Happy days are here

Excellent news for Louisiana's petro-based economy! - The Advocate Editorial Page, probably.

LONDON — The price of oil surged Friday on concerns that Iran might respond to the killing of its top general by the United States by disrupting global supplies of energy from the Mideast.

If sustained, the rise in oil prices could lead to more expensive car fuel, heating and electricity bills, stifling the global economy at a time when it is already slowing.

One thing I am thankful for during this particular cycle is that there is no cable news channel blaring in my household.  Just because the rest of America is being bombarded with war opinions from people who should be in prison doesn't mean you have to listen to it too.  Most people's TVs still come with an off button. Might as well make use of it while you still can.

Meanwhile, your Democratic Presidential candidates are weighing in. That includes those among them who have been a troop.

Mayor Pete doesn’t oppose the Trump administration assassinating an Iranian government official on Iraqi territory, he’s just not sure is was done in the best way.

This sort of response is why democrats might be the worst opposition party in history. https://t.co/G1ta3phb47

— Rania Khalek (@RaniaKhalek) January 3, 2020

Pete is just going to accept, on its face, the premise that the US launching an assassination attack on a high ranking Iranian military and government officer is a justified action.  Anything he says after that is pointless. It would be one thing if it were just Pete. But it's also coming from every other Democrat to have weighed in so far.

Well.. not every one of them.

Sanders took a different tone, one drawn from a wing of the party that has opposed American wars since Vietnam.

“Trump's dangerous escalation brings us closer to another disastrous war in the Middle East that could cost countless lives and trillions more dollars,” Sanders said in a statement, after noting his opposition to the Iraq war and without mentioning Soleimani by name. “Trump promised to end endless wars, but this action puts us on the path to another one.”

Gotta love the way they write, "a wing of the party that has opposed American wars since Vietnam," as if that's a bad thing.

Oil lobbyist supports oil lobby agenda

Remember back when Mary Landrieu was still a Senator and she set up a futile last minute run at forcing a vote on the Keystone XL pipeline?  The conventional wisdom at the time was that Mary was desperately trying to save her failing reelection campaign by appearing to "fight for Louisiana jobs" one last time. I didn't really buy that argument.  To me, it looked like Mary had already come to terms with her retirement from the Senate. The Keystone gambit, in that context, was really just resume padding for K Street.  If that is what it was, it worked.  

Former U.S. Sen. Mary Landrieu has been hired by the lobbying firm Van Ness Feldman (VNF), the company announced today. Landrieu's title will be "senior policy advisor," and a release from VNF said Landrieu would "advise clients on various public policy, strategic, and regulatory issues with an emphasis on energy, natural resources, and infrastructure matters."

According to the website Open Secrets, VNF's client base includes several companies dealing in oil and gas, as well as the energy field in general — a natural fit for Landrieu, who served as chair of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources in 2014. The company has offices in Washington D.C. and Seattle.

The proper context for understanding Mary's actions toward the end of the Senate campaign was she was, at that point, auditioning for a job in the oil lobby.  Similarly, the proper context for understanding her actions now is she is currently employed as an oil lobbyist.

WASHINGTON – Former Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., has signed onto a group of former Democratic lawmakers opposing the Obama's administration's international agreement to limit Iran's nuclear program.

Landrieu is listed as a member of the all Democratic advisory board for Citizens for a Nuclear Free Iran. Also on the board are former Sens. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, Evan Bayh of Indiana;  Mark Begich of Alaska and former Reps. Shelley Berkley of Nevada, Gary Ackerman of New York and Peter Deutsch of Florida.

Oil is pretty cheap right now. The global market for petroleum is a complicated animal to describe but the most common belief among analysts is that the Iran deal is likely to drive prices downward as Iranian exports increase.  The Iran deal itself is also a complicated matter but the general consensus there is that it makes for a decent alternative to bombing more people.  That's also probably not the best news for Mary's clients. And they're who matter to Mary.

It doesn't have to make sense

Not sure why it's necessary but Josh Marshall explains what's wrong with Republican 2016 candidates already committing to back out of the Iran nuclear deal.

One way to look at this is that they will simply commit the country to war. But I don't think that's the most likely option. More likely, they will copy the policy most associated with George W. Bush's first term, and 'stand tough' while Iran does whatever it wants.

