McCain: We need an economic surge

I am not making this up. John McCain on Wednesday claimed that what our faltering economy needs is an "economic surge". Like I said, I am not making this up. I guess he plans on sending 30,000 economists to strategic financial locations across the map. Like John Kerry said this week, it is no secret that John McCain is looking for a veep with more knowledge on the economy than the Arizona senator possesses. As John Kerry so cleverly mused, that puts all of us on the short list. Thank you Senator Kerry, and if you had answered like that four years ago, I would be working on your second term electoral bid.

From CNN:

Sen. John McCain on Wednesday used language primarily associated with the Iraq war to describe the U.S. financial woes, saying the country needs an "economic surge" to boost the job market.

The move put the economy -- an issue McCain has admitted is not his strong suit -- in the context of foreign policy, an area that's considered one of his strengths.

Speaking in Jackson, Ohio, the Republican senator and presidential candidate from Arizona said the surge has worked in Iraq, so it's time for one at home.

"What we need today is an economic surge. The surge has succeeded in Iraq militarily -- now we need an economic surge to keep jobs here at home and create new ones," McCain said, referring to the additional 30,000 troops sent to Iraq in 2007.

Travis Childers Comments On Iraq From Iraq

From a press release:

"Yesterday, I had the opportunity to participate in several briefings at the U.S. Embassy and meet with local Iraqi leaders on the state of Iraq's economy. I remain convinced that the Iraqi government needs to step up its own efforts to strengthen and repair the country's economic situation.

"Our own economy is taking a huge hit every day that we stay in Iraq. We are spending billions of dollars on a daily basis, which is damaging to our country beyond the dollar amount itself. Funds spent in Iraq are funds we can't spend at home to invest in sources of alternative energy, job growth, and economic development.

"North Mississippians would like to see our troops return home sooner rather than later, and I am for bringing our soldiers back honorably and safely. That being said, I believe our fine men and women serving overseas are doing an amazing job. The opportunity to travel to Iraq has given me an even greater understanding and appreciation of our soldiers' dedication to protecting our freedoms and I am truly in awe of the challenging work they do every day. Now it is time for the Iraqis to take increased responsibility."

- Travis Childers

Travis Childers visits Iraq

Travis Childers joined a congressional delegation on an official visit to Iraq. The Northeast Mississippi Daily Journal had this to report.

He and five other members of Congress arrived in Kuwait City on Saturday, Iraq time, and spent Sunday traveling across Iraq. The first trip was to Baghdad via a C-130 cargo plane.

After a security briefing, the group went to see a facility featuring MRAPS, or mine-resistant ambush-protected armored vehicles.

"(It) is very interesting to me, partly because one of the MRAPS, possibly two of them, various ones, were made in our district in North Mississippi, in West Point, Clay County, Miss.," he said, referring to the armored vehicles designed to survive roadside bombs. "I had a great visit with the men there. I have some wonderful pictures of the MRAPS in action."

Shock Doctrine 101

Gas prices are at an all-time high, oil is over $134 a barrel and steaming towards $200 a barrel and now two very interesting pieces of news from the political world of the oil and gas industry emerge in one week. First, the GOP leadership, manifested by the current President George W. Bush, and the Republican nominee Senator John McCain, make a complete about face on the issue of offshore drilling. Second, after over 30 years in exile, Big Oil finds its way back in to the lucrative business of servicing the gushing Iraqi oil fields.

These separate events, when viewed through a collective lens, offer a perfect example of radical right wing measures being pushed on a populous staggering from the effect of an economic "shock", in what Naomi Klein would describe in detail in her brilliant book "The Shock Doctrine". The most impressive book I have read in quite some time is Naomi Klein's "The Shock Doctrine", and I would highly recommend it to anyone interested in a book on the effects of globalization.

Without giving a complete book review, allow me to give brief insight in to the central premise of "The Shock Doctrine". Klein suggests that extreme right-wing measures such as mass privatization, complete economic deregulation, and the opening of all financial markets to foreign investment, most especially when dealing with the opening of new markets and the expansion of free market capitalism, have always been accompanied by a "shock". The shock may come in the form of a natural disaster, war, or even as an economic shock.

