A Second Look Rotating Header Image

Afghanistan

Defunding Oil Rich Terrorist States is a Win-Win Situation (Video)

May 6th, 2010
by Tom.
1 comment

Support VoteVets.org

Re: Think Progress » Saudi-Funded Fox News Rejects Ad Arguing Against Middle East Oil Dependence

Last week, progressive veterans organization VoteVets.org released an ad arguing that “a clean energy climate plan would cut our dependence on foreign oil in half and cut oil profits for hostile nations.” The ad asserts that “every day, Iran gets $100 million richer selling oil around the world and peddling hate.”

While CNN and MSNBC have aired the ad, Fox News is refusing to do so. Politico reports Fox apparently found the ad “too confusing.”

Watch the ad:

What I find remarkable about this ad is that the folks at VoteVets.org have found the ultimate sanction against Iran that simultaneously helps fix the environment. Think about it. When we divert research and development funds away from big oil and to renewable forms of energy we can defund the Saudis, Iraq, Dubai, and Iran and all the other oil producing nations that support terrorism, in one form or another. Remember that almost all the 9/11 skyjackers were Saudi, not Iraqi. We can do that while cleaning our waterways, lessening the impact of offshore oil drilling, and setting up a beautiful future for our kids and grandkids.

But you can bet that if something clever and good for the working man comes along Fox News will refuse it. It will come to pass that the oil companies go the way of the horse and buggy. It is just a matter of time. There is only so much oil to be had and after they wring out every drop of it out of the earth, then what? SO, why not jump on the bandwagon and herald in a new age before that crisis hits?

In a statement issued to ThinkProgress, Richard Smith, a senior adviser to VoteVets who served in Afghanistan, says “the only confusing thing” is why Fox is rejecting the ad:

“There’s nothing confusing about the link between oil and terrorist funding, and even the most dyed-in-the-wool neocons agree on that point. The only confusing thing here is why FOX News would reject an ad that calls on Congress to defund our enemies by finding new sources of energy.”

It’s unclear what Fox News’ motivations are. As Media Matters has documented, the network is a reliable source of misinformation on clean energy reform. Interestingly, Saudi oil tycoon Prince Alwaleed bin Talal owns a 7 percent stake in Fox News’ parent company News Corp, making him the largest shareholder outside the family of CEO Rupert Murdoch. But Murdoch has said the he is for a mandatory cap on carbon emissions and believes that Fox News ought to be covering the issue differently.

It is always very clear as to what Fox News’ motivations are. They probably coordinate with the GOP before they air any kind of ad, especially one that advocates clean air. They will misinform the public through omission. It’s like I’ve always said – the more you watch Fox News, the more misinformed you become.

___________________________________________________________________

Share

No Praise for Warmongering From This Blogger

Dec 11th, 2009
by Tom.
1 comment

Re:  ‘Obama Doctrine’ Praised By Conservatives After Nobel Speech, The Huffington Post   |  Rachel Weiner First Posted: 12-11-09 08:21 AM   |   Updated: 12-11-09 09:04 AM

Conservatives reacted with shock and disdain to President Obama’s Nobel prize, and some attacked his speech on Afghanistan before he even delivered it. But now many on the right are lauding Obama’s lecture in Oslo defending the use of American power.

Let’s jump in the way-back machine for a second and take a second look at the Democratic presidential primaries. For me, back in late 2007, I admired Governor Bill Richardson for his resume and all his heroic diplomatic accomplishments. I was glad he was running and I opened up my checkbook for him – some. Then I started actually listening to what he and other candidates were saying and that is when I, and my support dollars (some), gravitated over to Congressman Dennis Kucinich. Dennis stood for impeachment of Bush and Cheney. I liked that. None of the other candidates spoke of these things in the same way. He stood against war I liked that, too. He said:

Contrary to popular assumptions, massive spending for war does not create jobs. It costs jobs. War spending is capital-intensive, not labor-intensive. War creates unemployment.

Here’s Dennis talking about the uselessness of the escalation of war in Afghanistan on MSNBC, The Ed Show, December 1, 2009:

 

 

Back in early 2008 my list of favorites for president had Barack Obama closer to the bottom of the list just above Hillary, who was dead last. My top three picks were 1. Dennis Kucinich, 2. Bill Richardson, 3. John Edwards (there are two Americas!). Then reality set in as time went on and I threw my full support behind Barack Obama, knowing he was not a progressive, but a centrist. [Remember his statement (paraphrased): we’re not a blue America, or a red America, we’re the United States of America? You can’t get more centrist than that.]

The truth is that we are very much a blue America. A majority of Americans tend to agree with Democratic Party values.

Hillary is also a centrist, only she would have been even more hawkish than Obama. Her vote in favor of the AUMF for Iraq, her support for military action against whoever threatens Israel, and her involvement with the DLC put her at the bottom of my list. But Obama spoke of a right war versus a wrong war all through the campaign and the decision to escalate now should come as no surprise to anyone.

