Issues & Alibis



Page --- 356 --- 01-04-08

Issues & Alibis

Home To The World's Best Liberal Thought And Humor

Over Six Billion Served

Please visit our sponsor!

In This Edition

Glenn Greenwald with a must read, "Oligarchical Decay."

Uri Avnery follows, "The Beilin Syndrome."

Victoria Stewart interviews Lisa Sarasohn in the latest, "Volunteers For America."

Jim Hightower explores, "The Bizarre Idolization Of Reagan."

Paul Krugman studies, "The Great Divide."

Jason Miller says, "Ron Paul in 2008? Just Say No to Dr. No!"

Captain Eric H. May finds, "Courage In The Crosshairs."

Chris Floyd has been, "Gored Again."

Robert Parry reports, "Hillary Signals Free Pass For Bush."

Joe Conason sees, "Obama's European Problem."

Norman Solomon is, "Channeling Suze Orman."

Amy Goodman explains why, "Musharraf Still Stands."

Pennsylvania's secretary of agriculture Dennis Wolff wins the coveted, "Vidkun Quisling Award!"

Maureen Dowd wonders, "Deign Or Reign?"

Robert Scheer remembers just, "What 'Good Time Charlie' Brought."

And finally in the 'Parting Shots' department George Carlin returns with, "New Rules" but first Uncle Ernie sez, "Benazir Bhutto Didn't Die In Vain."

This week we spotlight the cartoons of John Trever with additional cartoons and photos from Keith Tucker, Dees , Internet , Tom Tomorrow, Gary Varvel, Daryl Cagle, John Cole, CNBC, MGM, Issues & Alibis and Pink & Blue Films.

Plus we have all of your favorite Departments...

The Quotable Quote...

The Dead Letter Office...

The Cartoon Corner...

To End On A Happy Note...

Have You Seen This...

Parting Shots...

Zeitgeist The Movie...

Welcome one and all to "Uncle Ernie's Issues & Alibis."

Benazir Bhutto Didn't Die In Vain

She died in Rawalpindi, Pakistan!

By Ernest Stewart

"You can imprison a man, but not an idea. You can exile a man, but not an idea. You can kill a man, but not an idea." ~~~ Benazir Bhutto

The future fare. An affair for all and no fair to anybody! ~~~ The Firesign Theatre

"I get by with a little help from my friends!" ~~~ John Lennon

Was anyone surprised by the martyrdom of Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto? Was anyone surprised that she was murdered by Bush and the CIA? Anyone?

Sure, we didn't pull the trigger but we did con her into going back home where the General's minions could get a good shot at her. She wasn't given protection by US agents nor by Gen. Pervez Musharraf who instead put out the hit on her with our blessings. I hear you ask, why kill her now? For one thing she had planned to reveal new evidence later that day proving the involvement of Pakistan's intelligence agencies in rigging the country's upcoming elections!

It wasn't done by al-Qaeda, no matter what Smirky and Pervez say. There is no such group as al-Qaeda. It was the CIA who created the method known in Arabic as al-Qaeda or in English as "The Base" for our CIA agent Osama to use against the Soviets in Afghanistan! I'm going to repeat that again for those of you on drugs...

A-Qaeda is not the name of some terrorist organization but a method of operation created and sent out from Langley, Virginia.

Benazir was the fourth member of her family to be killed by the military, including two brothers, one of whom was killed while she was Prime Minister, as well as her father who, too, was Prime Minister. Guess who'll be killed next? If you guessed her husband, Asif Ali Zardari, or her 19 year old son, Bilawal Zardari, who becomes chairman for life of the "Pakistan Peoples Party" as his mother and grandfather were, you win a cookie! Bilawai who said, "My mother always said, democracy is the best revenge!" will wisely remain for the time being in England where he attends Oxford while Benazir's husband becomes party co-chairman and who knows, maybe the next one to die!