While under the effects of a shock, people are willing to part with freedoms, rights, and public properties, among many others just to bring back a semblance of stability. A perfect example of this phenomenon would be the mass privatization of the New Orleans public schools after Hurricane Katrina. Instead of fixing the publicly owned school system, a for-profit charter school system was created in its place. New Orleans now only has four public schools remaining, yet the taxpayers would not be able to reflect such in their tax bill, since their tax dollars now go to fund the charter schools, something they as citizens have zero stake in. For reference Jackson Mississippi has over 60 public schools in the Jackson Public School District. Certainly the people of New Orleans would have never allowed this grab of public property for private gain had they not been under the stress of as a severe a shock we have seen in the U.S. in modern times.

The rapid rise of the price of oil over the the last few years has created an economic shock now being manifested in the pocketbooks of everyday Americans as well as the rising costs of operation for industry nationwide. People are faced with making hard decisions as the size of their fuel budgets have now risen to levels comparable to their housing and food budgets. Industries are facing the stress of the rising costs of production and distribution.

Americans are notorious procrastinators. Even though many pointy headed intellectuals (Carter, Gore to name a pair) have insisted that we are on borrowed time as an oil-based economy, we have for the most part ignored their advice and continued to enjoy the benefits of artificially low gas prices. Now in a brief seven year period we have seen the price of gas nearly triple. Real economic pain with its accompanying fear of worse pain, is the "shock" now being collectively felt across the country.

Big Oil has made an all out media campaign calling for the immediate opening of ANWR and to lift the moratorium on offshore drilling. The right wing political machine sees a golden opportunity for a political two-for-one. One, they get to make political points with the public by offering a "solution" to the gas price shock, by calling for more drilling. Granted they are counting on an uninformed public, and for a change it looks like the mainstream media is not buying their argument. Two, they get to scratch the backs of one of the most powerful GOP lobbies, Big Oil, and do it under the cover of the "shock".

Some, including our own Haley Barbour, have gone as far as to blame former President Bill Clinton for the current gas prices. Haley is too smart and too well informed to not know that the demand for oil has increased exponentially with the rise of China, Russia, India, and other emerging market based economies. It is not a problem that a small, time consuming increase in supply can adjust, the demand is just growing too fast.

The more people in China trade in their bicycles for automobiles, the higher the demand on oil. What limited resources we have in the United States (3% of the world's supply), does not match with our demand (25% of the world's demand). Besides any free market economist will tell you that the oil gained by Exxon-Mobile or Shell by drilling would go to the global marketplace to be sold at market price. There is no way the shareholders of these oil behemoths are going to allow the sale of oil in the United States at a fraction of market cost just because it was discovered and harvested from the our own soil.

As any right-winger will tell you, the government has no right to interfere with the market. I certainly don't agree with them, but that is certainly their position. So don't be disillusioned by the false prospect of cheap oil just because our oil industries have access to more oil in the U.S. If you truly believe this, I beg you to ask your Republican leaders what they plan to do with this oil that will be owned by Shell, BP and Exxon-Mobile. I doubt anything comes up about protectionism and keeping the profits down by selling cheap at home. The market is their god.

Let us not forget all of our previous discussions on the myths being purported by the right-wing noise machine related to drilling. It will be year 2030 before any real benefits could possibly be felt in the markets due to an increase in supply. Demand is expanding exponentially, so I don't think a modest gain in supply will effect the market more than pennies on a tank of gas. Don't let them fool you, they know this too. But they think you are so distressed about the price of gas that any B.S. story they manufacture around the need for drilling as a panacea to our energy problems, will have you jumping jump in line to support their money grab. Sad, but true.

I thoroughly detailed the thievery going on Iraq by our oil giants of Iraq's most precious resource, its oil. After being shut out of the Iraq market for over 30 years by Saddam Hussein, Big Oil has found the moment they have been waiting for. Like circling vultures, they have descended upon their wounded prey ready to feed. Never mind that the oil belongs to the people of Iraq to profit from, not our oil and gas corporations. While I am not against foreign investment by our energy corporations, I do oppose the plundering of a nation crippled by war. The people of Iraq would never allow this in normal circumstances, and neither would the people of the U.S.

