In a minimally rational world, this extraordinary passage, from the new book by Scott McClellan, would forever slay the single most ludicrous myth in our political culture: The “Liberal Media”:

If anything, the national press corps was probably too deferential to the White House and to the administration in regard to the most important decision facing the nation during my years in Washington, the choice over whether to go to war in Iraq.The collapse of the administration’s rationales for war, which became apparent months after our invasion, should never have come as such a surprise. . . . In this case, the “liberal media” didn’t live up to its reputation. If it had, the country would have been better served.

Just consider how remarkable that is. George Bush’s own Press Secretary criticizes the American media for being “too deferential” to the Government. He lays the blame for Bush’s ability to propagandize the nation on the media’s uncritical dissemination of the Republican administration’s falsehoods. And most notably of all, McClellan actually uses cynical scare quotes when invoking the phrase which, in conventional political discourse, is deemed the most unassailable truth of all: The Liberal Media.

How much longer can this preposterous myth be sustained when even the White House Spokesman not only mocks the phrase but derides the media for being “too deferential” to the right-wing Government “in regard to the most important decision facing the nation during [his] years in Washington”? If one were to set about with the goal of debunking the “Liberal Media” myth — as Eric Alterman specifically did four years ago and other media critics have more generally done before that — one couldn’t dream up evidence more conclusive than McClellan’s admissions.

Blindingly conclusive evidence which would — for any rational person — forever negate the “Liberal Media” myth has been piling up for years. The extraordinary (though woefully incomplete) 2004 mea culpa from The New York Times acknowledged that not just Judy Miller, but the paper as a whole, re-printed pro-war government claims that were “allowed to stand unchallenged.” The Washington Post’s own media critic, Howard Kurtz, documented that anti-war views were systematically buried at that paper. The NYT recently exposed that network and cable news shows for years continuously allowed Pentagon-controlled operatives to masquerade as “independent analysts” spouting the pro-government line with virtually no challenge. And the media’s pathological fixation on the Clinton sex scandals — which led to his impeachment — stood in stark contrast to the widespread indifference among the citizenry.

Beyond all that, are there any reporters left who deny that the campaign-covering media in 2000 was gushingly enamored of George Bush and oozing with contempt for Al Gore? Identically, their intense affection for John McCain is something they openly proclaim; as they shamelessly acknowledge, they’re his “base.” And while some journalists undoubtedly harbor admiration for Barack Obama, the non-stop coverage of one anti-Obama narrative after the next — Jeremiah Wright, lapel pins, patriotism “questions,” “Bittergate,” “problems” with Jewish and white voters — simply has no parallel in any coverage of McCain.

(Continue reading: Glen Greenwald-Salon.com)

The Pentagon announced on Friday that it was suspending its briefings for retired military officers who often appear as military analysts on television and radio programs.

A spokesman for the Pentagon said the briefings and all other interactions with the military analysts had been suspended indefinitely pending an internal review.

On Sunday, The New York Times reported that since 2002 the Pentagon has cultivated several dozen military analysts in a campaign to generate favorable coverage of the administration’s wartime performance. The retired officers have made tens of thousands of appearances for television and radio networks, holding forth on Iraq, Afghanistan, detainee issues and terrorism in general.

Records and interviews show that the Bush administration worked to transform the analysts into an instrument intended to shape coverage from inside the major networks.

(Continue reading: New York Times)

It is hard to blame John McCain for mocking Barack Obama as an “elitist” following that silly remark about bitter folks who cling to guns and religion. Rarely does the Arizona senator—one of the wealthiest members of Washington’s most exclusive club—encounter such a tempting chance to masquerade as a populist.

Making the most of that opportunity, elder statesman McCain delivered a brief history lecture to the young upstart from Illinois. “During the Great Depression,” he said in a statement released by his campaign, “with many millions of Americans out of work and the country suffering the worst economic crisis in our history, there rose from small towns, rural communities, inner cities, a generation of Americans who fought to save the world from despotism and mass murder, and came home to build the wealthiest, strongest and most generous nation on earth.

(Continue reading: Truthdig)

All the talk is about Iraq, but concern about Iran is mounting

By Warren P. Strobel

Source: CounterPunch

“Not You! You!!!”

Tibet and Palestine

By URI AVNERY

“Hey! Take your hands off me! Not you! You!!!”–the voice of a young woman in the darkened cinema, an old joke.

“Hey! Take your hands off Tibet!” the international chorus is crying out, “But not from Chechnya! Not from the Basque homeland! And certainly not from Palestine!” And that is not a joke.

* * *LIKE EVERYBODY else, I support the right of the Tibetan people to independence, or at least autonomy. Like everybody else, I condemn the actions of the Chinese government there. But unlike everybody else, I am not ready to join in the demonstrations.

Why? Because I have an uneasy feeling that somebody is washing my brain, that what is going on is an exercise in hypocrisy.

I don’t mind a bit of manipulation. After all, it is not by accident that the riots started in Tibet on the eve of the Olympic Games in Beijing. That’s alright. A people fighting for their freedom have the right to use any opportunity that presents itself to further their struggle.

I support the Tibetans in spite of it being obvious that the Americans are exploiting the struggle for their own purposes. Clearly, the CIA has planned and organized the riots, and the American media are leading the world-wide campaign. It is a part of the hidden struggle between the US, the reigning super-power, and China, the rising super-power – a new version of the “Great Game” that was played in central Asia in the 19th century by the British Empire and Russia. Tibet is a token in this game.

I am even ready to ignore the fact that the gentle Tibetans have carried out a murderous pogrom against innocent Chinese, killing women and men and burning homes and shops. Such detestable excesses do happen during a liberation struggle.

No, what is really bugging me is the hypocrisy of the world media. They storm and thunder about Tibet. In thousands of editorials and talk-shows they heap curses and invective on the evil China. It seems as if the Tibetans are the only people on earth whose right to independence is being denied by brutal force, that if only Beijing would take its dirty hands off the saffron-robed monks, everything would be alright in this, the best of all possible worlds.

* * *THERE IS no doubt that the Tibetan people are entitled to rule their own country, to nurture their unique culture, to promote their religious institutions and to prevent foreign settlers from submerging them.

But are not the Kurds in Turkey, Iraq, Iran and Syria entitled to the same? The inhabitants of Western Sahara, whose territory is occupied by Morocco? The Basques in Spain? The Corsicans off the coast of France? And the list is long.

Why do the world’s media adopt one independence struggle, but often cynically ignore another independence struggle? What makes the blood of one Tibetan redder than the blood of a thousand Africans in East Congo?

Again and again I try to find a satisfactory answer to this enigma. In vain.

Immanuel Kant demanded of us: “Act as if the principle by which you act were about to be turned into a universal law of nature.” (Being a German philosopher, he expressed it in much more convoluted language.) Does the attitude towards the Tibetan problem conform to this rule? Does it reflect our attitude towards the struggle for independence of all other oppressed peoples?