While the country edges closer to revolution and all the joys that may bring, especially if the Mullahs seize power and the launch codes, we owe our thanks to the Junta and their puppets in the CIA for the many disasters to come!

In Other News

Next up for your amusement is 2008. Perhaps it's just an unfounded premonition but after studying poli-sci and history for damn near 50 years, I don't like what I see in the road ahead!

Many Americans think this year's elections will bring change but the only hope for that lies with Kucinich and I have a better chance of being elected than Dennis. People are so desperate for change that there is a groundswell of support for Ron Paul and, while I agree with much that he says, he is a Libertarian a.k.a. a pot smoking Nazi and it's not the pot smoking part that I have trouble with! I'm sorry but I don't hate poor people enough to swallow the Libertarian bullshit, especially as I'm one of the poor. Libertarian, Republican, Democrat, what's the difference? Same ole, same ole, just a different set of masters for you and me and like Kucinich, Ron has less of a chance than I do at being president and my chance is absolute zero!

No matter which candidate wins their party's nomination it will be more of the same. No matter which one of those wins the election it will be more of the same. Big brother will still be following our every move. There will be no rolling back of any of the fascist laws and regulations, your phone will still be tapped, your every move on the internet watched, every purchase you make will be scanned and every where you go will be noted. The signing statements will continue and the Bill Of Rights will remain gutted. In addition, the wars will go on in Iraq, Afghanistan and, who knows, maybe start in, Iran, Pakistan or Syria? Our corpo-rat masters will continue to rake in obscene profits, the cost of gas will continue to rise as well as the cost of food, clothing and other necessities. Your house's worth will continue to fall and the mortgage rates will continue to rise. Our treasury will continue to disappear at an alarming rate perhaps bringing on the stock market crash that is well overdue!

Whether it's Hillary or Willard, John or Rudy, or perhaps W will decide to stay or maybe pass it off to little brother Jebthro, the results are likely to be the same, NO CHANGE what-so-ever!

Short of a people's revolution there will be no change because America is still too comfortable to get off it's fat posterior and do anything about the loss of our Republic. Of course, it's probably too late to effect any real change and maybe the best thing to do is to head for the borders while they're still open? So my advice for 2008 is... Keep your guns loaded, your bags packed and your passport in hand!

*****

And finally, last year we came a within a couple of days of ceasing publication as I no longer have the money to support the magazine. We were forced to ask our readership to contribute to help us pay the bills. Just in time enough of you stepped up and saved the magazine. This year we're not going to wait to the last minute and hope we get enough money in time.

We have a single advertiser that covers most of our costs but still leaves us, as of today, with a $4500 bill. In addition, one of the two broken old computers that we use to publish recently all but gave up the ghost and we need to replace it ASAP. With our educational discount, we'll need to raise immediately $2000 for a new machine and software.

Therefore, our goal is to raise $6500 and any help you can give us toward that goal will be greatly appreciated. As I'm sure you know, 2008 is a pivotal year in this country's history and we can either make things better or make things worse. If things stay the same, we'll still be on the same road to ruin that we are on today. Unlike other magazines and blogs, which raise $50,000 or more every three months, we at Issues and Alibis only ask for funds to cover expenses we can't meet ourselves. In addition, no one in the magazine receives any compensation including yours truly. Everyone here has donated his or her words, art and time to the magazine, won't you please donate something, too!

So to contribute to the cause just visit our donations page

and follow the instructions there. Thank you!

*****

07-06-1926 ~ 12-30-2007

Weep no more bro!

*****

The new "W" theatre trailer is up along with the new movie poster and screen shots from the film. They are all available at the all-new "W" movie site:

.

Both trailers are on site and may be downloaded; the new trailer can be seen with Flash on site. You can download in either PC or Mac formats. I'm in the new trailer as myself but don't blink or you'll miss me!

********************************************

We get by with a little help from our friends!

So please help us if you can...?

Donations

********************************************

So how do you like the 2nd coup d'etat so far?