The "shock" of rising gas prices has created the political environment the oil barons have been waiting for to make these outlandish moves. While I do not think Big Oil created the gas "shock", at least not directly with intent, but they are looking to use the pain at the pump felt by regular Americans as a means to push through unpopular legislation and outright thievery overseas. This is "The Shock Doctrine" at its finest.

Mission Accomplished (for real this time)

The front page of the New York Times featured a piece on the takeover of Iraq's precious natural resource by Big Oil. Announced Wednesday was the news that Exxon-Mobile, Shell, BP, and Total were in the final stages of negations on an agreement that would open Iraqi oil to the Western based giants for the first time since Saddam nationalized the oil fields over 30 years ago.

Four Western oil companies are in the final stages of negotiations this month on contracts that will return them to Iraq, 36 years after losing their oil concession to nationalization as Saddam Hussein rose to power.

Exxon Mobil, Shell, Total and BP — the original partners in the Iraq Petroleum Company — along with Chevron and a number of smaller oil companies, are in talks with Iraq’s Oil Ministry for no-bid contracts to service Iraq’s largest fields, according to ministry officials, oil company officials and an American diplomat.

The deals, expected to be announced on June 30, will lay the foundation for the first commercial work for the major companies in Iraq since the American invasion, and open a new and potentially lucrative country for their operations.

The no-bid contracts are unusual for the industry, and the offers prevailed over others by more than 40 companies, including companies in Russia, China and India. The contracts, which would run for one to two years and are relatively small by industry standards, would nonetheless give the companies an advantage in bidding on future contracts in a country that many experts consider to be the best hope for a large-scale increase in oil production.

It has been very clear to a lot of us that this was the endgame in the Iraqi struggle as far as the current administration's interests are concerned. Not to mention the prize for Big Oil is "no bid contracts", per the New York Times. That is right NO BID.

The cowardly theft of Iraq's natural resource by Big Oil is beyond deplorable. Iraq has one thing that will help it regain its stature economically and that is its oil. By allowing Big Oil to in essence steal this from the people of Iraq, in turn we will have allowed the second occupation of Iraq. This one being as morally bankrupt as the first.

I'm Voting Republican...

I'm Voting Republican.

Five years since "Mission Accomplished"

Specifics On McCain's Scheduled Stop in Mississippi

*Mon Mar 31, 2008 *
9:30am McCain: Speech in Meridian, MS
*Where: *2200 Fifth St., Meridian, MS
*Description: *"Service t o America" tour - Speech at Mississippi State
University at 8:45 a.m. The event will be held at the Riley Center.
*Tracking Scheduled*


I'd go if I lived anywhere near Meridian. Be sure to bring questions about the Keating 5, Staying in Iraq indefinitely, violating campaign finance laws he wrote, or not understanding the basics of Iraq and Iran or longterm foreign policy in general. I would.

Peace Rallies In Hattiesburg On Highway 49

I ran into fellow blogger Gene O' at a rally calling for the end of the Iraq war today. (5 years in.)

Here's his post on the war.

DNC TV ad on Iraq

Here's the new DNC ad on Iraq. The five year anniversary is this week. As someone mentioned to me the other day, the Civil War only lasted 4 years and our part in WWI lasted only four years.

This Is America

If we say we are going to raise fuel efficiency standards then we will

I went to Detroit and said that.

We need a leader who will tell us what we need to hear, not simply what we want to hear.

Crowd likes talk about proper training for troops and proper equipment

(Iraq) is distracting us from the battle we should have fought.

The war in Iraq was an unwise war.  That's why I opposed it in 2002 and that's why I'll end it in 2009.

An Awkward and Interesting Race To Come?

From a Sun Herald article I learn that:

Musgrove and Wicker are longtime friends and shared an apartment in Jackson when they served together in the state Senate.

I'm curious as to how this might effect the tone of a Musgrove vs. Wicker race.

Are their bonds still so strong that they would stay away from the low blow?

Will both use surrogates and independent expenditures to do their attacks to avoid looking like they are attacking a friend?