Not at all.

* * *WHAT, THEN, causes the international media to discriminate between the various liberation struggles that are going on throughout the world?

Here are some of the relevant considerations:

- Do the people seeking independence have an especially exotic culture?

- Are they an attractive people, i.e. “sexy” in the view of the media?

- Is the struggle headed by a charismatic personality who is liked by the media?

- It the oppressing government disliked by the media?

- Does the oppressing government belong to the pro-American camp? This is an important factor, since the United States dominates a large part of the international media, and its news agencies and TV networks largely define the agenda and the terminology of the news coverage.

- Are economic interests involved in the conflict?

- Does the oppressed people have gifted spokespersons, who are able to attract attention and manipulate the media?

* * *FROM THESE points of view, there is nobody like the Tibetans. They enjoy ideal conditions.

Fringed by the Himalayas, they are located in one of the most beautiful landscapes on earth. For centuries, just to get there was an adventure. Their unique religion arouses curiosity and sympathy. Its non-violence is very attractive and elastic enough to cover even the ugliest atrocities, like the recent pogrom. The exiled leader, the Dalai Lama, is a romantic figure, a media rock-star. The Chinese regime is hated by many – by capitalists because it is a Communist dictatorship, by Communists because it has become capitalist. It promotes a crass and ugly materialism, the very opposite of the spiritual Buddhist monks, who spend their time in prayer and meditation.

When China builds a railway to the Tibetan capital over a thousand inhospitable kilometers, the West does not admire the engineering feat, but sees (quite rightly) an iron monster that brings hundreds of thousands of Han-Chinese settlers to the occupied territory.

And of course, China is a rising power, whose economic success threatens America’s hegemony in the world. A large part of the ailing American economy already belongs directly or indirectly to China. The huge American Empire is sinking hopelessly into debt, and China may soon be the biggest lender. American manufacturing industry is moving to China, taking millions of jobs with it.

Compared to these factors, what have the Basques, for example, to offer? Like the Tibetans, they inhabit a contiguous territory, most of it in Spain, some of it in France. They, too, are an ancient people with their own language and culture. But these are not exotic and do not attract special notice. No prayer wheels. No robed monks.

The Basques do not have a romantic leader, like Nelson Mandela or the Dalai Lama. The Spanish state, which arose from the ruins of Franco’s detested dictatorship, enjoys great popularity around the world. Spain belongs to the European Union, which is more or less in the American camp, sometimes more, sometimes less.

The armed struggle of the Basque underground is abhorred by many and is considered “terrorism”, especially after Spain has accorded the Basques a far-reaching autonomy. In these circumstances, the Basques have no chance at all of gaining world support for independence.

The Chechnyans should have been in a better position. They, too, are a separate people, who have for a long time been oppressed by the Czars of the Russian Empire, including Stalin and Putin. But alas, they are Muslims – and in the Western world, Islamophobia now occupies the place that had for centuries been reserved for anti-Semitism. Islam has turned into a synonym for terrorism, it is seen as a religion of blood and murder. Soon it will be revealed that Muslims slaughter Christian children and use their blood for baking Pitta. (In reality it is, of course, the religion of dozens of vastly different peoples, from Indonesia to Morocco and from Kosova to Zanzibar.

The US does not fear Moscow as it fears Beijing. Unlike China, Russia does not look like a country that could dominate the 21st century. The West has no interest in renewing the Cold War, as it has in renewing the Crusades against Islam. The poor Chechnyans, who have no charismatic leader or outstanding spokespersons, have been banished from the headlines. For all the world cares, Putin can hit them as much as he wants, kill thousands and obliterate whole towns.

That does not prevent Putin from supporting the demands of Abkhazia and South Ossetia for separation from Georgia, a country which infuriates Russia.

* * *IF IMMANUEL KANT knew what’s going on in Kosova, he would be scratching his head.

The province demanded its independence from Serbia, and I, for one, supported that with all my heart. This is a separate people, with a different culture (Albanian) and its own religion (Islam). After the popular Serbian leader, Slobodan Milosevic, tried to drive them out of their country, the world rose and provided moral and material support for their struggle for independence.

The Albanian Kosovars make up 90% of the citizens of the new state, which has a population of two million. The other 10% are Serbs, who want no part of the new Kosova. They want the areas they live in to be annexed to Serbia. According to Kant’s maxim, are they entitled to this?

I would propose a pragmatic moral principle: Every population that inhabits a defined territory and has a clear national character is entitled to independence. A state that wants to keep such a population must see to it that they feel comfortable, that they receive their full rights, enjoy equality and have an autonomy that satisfies their aspirations. In short: that they have no reason to desire separation.

That applies to the French in Canada, the Scots in Britain, the Kurds in Turkey and elsewhere, the various ethnic groups in Africa, the indigenous peoples in Latin America, the Tamils in Sri Lanka and many others. Each has a right to choose between full equality, autonomy and independence.

* * *THIS LEADS us, of course, to the Palestinian issue.

In the competition for the sympathy of the world media, the Palestinians are unlucky. According to all the objective standards, they have a right to full independence, exactly like the Tibetans. They inhabit a defined territory, they are a specific nation, a clear border exists between them and Israel. One must really have a crooked mind to deny these facts.

But the Palestinians are suffering from several cruel strokes of fate: The people that oppress them claim for themselves the crown of ultimate victimhood. The whole world sympathizes with the Israelis because the Jews were the victims of the most horrific crime of the Western world. That creates a strange situation: the oppressor is more popular than the victim. Anyone who supports the Palestinians is automatically suspected of anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial.

Also, the great majority of the Palestinians are Muslims (nobody pays attention to the Palestinian Christians). Since Islam arouses fear and abhorrence in the West, the Palestinian struggle has automatically become a part of that shapeless, sinister threat, “international terrorism”. And since the murders of Yasser Arafat and Sheik Ahmed Yassin, the Palestinians have no particularly impressive leader – neither in Fatah nor in Hamas.

The world media are shedding tears for the Tibetan people, whose land is taken from them by Chinese settlers. Who cares about the Palestinians, whose land is taken from them by our settlers?

In the world-wide tumult about Tibet, the Israeli spokespersons compare themselves – strange as it sounds – to the poor Tibetans, not to the evil Chinese. Many think this quite logical.

If Kant were dug up tomorrow and asked about the Palestinians, he would probably answer: “Give them what you think should be given to everybody, and don’t wake me up again to ask silly questions.”

Uri Avnery is an Israeli writer and peace activist with Gush Shalom. He is o a contributor to CounterPunch’s book The Politics of Anti-Semitism.

