Go on over to The Hill, Capitol Hill’s newspaper of record, and check out my latest commentary, this time on the impact of the “stimulus” and the prospect of yet another boondoggle to cover up the failure of the first one.
I wish it weren’t always necessary to lay out the recent history of Somalia every time it comes up. But it seems with every current event — like US bombings and piracy — Americans are starting with a fresh mental slate. And so it is with the recent cases of Minnesota-raised Somali youths taking up the cause of “jihad” in Somalia. Ever since Western-backed dictator Mohamed Siad Barre was overthrown in 1991, the Somali people have been victimized by foreign intervention.
First the events that led to “Black Hawk Down” — again, Americans only know about it because other Americans were killed invading Mogadishu. Once the US withdrew, and the UN’s staff was reduced to minimal aid duties, an equilibrium of power began to emerge, in which armed groups splintered and one rarely had more power than the other. Eventually the Somali economy, once at the brink of nonexistence, roared with innovation, delivering power, water, telecommunications, trash pickup, health care, shipping, and even Coca-Cola to the masses.
But US influence wasn’t absent: warlord (and former US Marine) Hussein Farrah Aidid and certain other of his colleagues began receiving millions in cash payments to “fight al-Qaeda.” Naturally this simply inflated their power so that they could once again muscle out their militia competitors. The situation worsened until the Islamic Courts Union (ICU) militias joined forces to rid the country of these American-financed warlords — who subsequently fled to Nairobi together with former apparatchiks of the Barre regime to make up the “Transitional Federal Government,” (TFG) the 14th such attempt by the international community to foist a central government upon the Somalis.
The West considered the ICU a terrorist organization affiliated with al-Qaeda, though it was run by some rather moderate elements who simply looked to impose order; strict as they may have been, Somalis considered them better than the US-financed warlords. Their ascendancy ended a liberal period in Somali life, but it was a reaction to foreign intervention. Not being known as good losers, the Bush Administration made an agreement with Ethiopia that it would invade its traditional enemy neighbor and install the TFG to power. As the ICU melted away to become an insurgency — shades of Iraq and Afghanistan; this is the new way of war — the militant splinter Islamist group al-Shabab flourished in the environment of all-out war.
The TFG now controls only a few blocks of Mogadishu and the road to the airport, after al-Shabab took even the government’s erstwhile base of support in Baidoa. Islamists of various shades control many other swathes of the country. Clan-based militias have re-arisen to take up local power vacuums. The economy is once again destroyed after years of war and, where it does exercise power, a hideously corrupt and confiscatory government. This gave rise to fisherman dabbling in piracy to feed their again-impoverished communities. And it also provoked outrage among the Somali diaspora, leading some of the more impressionable elements into holy war against the Ethiopian occupation — into the ranks of “al-Qaeda-linked” al-Shabab.
And now we have the government using the loaded term “terrorists” to describe these Minnesotan Somalis, who never lifted a finger against the United States, the West, or anyone but those occupying their homeland. And the New York Times parrots this use in the headline, and to literally describe the government’s charges. Credit where it’s due, sort of: the article contains the terms “insurgency” and even “occupation,” and the invasion is described correctly as US-backed and the Somali disapora’s outrage is noted as a reaction (as opposed to the natural inclinations of ungrateful freedom-hating Islamonuts).
How are we ever supposed to know who truly threatens us if the government is keen to toss the “terrorist” label at anything, anywhere in the world, that shoots? A Somali-American interviewed says that the undue attention on this small group with absolutely no relation to US national security is making “an underdog out of al-Shabab, which is aiding recruitment. ‘They are reinforcing it.’”
Insights into who funded the mysterious Clarion Fund remain few and far between, but new information about two funders surfaced this week giving a better outline of the network of donors who supported Clarion’s activities.
The obituary for ‘’retail magnate’’ Sy Syms’ ran in The Forward on Tuesday and mentioned, ‘’Through the Sy Syms Foundation, Syms supported various Jewish and non-Jewish causes, including the UJA-Federation of New York, The Clarion Fund and the Inner-City Scholarship Fund.’’
I looked into the Sy Syms Foundation most recent tax returns and found a $25,000 contribution to the Clarion Fund in 2007/2008.
Sy Syms’ $25,000 contribution was a very small piece of the funding required to stage the massive DVD mailing campaign of Obsession: Radical Islam’s War Against the West before the November presidential election. Until now the only other known contributors were the Mamiye brothers who, like Syms, contributed $25,000 and are in the clothing business. Among other brands, the Mamiye brothers distribute Hello Kitty-branded kids clothing in the US.
