Republican presidential nominee John McCain has friends who want to see Islam destroyed. Yes, he’s a moderate man:
Tag Archive for 'john-mccain'
CNN provides a priceless headline that perfectly articulates the brainlessness of Republican presidential nominee John McCain:
McCain promises to fight ‘evil’ if president.
Eight years of George W. Bush fighting “evil” has been an amazing success. Clearly McCain is keen to follow in his mentor’s path.
I was recently interviewed by Peshawa Muhammed of the Kurdistani Nwe Newspaper, the publication of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan in Iraqi Kurdistan (Noam Chomsky was also interviewed recently.) The article ran on May 4:
Peshawa Muhammed: Five years on, how do you assess the current US policy in Iraq? Which option do you think can finally put an end to the ongoing fiasco; partition or keeping Iraq united?
Antony Loewenstein: The Iraq war is one of the greatest crimes of my lifetime. After more than five years, the death of over 4000 American troops, over a million Iraqis and millions of displaced refugees, the decision to invade and occupy the nation remains a disaster on all levels. The majority of polls in Iraq since 2003 find citizens believe life under Saddam, as brutal as it was, remains preferable. Foreign troops must leave the country as quickly as possible and the future of Iraq decided by Iraqis alone. I am against partition because it appears most citizens oppose it. The international community has a responsibility to assist the Iraqi government to get back on its feet. The current regime in Baghdad’s Green Zone is an illegitimate puppet of Washington, creating Shia death squads to obliterate potential enemies. Ethnic cleansing must stop.
Muhammed: Previously, Australian Defence Minister Brendan Nelson has admitted that securing oil supplies is a key factor behind the presence of Australian troops in Iraq. How do you explain the Australian objectives in the Iraq War?
Loewenstein: Australia, like many so-called allies in the war against Iraq, joined the Bush administration out of compulsion, fear and gutlessness. The previous Australian government, led by Prime Minister John Howard, was an unashamed fan of Bush and his “war on terror” policies – by pure coincidence, he was in Washington on September 11, 2001 – and believed that “democracy” should be imported by bombing and occupying a nation. Oil was certainly a key reason for the war as was securing a new, post-Saudi Arabia staging post in the Middle East. The US embassy in Baghdad, the largest in the world, indicates that America never had any intention of leaving.
Muhammed: If Iraq eventually fails as a state, what alternatives are there for the future of Iraqi Kurdistan and what assumptions are made by each alternative? Will Independent Iraqi Kurdistan be a viable option?
Loewenstein: The idea that Iraq is a state is clearly the invention of the Western powers just under one hundred years ago. Iraqi Kurdistan has the right to autonomy and independence, if a fair and free vote is taken. Of course, Turkey and the central Iraqi government oppose such a move, but it is probably inevitable. It is encouraging that Iraqi Kurdistan has benefited from the invasion and largely prospered. A ray of light in a sea of darkness.
Muhammed: Nothing or little is known about Australian-Kurdish relations. To the best of your knowledge, how does Australia view the Kurdish question in Iraq?
Loewenstein: There is a stable Kurdish population in Australia that receives little media coverage or discrimination, as far as I know. When the largest protest in the country’s history took place in 2003 against the Iraq war, the Kurds here were one of the few groups, aside from the Howard government, to encourage America to invade. In terms of Australian attitudes towards the Kurdish question, this is a difficult question. There is general sympathy for groups that are legitimately calling for a homeland – such as the Palestinians – but the issue receives little attention. My gut feeling is that there would be concern over creating a Kurdish state and increasing instability in the region.
Muhammed: What will happen of the coalition forces withdraw from Iraq prematurely? Regardless of the causes of the war and its eligibility, don’t you think it is the responsibility of the invading forces to restore peace and order before leaving Iraq?
Loewenstein: The international community certainly have a responsibility to assist the Iraqis, but poll after poll has found since 2003 that a majority of Iraqi people want foreign troops to leave. Indeed, much of the insurgency is directed at foreign troops. I fear that the Western powers will continually say that the country is too unstable to withdraw troops, therefore ensuing an endless occupation (something seemingly suggested by Republican presidential nominee John McCain.) There are other ways to support the country other than American troops, such as food aid, infrastructure support, financial compensation and the UN.
Muhammed: What are your general recommendations and advice for the future US Policy in Iraq?