But Washington, Wall Street, and ethanol and oil and gas companies want you to think there is, says automotive expert Ed Wallace

by Ed Wallace

“They see speculation in the market, I see decline in global inventories. I don’t think this is a big surprise, that we’ve had a jump in price when there has been a decrease in crude inventories.”—Energy Secretary Sam Bodman, Bloomberg News, Mar. 5, 2008

“It should be obvious to you all that the [gasoline] demand is outstripping supply, which causes prices to go up.” — President George W. Bush, Associated Press, Mar. 5, 2008

One wonders if verifiable facts ever get in the way of this administration’s statements on issues that are critical to the average American’s wellbeing. After all, last time I checked, when politicians are elected to public office, or appointed, as is Energy Secretary Samuel W. Bodman, they must take an oath to the American people before assuming their new positions. How can they forget a sacred oath so quickly? Were they daydreaming when they took it, so it never meant anything to begin with? Maybe it’s just another promise you have to make to get into office: When you’re securely incumbent you can ignore even solemn oaths you took.

Obviously, the two quotes that led this article came from discussions concerning the current high price for oil on the futures market. Bodman appears to be protecting the speculators in oil, as opposed to looking after the interests of all Americans. President Bush, apparently, has never talked to the Energy Dept.’s Energy Information Agency to see whether gasoline demand is actually up. More troubling, the writer of that particular Associated Press article obviously didn’t look up the EIA’s numbers to verify the President’s assertions. They weren’t accurate.

1. There Is No Shortage

Gasoline reserves on hand are at the highest levels since the early 1990s, which is remarkable considering the nation’s refineries have been cutting back on the production of gasoline because their margins have declined. In fact, average gasoline reserves on hand have risen since this past October, while oil reserves in this country have gone up virtually every week this year—and only fog in the Houston Ship Channel that kept oil tankers from unloading their crude one week kept it from being every week.

In the same Bloomberg article that quotes from Bodman’s CNBC appearance on Mar. 4, he also said that it was thanks to ethanol that the gasoline problem isn’t even worse. He then added that the fact that making ethanol is forcing up prices of other farm commodities, including hog and chicken feed, is “nowhere near as important as trying to relieve pressure on [gasoline] supplies.”

Of course, there is no pressure on gasoline supplies in this country as of today, but Bodman’s statement must have made eyes roll among the executives at Pilgrim’s Pride PPC; the Pittsburg, (Tex.) poultry producer announced 1,100 layoffs on Mar. 13, closing one processing plant and 6 of their 13 distribution centers because their company’s outlay for chicken feed went up $600 million last fiscal year and was on track to increase by another $700 million this year.

Here’s the scorecard, in case you missed it. There’s no shortage of gasoline or oil in the U.S. today, and we have near-record reserves on hand. Meanwhile the Congressional mandate for ethanol has jacked up the price of chicken feed for Pilgrim’s Pride, which is the U.S.’s largest processor of chickens and turkeys—by $1.3 billion. And that’s for just one company processing chicken. This is what passes for acceptable to our Energy Secretary?

2. Demand Is DOWN, Yet Prices Are UP

Just so we can all get on the same page, here are the verifiable facts on oil supplies, production, and gasoline demand.

In January of this year, the U.S. used 4% less petroleum than we did a year ago. (Oil demand was down 3.2% in February.) Furthermore, demand has been falling slowly since July of last year. Ronald Bailey of Reason Online has pointed out that worldwide production of oil has risen 2.5% in the first quarter, while worldwide demand has grown by only 2%. Production is expected to increase by 3.3% in the second quarter, and by as much as 4.1% by the third quarter. The net result is that the U.S. daily buffer for oil production against demand, which was a paltry 1.5 million barrels as recently as 2005, is now up to 3 million barrels in excess capacity today.

So what is going on here? Why would our Energy Secretary say there’s a supply and demand problem when none exists? Why would he say that speculators have little or nothing to do with the incredibly high price of oil and gasoline, when it’s clear they do? President Bush—a former oilman—gives the ever-growing demand for gasoline as the primary reason prices are so high, yet that notion can be dispelled with one minute of research. That’s the problem with rhetoric; it rarely matches the facts.

3. Speculation is Up, and the Dollar Is Down

On the same day the President and our Energy Secretary made those foolish comments, no less an authority than ExxonMobil (XOM) Chief Executive Officer Rex Tillerson was quoted by Marketwatch as saying, “The record run in oil prices is related more to speculation and a weakening dollar than supply and demand in the market.” He added, “In terms of fundamentals, fear of supply reliability is overblown.”

As for the speculators, in 2000 approximately $9 billion was invested in oil futures, while today that number has gone up to $250 billion. Now, if any publicly traded company had an additional $241 billion put into its stock in the same period, its stock would rise out of sight too—even if the company was not worth anywhere near that amount of market capitalization.

Moving on to the weak U.S. dollar as a primary cause for skyrocketing oil prices—there is “some” truth in that statement. But consider this: The dollar has depreciated 30% against the world’s currencies since 2002, while the price of oil has gone up 500%. So is it the weak dollar that has caused a 500% increase in the price of oil, or is it the extra $241 billion worth of speculation? You can make the call on that one.

Possibly just to ensure oil prices don’t respond to real-world market conditions, Goldman Sachs (GS) forecast on Mar. 7 that turbulence in the oil market could cause oil to spike as high as $200 a barrel. This flies in the face of all known information—but then again, Goldman Sachs is the world’s biggest trader of energy derivatives, and its Goldman Sachs Commodities Index is a widely watched barometer of energy and commodities prices.

What Is Washington Thinking?

Rounding out the list of experts discussing our oil and gasoline situation is Bill Klesse, head of San Antonio (Tex.) Valero Energy (VLO). He spoke in San Diego a week after those comments from Goldman Sachs, the President, and Secretary Bodman. Believe it or not, Klesse said poor margins may cause Valero to sell one-third of its refinery operations; he stated that poor margins in recent months had caused planned refinery expansions—which would have produced 500,000 more barrels per day—to be canceled. Moreover, according to a report from Reuters on Mar. 11, 2008, Klesse recently released the information that gasoline production has been curtailed in response to slowing demand.

Imagine that: Refiners cut gasoline production, yet gasoline reserves have grown to their largest since late 1992. So much for “surging demand.”

Klesse also called for the government to start imposing a tariff on imported gasoline to protect U.S. refiners’ profits. Protectionism? As famed economist John Kenneth Galbraith correctly said, “In America, the only respectable form of socialism is socialism for the rich.”

Which takes us back to the original question: Why is Washington doing everything it can to convince us there is a shortage when there isn’t one? After all, the only people they’re protecting are those heavily invested in oil futures—and that’s to the detriment of all other Americans.

We’re Paying for What?

When it became undeniable that poor decision-making by company executives had put a respected 85-year-old U.S. institution in financial peril, why did the Federal Reserve rush in to save investment bank Bear Stearns (BSC)? Of course, we need to restore confidence in our financial institutions, but why protect the personal assets of those who were responsible for the mess? Both the corporation’s officers and its board members should contribute their personal assets toward saving the bank they put in the ditch—the bank all of us are going to pay to bail out.

