US politics

The pernicious influence of the media’s portrayal of Hillary

'08/12 Election, US politics, Video
Published on

That the media was biased from the start of her campaign, and not for any good reason either, against Hillary Clinton is no surprise. That’s the poisonous legacy of the 1990s and the Beltway media’s ongoing obsession with Bill’s member and Hillary’s pantsuits. How bad it is can be sampled in the video below.

Media bias against the Democrats in general and especially the Clintons is no news, but the effects this coverage has had on the psyche of the average American and the image they have of Hillary has so far been somewhat neglected, other than in the context of what it means for her campaign. But now we finally have a good example of what six months of Hillary coverage can do to a man.

America just can’t quit Iraq

Capitalism, US politics, War on Iraq
Published on

The United Nations figleaf mandate under which the US has been occupying Iraq since 2003 is running out soon and without it the occupation would become *gasp* illegal. Yes, what difference would it make, I hear you say and you’re right, but the US likes to have its legal fictions all in order, if only so ex-Bush administration people will still be able to holiday in Europe. Therefore they been pressuring the Iraqi government to sign a new treaty:

America currently has 151,000 troops in Iraq and, even after projected withdrawals next month, troop levels will stand at more than 142,000 – 10 000 more than when the military “surge” began in January 2007. Under the terms of the new treaty, the Americans would retain the long-term use of more than 50 bases in Iraq. American negotiators are also demanding immunity from Iraqi law for US troops and contractors, and a free hand to carry out arrests and conduct military activities in Iraq without consulting the Baghdad government.

The precise nature of the American demands has been kept secret until now. The leaks are certain to generate an angry backlash in Iraq. “It is a terrible breach of our sovereignty,” said one Iraqi politician, adding that if the security deal was signed it would delegitimise the government in Baghdad which will be seen as an American pawn.

The US has repeatedly denied it wants permanent bases in Iraq but one Iraqi source said: “This is just a tactical subterfuge.” Washington also wants control of Iraqi airspace below 29,000ft and the right to pursue its “war on terror” in Iraq, giving it the authority to arrest anybody it wants and to launch military campaigns without consultation.

The Iraqi government is putting on a show of defiance at the moment, though the suspicions are that they will cave in later, as they damn well know they’re just a puppet regime dependent on American support to stay alive. But the US is taking no changes and is effectively blackmailing the Iraqis, by threatening to take away their foreign reserves:

No doubt some key figures in the Bush administration have asked themselves that, and here’s what they come up with. The Federal Reserve Bank of New York holds $ 50 billion of Iraq’s foreign exchange reserves as a result of the UN sanctions dating back to the first Gulf War. These include virtually all oil revenues that under UN mandate must be placed in the Development Fund for Iraq “controlled” by the Iraqi government. $ 20 billion of this is owed to plaintiffs who’ve won court judgments against Iraq, but a presidential order gives the account legal immunity. Bush can threaten to remove the immunity and wipe out 40% of Iraq’s foreign reselves if Baghdad doesn’t cooperate. At the same time, Bush can tell al-Maliki that if Iraq enters into a ‘strategic relationship” with the U.S., the U.S. will arrange for Iraq to finally escape those lingering UN “Chapter Seven” sanctions. Perhaps Bush and Cheney are confidant that this carrot and stick” approach will force the Iraqi government to sign the deal.

This isn’t just about the US keeping military control of Iraq either. At the heart of the new “treaty” is a secret appendix, which determines who will control its oil fields:

A secret appendix to the draft law, according to London-based Iraqi political analyst Munir Chalabi, “will decide which oil fields will be allocated to the Iraqi National Oil Company (INOC) and which of the existing fields will be allocated to the IOCs [international oil companies]. The appendices will determine if 10% or possibly up to 80% of these major oil fields will be given to the IOCs.” This, in other words, is another national humiliation in the offing. As six women Nobel Peace Prize recipients wrote in September 2007, it “would transform Iraq’s oil industry from a nationalized model to a commercial model that is much more open to U.S. corporate control. Its provisions allow much (if not most) of Iraq’s oil revenues to flow out of Iraq and into the pockets of international oil companies.”

