I don't think John McCain really understands that the United States was founded primarily on the ideals and principles of the Enlightenment, rather than simply "Judeo-Christian values.”  Sure, such religious values played an indirect role in the founding of the country, but the fact remains that our founders were convinced that an official state religion should be avoided at all costs.  Indeed, several of our founding fathers - including Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin - were actually deists rather than traditional Christians.  More importantly, the First Amendment guarantees “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”  

John McNicotine is now for the tobacco lobby after years of working against it.  He not only opposes the cigarette taxes he used to support but also opposes FDA regulation of the tobacco industry after years of supporting it.  McNicotine is an ex-smoker and should understand just how addictive nicotine is, and he even acknowledged the exceptionally high death rate for tobacco users when he joked that cigarette exports to Iran were part of his plot to kill Iranian citizens.  For McNicotine to cave in to the tobacco cartel is the ultimate flip-flop:
http://www.boston.com/...

Why has McNicotine caved in to the interests of the tobacco drug cartel?  It couldn't possibly have anything to do with hiring tobacco lobbyist Charlie Black as his senior adviser.  Move along folks.  There's nothing to see here:
http://firedoglake.com/...

Now let's use the traditional Rethug "moral values" and "sanctity of life" frames against McNicotine!  There's more in the flip.

On Friday August 15 the Bush administration sent Condoleezza Rice to meet with Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili as a "show of U.S. support."  Yikes.  They sent Condi?  Talk about giving somebody the goodbye look.  If this were a Marty Scorsese movie, Saakashvili would have been sleeping with the fishes come Saturday morning.  You'd think Keystone Kondi would have lent sufficient slapstick to the Georgian situation, but no.  Adding to the antics, John McCain announced on Friday August 15 that he would send along as his personal representatives Joe Lieberman and Lindsey Graham, the Bea Arthur and Betty White of neoconservatism.  Then, to cap things off, McCain himself dropped the atomic punchline: "In the twenty-first century, nations don't invade other nations."

You could hear irony clawing at its coffin lid.  

ARGH!!!

Last night I met a couple of friends (one was a former student) for dinner. We hadn't planned the dinner, but I was in town after meetings and just hangin out anyway.  Relaxed and usually fun, the discussion turned suddenly very sour.  

Note, the former student is planning to vote Obama, so we'd been talking about possible VP picks as we led into this very heated argument.  

BBC story on purported satellite launch

Iran claims to have launched a satellite, no word on whether this is real, or whether the satellite made orbit. However, if there is an Iranian satellite in orbit, there will be a lot of yelling and screaming tonight from the Wingnuts, so some careful analysis is in order.

From Asia Times, Kaveh L Afrasiabi writes:

Iran gambles over Georgia's crisis

Representing a serious new rift in US-Russia relations, the conflict in the Caucasus, paralyzing the UN Security Council and igniting Cold War-type rhetoric between the two military superpowers, is simultaneously a major distraction from the Iran nuclear crisis and may even spell doom for the multilateralist "Iran Six" diplomacy. This involves the US, Britain, Russia, France, China and Germany in negotiations over Iran's uranium-enrichment program, which some believed is aimed at making nuclear weapons.

Much depends on the scope and duration of the Georgia crisis and, yet, there is also the obverse possibility that Moscow, intent on polishing its tarnished image - as a rogue power coercing its smaller neighbors and violating their territorial sovereignty - may even double its efforts on other fronts to compensate for the damage to its international standing, given the US's threat of kicking Russia out of the Group of Eight.

As far as Iran is concerned, the Georgia crisis is not confined to South Caucasus and has broader implications for region, including Central Asia and the Caspian area, that are both positive and negative. That is, it is a mixed blessing, one that is both an ominous development signaling a new level of Russian militarism as well as a crisis of opportunity, to forge closer ties with Russia and enhance its chance of membership in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, the grouping dominated by Russia and China.

Yet, the immediate gains for Iran may not exceed the net losses in the long run and Tehran may have blundered by not forcefully criticizing Moscow's violation of Georgia's sovereignty. Iran and Georgia have strong historical connections: Iran was in possession of Georgia for some 400 years until the humiliating defeats at the hands of tsarist Russia in the early 19th century, culminating in the Russia-Iran Treaties of Gulistan in 1813 and Turkmanchai in 1828. Under these, about a third of Iranian territory was ceded to Russia, including Georgia and Armenia.