Instead, the Bush administration is protecting those responsible for creating yet another speculative bubble in oil futures, and is protecting investors in the ethanol industry—much to the detriment of food-processing companies such as Pilgrim’s Pride. And the net result of all this is that the prices of crude and gasoline rise ever higher thanks to a “shortage” that does not exist, while food costs are soaring thanks in part to the ethanol mandate.

The Federal Reserve lowers interest rates, but the cost of mortgages goes up six weeks in a row—and last month Bank of America (BAC) credit-card holders started being charged more than 24% interest on new purchases.

This is what they call “Republican Prosperity?” Ronald Reagan was both right and wrong when he said, “Government is not the solution, government is the problem.” And government is still the problem. Instead of a fair and open market they gave us a free-for-all marketplace with no regulations at all, which lately these “bubble boys” have sent south for all of us.

One would guess that Washington missed the obvious: Protect all U.S. consumers and you’re also protecting business expansion.

Ed Wallace holds a Gerald R. Loeb Award for business journalism, bestowed by the Anderson School of Business at UCLA. His column heads the Sunday Drive section of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, and he is a member of the American Historical Society. The automotive expert for KDFW Fox 4 in Dallas, Wallace hosts the top-rated talk show Wheels, Saturdays from 8 a.m. to 1 p.m. on 570 KLIF AM in Dallas.

//businessweek//

Geert Wilders has kept his word. He has circulated his film Fitna before April 1 and has, as he puts it, been ‘properly’ restrained. The film, which nevertheless appeared unexpectedly on the Internet on Thursday, is indeed not as shocking as expected during the hyped-up prelude to the premiere.

So the film seems like an anticlimax. It goes no further than making suggestive comments: the suggestion that the Koran is the source of all the violence in the world; the suggestion that Islam is a threat to everyone’s freedom, like Hitler and Stalin. But in Fitna, the Koran is not destroyed and the bomb in the prophet’s turban, drawn by the Danish cartoonist, doesn’t quite explode.

Has Wilders been successful in giving an example of his political and artistic skills with Fitna? Certainly not when it comes to his artistic capacity. Wilders doesn’t have enough creative talent and is sloppy in his approach.

This might still prove a problem and he will probably have to explain himself before the courts. For example he used material from the Danish cartoonist without asking permission and wrongly said a photograph of a rapper was the murderer of film-maker Theo van Gogh. And he has dragged others along with him – proof of a stunning lack of responsibility. The Dutch public prosecution department is also looking into whether Fitna incites hatred in the legal sense.

Freedom of expression, one of the fundamental concepts of every democratic state, can cope with this amateurish attack. This confidence is confirmed by the muted reactions to the film to date. Earlier prime minister Jan Peter Balkenende had almost precipitated a sort of emergency by using the word ‘crisis’. But when the hour of reckoning arrived, the prime minister limited himself to a declaration in which he said the government ‘regretted’ the film.

Representatives from Islamic organisations used a similar tone. Some reacted completely laconically. The question now is whether Fitna will be seen in the same way in less articulate circles in the Netherlands and abroad. After all, action and reaction belong together. Governments and individual agitators could use the film as an excuse to get even for other things. But the calm way the film has been received up to now gives hope.

Both left and right-wing politicians have dismissed the film as old hat. They saw ‘nothing new’ in the footage. But such comments show a misunderstanding of Wilders’ political goal. He doesn’t want to bring new insights or promote dialogue. Fitna is just a weapon in his propaganda war. His politics stand or fall with the concept of the ’self-fulfilling prophecy’. In this sense Wilders hasn’t done himself or the citizens of the Netherlands a service. And that too must be said in public.

//spiegel online//

Obama Campaign Official Criticizes Former President’s Comments, Comparing Him To McCarthy

(AP) A new controversy flared up in the Democratic presidential race Saturday over remarks by former President Bill Clinton whom Barack Obama’s campaign accused of using divisive tactics and unfairly trying to question the Illinois senator’s patriotism.

Retired Gen. Merrill “Tony” McPeak, a co-chair of Obama’s campaign, said he was astonished and disappointed by recent comments the former president made while speculating about a general election between Obama’s Democratic rival, Hillary Rodham Clinton, and Republican John McCain.

Standing next to Obama on stage at a campaign rally in southern Oregon, the retired Air Force chief of staff repeated Bill Clinton’s comments aloud to a silent audience.

The former president told a group of veterans Friday in Charlotte, North Carolina: “I think it would be a great thing if we had an election year where you had two people who loved this country and were devoted to the interest of this country. And people could actually ask themselves who is right on these issues, instead of all this other stuff that always seems to intrude itself on our politics.”

McPeak then said to his Oregon audience: “As one who for 37 years proudly wore the uniform of our country, I’m saddened to see a president employ these tactics. He of all people should know better because he was the target of exactly the same kind of tactics.”

That apparently was a reference to Bill Clinton’s 1992 presidential campaign, when he was accused of dodging the Vietnam War draft.

Howard Wolfson, a spokesman for Hillary Clinton’s campaign, said Saturday that McPeak’s comments were a “deliberately pathetic misreading of what the president said.” Wolfson said the remarks had nothing to do with Obama and were merely meant to underscore the need to keep the presidential race focused on issues.

Hillary Clinton, the New York senator, had no campaign events scheduled Saturday.

It was not the first time Bill Clinton has been criticized for comments while campaigning on his wife’s behalf. Before and after South Carolina’s primary in January, the former president was accused of fanning racial tensions for appearing to cast Obama as little more than a black candidate popular in a state with a heavily black electorate.

The latest controversy came at the end of a rough week for the Obama campaign in which the Illinois senator was battered over incendiary remarks by his longtime pastor that were portrayed as unpatriotic.

However, Obama engaged in damage control with a major speech Tuesday on the issue of race. That speech helped Obama gain a key endorsement, the backing of New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, himself a former Democratic presidential candidate.

The nod from Richardson had been sought by both Obama and Clinton. Bill Clinton even went to Richardson’s New Mexico home in January to watch America’s premier television sporting event, the Super Bowl football championship.

Richardson had served the former president as U.N. ambassador and energy secretary and the endorsement was seen as a rebuke to Hillary Clinton’s candidacy.

“You are a once-in-a-lifetime leader,” Richardson said, speaking at a spirited rally Friday in Portland, Oregon, with Obama at his side. “Above all, you will be a president who brings this nation together.”

Oregon does not hold its primary until May 20. The next Democratic primary contest is on April 22 in Pennsylvania.

The Richardson endorsement was a blow to the Clinton campaign which has been urging remaining uncommitted superdelegates – party officials and elected officials who are free to vote for whomever they choose at the party’s national convention – to hold off on endorsing a candidate until the end of the primary season in June.

Obama currently leads the all-important overall delegate count with 1,620 to Clinton’s 1,499. But neither candidate is likely to get enough delegates in the remaining primaries and caucuses to reach the 2,024 needed to win nomination at the party’s convention in late August in Denver. That means they must rely on support from superdelegates to become the nominee.