Or will all be fair in love war and (add) politics?


If Musgrove or the DSCC decide that attacking Wicker is a good idea (and it is) Will Bardwell suggests some attacks:

SCHIP: Wicker opposed expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program earlier this year in an effort to deny extension of government-funded health care to 9 million uninsured children. Nearly 50 Republicans supported the bill in the House of Representatives despite the White House's opposition, but Wicker wasn't one of them. Undoubtedly, he'd defend the vote as an exercise in fiscal conservatism, but weighed against the health of 9 million children, that argument could sound hollow -- particularly in a cash-strapped state like Mississippi.

Big Oil: Way back in January, Wicker opposed a Democratic-led bill to repeal tax breaks for U.S. oil companies and fund renewable energy programs. Wicker also has accepted nearly $330,000 from energy companies over his congressional career. Wicker's not the only one, but that only goes to paint him into the just-another-Washington-insider corner. I can't think of any good answer that Wicker could muster.

Iraq: Mississippi is as conservative a state as there is, but Wicker's voting history on the Iraq war might still provide Musgrove some traction. Back in June, a poll showed that more than 40 percent of Republicans favored some form of troop withdrawal from the region, but Wicker has been as steady a rubber stamp for the White House as any member of Congress; as far as I can tell, Wicker has voted to approve all $482 billion for Iraq war funding. That's a big number to have hanging around one's neck for such an unpopular (and continuing) engagement. Even in deep-red Mississippi, this issue can play with moderate-to-mildly conservative voters that usually vote Republican.

Minimum wage: Wicker opposed the narrowly successful effort to raise the minimum wage to $7.25. That vote could be used to hurt Wicker among rural, blue-collar voters that hurt Musgrove in 2003.

College loans: Mississippi has plenty of education problems on its own without Wicker's opposition to a bipartisan effort to cut the interest rates on federally subsidized student loans in half. More than 120 Republican congressmen supported the College Student Relief Act, but Wicker wasn't one of them. Musgrove would do well to make him explain why.

I do hope that whomever we Democrats choose can take the fight with proper financing to the Mississippi and National Republican machines.

Update: Wicker gave Barbour $10,000 in 2003 in his race against Musgrove so I doubt that friendship is still as strong.

Prayers for Peace

One of the best things we can do for our veterans is to stop making more of them.



Jim Wallis' blog

One Year Of Health OR One More Week In Iraq

Will Bardwell On Wicker and the War

Will Bardwell:

If the facts don't support your voting record, then just make up new facts. That's what Rep. Roger Wicker (R-Citizens Council) did in the House of Representatives on Monday night. From the Congressional Record...

The al Qaeda terrorist network that we are fighting in Iraq today is the very same network that brought down those two buildings in New York. They are the very same network that sent a plane crashing into the Pentagon. And they are the very same al Qaeda that had a plane headed toward Washington, DC, which undoubtedly was headed towards the Capitol Building.

We are still fighting al Qaeda, and I appreciate people like Ambassador Crocker and General Petraeus who are fighting that war as capably as they know how. Al Qaeda must be defeated, Mr. Speaker. And our best opportunity, our greatest chance to defeat al Qaeda today is to be successful in Iraq. That’s what I would urge my colleagues to support, and I believe that is what the American people want us to do. I thank my friend for calling this Special Order.

Never mind that Al-Qaeda in Iraq was formed in 2005, some two years after the war began and some four years after 9/11. And never mind that two-thirds of Americans are convinced that the U.S. presence in Iraq is creating terrorism or, at the very least, has no effect on terrorism. And never mind that 60 percent of the country (a new high) wants a concrete deadline for operations in Iraq.

But hey, whatever helps you sleep at night.

The original post includes hyperlinks to info backing Will up at WillBardwell.com

White House: Progress In Iraq

This video appeared on the Daily Show I believe which would explain the laughter:

Guest Post: Vets for America

Senator Lott And Senator Cochran: How In Good Conscience Can You Do This To Our Men And Women In Uniform?

I have a fundamental question for you two – a really simple basic question. One that every American should be asking themselves right now as you – and the rest of our Senators – get ready to return from your month-long break.