Then and now, Iran remains weary of Russia's imperial intentions and, more recently, this was evident seven years ago when in the aftermath of a failed summit on the division of Caspian Sea, the then-president Vladimir Putin ordered a massive naval maneuver in the Caspian Sea as a stern message to Iran.

Should Putin, now premier, succeed with his "splendid little war" in South Caucasus, Russia's neighbors to the east must expect to see more samples of Russian power projection, again a prospect that simultaneously entices and yet terrifies Iran and is bound to have contradictory policy ramifications for Tehran's decision-makers.

Thus, on the one hand, no matter how cordial present Iran-Russia relations may be, the big neighbor's power and increasing militarism impacts Iran's national security calculus and may strengthen the arguments of those who are in favor of a nuclear defense strategy.

+ + +

The Overnight News Digest is posted and includes the story, Court says ok for jurors to consult Bible passages during death sentencing deliberations, and extensive environmental news.

The only thing to do during times like this is to pop some popcorn and watch and things flail.

Some people complain that the fact Georgia attacked South Ossettia prompting the escalation doesn't make it into the US news narrative.

To this, I say: So?. The following is a lot of background crap that doesn't make it into our news. First, as usual, is energy:

Can Georgia become a kind of a regional hub for transportation of large volumes of gas and oil through the Black Sea to Europe, in particular to Ukraine?
That is our plan. And all prerequisites are available for that. Today we transport gas and electric power from north to south and from east to west, with all the flows going through Georgia so this is a hub. As you know, the oil and gas corporation of Georgia, together with (Azeri state oil company) SOCAR, Ukrainian, Polish and Lithuanian colleagues, have created a company called Sarmatia to develop a route from Odessa to Brody and then further to Gdansk. This is another alternative direction that can be filled with Kazakh oil.

link

Wonder why Poland and Ukraine are so pissed?

I know it is much now in US because of the presidential election. And it is much about it here in Sweden too. The result is important for the whole world. But: still: there is to much silence about the loss of human rights in Iran. I got an urgent message about this today and want to forward it to the rest of the progressive world.

Sometimes the best solution to a vexing problem is right in front of your face.

In this situation, at least two major world and US problems can be solved, today (or at least by next weekend), if only the leaders of the US take grown up actions that are consistent with the values that the United States was founded on.

By speaking about and with Iran fairly and honestly, and by opening up US markets to an increase supply of Iranian oil, the US can ameliorate high gas prices far more rapidly than the proposed off-shore drilling fixes can provide.

The facts are sobering. About 5,000 Americans have been killed, including military personnel, contractors, and aid workers. Another 30,000 or more are wounded, and estimates of those with post-traumatic stress disorder are as high as 300,000. The financial costs are estimated to reach $3 trillion eventually.

Those are just a few of things that give the lie to the notion that Iraq is a success.  And lest someone, say McCain or a supporter, argue that having expended that much in blood and treasure, we are required to "stay the course" we need to ask, as does the article from which I took those words, What counts as 'success' in Iraq?. John Tirman of MIT writes in the Boston Globe that we need to frame this with two questions, (1) is there a favorable and sustainable outcome due to the "surge," and (2) if there is, can we justify the cost.  The paragraph quoted is only part of the costs. I will explore the article, and more broadly, the situation in which we now find ourselves, which also means exploring Bush - and McCain.

Someone emailed me a link to an Alex Jones piece about a buildup of naval forces in the Persian Gulf.  

From the original article (8/12/08)  Kuwait activates emergency war plan as three U.S. warships steam towards Iran :

The largest naval deployment since 1991 is unfolding as no less than three U.S. warships make their way towards the Persian Gulf in what observers are calling an "unprecedented" build-up, while Kuwait has activated its highest war alert in anticipation of a potential attack on Iran.

According to reports, the USS Theodore Roosevelt, the USS Ronald Reagan, and the USS Iwo Jima are steaming towards Middle East waters to reinforce the USS Abraham Lincoln and the USS Peleliu which are already in the region.

They will be joined by a British Royal Navy carrier battle group and a French nuclear hunter-killer submarine.

crossposted to Docudmarma

The Economic Crisis defined by the neocons, isn't the fact that folks are losing their homes/jobs/retirements, etc.  No, Economic Crisis for the neocons is the fact that folks are finally waking up to the fact that our country has been robbed blind and these sleepy folks may soon be seeking justice and/or blood.