Richardson’s backing of Obama, who aspires to become America’s first black president, could help bring other superdelegates to the Illinois senator’s side. The New Mexico governor could also help boost support for Obama among fellow Hispanics, who have largely backed Clinton.

Richardson, who has been mentioned as a potential vice presidential candidate, told Democrats it was time to stop bickering and get behind Obama as the party’s nominee. The Clinton campaign dismissed the endorsement.

Senior strategist Mark Penn, noting Clinton’s February victory in the New Mexico primary, said, “Perhaps the time when he could have been most effective has long since past.” Penn added that he did not think it was a “significant endorsement.”

Whether intentionally timed or not, the Richardson endorsement came as Obama needed the boost after the widely circulated inflammatory snippets of sermons that showed the Rev. Jeremiah Wright claiming the United States had brought the Sept. 11 attacks on itself and asking God to damn America for racial bigotry.

While condemning the remarks, Obama refused in a major speech on race this week to “disown” Wright, who married the candidate and his wife and baptized their children.

Richardson heaped praise on Obama’s speech about the nation’s racial divide.

“As a Hispanic-American, I was particularly touched by his words,” Richardson said. “Senator Obama has started a discussion in this country that is long overdue and rejects the politics of pitting race against race.”

There were also personal aspects to Richardson’s swing behind Obama. He noted that both are the sons of one foreign-born parent – Obama’s father was from Kenya, Richardson’s mother was from Mexico.

McPeak also had made off-the-cuff remarks to reporters Friday in comparing the former president’s comments with the actions of Joseph McCarthy, the 1950s communist-hunting senator.

“I grew up, I was going to college when Joe McCarthy was accusing good Americans of being traitors, so I’ve had enough of it,” McPeak said.

Wolfson called that comparison outrageous and called for a retraction.

“I think most Democrats were shocked to learn that a two-term Democratic president was compared to Joseph McCarthy,” he said.

With the Republican nomination secured, McCain was free to burnish his foreign policy and national security credentials on a weeklong overseas congressional trip that took him to the Middle East and Europe, including a stopover in Iraq.

On Friday, the veteran Arizona senator met with French President Nicolas Sarkozy. Afterwards, he said China is harming its world image with its crackdown in Tibet and expressed hope Beijing would seek a peaceful solution to the crisis.

McCain did not discuss the issue with Sarkozy, but told reporters later in the courtyard of the French presidential Elysee Palace that the subject of Tibet would be “one of the first things I would talk about if I were president of the United States today.”

//cbs-news//

By PAUL SCHEMM

Osama bin Laden accused Pope Benedict XVI of helping in a “new Crusade” against Islam and warned of a “severe” reaction to European publications of cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad that insulted many Muslims.

Bin Laden’s new audiotape message raised concerns al-Qaida was plotting new attacks in Europe. Some experts said bin Laden, believed to be in hiding in the rugged Afghan-Pakistan border area, may be unable to organize an attack himself and instead is trying to fan anger and inspire his supporters to violence.

The Vatican spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi, said bin Laden’s accusation that the pope has played a role in a worldwide campaign against Islam is “baseless.” Lombardi said the pope on several occasions has criticized the cartoons, first published in several European newspapers in 2006 and republished by Danish papers in February.

The pope angered many in the Muslim world in 2006, when he cited a medieval text that characterized some of the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad as “evil and inhuman,” particularly “his command to spread by the sword the faith.”

The pope later said he was “deeply sorry” and stressed the remarks did not reflect his own opinions. He has since led a public campaign for dialogue with Muslims.

Bin Laden’s audiotape was posted late Wednesday on a militant Web site that has carried al-Qaida statements in the past and bore the logo of the extremist group’s media wing Al-Sahab.

“The response will be what you see and not what you hear and let our mothers bereave us if we do not make victorious our messenger of God,” said a voice believed to be bin Laden’s, without specifying what action would be taken.

He said the cartoons “came in the framework of a new Crusade in which the Pope of the Vatican has played a large, lengthy role,” according to a transcript released by the SITE Institute, a U.S. group that monitors terror messages.

“You went overboard in your unbelief and freed yourselves of the etiquettes of dispute and fighting and went to the extent of publishing these insulting drawings,” he said. “This is the greater and more serious tragedy, and reckoning for it will be more severe.”

The five-minute message, bin Laden’s first this year, came as the Muslim world marks the Prophet Muhammad’s birthday on Thursday. It made no mention of the fifth anniversary Wednesday of the U.S.-led invasion in Iraq.

A U.S. counterterrorism official in Washington said “CIA analysis assesses with a high degree of confidence it is Osama bin Laden’s voice on the tape” and that there was “no reason to doubt bin Laden is alive.”

The official spoke on condition of anonymity because of the intelligence matters involved.

On Feb. 13, Danish newspapers republished one of the cartoons, which shows Muhammad wearing a bomb-shaped turban, to illustrate their commitment to freedom of speech after police said they had uncovered the beginnings of a plot to kill the artist. Critics argue that publishers use freedom of speech as a cover to spread Islamophobia as, for example, antisemitism is entirely illega including in the use of free speech/press.

Muslims widely saw the cartoons as an insult, depicting the prophet as violent. Islamic law generally opposes any depiction of the prophet, even favorable, for fear it could lead to idolatry.

The original 12 cartoons, first published in a Danish newspaper and then in several papers across Europe, triggered major protests in Muslim countries in 2006.

There have been renewed protests in the last month, though not as large or widespread. A few dozen university students waved banners and chanted slogans against Denmark on Thursday in Islamabad. The students said they had not seen the bin Laden message.

Ben Venzke, the head of IntelCenter, a U.S. group that monitors militant messages, called Wednesday’s message a “clear threat against EU member countries and an indicator of a possible upcoming significant attack.”

Talat Masood, a retired Pakistani general and security analyst, said bin Laden was likely too isolated to organize an attack. But the al-Qaida leader may be hoping to use anger over the cartoons to inspire violence, he said.

“Even if he has not got the capacity (to launch an attack), he will try to infuse hatred,” Masood said.

Denmark’s intelligence agency said Thursday that bin Laden’s warnings “don’t immediately give reason to change” its assessment of the threat level against the country.

Last week, the intelligence agency had warned that reprinting the cartoon had brought “negative attention” to Denmark and may have increased the risk to Danes at home and abroad.

//ap//

Iraq: the candidates’ stances, then and now

Democrats have rounded on John McCain’s claim to be the uniquely qualified presidential candidate to deal with Iraq after he embarrassingly confused key players in the conflict.

During a Middle East tour intended to highlight his foreign policy acumen, the Republican nominee mistakenly claimed that Iran was training al-Qaeda in Iraq, seemingly unaware that the Shia nation and the Sunni militant group represent opposing interests.

Speaking in Amman, Jordan, after his first trip to Iraq as the Republican nominee, Mr McCain said it was “well-known” that Iran was training al-Qaeda in Iraq.