When the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said that our troops were at their breaking point, when the Department of Defense reported that our current deployment policies are compounding the wounds of war, causing mental health problems among our troops to skyrocket, and that one of the primary causes was our current policy of deploying troops back to Iraq and Afghanistan without adequate dwell time at home, why didn't you do something about it?

How can you not support a policy where soldiers are deployed for 15 months in Iraq and then receive at least equal time stationed stateside to rest, train, and then fight again? (And at least three times that much at home if they are from the Guard or Reserve.)

Well guess what? You aren't alone. Back in July before you took your summer break, a lot of United States Senators voted against this fundamental act of fairness by voting against the Webb-Hagel Amendment. (click here to see a press conference where I spoke up for this bill before the vote.)

What's shocking to me is that this amendment was sponsored by two veterans, one Democrat and one Republican, and it was a bill that unlike many in D.C. is incredibly simple and – more importantly -- fair to our troops:

At least one month stationed stateside for every month served in Iraq or Afghanistan. It doesn't get any more basic or any more fair than that.

Here is the exact wording of the amendment in case you didn't carefully read it before you voted against it, and our troops.

July 11, 2007, Senate Roll Call Vote 241, HR 1585

The Webb amendment would mandate minimum intervals between deployments for troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. It would require active duty forces to be guaranteed as much time at home as they served while deployed. National Guard and reservists would be guaranteed three years at home between deployments.

Now if you're in Mississippi, and you're reading this -- I frankly don't care if you're a Democrat or Republican, blue or red. I'm asking you, American to American:

How in good conscience can you do this to our men and women in uniform?

Because when your Senators vote against our troops like this, you vote against them too.

But you get another chance.

So next week, when Senator Lott and Senator Cochran and all of our elected officials return to Washington, guess what? There's going to be another dwell time bill waiting for them; this one has already passed in the House of Representatives.

This bill, the Tauscher Bill, like the Webb-Hagel Amendment, offers our troops a fair deployment policy. I hope every single United States Senator votes for this bill. Shame on you, Senators, if you don't.

- Bobby Muller of Veterans for America

Barbour's Firm to Undermine Iraqi Government

From IraqSlogger.com:

Republican lobbyists with close ties to the Bush administration are aiding and supporting the efforts of an Iraqi opposition leader who is calling for the ouster of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

The anti-Maliki crusader is former Iraqi interim prime minister Ayad Allawi, and the Washington firm retained to spearhead U.S.-focused efforts on his behalf is the Republican powerhouse group of Barbour, Griffith, and Rogers (BGR).

BGR International's president is Robert Blackwill, the one-time White House point man on Iraq, holding the title of Presidential Envoy to Iraq in 2004.

What do you think? Let everybody know in the comments.

Republicans Stubborn Enough To Reinstitute The Draft?

George Bush's "War Czar" says it "makes sense to certainly consider (a draft)." The AP Article

Your son, your friend, your family member could go to die in this catastrophe that a strange and dangerous philosophy called neo-conservativism got us into. We must bring this war to an end. Enough is enough.

Lott and Cochran Choose Inaction

From a Clarion Ledger editorial:

Mississippi's Republican U.S. Sens. Thad Cochran and Trent Lott were good George Bush soldiers when they voted to torpedo legislation Wednesday to force the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops from Iraq.

The Defense Authorization Bill vote allowed them to side with the president under cover of "supporting the troops," but they won't have that luxury in September, when it's either put up or shut up time for the administration.

Republicans closed ranks behind their embattled leader, despite dismal support by the American people showing public approval of the war continuing to plummet.
....
But if Democrats were speaking to deaf ears, Republicans are whistling in the dark. The latest USA Today/Gallup Poll shows seven in 10 Americans want nearly all U.S. troops removed from Iraq by April. And Bush is marching toward record low approval.

The USA Today poll shows only Richard Nixon, Harry Truman and Jimmy Carter at their worst had a lower rating.

This is the territory Lott and Cochran are entering by backing the president: Sixty-two percent say the United States made a mistake in sending troops to Iraq, the first time that number has topped 60 percent.