And more importantly, what are you planning on doing about it?

Until the next time, Peace!

(c) 2008 Ernest Stewart a.k.a. Uncle Ernie is an unabashed radical, author, stand-up comic, DJ, actor, political pundit and for the last 7 years managing editor and publisher of Issues & Alibis magazine. In his spare time he is an actor, writer and an associate producer for the new motion picture "W."

Oligarchical Decay

By Glenn Greenwald

A new lengthy article in this morning's New York Times purports to set forth "new details about why the [CIA interrogation] tapes were made and then eliminated." Written by Scott Shane and Mark Mazzetti (who broke the original story), what the article primarily does is rely on anonymous sources to assign principal responsibility for the tapes' destruction to mid-level CIA official Jose Rodriguez. But in doing so, the article identifies, in passing, the critical question that remains unanswered: what was the involvement of George Bush and Dick Cheney in the videos' destruction?

Scrutiny of the C.I.A.'s secret detention program kept building. Later in 2003, the agency's inspector general, John L. Helgerson, began investigating the program, and some insiders believed the inquiry might end with criminal charges for abusive interrogations.

Mr. Helgerson completed his investigation of interrogations in April 2004, according to one person briefed on the still-secret report, which concluded that some of the C.I.A.'s techniques appeared to constitute cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment under the international Convention Against Torture. Current and former officials said the report did not explicitly state that the methods were torture.

A month later, as the administration reeled from the Abu Ghraib disclosures, Mr. Muller, the agency general counsel, met to discuss the report with three senior lawyers at the White House: Alberto R. Gonzales, the White House counsel; David S. Addington, legal adviser for Vice President Dick Cheney; and John B. Bellinger III, the top lawyer at the National Security Council.

The interrogation tapes were discussed at the meeting, and one Bush administration official said that, according to notes of the discussion, Mr. Bellinger advised the C.I.A. against destroying the tapes. The positions Mr. Gonzales and Mr. Addington took are unknown. One person familiar with the discussion said that in light of concerns raised in the inspector general's report that agency officers could be legally liable for harsh interrogations, there was a view at the time among some administration lawyers that the tapes should be preserved.

Shane and Mazetti previously reported that "several administration and intelligence officials provided conflicting accounts as to whether anyone at the White House expressed support for the idea that the tapes should be destroyed." In that article, they quoted one senior intelligence official "with direct knowledge of the matter [who] said there had been 'vigorous sentiment' among some top White House officials to destroy the tapes." The White House has simply refused to say whether they were behind the decision.

Just consider how significant that question is, and how striking it is that it remains unanswered. By the time Addington and Gonzales were discussing this matter, it was well known -- obvious -- that those interrogations tapes were critically relevant to a number of judicial proceedings and government investigations, including The 9/11 Commission's. It is thus highly likely, to put it mildly, that any decision to destroy that evidence would constitute the crime of obstruction of justice, the same federal felony for which Lewis Libby has now (in a different matter) been convicted.

And here are the two top legal aides to the President and the Vice President participating in a meeting where the destruction of this vital evidence was expressly considered, yet we do not know what it is that they said. Did they advise that the tapes be destroyed of give implicit permission for it? If so, it very likely means that Bush and/or Cheney (and certainly their top aides) committed serious felonies.

But does anyone really believe that we're going to find out the answers to those questions any time soon? And even if we did find out the answers, and even if they were incriminating, does anyone believe that there would ever be any consequences, any accountability, for this wrongdoing by anyone above a mid-level position of responsibility, such as Rodriguez?

* * * * *

In case after case, our political establishment has adopted the "principle" that our most powerful actors are immune from the rule of law. And they've adopted the enabling supplemental "principle" that any information which our political leaders want to keep suppressed is -- by definition, for that reason alone -- information that is "classified" and should not be disclosed.