We continue to be concerned about Iranians taking al-Qaeda into Iran, training them and sending them back,” he told a news conference.

Challenged about the claim, he continued: “Well, it’s common knowledge and has been reported in the media that al-Qaeda is going back into Iran and receiving training and are coming back into Iraq from Iran. That’s well known. And it’s unfortunate.”

It was not until Joseph Lieberman, an independent senator travelling with Mr McCain on the congressional trip, whispered in his ear that the candidate corrected himself.

“I’m sorry, the Iranians are training extremists, not al-Qaeda,” he said.

It was the second time that Mr McCain had made the mistake, having made similar comments during an interview with Hugh Hewitt, a conservative radio host. Speaking to the show on Monday, he said: “As you know, there are al-Qaeda operatives that are taken back into Iran, given training as leaders, and they’re moving back into Iraq.”

The Democrats immediately jumped on the error as evidence that Mr McCain did not understand the nuances of the conflict in Iraq.

“After eight years of the Bush Administration’s incompetence in Iraq, McCain’s comments don’t give the American people a reason to believe that he can be trusted to offer a clear way forward,” Karen Finney, a spokeswoman for the Democratic National Committee, said in a statement. “Not only is Senator McCain wrong on Iraq once again, but he showed he either doesn’t understand the challenges facing Iraq and the region or is willing to ignore the facts on the ground.”

The McCain camp immediately embarked on a damage limitation exercise, issuing the following statement:

“In a press conference today, John McCain misspoke and immediately corrected himself by stating that Iran is in fact supporting radical Islamic extremists in Iraq, not al-Qaeda – as the transcript shows. Democrats have launched political attacks today because they know the American people have deep concerns about their candidates’ judgment and readiness to lead as commander in chief.”

It did not, however, address why the candidate had made the same error in the Hugh Hewitt interview.

The Republican candidate will no doubt be braced for further attacks from Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, who are both due today to discuss their plans to withdraw US troops from Iraq.

Mr McCain was also pressed at the same news conference as to whether he would support strikes against Iran if Tehran didn’t cease its alleged nuclear activities.

He refused to say explicitly whether he would do so, saying only: “At the end of the day, we cannot afford having a nuclear-armed Iran.”

Mr McCain found himself in difficulty last year when he joked about bombing Iran during a campaign stop. Asked by a member of a South Carolina audience what he would do about Iran, he jibed: “Remember that old Beach Boys song, Bomb Iran?” and launched into a rendition of the band’s hit Barbara Ann with the words changed to “bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb bomb Iran”.

//times-online//

At a news conference in Jordan yesterday, John McCain mistakenly accused Iran of “taking al-Qaida into Iran, training them and sending them back” to Iraq.

 13 Percent of Registered Voters Think Obama Is a Muslim

The latest Wall Street Journal/NBC poll asked respondents what Barack Obama’s religion is.

Among registered voters, 37 percent said Protestant. Two percent said Catholic, two percent said “other,” two percent said “none.”

Forty-four percent said they weren’t sure or refused to answer.

Thirteen percent answered “Muslim.”

When the same pollster asked the question in December, 18 percent said Protestant, 2 percent said Catholic, 8 percent said Muslim, and 70 percent didn’t know or refused to answer.

Obama belongs to the Trinity United Church of Christ on Chicago’s south side. Having said that, considering Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s recent comments, Islam might be less controversial at this point.

//national review//

On March 7, 2008 John McCain repudiated any views of a prominent televangelist who endorsed him last month “if they are anti-Catholic or offensive to Catholics.”John McCain has won the GOP nomination. Can he win the hearts and minds of the Christian right? THE JOURNAL reports on popular conservative evangelist John Hagee and his controversial endorsement of McCain. Hagee, leader of the politically powerful group Christians United for Israel (CUFI), has been criticized for controversial remarks about Catholics and about America’s role in the Middle East. Some say his message is dangerous: “It is time for America to … consider a military preemptive strike against Iran to prevent a nuclear holocaust in Israel and a nuclear attack in America.” Find out more about the politics and philosophy of Hagee and CUFI below:

“If a line has to be drawn, draw it around Christians and Jews. We are united.”
-Pastor John Hagee, CUFI Founder

John Hagee, along with other Christian Evangelical leaders, created Christians United for Israel (CUFI) less than two years ago, yet it has already grown into one of the largest and most politically influential Christian grassroots organizations in the country.

“When 50 million evangelical bible-believing Christians unite with five million American Jews standing together on behalf of Israel, it is a match made in heaven.”

>Watch an extended version of Hagee’s keynote address at A Night to Honor Israel, 2007

>Watch Senator John McCain’s address at A Night to Honor Israel, 2007

Dr. Hagee founded and is the Senior Pastor of Cornerstone Church in San Antonio, Texas, a non-denominational evangelical church that has more than 18,000 members. He is also the President and CEO of John Hagee Ministries, which he says boasts a television and radio audience of 99 million homes.

At the recent annual CUFI summit in Washington, D.C., prominent politicians were present to pledge support for this growing movement, including Senators John McCain, Joseph Lieberman, House Minority Whip Roy Blunt, as well as former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay. Lieberman particularly sang Hagee’s praise:

“He is a Ish Elokim, a man of God and those words really fit him…like Moses he’s become a leader of a mighty multitude, even greater than the multitude that Moses led from Egypt to the promised land.”

CUFI considers its defining issue to be the growing challenge of radical Islam, particularly as relates to the security of Israel and the United States. CUFI is incresingly concerned by Iran and its potential nuclear threats. Hagee often alludes to Nazi Germany in order to underline what he believes to be the gravity of the situation:

“Ladies and gentlemen, we are reliving history. It is 1938 all over again,” Hagee explains in a 2007 speech. “Iran is Germany. Ahmadinejad is Hitler. And Ahmadinejad, just like Hitler, is talking about killing the Jews.”

Increasingly, some American evangelical Christians have emerged to form an alliance with Israel. Citing Biblical prophecy, this group of evangelicals call for all ofthe West Bank to remain in Israeli hands, and they oppose any two-state solution. Sometimes called Christian Zionists, they believe that a Christian Messiah will returnto earth in Jerusalem. They have joined with conservative Israeli politicians to oppose any division of the city.Learn about the foundation of this movement through a greater understanding of some of the key components:

Evangelicalism:
Evangelicalism is the movement, especially in English-language theology, which places special emphasis upon the supreme authority of Scripture and the atoning death of Christ. According to Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance, the term was originally used to refer to “those faith groups which followed traditional Christian beliefs, in contrast with two other movements: philosophical rationalism and legalistic Christianity.”

Today, evangelicalism generally refers to a broad spectrum of Protestant Christians.

Fundamentalism:
Comprising the most active, exclusive, and conservative wing ofEvangelicalism, fundamentalism draws its support primarily from the Baptist, Pentecostal and Independent Bible churches associated with individuals such as JerryFalwell, Pat Robertson, Hal Lindsey and Mike Evans.