Loewenstein: The US operates under the delusion that it had and continues to have the right to occupy Iraqi indefinitely. The countless examples of abuse committed by US troops against the Iraqi people must be compensated. Lessons must be learned, namely that the mentality that led the country to invade a nation that didn’t threaten it in any way has been counter-productive, weakened Israel, emboldened Iran and allowed China and India to continue to challenge Washington’s dominance of the globe, not a bad thing, in my opinion.
Iranian blogger Omid Memarian, currently living in California, explains to his readers the apparent appeal of the current presidential race:
Many Iranians are obsessed with Barack Obama. If he goes to Iran, I’m sure he could fill Tehran’s Azadi Stadium, which has a capacity of 100,000. To a large extent this is because of the nature of Obama’s message about change and hope. Iranian people truly want to change their situation, get rid of decades of marginalization and restore their reputation in the world. They feel connected to his message of change. They are tired of living under the threat of economic sanctions and military attacks. Obama’s remark about initiating a dialogue with Iran translated for many Iranians into hopes of normalizing the relationship between the countries and Iran rejoining the international community. For many Iranian women struggling for women’s rights, Hillary is incredibly inspiring. Senator McCain, on the other hand, they see as just as a third term of President Bush, and I see no reason for them to connect to him.
Glenn Greenwald, civil libertarian, blogger and author, discusses the themes in his new book Great American Hypocrites: Toppling the Big Myths of Republican Politics, conservatives’ bogus anti-government rhetoric as they preside over the biggest growth of government ever, their contempt for the Constitution they claim to venerate as they consolidate all power constitutional and otherwise in the presidency, the legacy of William F. Buckley in destroying what was once conservatism with the ex-communism of the neoconservatives, the cowardice of the War Party’s leaders, the parallels between the media’s love for Bush in 2000 and for McCain today, the shallowness and self-serving narcissism of American media figures, Attorney General Mukasey’s lies about what the law says and does and fictional versions of phone calls between terrorists before 9/11 in order to justify further expansions of power over us.
My following article appears in today’s ABC Unleashed:
The 1979 Iranian Revolution continues to reverberate around the world.
Iranian-born professor of political science at Reed College, Darius Rejali, recently said that torture was a key “inspiration” for the revolution. “It pulled all the radicals to their side,” he said. “It was a revolution about human rights, not about religion. [Ayatollah] Khomeini rode that bandwagon into power.”
After decades of American meddling, many Iranians remain highly sceptical of Western interference in their internal affairs. It is a message I received constantly during my visit last year.
Even the so-called reformists, hailed in the West as an alternative to fundamentalist rule, believe in shunning contact with Israel, pursuing a nuclear program and maintaining a strictly Islamic nation.
The recent elections delivered a mild rebuke to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the elevation of former nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani. The unelected Guardian Council disqualified 1700 reformists, but many former Ahmadinejad supporters have also started to publicly criticise his economic plans that have led to skyrocketing inflation.
His inflammatory rhetoric against America and Israel has resulted in economic sanctions that hurt average citizens. His electoral base is starting to rebel. However, a recent poll by an organisation backed by Republican presidential nominee John McCain, found the opposite, with many Iranians still supportive of Ahmadinejad’s policies.
Mohammad Khoshchehreh, a former confidante of Ahmadinejad who now calls himself a “principalist”, says that he worries the President’s failed policies might leave people disappointed with religion. “The failure of the government would make the system pay the price, and society will move towards secularism,” he warned.
Many young voters expressed disillusionment with the election process. “What is the point of voting in an election when the result is known in advance?”, one man said in the south of Tehran. Women have suffered disproportionately under Ahmadinejad’s regime, at once determined to express their independence in public but forced to maintain a modicum of conservatism to appease the predominantly male clerics.
I saw house parties in Iran that revealed the hedonism familiar in the West. A hostess at an underground party told The Guardian her life was a constant juggling act. “The question of public and private is the only real issue of interest in Iran today,” she said. “For me the public space is surrounded by four walls. It is only here – in private – that I’m free.”
Despite risking arrest, hundreds of students protested at Shiraz University in early March against “gender apartheid”. Authorities had insisted on separating men and women in different classrooms.
Bloggers led the coverage after the event, highlighting the bravery of the students who chanted: “The university is not a military base.” International Women’s Day on March 8 was also an opportunity for bloggers to lament the freedoms they have lost since the 1979 Revolution.