Even more striking though is just how little grasp Walker has of any of the details about what's involved, and how little his advisors have prepped him.

If elected president, Walker says that he'll pull back on any nuclear agreement on day one. And revealingly, he says he doesn't care if our trading partners aren't willing to go along with us. He'll have America go it alone.

This is a good encapsulation of Walker's seemingly total ignorance of this topic. What brought Iran to the table and forced this agreement was a mix of crippling economic sanctions and a covert war of sabotage by the US and Israel. The sanctions have only worked because Europe, Russia and China have joined us in imposing them. Without them, they would be onerous, but simply not effective on the same scale.

Of course, it doesn't matter one lick.  Walker isn't answering a serious question about disarmament.  The actual question at hand is the political one.  "Are you a very tough person and is Obama bad at stuff?"  As long as the candidates are answering that question, how they get to that answer doesn't have to make any sense. 

Sounds like a real job-killer

Those 47 Republican Senators are just trying to keep Obama from imposing a job-killing Iranian nukes moratorium.

The possibility of an Iran nuclear deal depressing weapons sales was raised by Myles Walton, an analyst from Germany’s Deutsche Bank, during a Lockheed earnings call this past January 27th. Walton asked Marillyn Hewson, the chief executive of Lockheed Martin, if an Iran agreement could “impede what you see as progress in foreign military sales.” Financial industry analysts such as Walton use earnings calls as an opportunity to ask publicly-traded corporations like Lockheed about issues that might harm profitability.

Hewson replied that “that really isn’t coming up,” but stressed that “volatility all around the region” should continue to bring in new business. According to Hewson, “A lot of volatility, a lot of instability, a lot of things that are happening” in both the Middle East and the Asia-Pacific region means both are “growth areas” for Lockheed Martin.

Q: In what way is Louisiana like Iran?

A: Each state has arrested the reporters covering its prison system.

Although Crain’s update did not reveal the name of the other reporter, he is believed to be Shane Bauer.

In 2009, Bauer was one of three Americans hikers who were detained by Iran, which alleged that the three were spies. Bauer’s 26-month long detention in Iranian prison set off an international diplomatic firestorm and became the subject of intense media coverage. Although he was convicted of espionage and sentenced to eight years in prison, he was released after the Sultan of Oman arranged a half a million dollar payment, whisking him out of Iran in a private jet.

Only one of these regimes currently "controls Teheran," though.  This may or may not be a fact to be alarmed about. 

The War Party

Mary Landrieu apparently wants to bomb Iran.

WASHINGTON -- As the United States finally puts a decade of war behind it, a group of senators, including 15 Democrats, is defying the White House and threatening to push the country into a fresh war with Iran.

Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) is leading the charge to pass legislation in January that would impose tougher sanctions on Iran, despite dire warnings from the White House, Iranian leaders, 10 Democratic committee chairs and a host of liberal groups that such an effort could sink a delicate nuclear agreement already in place. Under that Nov. 24 deal, Tehran would curb its nuclear program in exchange for some relief from economic sanctions for a period of six months.

Next year we can look forward to yet another election in which she runs as the good one. Fun times. 

What have we learned?

Nothing. In a decade of needless war we've learned nothing.

Back in 5 days

Meanwhile try to make the most of the holiday. Try not to kick anybody in the face.



I'll leave you with these

Salon's Justin Elliot:
No, the U.S. is not leaving Iraq

Do you think we’re going to see spasms of violence between Americans and Iraqis post-Dec. 31?

I think it’s inevitable. Look at it from the perspective of an Iranian Quds Force operative. You know you want to frustrate the U.S. in Iraq; and you know that Iraqis are burning U.S. flags in celebration of the withdrawal. That’s a tremendous opportunity for Iran right there. Because if you also know that there are these armed contractors helping diplomats get from point A to point B, you win if you provoke them into violence. And it’s really easy to place an IED on a road or to open fire on a convoy. Then if there are Americans in Iraq opening fire on Iraqis — after the Iraqi leaders have said Americans are gone — that’s a major propaganda win for Iran. This is a really foreseeable disaster.

Another thing worth pointing out is that Leon Panetta has been saying recently that there are 1,000 Iraqis who are al-Qaida loyalists. If that’s true, Iraq is by far host to the largest al-Qaida presence in the world. It’s really hard to believe the CIA and the Joint Special Operations Command won’t find a way to go after those people. And remember, as Mary Wheeler has pointed out, Congress has not rescinded the authorization for military force in Iraq.