The Political Crisis defined by the neocons isn't the fact that our politicians and government have been bought by corporations and are corrupt to the core.  No, Political crisis for the neocons is the fact that folks are finally waking up to the fact that our politicians and government agencies have been bought by corporations and are corrupt to the core.

Its a pickle for the neocons.....how can they continue with business as usual when so many folks are on to them.

How many economists does it take to establish that 2+2=4?

Suppose a bunch of economists sent a letter to the Congressional leadership noting the objective facts that lifting the ban on offshore drilling will do zero about gas prices for many years, and that even after new oil is extracted, the effect on gas prices, according the US government energy experts who are officially charged to evaluate such questions, would be too small to even notice.

Would it have any effect on the national debate, brought to us by our know-nothing Republican party and know-nothing corporate media, over whether 2+2=4?

Below the fold, the economists' letter.

A Rove-ian guide to effective attack ads for Democrats

Attack Ad #2: Bomb Iran

Voice-Over: "John McCain seems awfully eager to bomb Iran."

- Cut to video of McCain singing Bomb-Bomb, Bomb-Bomb Iran –

Voice-Over: "That may be difficult, because John McCain doesn’t know where Iran is."

- Cut to McCain "I think it’s a very hard struggle, particularly given the situation on the Iraq-Pakistan border."

Voice-Over: "There is no Iraq-Pakistan border, because Iran is between Iraq and Pakistan.  Shouldn’t your president know where a country is before he talks about bombing it?  Let’s get our facts straight before rushing into another war."

This is HUGE.

Israeli Newspaper Haaretz is reporting that the Bush Administration has turned down Israel's request for weapons to help it attack Iran's nuclear facilities.

U.S. rebuffs Israeli request for arms geared toward Iran strike

The American administration has rejected an Israeli request for military equipment and support that would improve Israel's ability to attack Iran's nuclear facilities.

The Americans viewed the request, which was transmitted (and rejected) at the highest level, as a sign that Israel is in the advanced stages of preparations to attack Iran. They therefore warned Israel against attacking, saying such a strike would undermine American interests. They also demanded that Israel give them prior notice if it nevertheless decided to strike Iran.

A red light from Bush makes an Israeli attack on Iran less likely. This also makes it less likely that the U.S. would be dragged into a regional conflict following an Israeli attack on Iran.

Becoming embroiled in a regional war would be too high a price for the U.S. to pay to preserve Israel's nuclear monopoly in the region (if that's what is even at stake here).

Oh shit. I'm tempted to call this "breaking", but since it was first reported on August 7th, it's not exactly new news. What is surprising, however, is that this has not been picked up AT ALL by the American press.

UPDATE: it has, however, been previously diaried by Troutfishing on August 7th. It may be merely routine cycling of ships, as Rogneid suggests. I really, really hope (s)he's right, but I still admit to some trepidation at the fact that the Kuwaitis are worried enough to start emergency plans. Of course the sabre-rattling has been going on for some time, but why hadn't they done so earlier?

For reasons not directly relevant to this posting, I have been going through a large number of my previous diaries, and encountered one posted 4/12/2006 entitled "Living in a bulls-eye."  As I read it I was somewhat shocked to realize how relevant it still was, given our current dispute with Iran and especially in light of the recent conflict in the Caucasus.

I had not intended to do a diary today - I have many other tasks.  But since this merely requires me to repost, I thought I would, and see if you, like me, still think what I wrote more than two years ago here is still relevant.

BTW - the original was not on the recommended list, but it was part of diary rescue.

Peace.

I am sure most Kossacks are much better versed in Geography than I am, but thought I would try to share my morning's journeys with maps.  Educated in the US after 8th grade, I have a shallow understanding of any region outside North America and Western Europe.

I will never forget when I first realized that Iran was sandwiched between Iraq and Afghanistan, well since Iran is considerable bigger than either - sandwiched may not be the right phrase.  That simple peek at a map transformed my understanding of the Middle East and gave me to believe that perhaps Iranian oil was the real target after all in all this.  Oh, how I long for an energy economy that eliminates all this intrigue.

More below the fold