Thumbing through old newspapers from the last millenium, in the year
2000, I am haunted by the young faces of that seemingly innocuous
presidential campaign--seeing George Bush the Third dressed in full
head cheerleader garb and holding up a megaphone with a giant A on it
for his Alma Mater Andover, flanked by Al Gore touting his energy
policy and trying to deflect questions about improper campaign
donations.

Back then we had a "projected surplus," and gas prices had topped $2 a
gallon nationally, sending Americans into a whine-fest and prompting
boy-faced Bush to claim he wasn't as in bed with oil companies as Gore
because he hadn't proposed subsidies for natural gas exploration, and
that as president he would amicably pressure OPEC to "open the
spigots" so Americans could have their cherished black gold for less
than the price of clean water.

Of course the elephants in the room back then that no media pundit
sought to make a fuss about were Iraq and Al-Qaeda, and our dependence
on economic hitmen and foreign entanglements to keep our slumping
economy technically afloat. My how the spigots have flown in seven
years; yet what's come out of them has certainly not been any blacker
than before.

The Prussian military theorist Carl von Clausewitz stated, "no one
starts a war--or rather, no one in his senses ought to do so--without
first being clear in his mind what he intends to achieve by that war
and how he intends to conduct it."

Whatever shifting rationale existed publicly for invading and
occupying Iraq and Afghanistan--preventing terrorism, promoting
democracy, eliminating WMD-producing-related-activities, honoring the
death of soldiers--it's been clear that these were all wishful
corrollaries to one central mission: getting out of Saudi Arabia while
establishing a long-term dominant force position in the most volatile
region of the world, the oil-rich and foreign-investment hungry Middle
East, a position whose payoff for its creators must inevitably
surmount that of even longer-term deficits and a total loss of respect
and credibility in the "international community."

One can only assume that there was at one point a clarity of purpose
and we have now entered the decade of damage control and stalemating
games. With peak oil being reached within the next decade or having
already come and gone, a century of Pax Americana couldn't last with
unfettered access to only Iraqi and Central Asian oil. There's a new
elephant in the room, or perhaps the same as it ever was, and it goes
by the name of Iran.

Surrounded on all sides by US naval, airforce, and military
deployments, Iran sits smugly on the largest oil field in the world,
and though many Americans have forgotten our sordid history with Iran,
the Iranians will never forget it, and are brimming with pride about
how they have deterred our aggression over the decades, and more than
ready to take us on again if it means uniting the Islamic world
against the "Great Satan" and it's neverending ally Israel.

Chillingly reminiscent of our "diplomacy" with Iraq in 2002, faced
with the possibility of nuclear-weapons-related-activities in Iran,
the Bush Administration has pressed the UN to set ultimatums and
sanctions, and failed due to a veto threat by Germany, and has acted
as if the Congress has no authority to prevent the executive branch
from launching another pre-emptive strike, even claiming that the
original authorization for war in 2002 still stands in any future war.

Rumor has it that playing games with the UN again was simply a way to
appease the new "dove" in the Administration, Secretary of State
Condoleeza Rice, and that V.P. Cheney and his clan are yet again
gunning for unilateral and shameless shock and awe bombardment and
regime change, and is settling differences with Condi, who now
proposes building a case for war and consulting meaningfully with
Congress.

Diplomacy having "failed," there is an attempt underway to sanction
a state military, the elite Iranian Revolutionary Guard
Quds Force whose alleged intent is undermining
the progress of the surge underway. One would think,
based on what happened in the spring of 2003, that with all these
chips in place we were inexorably headed to war. Imagine though if in
late 2002 Saddam Hussein flew to New York to visit Ground Zero and
speak to the UN General Assembly and Columbia University. Have we
then not dropped off the precipice?

A rational person might proclaim, "there is no way we can go to war in
Iran while being bogged down in Iraq, don't even worry about it" but
this rationale misses two key words, and that is "ground forces." Fox
News has quoted an administration source that plans are being laid
that call for a possible air war against Iran in 8-10 months, after
candidates have been selected but before the general election. The
Telegraph quotes an senior intelligence official as saying, the US
military has "two major contingency plans" for air strikes on Iran.
"One is to bomb only the nuclear facilities. The second option is for
a much bigger strike that would - over two or three days - hit all of
the significant military sites as well. This plan involves more than
2,000 targets."