Fundamentalist Christians typically believe that the Bible is the Word of God, internally consistent, andfree of error. Today, fundamentalists are the most vocal group in opposition to abortion access, laws making homosexuals a “protected category,”physician-assisted suicide, the use of embryonic stem cells for medical research, comprehensive sex-ed classes in public schools, etc.

Dispensationalism:
Many Christian Zionists subscribe to Dispensational Premillennism, a theological approach that claims that “God relates to human beings via different covenants (“dispensations”); in particular, dispensationalists believe that God’s covenant with Israel, including promises of land, continues in full force distinctive from Christianity.” (Donald Wagner, SOJOURNER, July-August 2003)

Paul Beran, lecturer at Northeastern University, explains that “in dispensationalism, history is an evolving pre-ordained plan that has certain marking points.” Each of these seven dispensations represents one of God’s tests for man on the path toward Christian salvation.

When Israeli statehood was declared in 1948, dispensationalists considered it an important prophetic event, or as Arno C. Gaebelein, editor of OUR HOPE described it, “the sign of all signs.”

Central to dispensationalism is the belief that all Israel will be saved; as theologist Stephen Sizer puts it, it is the belief “that the boundaries of the land promised to Abraham and his descendants will be literally instituted; and that Jesus Christ will return to a literal and theocratic Jewish kingdom centered on Jerusalem.”

Premillennial dispensationalists believe that Christ will return prior to the millennium (or 1,000 year reign) begins. There are also post-millennialists who believe that Christ will come after the 1,000 years and amillennialists who believe that God’s promises are figurative and will not be literally fulfilled.

Rapture:
This concept is from a literal interpretation of 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17 in which Paul says, “For the Lord himself, with a word of command, with the voice of an archangel and the trumpet of God, will come down from heaven, and the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. Thus we shall always be with the Lord.”

Rapture is the notion that in the last days believing Christians will be removed from the earth; it is literally explained as the time when Jesus calls thefaithful to heaven and believers are physically taken up.

To learn more about how Evangelical Christians became so closely aligned with Israeli Zionists, read Timothy Weber’s “How Evangelicals Became Israel’s Best Friend.”

//bill moyers journal//

Often Overlooked State Gains Importance in Tight Democratic Race

Barack Obama won the Democratic caucuses today in Wyoming, a state the party’s presidential candidates often overlook, but that in this nail-biter of a race saw heavy campaigning by both Obama and Hillary Clinton.

Obama came away with 61 percent of the vote to Clinton’s 38 percent.

Democrats in Wyoming get little respect. The sparsely populated red state is home to just 218,000 thousand voters, most of them Republicans, like Wyoming’s own Dick Cheney.

But this year, Clinton and Obama eagerly glad-handed voters across the state because even Wyoming — with its 12 delegates — counts.

The excitement about the Democratic race was evident at the Teton County Caucus, held in Jackson. Originally scheduled for the Virginian motel, the caucus had to be moved to the larger Snow King Resort to accommodate the crowds that turned out.

In previous years, no more than 200 Democrats had ever turned out in Teton County, but this year Democratic State Committee chairwoman Lesley Peterson estimated the overflow crowd at 1000 or more by early evening.

The high turnout among Wyoming Democrats is more evidence of how tight the race is between Clinton and Obama nationwide.

A Newsweek poll released Friday found the rival candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination in a statistical dead heat, with 45 percent of registered Democrats and Democratic leanings favoring Obama, and 44 percent favoring Clinton.

That marks the latest pendulum swing in a race that last year saw Clinton as the all-but-inevitable Democratic candidate, to Obama’s decisive lead during a sweep of February primary states. The poll was based on telephone interviews with 1,215 registered voters March 5-6.

The Newsweek poll also shows neither candidate has an edge when it comes to voters’ number-one concern: The foundering economy, with 43 percent favoring Obama, 42 percent preferring Clinton.

The poll does show that seven in 10 Democrats want that dream team: Obama-Clinton or Clinton-Obama.

Today, former president Bill Clinton for the first time sent a clear signal that the Clinton campaign has given serious consideration to that dream ticket too, combining Obama’s urban appeal and Clinton’s rural appeal.

“You look at the map of Texas and the map in Ohio, and the map in Missouri,” Clinton said during a campaign stop on his wife’s behalf in Mississippi, “You look at most of these places — he would win the urban areas and the upscale voters, and she wins the traditional rural areas that we lost when President Reagan was president. If you put those two things together, you’d have an almost unstoppable force.”

Obama said Friday he’s not interested in holding the No. 2 slot on a Democratic dream team.

“You won’t see me as a vice presidential candidate,” Obama said in a radio interview.

Despite talk of a dream team, the bitter tone of the campaign for the White House is likely to get worse, with Clinton on the offensive and Obama walking a fine line, talking tough while trying to remain above the mudslinging.

“She has to take him down,” said Stuart Rothenberg of The Rothenberg Political Report. “He has to respond, look tough.”

If he does win the nomination, Obama will have to respond to Republicans, and to his conservative critics who pointedly refer to him using his full name, Barack Hussein Obama.

Iowa Republican Rep. Steve King gave a taste of what could lie ahead.

In an interview with KICD radio in Spencer, Iowa, the congressman virtually called him a terrorist ally.

“If he is elected president, then the radical Islamists, the al Qaeda, the radical Islamists and their supporters will be dancing in the streets,” King said. “They will be dancing in the streets because of his middle name.”

 //abc news//

Apparently, they’re a couple of decades behind the “liberal” West, and not so stuck after all.

By Joshua Holland

Before 9/11/01, the media relegated stories about women in Islamic societies to page B27, below the fold. Ever since 9/12/01, those same stories have screamed from the front pages in 100-point type. The shift in discourse coincided with the launch of Bush’s global “War on Terror,” when various hawks began using the plight of women in Islam to illustrate the supposed perfidy of our “enemies,” and to justify a series of military “interventions” — invasions — by Western powers.

In the United States, there’s now an almost universally held belief that most women in Islamic societies face wretched persecution and that Islam itself is wholly to blame. But there’s scant empirical evidence to support the claim — mostly, we’re treated to detailed reports of horrific abuses in theocratic states like Saudi Arabia and Iran, despite the fact that just six percent of the Muslim world live in those two countries. If you ask average Americans how they came to their beliefs about how badly women suffer in Islamic societies, most will reply that “everyone knows it.”