The Iranian Culture Ministry continues to demonstrate its determination to transform Iran into a monochrome landscape. It recently shut down a handful of lifestyle magazines covering the life of “corrupt” foreign film stars. The ministry said its actions were against publications that used “photos of artists… as instruments (to arouse desire), publishing details about their decadent private lives, propagating medicines without authorisation, promoting superstitions.”
Ahmadinejad’s rise has mirrored the trajectory of America’s neo-conservatives. In a compelling new book, Iran and the Rise of the Neoconservatives, authors Anoushiravan Ehteshami and Mahjoob Zweiri argue that both groups eschew complexity for a simplistic perspective of “good” and “evil”. The results speak for themselves.
The fear of a military strike against the Islamic Republic, conducted by America or Israel, remains real but less likely in the short term. The unspoken truth about Iran’s consolidation of regional successes since the disastrous Iraq war is its challenge to the Jewish state’s hegemony. Washington refuses to tolerate such an offence.
I found Iran utterly removed from its belligerent image in the West. Extremism undoubtedly lives and breathes in the country, but a robust blogosphere, Western-friendly youth and rebellious art scene refuses easy classification.
A proud people deserve better than living under the threat of a permanent threat of war by the world’s only super-power and its Jewish client state.
Iranian blogger Hoder explains that the majority of Iranians, according to a new poll, support President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s policies:
A lot is being published and said these days about ahmadinejad’s diminishing appeal. But aside from this recent parliament elections, I have another reason to say that it is all wishful thinking.
Just take a look at this recent poll results (full PDF version) on Iran, done by the American ‘Terror Free Tomorrow’ research institution (we’re talking John McCain, Lee H. Hamilton, William H. Frist, and Thomas H. Kean on its board).
Satisfaction with Ahmadinejad’s economic policies, the poll results show, has nearly doubled since last June. 42% now think that “economy is headed toward the right direction,” from 27% last June.
Many progressives in the West have long believed that a majority of Iranians crave a more moderate government. I’m not so sure. Many certainly do, but a strong Islam is vital to many Iranians. Having said that, the conservative forces in the country consistently slander and isolate any possible reformist push.
Welcome to the modern face of the Republican Party.
Zogby International polling reveals that the American public aren’t too fond of the mainstream media:
Two thirds of Americans - 67% - believe traditional journalism is out of touch with what Americans want from their news, a new We Media/Zogby Interactive poll shows.
The survey also found that while most Americans (70%) think journalism is important to the quality of life in their communities, two thirds (64%) are dissatisfied with the quality of journalism in their communities.
Meanwhile, the online survey documented the shift away from traditional sources of news, such as newspapers and TV, to the Internet - most dramatically among so-called digital natives - people under 30 years old.
Exhibit A for their dissatisfaction.
After winning an Oscar for his documentary Taxi to the Dark Side, Alex Gibney has a new target in his sights:
The filmmaker who won an Academy Award Sunday night for best documentary is next turning his attention to the Jack Abramoff scandal, including GOP presidential candidate John McCain’s role in investigating the affair.
Alex Gibney, who made last year’s “Taxi to the Dark Side,” about the lethal interrogation of an Afghani taxicab driver by American military forces, told Politico his Abramoff film would be coming out later this year. Its tentative title: “Casino Jack and the United States of Money.”
“The film should give viewers a greater understanding, in a blow-by-blow way, of how the political process works, particularly with regards to lobbying,” Gibney says. “This movie will have it all: wild international intrigue, money changing hands in unexpected places, etc. It will be fun. As someone said about an earlier picture I made: ‘It’s a comedy that turns into farce and ends up in horror.’”
The global arms industry is one of the most insidious businesses in the world.
But the American political elite is addicted to the rewards.
Ever feel like you’ve heard this somewhere before?
What could be more important than funding more wars around the world?
Voices without Votes is a new project that “opens a window on what non-Americans are saying in blogs and citizen media about US foreign policy and the 2008 presidential elections.”
Take a Haitian blogger on the US election or the Arab world on Barack Obama and religion.
The key issue in the 2008 American election: bullshit:
Welcome to the (likely) Republican presidential nominee, John McCain (more wars, please):
Barack Obama is a glossy Uncle Tom who would bomb Pakistan. Hillary Clinton, another bomber, is anti-feminist. John McCain’s one distinction is that he has personally bombed a country. They all believe the US is not subject to the rules of human behaviour, because it is “a city upon a hill”, regardless that most of humanity sees it as a monumental bully which, since 1945, has overthrown 50 governments, many of them democracies, and bombed 30 nations, destroying millions of lives.