The Sunday Times reports that a Cold War secret taskforce codenamed
Project Checkmate was reinstated in June, "reports directly to General
Michael Moseley, the US Air Force chief, and consists of 20-30 top air
force officers and defence and cyberspace experts with ready access to
the White House, the CIA and other intelligence agencies." The
Project develops the most high-tech scenarios to augment planning that
has been two years in the making already, and does not limit itself to
Iran, but includes contingencies for North Korea and China as well.
Ostensibly plans include possibly employing for the first time the
tactical nukes we've heard so much about.

All options are on the table, and war will only be used as a last
resort. War will foster peace. Sound familiar? The question begs the answers:
we aren't really seeking a peaceful resolution, our precision weapons will kill
innocent civilians, we aren't prepared for the inevitable
radicalization and insurgency, and the lame-duck presidency needs no
standards of accountability, ready to start a war at the eleventh hour
and let its successors deal with the fallout. Literally.

So at this point, we need to be vocal in pressing for diplomacy and
compromise, and start demanding answers from our illustrious and
crowded field of presidential contenders: what are you doing right now
to prevent or support this lunacy, and really, what is your policy on
Iran? Do you support the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive strikes on a
state lacking an imminent threat? Are you as good as your word?
Would you rather launch a war or follow the will of the American
people? Let's break it down then to the major candidates and see what
we can't dredge up:

Rudy Giuliani: Nothing on his website. Recent statements:

4/07 "In the long term [Iran might be] more dangerous than Iraq.
Their movement has already displayed more aggressive tendencies by
coming here and killing us." Mr. Giuliani was asked in an interview
to clarify that, inasmuch as Iran had no connection to the Sept. 11
attacks. "They have a similar objective in their anger at the modern
world."

6/07 New Hampshire debate, on using tactical nukes in Iran: "I think
it could be done with conventional weapons, but you can't rule out
anything and you shouldn't take any option off the table. Part of the
premise of talking to Iran has to be that they have to know very
clearly that it is unacceptable to the United States that they have
nuclear power." Giuliani slammed the Islamic Republic as "a nuclear
threat, not just because they can deliver a nuclear warhead with
missiles; they're a nuclear threat because they are the biggest state
sponsor of terrorism and they can hand nuclear materials to
terrorists." 9/5/07: "America has to have a clear position. The
position should be that Iran is not going to be allowed to go nuclear.
Senator McCain put it very well a few months ago. He said it would be
very, very dangerous to take military action against Iran, but it
would be even more dangerous if Iran were a nuclear power. And I think
a president has to make that very clear."

9/19/07: "The policy of the United States of America should be very,
very clear: we will use any option we believe is in our best interest
to stop them from being a nuclear power." "The question is do you
drift more towards war by being weak and ambiguous. Or do you drift
less toward war by being strong decisive and clear? As l review the
20th century, we have more often, if not almost exclusively, drifted
more toward war when we were ambiguous weak and unclear than we have
when we have been clear. There is a sort of liberal, elite notion of
the opposite of that, but history refutes that."

Hillary Clinton: Nothing on campaign website. Recent statements:

4/06: "I have said publicly no option should be off the table, but I
would certainly take nuclear weapons off the table. This
administration has been very willing to talk about using nuclear
weapons in a way we haven't seen since the dawn of a nuclear age. I
think that's a terrible mistake."

1/07 to AIPAC: "A nuclear Iran is a danger to Israel, to its neighbors
and beyond. The regime's pro-terrorist, anti-American and anti-Israel
rhetoric only underscores the urgency of the threat it poses. U.S.
policy must be clear and unequivocal: We cannot, we should not, we
must not permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons. In dealing
with this threat ... no option can be taken off the table. To deny
the Holocaust places Iran's leadership in company with the most
despicable bigots and historical revisionists. We need to use every
tool at our disposal, including diplomatic and economic in addition to
the threat and use of military force."

8/07: "I think that presidents should be very careful at all times in
discussing the use or non-use of nuclear weapons... I don't believe
that any presidents should make any blanket statements with respect to
use or non-use of nuclear weapons."

Fred Thompson: Nothing on campaign website. Recent statements:

5/30/07 from National Review Op-ed: If Iran develops nuclear weapons,
the very existence of this tiny nation of Israel will be threatened.
The Iranian regime has left little doubt that it intends to see Israel
"wiped off the map." Hamas is using the same language, not
coincidentally, and has announced it will begin launching missiles
into Israel from the West Bank too. If the world doesn't act to stop
Iran's nuclear ambitions, it must be prepared for the consequences of
Israel defending itself.

6/19/07: "We have a lot of friends in Iran who apparently feel their
leader is trying to drive them off of a militant, religious extremism
cliff. "Some of these problems might work in our favor especially if
we ratcheted the sanctions a bit more. I would think that certainly a
blockade would be a possibility if we could get the international
cooperation to do that. I think regime change might be an option ...
but you can't take the military option off the table."