The instruments used to secure these prerogatives are numerous and growing. Slate's Dahlia Lithwick this week summarized the Bush administration's 10 most egregious legal inventions to enable lawbreaking, including the "states secrets privilege" which has now "has ballooned into a doctrine of blanket immunity for any conduct the administration wishes to hide" and the claim that "everyone who has ever spoken to the president about anything is barred from congressional testimony by executive privilege." All of these developments have a common strain, a shared objective: ensuring that our highest political officials and our most powerful corporations are beyond the reach of the law.

Thus, our establishment believes that any information that would shed light on whether our most powerful actors have broken the law is information that shouldn't be disclosed. In those accidental cases when -- via unauthorized leaks -- information is disclosed that demonstrates that crimes have been committed, our establishment bands together to insist that nothing be done, that there is no need to investigate or hold anyone accountable, and that the only real wrongdoing is by those "the leakers" who disclosed the lawbreaking.

This is the same pattern seen over and over: leakers reveal that Bush broke the law for years by spying on Americans without the warrants required by law, and every investigation -- legislative and judicial -- is successfully blocked, and Congress then moves to legalize the lawbreaking. The top aide to Bush and Cheney, Lewis Libby, is found unanimously by a 12-person jury to have lied deliberately with the intent of blocking an FBI and Grand Jury investigation into illegal leaks and is sentenced by a conservative judge to prison, yet is protected from jail time by the President while our media and political establishment cheer almost unanimously.

Our largest telecommunication corporations reap huge profits by brazenly violating numerous, long-standing federal laws (.pdf) for years by enabling government access to our communications without any judicial approval, and our political establishment bands together to demand that they be protected from any consequences and that any efforts to uncover what happened be squelched. Our government implements a secret torture regime that violates numerous laws and treaties and Congress acts to legalize it and provide retroactive immunity to the lawbreakers. Congress subpoenas numerous officials to find out why 9 federal prosecutors were fired and, when the subpoenas are literally ignored, nothing happens.

And now, our government just destroys evidence crucial both to all sorts of court proceedings and a comprehensive investigation into the worst attack on U.S. soil in our history -- part and parcel of its general pattern of destroying or "losing" key evidence -- and the Honorable, Independent Attorney General tells both the legislative and judicial branches that they have no right even to investigate. And although we know for a fact that the top aides to both Bush and Cheney were involved in discussions of whether the tapes should be destroyed, we have no idea what they said and are unlikely ever to know, and even if we did find out, it's impossible to envision anything happening as a result.

* * * * *

And thus we have a perfect oligarchical system in which, literally, our most powerful and well-connected elite are free to break the law with impunity, exempt from any consequences. While exempting themselves, these same figures impose increasingly Draconian "law and order" solutions on the masses to ensure that even small infractions of the law prompt vigorous prosecution and inflexible, lengthy prison terms.

As Matt Stoller recently noted in an excellent post on the bipartisan orthodoxies that are untouchable in political debates, "there are 1 million people put in jail for doing what Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, and George Bush have done" (buying and consuming illegal drugs) and "2 million people are in prison in America, by far the highest total of any other country in the world." It's almost impossible for the non-rich to defend themselves effectively against government accusations of criminality, and judges have increasingly less sentencing discretion to avoid imposing harsh jail terms. Punishment for crimes is for the masses only, not for members in good standing of our political and corporate establishment.

Where our political elite break the law, our leading media stars and pundits fulfill their central purpose by dutifully arguing that establishment figures who have broken the law have done nothing wrong and deserve protection, even our gratitude, when they do so. In the view of our establishment, even mere civil liability -- never mind criminal punishment -- is deeply unfair when imposed on lawbreaking corporations, as we see in the "debate" over telecom immunity.

This same warped principle is also expressed in how our establishment scorns the work John Edwards did in representing maimed or dead individuals against the corporations which, through recklessness or negligence, destroyed their lives. From a letter from Theodore Frank of the American Enterprise Institute to the New York Times today (h/t Jay Diamond): ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download