More Facepalming

BBC Bias, Blogs, US politics, Wingnuts
Published on

There is a woman on the radio talking about the Bush adminsitration, the GOP and the Iraq war – a discussion precipitated by former Bush spokesman Scott McLellan’s about-faced memoirs – and they are discussing the link between cognitive dissonance and wingnuts like its a new discovery. Arrrgh. Where have these BBC bods been for the past eight years?

Hitler misled Germany on Russia, former aide says in new book

US politics, War on Iraq
Published on

Berlin — The Furherbunker called former minister of propagande Joseph Goebbels “disgruntled” after he wrote a blistering review of the administration and concluded that his longtime boss misled the nation into an unnecessary war in Russia in a book due out Monday.

“History appears poised to confirm what most Germanss today have decided — that the decision to invade Russia was a serious strategic blunder,” Goebbels wrote in “What Happened,” due out Monday. “No one, including me, can know with absolute certainty how the war will be viewed decades from now when we can more fully understand its impact.”

“What I do know is that war should only be waged when necessary, and the Second World War was not necessary,” he wrote in the preface.

Well, not really, but McClennan’s book on his experiences as press secretary for Bush seems to be equally inane. Why is it that all these Bush apologists only start criticising Bush when they got a book to sell? At the time McClennan lied and lied to protect his boss frome vent he mild criticisms the press back then was capable off, so to now see him play the fierce critic is not just wrong, it’s downright insulting.

Haiti: laboratory of the neo-neo-liberalism

Capitalism, US politics
Published on

The American Socialist Worker magazine has an interesting interview with Kevin Pinta, founding editor of the Haiti Information Project, in which he talks about the neoliberal roots of Haiti’s food crisis:

During that same period, a major transition occurred in Haiti. The Mevs, one of the wealthiest families in Haiti, bought the Haitian American Sugar Company, or HASCO, which had been one of the major sugar producers in the world.

The Mevs realized they would never be allowed to penetrate the U.S. market while it was controlled by the American company C&H Sugar, based in Hawaii. It made more economic sense for them to buy HASCO and sell off its equipment in exchange for positioning themselves as the major importer of sugar to Haiti.

This became the contemporary economic model for Haiti’s wealthy elite that constitutes 1 percent of the population but controls more than 50 percent of Haiti’s collective wealth today. Haiti’s elite eventually did the same for rice, beans and corn because they realized they could maximize profits by controlling the importation of basic food products, rather than investing in national production. Controlling a monopoly on the importation of basic foodstuffs was far more profitable than investing in locally grown products.

The real hypocrisy of this system comes into play when you realize the contribution to the recent “food riots” that led to the fall of Haitian Prime Minister Jacques-Edouard Alexis by the so-called Group of Friends of Haiti, the United Nations and Haiti’s elite.

Haiti has never been a free market; it’s a captive market of 8.5 million who have no choice who they purchase basic staples from. There is no competition, as the few families who control the import of rice and beans have never tolerated it.

They have historically resorted to violence, coups and corruption to protect their interests. Yet these are the same families who have benefited most from the intervention of the international community since the ouster of Jean-Bertrand Aristide on February 29, 2004. Their profits have nearly doubled during this time period, and left the country vulnerable to the recent spike in international prices for staples such as rice and beans.

Whereas traditionally American semi-colonies like Haiti would’ve been ruled by some sort of strongman eager to break heads on behalf of his US masters, these days we’re more sophisticated and everything is done through proper UN sanctioned channels. No death squads, no awkward paramilitary forces embarassing Uncle Sam, but a proper UN peacekeeping force to stablise the country; keeping peace on behalf of a tiny elite, against the Haitians themselves. A bew model of oppression for a new, more politically correct world.