Sy Syms started the Syms discount clothing stores—which now owns Filene’s Basement—in 1959 and was famous for coining his company’s slogan, ‘’An educated customer is our best customer’’.
A generous philanthropist, Syms’ contributions in 2007/2008 included a number of right-wing groups including: The Simon Wiesenthal Center—which has garnered controversy for screening The Third Jihad and building a new museum on a Muslim cemetery in Jerusalem—and Friends of the IDF, but the majority of his philanthropy went to mainstream Jewish organizations and progressive social causes.
These included: Yeshiva University, the United Nations Association, Meals on Wheels, Amnesty International, SEEDS of Peace—a group which runs summer camps in Maine to bring together Egyptian, Palestinian and Israeli young people—and the American Civil Liberties Union.
The other new donor—giving just $10,000—discovered today was the Wagner Family Foundation.
The foundation is run by Leon and Marsha Wagner. Leon Wagner appears to be the son of Rubin Wagner—a major property developer in Long Island—and Sima Wagner.
Three Cheers for Doonesbury today!
Unfortunately, prominent half-wits take their own values from this TV show. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia told an assembly of judges in the summer of 2007: ““Jack Bauer saved Los Angeles . . . . He saved hundreds of thousands of lives… Are you going to convict Jack Bauer?”
I would wager that many congressmen also rely on ‘24′ as their primary info source on torture.
This is Attention Deficit Democracy at its best.
David Swanson, co-founder of AfterDowningStreet.org, author of Daybreak: Undoing the Imperial Presidency and Forming a More Perfect Union and recent guest on Antiwar Radio, will be giving a talk and signing some books at St. Bede’s Church in Mar Vista, California (near Venice) Monday, November 23, 2009 at 7:30 p.m.
I don’t know how I missed it, but Lou Dobbs has called for immediate withdrawal of US troops.
From Afghanistan? YES!
From Iraq? YES!
From Germany, Japan, South Korea, and everywhere else around the world? YES!
He even has a petition on his Website!
Here’s Lou Dobbs, in his own words:
Last week the executive committee of the Alameda County (Calif) Republican Central Committee approved a resolution to be voted on by the full committee calling for a non-interventionist foreign policy. Alameda County covers the East Bay of the San Francisco Bay Area, with about 1.5 million people.
Tuesday night the full committee met. The resolution failed to get the required 2/3 for approval, but it was a big step forward.
Here is a full report from committee vice-chair Walter Stanley:
There’s Nothing Conservative About War
This past Tuesday, during the November monthly meeting of the Alameda County Republican Central Committee, Elected Members’ of the Party did some soul searching on what it actually means to be a conservative.
The County Party leadership consisting of outgoing Chairman Jerry Salcido [AD-20 Fremont], Vice Chairman Walter Stanley [AD-15 Livermore] and Assistant Treasurer David LaTour [AD-18 Hayward] proposed a resolution that would have made a non-interventionist foreign policy the official position of the County GOP.
The proposed resolution was introduced from the podium by Salcido to his fellow Republicans’ on the committee. The wording of the resolution was largely inspired by a speech given on the House floor by Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, who has always been critical of past administrations’ aggressive foreign policy regardless of if it is Bush, Clinton or even President Obama as the Commander and Chief.
The foreign policy resolution was longer than all other resolutions considered by the committee during the first year of their two-year term. The proposed resolution declared that our [the United States] foreign policy of the past century is “deeply flawed and has not served our national security interests” and that “diplomacy is superior to bombs and bribes and the illusion of protecting America.” It also declared that, “the official positions for going to war are almost always based on lies and promoted by war propaganda in order to serve special interests.”
During the discussion, the wording of the resolution was attacked by several neo-conservatives on the committee. Local Republican, Rosann Slonsky-Breault [AD-16 Oakland] told Members’ of the Party that terrorists wanted to kill Americans because of the freedoms we have and called the proposed resolution “despicable.” Republican Anne Woodell [AD-16 Oakland] said it was “anti-George Bush” and “isolationist.” Both women support the undeclared war efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq and both voted against the resolution. In all, twenty Members’ on the committee opposed a non-interventionist foreign policy as set forth in the proposed resolution.