US military 'ready to engage in a conflict with Iran'

Leon Panetta, the secretary of defence, said this week that the US was prepared to step in to prevent Tehran realising its nuclear ambitions. He estimated that the country was only a year away from reaching its goal.

"The United States does not want Iran to develop a nuclear weapon," he said. "That is a red line for us and that is a red line for the Israelis. If we have to do it we will do it. If they proceed and we get intelligence that they are proceeding in developing a nuclear weapon then we will take whatever steps necessary to stop them. There are no options that are off the table."

This is why there were Nader voters

Greenwald looks at the so-called "Iranian terror plot" all the important people in the Obama Administration have been making hay over this week.

What’s most significant is that not even 24 hours have elapsed since these allegations were unveiled. No evidence has been presented of Iran’s involvement. And yet there is no shortage of people — especially in the media — breathlessly talking about all of this as though it’s all clearly true. If the Obama administration decided tomorrow that military action against Iran were warranted in response, is there any doubt that large majorities of Americans — and large majorities of Democrats — would support that? As I said when discussing the Awlaki killing, the truly “scary” aspect of all of this is that the U.S. Government need only point and utter the word “Terrorist” and hordes of citizens will rise up and demand not evidence, but blood.

"Most treacherous"

Apparently UK Twitter avatars must be greener than ours.

In an uncompromising address at Friday prayers, Khamenei claimed that the high turnout at the elections showed how much the Iranian people supported the regime, and blamed western powers for interfering in Iranian politics, singling out the UK as the "most treacherous".

Who knew there was a trans-Atlantic douchebag gap?

Stop it, already

For the last time, yes, people care about the news from Iran. No, nobody gives a shit that YOU joined a club.

Maybe we should all dye our thumbs purple too

Go ahead and put me in the It's-not-about-us column. I don't know what it is about people that makes them so desperate to feel like they're somehow part of every thing they read about. Just because you're interested in something important doesn't mean you are important also.

Meanwhile, I'm working on ways to make this blog look even less green.

Little-known fact about stealing elections

When you can pull it off, it works really really well.

“We are not disposable things to be thrown away,” said Mahshid, 20, a student who declined to give her last name because she feared repercussions from the authorities. “From now on, we won’t vote. They have insulted our feelings of patriotism.”

At the same time, it's worth saying that this very well may be a legitimate result. "Wishful thinking" often clouds the outside observer's judgment. We should understand this fairly well in Louisiana.

Summer of "total obliteration"?

Asia Times reports that Bush wants to strike Iran in August.

Details provided by the administration raised alarm bells on Capitol Hill, the source said. After receiving secret briefings on the planned air strike, Senator Diane Feinstein, Democrat of California, and Senator Richard Lugar, Republican of Indiana, said they would write a New York Times op-ed piece "within days", the source said last week, to express their opposition. Feinstein is a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee and Lugar is the ranking Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee.

Senate offices were closed for the US Memorial Day holiday, so Feinstein and Lugar were not available for comment.

Given their obligations to uphold the secrecy of classified information, it is unlikely the senators would reveal the Bush administration's plan or their knowledge of it. However, going public on the issue, even without specifics, would likely create a public groundswell of criticism that could induce the Bush administration reconsider its plan.

Still waiting on Senators Feinstein and Lugar. No reason for them to be shy about writing op-eds. Senator Clinton has already made her enthusiasm known. And Senator McCain has expressed his opinion musically.

Party of Suck

Today the Senate passed the Kyl-Lieberman amendment to the Defense Authorization Act. Kyl-Lieberman is a "Sense of the Senate" statement regarding Iran that may be read as a "back door" authorization for the use of force against Iran by the US military in the near future. Voting in favor of this amendment, and possibly more war:

Hillary Clinton (D-NY)

Mary Landrieu (D-LA)

Courageously absent from this vote:

Barack Obama (D-IL)

Way to go, guys.

Bush Administration Supports Al-Quaeda

And/Or whatever other radical terror group the Saudi royal family chooses to bankroll next.
Are the Bushies with us or are they with the terrorists?

To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has coöperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.

Much more... read on.