9/20/07: "I would deny this character [President Ahmadinejad] a visa.
What's he going to do, visit there to get pointers for his own
activities? I wouldn't let him in the country. The Iranian regime is
a threat to Americans and should be dealt with accordingly. They've
been killing Americans here and there all over the world for some
time. They're doing so in Iraq today.

Barack Obama: Hidden in his online Answer Center is this position and
link to his AIPAC speech. Past statements:

09/24/04: the U.S. "should take no option, including military action,
off the table, sustained and aggressive diplomacy combined with tough
sanctions should be our primary means to prevent Iran from building
nuclear weapons. In light of the fact that we're now in Iraq, with
all the problems in terms of perceptions about America that have been
created, us launching some missile strikes into Iran is not the
optimal position for us to be in. On the other hand, having a radical
Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse. So I guess
my instinct would be to err on not having those weapons in the
possession of the ruling clerics of Iran. And I hope it doesn't get to
that point."

3/02/07 to AIPAC: "As the U.S. redeploys from Iraq, we can recapture
lost influence in the Middle East. We can refocus our efforts to
critical, yet neglected priorities, such as combating international
terrorism and winning the war in Afghanistan. And we can, then, more
effectively deal with one of the greatest threats to the United
States, Israel and world peace: Iran. The world must work to stop
Iran's uranium enrichment program and prevent Iran from acquiring
nuclear weapons. It is far too dangerous to have nuclear weapons in
the hands of a radical theocracy. And while we should take no option,
including military action, off the table, sustained and aggressive
diplomacy combined with tough sanctions should be our primary means to
prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons. Iran's President
Ahmadinejad's regime is a threat to all of us.

8/02/07: "'I think it would be a profound mistake for us to use
nuclear weapons in any circumstance . . . involving civilians. Let me
scratch that. There's been no discussion of nuclear weapons. That's
not on the table."

9/12/07: "Iran poses a grave challenge. It builds a nuclear program,
supports terrorism, and threatens Israel with destruction. But we hear
eerie echoes of the run-up to the war in Iraq in the way that the
President and Vice President talk about Iran. They conflate Iran and
al Qaeda, ignoring the violent schism that exists between Shiite and
Sunni militants. They issue veiled threats. They suggest that the time
for diplomacy and pressure is running out when we haven't even tried
direct diplomacy. Well George Bush and Dick Cheney must hear - loud
and clear - from the American people and the Congress: you don't have
our support, and you don't have our authorization for another war."

John McCain: Nothing from the Straight Talk Express, now re-dubbed "No
Surrender." Recent statements:

1/06 to NPR: "We cannot take the military option off the table, but we
have to make it very clear it's the last option."

1/22/06: "A nuclear capability in Iran is unacceptable. Put yourself
in the position of the Israeli government. Your first obligation is to
defend your people. And here's a country whose president calls for the
eradication of your country from the map." McCain said that the
Iranian nuclear program presents the U.S. with "the most serious
crisis we have faced - outside of the entire war on terror - since the
end of the Cold War."

4/07: "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran," he sang to the tune of Beach
Boys' "Barbara Ann." McCain then added, "Iran is dedicated to the
destruction of Israel. That alone should concern us but now they are
trying for nuclear capabilities. I totally support the President when
he says we will not allow Iran to destroy Israel."

John Edwards: The only top-tier Democrat with a page on Iran, who
also speaks of incentives as part of a carrot-and stick approach.
Recent statements:

1/07: Let me be clear: Under no circumstances can Iran be allowed to
have nuclear weapons. For years, the US hasn't done enough to deal
with what I have seen as a threat from Iran. To ensure that Iran never
gets nuclear weapons, we need to keep ALL options on the table. Let me
reiterate -- ALL options must remain on the table . . . As to the
American people, this is a difficult question. The vast majority of
people are concerned about what is going on in Iraq. This will make
the American people reticent toward going for Iran. But I think the
American people are smart if they are told the truth, and if they
trust their president. So Americans can be educated to come along with
what needs to be done with Iran.

From website: "Iran represents a great challenge for the United
States. We can best prevent Iran from threatening our interests
through a 'smart power' strategy that will combine carrots and sticks,
direct engagement, and international pressure to convince moderate
Iranians that they cannot and must not pursue nuclear weapons."