David LaTour argued in favor of the resolution, "In 2000, Bush ran on a humble foreign policy. Go back and look at the debates. He opposed Clinton’s intervention in Kosovo and then ended up being a nation-builder himself. The Republican registration in the county has sharply declined over the last 8-years. If you think that has nothing to do with this unconstitutional aggressive foreign policy, you’re kidding yourself."LaTour also rejected Woodell’s notion that a non-interventionist foreign policy means isolationism by responding, “We’re not saying that the United States shouldn’t communicate, trade, or have diplomatic relationships with other countries, we support all of that, those are all good things that promote prosperity. We’re saying that we need to embrace a constitutional foreign policy, stay out of entangling alliances and focus on securing our own borders’.”
John den Dulk [AD-16 Oakland] seemed to be confused during the discussion about what exactly a constitutional foreign policy is. He spoke about the enumerated powers’ listed in the U.S. Constitution and then contradicted himself by confessing his support for undeclared war and his opposition to the resolution.
Fellow GOP committee Member from neighboring Contra Costa County, Ted Hudacko, joined forces with Salcido, Stanley and LaTour backing the resolution and telling those in attendance, “There is no effective Declaration of War with Iraq, Afghanistan, or Pakistan.” Hudacko asked those who opposed the resolution, “Can any of you tell me by what criteria you would consider that victory has been achieved and when we could determine that our troops can come home?”
None of those who were opposed to the resolution addressed Hudacko’s question. For some reason, the argument coming from the neo-conservatives was that Republicans needed to ’support the troops’ by being in favor of the conflicts in the Middle East.
LaTour said, "The neo-cons in Alameda County are living in fantasy land. They think our foreign policy is about freedom rather than empire and special interests. To them, 9/11 justifies anything and the moral, strategic, and financial repercussions of our actions mean nothing."
There were a total of 13 Republicans in favor of the non-interventionist foreign policy resolution. Not enough to pass with a two-thirds majority; however, it might be a good sign of things to come in the Republican Party.
Casey Fargo [AD-15 Livermore] said, “People are waking up in the Republican Party. It’s time for Republicans that believe in small-government to realize that there’s nothing conservative about war. Our troops are spread thin throughout the world and a common-sense individual can see that this makes us less safe here at home.”
Erika Lopez [AD-18 San Lorenzo] who voted in favor of the resolution said, “I believe in a strong national defense, but having troops stationed in countries all over the world is not a strong national defense. I support our troops, I want them here protecting our country, keeping us safe.”
Alameda County Republican Party Proposed Resolution
Status: Resolution in Support of a Non-Interventionist Foreign Policy
Submitted by: Walter Stanley, David LaTour, and Jerry Salcido of the Alameda County Republican Party
Whereas, our foreign policy of the past century is deeply flawed and has not served our national security interests; and
Whereas, the terrorist threat is a predictable consequence of our meddling in the affairs of others and has nothing to do with us being free and prosperous; and
Whereas, propping up repressive regimes in the Middle East endangers America and our allies; and
Whereas, occupying countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan and bombing Pakistan is directly related to the hatred directed toward us; and
Whereas, losing over 6,000 American Military personnel in the Middle East since September 11, 2001 is not a fair trade off for the loss of nearly 3,000 American citizens, no matter how many Iraqi, Pakistani and Afghan people are killed or displaced; and
Whereas, torture, even if referred to as "enhanced interrogation techniques"is self-destructive and produces no useful information and that contracting it out to a third world country or a corporation is just as evil; and
Whereas, war and military spending is always destructive to the economy; and
Whereas, war time spending is paid for through the deceitful process of inflating and borrowing; and
Whereas, war time conditions always undermine personal liberty; and
Whereas, we as small government conservatives see our government’s interventionist foreign policy providing the greatest incentive to expand the government; and
Whereas, the only logical, conservative position is to reject military intervention and managing an empire throughout the world; and
Whereas, the official positions for going to war are almost always based on lies and promoted by war propaganda in order to serve special interests; and
Whereas, the quest for empire eventually destroys all great nations; and
Whereas, our aggressive foreign policy and seemingly permanent presence in other countries throughout the world has served to weaken our national defense at home; and
Whereas, the borders’ of Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan are more secure than our own borders here at home; and
Whereas, our foreign policy has nothing to do with national security and never changes from one administration to the next; and
Whereas, Christianity teaches peace and not preventive wars of aggression; and
Whereas, diplomacy is superior to bombs and bribes and the illusion of protecting America; and
Whereas, the aggressive foreign policy of so called "neo-conservatives"is anything but conservative and has wasted more than $1 trillion on nation building and billions more on foreign aid; and
Whereas, there is a strong tradition of non-interventionism in the Republican Party that is exemplified by the legacy of Senator Robert Taft and the Old Right.