Barack spoke of turning our attention away from Iraq, and back to Afghanistan. This is quoted from The Boston Globe, July 15th, 2008, “If another attack on our homeland comes, it will likely come from the same region where 9/11 was planned,” he said in a speech in Washington. “And yet today, we have five times more troops in Iraq than Afghanistan.” President Obama went on to say in his July, 2008 policy speech in Washington, DC:

“It is unacceptable that almost seven years after nearly 3,000 Americans were killed on our soil, the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 are still at large,” he said. “Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahari are recording messages to their followers and plotting more terror. The Taliban controls parts of Afghanistan. Al Qaeda has an expanding base in Pakistan that is probably no farther from their old Afghan sanctuary than a train ride from Washington to Philadelphia.”

This has been his policy since he first announced his candidacy. So why is it just now that the Republicans are hearing him?

A spokesperson for House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) added, “As President Reagan said, Republicans believe in peace through strength, and we were pleased that today President Obama addressed and defended our mission in Afghanistan, where success is the only option.”

Erick Erickson, the conservative founder of RedState.com, wrote, “I was surprised by Obama’s speech. Parts sounded like full throated support for the Bush doctrine.”

Rory Cooper, the director of strategic communications for the Heritage Foundation, said: “It was a speech that defended America’s pursuit of liberty and freedom, and defended our global leadership and military might.”

Maybe it was them that were trying way too hard to paint Obama as a far-left Socialist when he is obviously a centrist and a hawk, like Hillary Clinton. One thing he surely is not, and that is a progressive like Dennis Kucinich. Maybe they should re-think this:

Obama the Joker

_________________________________________________________________________

Share

Sure, The Afghanistan Government Is Corrupt, But What Are Our Choices?

Dec 9th, 2009
by Tom.
No comments yet

Re:  Taliban establishes elaborate shadow government in Afghanistan – washingtonpost.com

LAGHMAN, AFGHANISTAN — Like nearly all provinces in Afghanistan, this one has two governors.

President Barack Obama with Afghan President Hamid Karzai

And like all stories, this one has two sides. The Washington Post author has shocked us with the reality where in many Afghan provinces Taliban shadow governments operate welcomed by the people. The citizens respect and fear the Taliban, but hate the corruption of the ineffectual Karzai government.

The first was appointed by President Hamid Karzai and is backed by thousands of U.S. troops. He governs this mountainous eastern Afghan province by day, cutting the ribbons on new development projects and, according to fellow officials with knowledge of his dealings, taking a generous personal cut of the province’s foreign assistance budget.

The second governor was chosen by Taliban leader Mohammad Omar and, hunted by American soldiers, sneaks in only at night. He issues edicts on “Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan” stationery, plots attacks against government forces and fires any lower-ranking Taliban official tainted by even the whiff of corruption.

Here’s the crux of the matter, and one that may have been missed by the WaPo. The news agency did a bang-up job explaining that the Taliban has established these shadow governments and cross over in the night to issue orders and dispense their brand of severe control. What the author failed to do was to comfort the dear readers by explaining that we, meaning the US and NATO forces aren’t chopped liver, and are capable of developing strategies to defeat the Taliban whenever they crawl out from under the rocks where they hide.

U.S. military officials say that dislodging the Taliban’s shadow government and establishing the authority of the Karzai administration over the next 18 months will be critical to the success of President Obama’s surge strategy. But the task has been complicated by the fact that in many areas, Afghans have decided they prefer the severe but decisive authority of the Taliban to the corruption and inefficiency of Karzai’s appointees.

President Obama has addressed this problem in last Tuesday’s speech and outlined his solution. Although I don’t agree to any more war, or an escalation of this one, the President has decided to send additional troops, and also a civilian package that could be an effective counter to these Taliban shadow governments.

This push must be joined by a dramatic increase in our civilian effort.  Afghanistan has an elected government, but it is undermined by corruption and has difficulty delivering basic services to its people.  The economy is undercut by a booming narcotics trade that encourages criminality and funds the insurgency.  The people of Afghanistan seek the promise of a better future.  Yet once again, we’ve seen the hope of a new day darkened by violence and uncertainty.

So to advance security, opportunity and justice — not just in Kabul, but from the bottom up in the provinces — we need agricultural specialists and educators, engineers and lawyers. That’s how we can help the Afghan government serve its people and develop an economy that isn’t dominated by illicit drugs.  And that’s why I’m ordering a substantial increase in our civilians on the ground.  That’s also why we must seek civilian support from our partners and allies, from the United Nations and international aid organizations — an effort that Secretary Clinton will carry forward next week in The Hague.

This story is two-fold, and we have a choice. We either go in with both a military and civilian strategy to join with the Afghan government in establishing rational civilian control of the tribal provinces with less emphasis on war and more on enabling Karzai, or we give them back to the Taliban who will then support al Qaeda. Which choice would you prefer? We have no choice except to support Karzai. The question is how.

Share
← Earlier Posts
You are protected by wp-dephorm: