanctioned by the so-called opposition who at one time was outraged by it and pledged to hold those resposible to account. But no. All attempts at standing by principle and the rule of law are bound to fail in such a climate. In a futile effort, Rep. Dennis Kucinich from Ohio is trying to force a vote on impeachment. His original 35 articles now slimmed down to one: the well known fact that Bush knowingly “deceived” Congress and the American people “into believing Iraq had weapons of mass destruction in order to get lawmakers to back a U.S.-led invasion of the country.”

You’ve got to hand it to Kucinich, he won’t quit or backdown. Unfortunately for us there are far too few people of principle like him in Washington, and any realistic chance of this administration being held to account is dwindling fast.

Related posts:

1. The Obama Administration, Propaganda and Liberal Hypocrisy

With the president’s approval ratings at an all time low, the US Senate passed new FISA legislation which legalizes spying on American citizens and legitimizes Bush’s secret wiretapping program. The bill passed 69-28 and the president is expected to sign it into law shortly. An important area of contention is that it grants retroactive immunity to all the telecom companies that participated in the program. As Senator Russ Feingold noted in his opposition remarks during the Senate debate:

The bill the Senate is considering would grant retroactive immunity to any companies that cooperated with a blatantly illegal program that went on for more than five years – and that the administration repeatedly misled Congress about.

If Congress short-circuits these lawsuits, we will have lost a prime opportunity to finally achieve accountability for these years of law-breaking. That’s why the administration has been fighting so hard for this immunity. It knows that the cases that have been brought directly against the government face much more difficult procedural barriers, and are unlikely to result in rulings on the merits.

These lawsuits may be the last chance to obtain a judicial ruling on the lawfulness of the warrantless wiretapping program. It’s bad enough that Congress abdicated its responsibility to hold the President accountable for breaking the law. Now it is trying to absolve those who allegedly participated in his lawlessness. Mr. President, this body should be condemning this administration for its law-breaking – not letting the companies that allegedly cooperated off the hook.

Such lawsuits were our best chance at finding out the true extent and scope of this program. And furthermore, while administration officials say it was instituted in response to the terrorist attacks of 9-11, other information suggests it predates those events by as much as six months and possibly longer. A tool like this was ripe for abuse, with the focus easily shifting from security matters to political ones. But now we may never know.

So one has to ask the question, Why did so many Democrats – including Barack Obama who originally pledged to filibuster any bill that included retro-active immunity – vote for the legislation? Well one part of the answer might lie in that well-known but too-often unexamined phrase “Follow the money.” But the good people over at American New Project have done just that:

Click here to view the embedded video.

No related posts.

The renaming would take effect on Jan. 20, when a new president is sworn in. And regardless of the measure’s outcome, supporters plan to commemorate the inaugural with a “synchronized flush” of hundreds of thousands of toilets that would send a flood of water toward the plant.

Related posts:

1. Colbert on what Bush Really Needs