Therefore, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Alameda County Republican Party supports a non-interventionist foreign policy as advocated by George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, and believes costly undeclared wars and the occupation of other countries only serves to weaken our national defense and strengthen the resolve along with the ranks of our enemies.
Transparency International reported yesterday that Afghanistan is the most corrupt nation in the world – except for Somalia.
Heckua achievement, if the only nation on earth that is more shady is one that is full of pirates… Karzai is making Marion Barry look like Mother Teresa.
The Washington Post reported today that one of Afghanistan’s top ministers took a $30 million bribe to give a special deal to a Chinese mining company.
The New York Times reported: “Everything seems to be for sale: public offices, access to government services, even a person’s freedom.”
So what do Army recruiters say these days? Why in Hades would any American agree to risk his neck to prop up this band of thieves?
Antiwar Radio took to the California airwaves last night on Pacifica Network’s KPFK — 90.7 FM in Los Angeles and 98.7 FM in Santa Barbara. Former Iraq arms inspector Scott Ritter, Salon’s Glenn Greenwald and author James Bamford joined host Scott Horton for an hour of incisive perspective from the most important minds in foreign policy, civil liberties and security technology.
The show opened to jubilant applause in Hollywood thanks to the End the Fed activists who hosted the listening party. You can play the show here or download here.
Israeli President and political office-juggler Shimon Peres is in Argentina schmoozing the poor man’s Eva Peron, batty President Cristina Kirchner, in the week before Palestinian Authority strongman Mahmoud Abbas visits. Though he seems to be trying to stay one step ahead of his enemies, he’s traveling so quickly he seems to have left behind sense of irony, the evidence of which is this Jerusalem Post article:
Citing two acts of terrorism perpetrated by Iran on Argentinean soil: the bombing of the Israeli Embassy in 1992 and the attack on the AMIA Jewish Community Center in 1994, Peres wondered who could agree to have a regime that murders innocent people be allowed to develop nuclear weapons.
“Who would believe them? Who could rely on them?” he asked.
Indeed.
Justin Raimondo is doing a daily brief commentary for The Hill, Capitol Hill’s newspaper of record. Today’s question is “What must Sarah Palin accomplish on her book tour?” His answer is here, along with those of (so far) Larry Sabato and Glenn Reynolds.
Also, check out Justin’s response from last week’s question: Will PATRIOT Act reauthorization divide Dems, hamper healthcare?
Following up on our coverage of the campaign to destroy the National Iranian-American Council (NIAC), Josh Rogin at the Cable has more information on the background to the attacks. The most interesting revelation concerns Hassan Daioleslam, the Iranian-American journalist — accused by critics of ties to the Mujaheden-e Khalq (MEK) terrorist group — who is being sued by NIAC for defamation and who appears to have been the source for the recent Washington Times hit piece on NIAC. Newly released documents make clear that Daioleslam (portrayed by his hawkish supporters as merely a concerned human rights and democracy advocate) has been only the public face of a group of Washington neoconservatives aiming to bring down NIAC as a way to undercut the Obama administration.
Rogin relays emails between Daioleslam and Kenneth Timmerman, in which the two plot strategy and discuss plans to leak documents to Times reporter Eli Lake. Timmerman, for those not familiar with him, is a notorious neoconservative hardliner and longtime advocate of regime change in Tehran. He founded the ultra-hawkish Foundation for Democracy in Iran (FDI) in 1995 with Joshua Muravchik and the late Peter Rodman, but became marginalized in mainstream circles after making a series of outlandish accusations. Notably, he accused Iran of having a role both in the September 11 attacks and the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings; he also alleged the existence of an “insurgency within the U.S. government” — a conspiracy centered on the CIA and State Department — that “sabotaged the [Bush] administration’s Iraq war plans” and was responsible for the failures of the U.S. war effort.
In one April 2008 email, Daioleslam wrote to Timmerman that he considered NIAC president Trita Parsi to be “the weakest part of the Iranian web” and that “destroying him will be the start of attacking the whole web.” Daioleslam continued (my emphasis): “This is an integral part of any attack on Clinton and Obama“. (The email was sent during the Democratic primaries, when it was not yet clear who would be the Democratic nominee.)
The email makes clear that the attacks on NIAC are simply a means to an end — the real goal being the sabotage of the Obama administration’s Iran policy. While it makes sense that the NIAC attacks have been picked up by the Weekly Standard set, one has to wonder whether the liberals who have aided and abetted them feel comfortable with participating in a campaign whose ultimate goal is to cripple a Democratic administration.
