Gates' first big job as head of the CIA, blaming Iran for losing the Iraq war, certainly carries some Karmic justice. Iran could be completely summed up in one word, CIA blowback. The CIA blaming Iran for our fiasco Shiite coup in Iraq is the same as blaming it for the CIA inspired fiasco Shiite coup in Iran. Good job of hide the pea, Mr. Director.

Was the War a success?
$1 trillion in bond business .
Media profits on steriods.
Israel--autonomy, brings client America to region, no cost.
Venezuela avoids invasion and consolidates populist rule .
Military--promotions, lucrative retirement work.
Mafia(s)--re-energized golden triangle.
American corporate mercenary armies feeding frenzy concealed successfully.
American Fundamntalists-Jingoists retain semantic focus and primacy viz. a "war" on a threat, "terrorism", 1/14th as great as snakebite.

So who won? The fact one might not know is alone sufficient proof of China's historic triumph. Reporters on Bush's tour have noted that Asians understand this if we do not. The war's greatest lesson is: don't expect an enemy studying war for 2000 years to behave differently than England vs Spain when we are ruled by crooks.

"You are what you do..."

click to enlarge

"State of Denial"

The Popes 2 cents

Santa Barbara residents are in a good position to appreciate the Pope's concern for religious intolerance. In fact, the socio-dynamics of the spread of Islam may be quite similar to the Catholic conquest in New World. What partisans may miss is the practical necessity of religious exclusivity under the exigencies of colonization. It is one thing to have a plethora of religions enjoying tax exempt protection under basically secular government. The evidence that this produces a deeply moral or spiritually advanced culture may have been lost in the blowback of corruption and scandal, although individual cases of illumination can no doubt be found. The tribally organized Arab clients we sponsored in the aftermath of the Second World War are hardly environments where alien historically powerful missionary religions have a claim to carte blanche intervention.

In other words, Italy, an industrial European nation, colonized a part of Islamic North Africa. As a result of this economic subordination, residual colonization by Muslims occurred. Erecting worship facilities in Italy for this immigrant group is not quite the same as demanding facilities for Italian religion in the Islamic world, in this case in places not colonized by Italy. Yet that is the thrust of this allegedly scholarly Pope’s critique. The wonder is, hundreds of feckless editorials, and caterwauling by the usual suspects later, no one has recognized this essential inconsistency.

A Democratic Senator bravely ignored the career risk and called the Iraq war a breeding ground for terrorists. Ooops, sorry, I guess that was a CIA agent! Let me start over. A Democratic Congressperson courageously testified on CSPAN in an eloquent evisceration of President Bush and the Neocons, in a comittee pettily botcotted by Republicans. No no no, my mistake. That was a two star General! But, really, a Democratic Presidential hopeful defiantly took Fox News to the woodshed and blamed President Bush's team for ignoring Al Qaeda in the run-up to 911. Gosh darn it! Now I really stepped in it. That was the Democratic President from 6 years ago!

The Democratic officeholders and aspirants? I think they were at an AIPAC dinner.

What the apoplectic Neocon blogosphere are missing is that Clinton, like other leaders recently charicatured by the elite media, is not running for leader of the 1% of the worlds population (that 40% dittohead American zombies), who eschew substantive, articulate statesmanship for their sophistry, but the other 99%. The job of running this shriveling empire may fall to his spouse. Let the haters prattle over sartorial defects. He's not speaking to the suited and coiffed micro-minority. The unflattering camera work will backfire. They're just burnishing his man of the people bona fides. And every new exposure, another person gets it: failed Neocon coup>911...hmmm.

Response to Pat Morrison Anti Fence Polemic
The environmental consequences of overpopulation in this state are orders of magnitude greater than any local effect of a fence. Nice try. If the need for below market domestic wages is your criteria, slavery would never have been moved offshore.

Thank God real Latin American populists know that exporting their underclass as slaves is not the answer to reforming their societies. If only their American counterparts would stop importing their crucial populist voters, we might have a chance to see some real democracy in our hemisphere instead of this elite controlling the media.

If savvy observers like yourself can do no better than regurgitate advocates' talking points on an issue that requires fresh perspective and honesty, it's depressing. Rudderless Democrats are willing to lose this election over pro mass immigration militancy. The sight of African American congresspersons pandering on immigration to the detriment of their constituents is disgusting.

The fact is that it's an anti-populist position to begin with. You're willing to run on "Fighting Israel's wars better" and "more low wage* labor" as an ideology, when our economy is nearing meltdown and the world despises us. Jeez!

Voting Machines

As a disinterested citizen, what is troubling about the voting "machines" issue is the lack of known technology brands. Obscure privately held security firms, as ubiquitous now as once were day traders , have an aura of clandestine mischief that, say, a consortium of Microsoft, Google and Intel would alleviate. Can these credible corporate citizens not provide us with a foolproof technological voting process, perhaps as part of their vaunted philanthropy, independent of these state politics- contracted public trough entrepreneurs of mysterious origins?

Hearing Hugo Chavez or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad speak raises the issue of whether we have a leader capable of engaging either of these men, or of articulating a vision that inspires the world more than the one they are presenting. One may disagree with Noam Chomsky, for example, but I wonder if John McCain or Hillary Clinton read at the equivalent level of scholarship in the literature of the cultures they would like to influence, or even in our own. Do they show that much respect to their audience, or do they feed us the shallow polemic of paid ideologues, focus group polls, and foreign lobbyists? Unless they are willing to do so, don't look to win the world's approval back from the likes of China any time soon.