Mitt Romney: Under his issue section "Defeating the Jihadists" is his position on Iran:

There are few more urgent priorities for our nation than confronting Iran's
dangerous nuclear program and support of terrorist groups targeting Americans.
Governor Romney has led efforts to stand up to an Iranian regime that
threatens America, Israel, and ultimately the world. At the 2007
Herzliya Conference in Israel, Governor Romney laid out a comprehensive,
five point strategy for dealing with Iran. Specifically, we must:
- First, continue to tighten economic sanctions.
- Second, impose diplomatic isolation on Iran's Government.
- Third, have Arab states join this effort to prevent a nuclear Iran.
- Fourth, make it clear that while nuclear capabilities may be a source of
pride, it can also be a source of peril. The military option
remains on the table.
- Fifth, integrate our strategy into a broader approach to the broader Muslim world--
including working with our NATO allies and with progressive Muslim communities
and leaders to build a partnership for prosperity.

6/07 New Hampshire debate, on a nuclear strike on Iran: "You don't
take options off the table. All over the world we're seeing the same
thing happening, and that is, people are testing the US. We have to
make sure they understand that we're not arrogant. We have resolve.
And we have the strength to protect our interests and to protect
people who love liberty. For that to happen, we're going to have not
just to attack each one of these problems one by one, but say, "How do
we help move the world of Islam so that the moderate Muslims can
reject the extreme?" And for that to happen, we're going to have to
have a strong military and an effort to combine with our allies in
such a way that we combine for an effort to help move Islam towards
modernity. There is a war going on, and we need a broad response to
make sure that these people have a different vision."

Duncan Hunter: Nothing on his campaign website.

6/07 New Hampshire debate, on nuclear strikes on Iran: "I would authorize
the use of tactical nuclear weapons if there was no other way to preempt those
particular centrifuges."

MassMediaMessiah.blogspot.com (cL 2007

Superdome photo courtesy of neworleanstruth.com
Two years ago, 1,836 people would be murdered and over a million displaced in one of the most massive campaigns of effective genocide in the history of the world. No, this would not occur in Africa, South America, Indonesia, or the Middle East while the US would look askance so it could secure its own interests first. No, this was right here at home, on that lazy ol' river we call the Mississippi.

I traveled to New Orleans this past week, and let me be the first to tell you it is a sad state of affairs, with a few rays of hope. Large swaths of the city are still in serious disrepair with some blocks boasting only a few resettled residents. Large debris piles and devastated-beyond-repair houses in the middle of streets have made their way to not-so-sanitary landfills on the edges of town. Volunteers with groups like Common Ground and St. Bernard Project have gutted and removed black mold debris from thousands of homes. Even the soil is slowly decreasing in toxicity with bioremediation projects.

60% of the former population has returned or never left New Orleans, where 80% of the city was underwater two years ago. Rent prices are out of control, and the racial make-up of the city has changed as low-income people have no employment and nowhere to call home anymore, and exist in a diaspora separated from their close-knit extended families. The French Quarter is buzzing, but more like a pesky mosquito than the hornet's nest that previously cavorted there in reverie. It is rare to find a genuine sober smile among residents, but the tourists don't seem to mind too much, even going on "disaster tours" instead of bayou boat rides.

Meanwhile Bush and his caravan of motorbikes and black Suburbans came tear-assing through town the day of commemoration, to tout charter schools and mixed-income housing and to declare while standing in the wasteland of the Lower Ninth Ward that "the town is coming back." His chief of recovery efforts in the Gulf Coast, Don Powell, admitted "frustrations" about the red tape and the "pace of things." But every cloud has its lining:

"I also see a tremendous amount of progress. . . . I see economic vitality in the area. I was down there this past week. It took me 28 minutes to get from the airport to downtown. That's called a traffic jam. You don't have a traffic jam unless there's activity."

With the litany of broken promises and insults to human dignity coming daily from the masters of war in the Middle East, it almost seems to be an exercise in futility to hold them to their word on domestic revitalization. Two years have gone by since one of the worst man-made disasters to ever befall the United States, that being the failure of all levels of government, Army Corps of Engineers, FEMA, National Guard, and American Red Cross to protect American citizens on the Gulf Coast. It nevertheless remains vital to measure the progress made in order to adequately prepare for the continuing struggle to return and rebuild.

Manifested as the most precipitous drop in his popularity in two terms, the public reaction to Bush's promise of renewal on September 15, 2005 seemed to suggest that apathy and disengagement were abating, and indignation and a desire for accountability was finally starting to take root in the contemporary American psyche. The only paradox: how to hold someone accountable that you have lost all faith in? How long can you plead for sanity from a lunatic before he starts destroying everything in his path? And even if he does answer you call, how can you stop him from "accidentally" hurting you even more? Well even if "Bush's Brain" can't be trusted, maybe we can still rely on his Gut to lead the charge to victory:

"Throughout the area hit by the hurricane, we will do what it takes. We will stay as long as it takes to help citizens rebuild their communities and their lives. And all who question the future of the Crescent City need to know: There is no way to imagine America without New Orleans, and this great city will rise again.

