Elizabeth Schulte at Counterpunch has a story further elaborating what an Obama cabinet might look like, and it ain’t appealing.  According to the article, there could be an arms dealer, Madeleine Albright, and there’s even an outside chance that Robert Gates will be in the cabinet.

So I ask any fervent Obama supporters out there:  What’s he going to do differently?  Why should any progressive vote for Obama?

Vote Nader tomorrow and send the message that you won’t be satisfied with fake progressivism.  We need REAL changes in Washington.  No more corporate control of government, no more military-industrial complex, no more Zionism in our foreign policy, and no more of the racist drug war.

This article provides another example of the financial benefits the US will reap from its invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq.  It’s not a “war for oil,” it’s a grab for petrodollars.  From the article:

Iraq is fast becoming one of the United States’ top customers for military sales. Since January 2007, Iraq has spent $3.1 billion on U.S. weapons. That number looks likely to grow exponentially as Iraq uses its vast unspent reserves of petrodollars to develop its army into a force capable of defending its borders against hostile neighbors.

It’s no wonder they don’t care about the war’s cost, someone’s gonna make money off of arms deals.  According to the article, we are paying for the US military to hawk gear to the Iraqis.

The article gives lots of dollar figures but never says where this money will go.  It also leaves out the current total cost of the Iraq occupation.  Here’s what I want to know?

• Who is actually selling the equipment?  The US government or the manufacturers?
• Will the sales help offset the cost of this occupation or will the money go straight to the corporations?
• Who is going to train Iraqis to use this new equipment?  Our military or private firms?
• In short, these questions all ask: who will benefit from these arms deals, the American public or the equipment manufacturers?

An AP news report interviewing CIA director Michael Hayden brings up a possible succession crisis concerning al-Qaida leadership.  The piece itself, however, lends itself to some questions, as the reporter did not reference any other sources except for director Hayden.

“The organization is a lot more networked than it is ruthlessly hierarchical,” Hayden said of the group behind the 9/11 attacks on the U.S.

So Hayden says that there isn’t much of a managerial structure to the organization.  But the very next paragraph would suggest that there is:

A number of Egyptians are now part of al-Qaida’s top echelon and may struggle for power among themselves. Bin Laden’s current No. 2, Ayman al-Zawahiri, is an Egyptian. (Boldface is mine)

Then, further down the page:

“There’s an awful lot of senior leadership killed or captured including even in the last several months,” he said.”

For an organization that “isn’t ruthlessly hierarchical,” they sure have a lot of upper management!  If an “awful lot” of senior leadership has been killed, can we still count on a succession crisis?  Maybe there won’t be all that many leaders left.

Speaking on the subject of Guantanamo Bay inmates, the reporter writes:

The CIA is still holding prisoners but for less time. It recently turned over two detainees to the U.S. military at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base after a few months.

However, we are not given any other numbers to support this statement.  Two detainees were released but we aren’t told how many others were taken in with them and how long they have been incarcerated.  We also aren’t told the average length of incarceration at Guantanamo, or how many inmates are still sitting there with no idea of when or if they will ever be released.  How can two detainees possibly be used to represent the collective experience of all Guantanamo inmates?  And did Pamela Hess, the reporter, ask these questions?  Did she find us any numbers?  Did she find another expert on Guantanamo Bay inmates to either validate or repudiate Mr. Hayden?  No.  For the audience, it’s business as usual with corporate-owned media:  “Sit down, shut up, and believe what we tell you.”

Finally, there was more fear-mongering over Iran:

He believes Iran’s intention is to produce its own nuclear fuel, using Iranian technology.

“That gives them the potential at any moment to break out and create a weapon and that’s what of course is most troubling.”

But last December, US intelligence reports concluded that Iran posed no nuclear threat, having apparently halted operations in 2003.  Ms. Hess, where was this information in your story?  Mr. Hayden, is there new evidence since last December’s report to support your assertions about Iran?

Is anyone else troubled by this one-sided reporting?  I welcome all comments from all points of view.