But I’ve seen no empirical data to suggest that an Islamic majority itself correlates with the subordination of women better than other co-variables like economic development, women’s ability to serve in government, a political culture that values the rule of law or access to higher education. In other words, you can use a comparison of women’s status in Saudi Arabia and Sweden to make an intellectually weak argument for Western superiority, but there’s little support for the notion that women living in “traditional” Islamic cultures enjoy a lower social status than those in orthodox Christian, Jewish or Hindu communities, to name a few examples. Think of the perfectly backwards Eastern Orthodox Church, the largest Christian communion in the world. Or consider the country where women may be brutalized more terribly than in any other, the Democratic Republic of Congo, which is 70 percent Christian and 10 percent Muslim. Or go to Utah, where tens of thousands of Mormon fundamentalists believe that women are literally the property of their fathers or husbands. Of course, Mormon fundamentalists are the exception that proves the endless benevolence and equality of the West, while whatever despicable caricature of justice perpetrated on a woman by the House of Saud is breathlessly recounted as emblematic of Islamic culture as a whole.

Comparing the “Muslim world” to the rest of the world poses an intellectual problem — how does one even look at the role of Islam in a society, specifically, rather than dozens of other variables that might influence women’s outcomes?

I’d expect, for example, the structure of a country’s economy to play a far greater role in determining women’s status than the religion of its people. There’s quite a bit of research showing that in service and manufacturing economies — those of wealthier states — women enjoy a great deal of personal freedom and autonomy, civil and political rights and access to higher education. That’s because of the high value of their labor outside the home, in the workforce. Women earning their own bread out in the working world demand, and require, full political rights and legal protections. In poorer economies, most of which have large agricultural sectors and many of which rely on extractive enterprises — oil, mining, etc. — women tend to suffer a much lower social status, because their labor is more valuable coerced and sequestered close to home. That’s a structural, rather than a “Clash of Civilizations” explanation of women’s varying outcomes in different countries. It’s the latter view that I find little evidence to support.

None of this is a defense of Islam, or women’s place within it — I have little love for religion, any religion, and certainly no desire to defend any religious rites or customs. It’s about our loose definitions of the problem and tendency to idealize the “liberal” West.

March 8 is International Women’s Day, and a new global opinion poll was released to mark the occasion. The results will no doubt come as a surprise to many …

According to a new WorldPublicOpinion.org poll of 16 nations from around the world, there is a widespread consensus that it is important for “women to have full equality of rights,” and most say it is very important. This is true in Muslim countries as well as Western countries.

In nearly all countries, most people perceive that in their lifetime women have gained greater equality. Nonetheless, large majorities would like their government and the United Nations to take an active role in preventing discrimination.

Support for equal rights is robust in all Muslim countries. Large majorities say it is important in Iran (78%), Azerbaijan (85%), Egypt (90%), Indonesia (91%), Turkey (91%) and the Palestinian territories (93%).

That’s no surprise to me, but I wouldn’t have bought into the “Yellow Peril” or “Communist Menace” narratives of earlier generations either. The U.S. political class did not suddenly develop an abiding concern for women’s equality in a vacuum. Like the promotion of human rights during the Cold War, there is a geopolitical goal being served. The United States has been in a state of permanent war since the 1940s — when not in a “hot” (real) war, we are, as a society, still under a constant cloud of threat, and our political leaders are all too happy to advance that narrative as long as it plays well politically. But it’s not enough to simply be under some ill-defined “threat” from ordinary rivals — that would just be basic geopolitics — we’re in a permanent fight for our very existence from forces that are wholly pernicious and bent on nothing less than our total destruction.

That’s become a central aspect of American political culture. We had a seamless transition from World War II to Cold War to Drug War to War on Terror, and in every instance, the unadulterated evil of our opponents has been a consistent theme, as has been our ability to turn a blind eye to the same offenses when perpetrated by the United States or our allies.

And now our existential enemies are the spooky brown people of the Muslim world, with their frightening and alien habits and supposed tendency towards “Islamofascism.” The problem with that storyline is clear: the Western, predominantly Christian world has far more economic and political influence than the “Muslim world” — much of which escaped the yoke of colonialism just in the past 50-75 years — and, more significantly, it has hundreds of thousands of troops on the soil of several predominantly Muslim countries, whereas the reverse does not obtain. In other words, the “threat” of an Islamic takeover of the West is as realistic as the threat of my sweet grandmother beating the Hell out of Mike Tyson.

Enter the endless — and relatively recent — fascination with the plight of women in Islamic societies. The complete perfidy of Islam — its supposed backwardness, slavish fundamentalism, brutality against the weak and, especially, expansionist tendencies — is necessary for (and perfectly suited to) the global war-on-whatever narrative, and therefore, I suggest, worthy of special scrutiny.

Consider for a moment the “Islam is stuck in the 12th century” narrative so popular now in the mainstream discourse — a narrative for which women’s civic participation is deemed a vital benchmark. The problem isn’t that Islam is being described unfairly, the problem lies with the implication that the “West” made so much progress in the 13th century. The truth is that universal suffrage came to Iran in 1979, five years before women in Liechtenstein got the vote. It came to Bahrain in 2002, 12 years after the Swiss Supreme Court ordered the stubborn Canton of Appenzell Innerrhoden to accept women’s suffrage. Portuguese women got the vote in 1976, Swiss women in 1971 — both in my lifetime — and in my baby-boomer mother’s lifetime, women in Italy, Belgium and Japan first got the franchise.

As far as women’s political participation goes, parts of the Muslim world — no, it’s not monolithic — are a few decades, not centuries, behind parts of the West. Is there evidence that the Islamic world is “stuck”? Not at all; in this young century, suffrage has been extended to women in Oman, Kuwait, Qatar and the UAE. Active women’s rights movements exist in every country on the planet; women were never given rights anywhere without a fight.

And when comparing apples and apples — among economically developed Western democracies — the United States has very little standing to criticize anyone else about the status of women. We rank 71st in the world in terms of the proportion of women serving in our legislature, with just 16 percent. That’s significantly worse not only than the European countries, it’s also a poorer showing than Sudan, Pakistan, the United Arab Emirates and Uzbekistan.

According to the Wall Street Journal, women with similar experience and qualifications earn 16 percent less than their male counterparts worldwide; in the United States, the gender “earnings gap” is 22 percent. A study by researchers at the University of California found that women occupied only 11 percent of the seats on corporate boards in the oh-so-progressive state of California and held about one in 12 executive jobs. And, as I’ve written before, while the American economy has seen enormous benefits from large numbers of women entering the work force, our corporate culture has done far less than just about every other country — including supposedly “backward” states — to adapt to today’s work force:

According to Harvard’s Project on Global Working Families, the United States is one of only five countries out of 168 studied that doesn’t mandate some form of paid maternal leave. The only other advanced economy among those five was Australia’s, where women are guaranteed an entire year of unpaid leave. That puts the United States — the wealthiest nation on the planet — in the company of Lesotho, Papua New Guinea and Swaziland.

So you may have come a long way, Western Baby, but you’re not there yet, or even close.

The bottom line here is that increasing women’s civic, political and economic participation is a good fight, and an incredibly significant one. Focusing primarily on the status of women in Islamic countries to rid ourselves of the stigma of our own inequalities or to justify Western hegemony over the rest of the world is not.

//alternet//