In the disaster area and in cities that have received huge numbers of displaced people, we are beginning to bring in mobile homes and trailers for temporary use. To relieve the burden on local health care facilities in the region, we are sending extra doctors and nurses to these areas."

That was nearly two years ago, and two weeks after an offer from Cuba and Venezuela to send as many doctors to the region as there were deceased was outrightly rejected. Since then, the major hospital for low-income patients in New Orleans, Charity, has been closed, and health care is abysmal, supplemented only by volunteer-run neighborhood clinics lacking government assistance and even harassed by law enforcement officials in the critical weeks after Katrina made landfall.

As far as those trailers, after thousands sitting in lots unused finally were distributed, it came to light through nonprofit investigations into reports of respiratory conditions in evacuees that on top of all the other bungling, 2-3 brands of trailers tested unnaturally high levels of airbone formaldehyde. The caustic joke in New Orleans is that the government is helping bury people before they even make it underground.

Meanwhile, the Louisiana-run Road Home program, which provides rebuilding grants to homeowners who had inadequate storm insurance, has sent checks to 44,000 hurricane victims, despite having received more than 184,000 applications and having billions of dollars in the bank. The American Red Cross adjunct "Means to Recovery," funded by American citizens' donations has effectively shut down for applicants after being kept a secret from thousands of residents who could not qualify for the state program.

These people now feel more desperate, hopeless, abandoned, and humiliated than ever. Surely we can honor at least one promise, right Mr. President?

"Our third commitment is this: when communities are rebuilt, they must be even better and stronger than before the storm. Within the Gulf region are some of the most beautiful and historic places in America. As all of us saw on television, there is also some deep, persistent poverty in this region as well. And that poverty has roots in a history of racial discrimination, which cut off generations from the opportunity of America. We have a duty to confront this poverty with bold action.

When the regional economy revives, local people should be prepared for the jobs being created. Americans want the Gulf Coast not just to survive, but to thrive, not just to cope, but to overcome. We want evacuees to come home, for the best of reasons -- because they have a real chance at a better life in a place they love.

To help lower-income citizens in the hurricane region build new and better lives, I also propose that Congress pass an Urban Homesteading Act. Under this approach, we will identify property in the region owned by the federal government, and provide building sites to low-income citizens free of charge, through a lottery.

And the Army Corps of Engineers will work at their side to make the flood protection system stronger than it has ever been."

If Bush's populist rhetoric and class-based assessment matched his actions, and if the National Guard were allowed to do their homeland duties instead of maintaining the kill zones of the Middle East, this revival would be well on track by now. Even a third-grader can see that it's not. Not only are levees only at pre-Katrina Category 3 protection levels, but the wetlands that historically protected the area are diminishing at a rate of 40 square miles of marshland per year. Heckuva job, y'all.

Some type of redevelopment should occur, and long term sustainability should be a paramount concern. However, remunerations for resettlement costs should not fall by the wayside, in the event that areas like the Lower 9th Ward cannot be protected from a 100 year flood and landowners cannot qualify for flood insurance and federal money to elevate their houses. Affordable housing must be heavily subsidized, and the rental and housing market must be regulated to prevent gouging and racial discrimination.

The Works Progress Administration, started by another very unpopular president, Herbert Hoover, would be a good model to follow in restoring the economy through employment of local residents in the rebuilding and rejuvenation of their communities. But this will take a Marshall Plan-sized commitment to the entire region, and a massive diversion of funds from bloated military budgets to domestic aid in order to stave off the US's defaulting on its massive international borrowing and ballooning deficit. Profiteering corporations that thrive off of disasters and resource extraction in the area should bear a heavier tax burden in restoring urban and coastal areas, and in the era of corporate image management, this might not be the worst financial move, especially if done voluntarily.

Barring progress, New Orleans and other coastal cities can't wait for more empty promises from future presidential contenders. A new progressive people's Bloc Party must emerge to either take over the reigns of the bumbling behemoth that is the American Empire, or to organize a massive walk-out--a collective refusal to tacitly participate in the most ignominious imperial project in world history, and a banding together to create a new, most definitely possible, civil society. The time for faith is over. To hell with the hype. Bury the bull. Our warrior-in-chief hath forsaken us, and his heir-apparents want to share in the spoils.