War profiteering and John Cusack’s War, Inc. – Let’s talk about it

John Cusack’s War, Inc. is a must-see movie. Let’s make sure people see it.

Many of us who have been lucky enough to see this film already know that it’s funny, topical, and offers many levels of meaning, perhaps somewhat concealing its beautiful soul.

If you’ve been following what’s going on in this country, in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and if you know your history, you’re also most likely aware that the issues of war profiteering and privatization this movie brings up are very real and very scary.

The corporate media, however, is not very good at informing us about what’s really going on when our reaction to events might jeopardize the profits of other corporations, which may even be linked through common investors or subsidiary arrangements to the media companies themselves. It seems to me the small number of corporate conglomerates that run most of the media companies in this country would prefer that you not see War, Inc. and understand what it’s really about.

I think that if there were an Oscar category for Most Relevant Non-Documentary Film, War, Inc. should win it. But that’s not going to happen. Nevertheless, in some better future when we recognize the history of American war profiteering for what it was, John Cusack may be seen as a hero for helping to bring this issue to light and into the pop culture consciousness.

Some of us who are fans of the movie may know others who are fans of John Cusack, but may think that he’s making all of this up. They may not have heard about this issue before, and perhaps they think that the absurdist extreme to which he takes the issue is just based on some sort of left wing paranoia. In fact, I don’t think he’s exaggerating very much.

I’ve been blogging about this movie more than I intended to, but sometimes I just have to go with the flow when I see an opportunity to make an impact. I’ve been deeply concerned about the state of the world all my life. I tend to go through periods of activism on various issues, followed by periods of feeling like all my efforts have been futile. If you’ve ever done any work as an activist, I think you probably know it’s hard sometimes to stay inspired. Right now, I have to thank John Cusack for making this an issue I have some chance of being able to laugh about, and for inspiring me to believe that we might make some progress on this issue if enough people can see this movie and come to understand it.

As I’ve been blogging about this movie and reading John Cusack’s blog and other blogs, I’ve come across some links we might want to use to talk about the movie and the issues it raises. This is hardly a comprehensive list, but check some of these out and if you know someone who needs to be educated on the issue of war profiteering, please consider passing some of these along.

My categorization of these links into movie-related or issue-related is somewhat arbitrary, since many cover both.

Movie-related links

War, Inc. Official page on MySpace (John Cusack)
IMDB page If you have a membership here, don’t forget to rate the movie!
First Look Studios official page
Watch the trailer on YouTube
The Hour: John Cusack on War, Inc. – great interview on YouTube
Buy it on Amazon.com
Rent it on Netflix – and don’t forget to review it and rate it.
Yahoo movies Rate the movie here!
DVD Talk
War, Inc. – a review that focuses on the reality of the issue
John Cusack’s Latest --- War, Inc. – positive review of the movie by a conservative
My own reviews:
The Flicks Files: War, Inc. (2008)
The Trinity, Redemption, and John Cusack’s War, Inc.
8th House Scorpions and How NOT to Recycle War Profiteers


Issue-related links

Whose Vision – Cusack’s or Bush’s – The Privatization of War
War Inc. 2002 article on the reality of war profiteering.
Dick Cheney: War Profiteer
Halliburton Watch
Iraq for Sale documentary film by Robert Greenwald
Interview with Kevin Phillips on the Bush Dynasty
Democracy Now! interview with John Cusack
Meet the Bloggers interview with Cusack and other bloggers on YouTube
John Cusack’s blog on Huffington Post
John Cusack’s blog MySpace
List of further facts and research links on Iraq for Sale web site


This is by no means an exhaustive list, but it’s a start. I hope it will help you to present this issue to others. And if you see other good links out there, or you post something on this movie yourself, post the link in a comment.

Oh, and here's the takeaway: the next time someone says we should get into a war, ask yourself who stands to make a buck.

8th House Scorpions and How NOT to Recycle War Profiteers

In John Cusack’s brilliantly deranged War, Inc., Hilary Duff sticks a live scorpion down her pants, Cusack fights Sir Ben Kingsley in the back of a garbage truck, Dan Aykroyd does a moving portrayal of Dick Cheney on the toilet, and Halliburton-style war profiteers wage the very first American war to be entirely outsourced to a private corporation. Did I mention I love this movie?

I don’t think I’ve ever written so much about one movie before, but when Mr. Cusack cross-posted both of my previous pieces about War, Inc. to his MySpace blog, I made a rash mistake. In a comment, I wrote:

If you are going to keep cross-posting these, I'm going to have to find new angles to use to write about this movie. You know that, right?

Speaking of John Cusack’s movies, why do I suddenly hear the Carpenters on my radio? What if that devious mind keeps cross-posting this stuff? Have I just doomed myself by my word to an eternal damnation of writing about War, Inc. until Halliburton brings about the end times? This could get as scary as, well, Stephen King.

How do I get out of this self-inflicted imaginary obligation to a movie star I’ve never even met? I could fake rabid right wing conversion and write a demonic defense of why what’s good for Halliburton is good for the oil companies and hence, for America, but there are more evil fates than being doomed to write about one movie for eternity, and I dare not go into that dark night. Dick Cheney is one tormented soul I don’t want to find leaping out of the darkness of a chickenhawk bunker to embrace me and invite me on a hunting trip for moose with Sarah Palin.

Right. I’m just going to have to explain what scorpions, garbage trucks, vice presidential shit, and war profiteers have in common. Because that’s a secret I’m fairly sure John Cusack would be horrified to have you know.

Scorpio the scorpion: astrologically, this sign is located in the 8th house of the natural chart. The 8th house rules such mysteries as sex, other people’s money, symbolism, and hidden bunkers in undisclosed locations. Scorpio is ruled by Mars, the God of War, and by Pluto, the God of Death and Transformation.

Let me just say that if you’re a mythological being or even a fictional hitman in a movie, you do not want your daughter kidnapped, taken to an undisclosed location, probably fed pomegranate seeds somewhere along the way, and then taught to put scorpions down her pants. This type of thing tends to make a guy (or gal) want to lay the earth to waste. Best avoided.

Speaking of laying the earth to waste, that’s really what those old miscreants Pluto and Mars wanted in the first place, hence the reason for getting your daughter involved with kinky scorpionic sex. And here’s where the war profiteers come into it, not to mention vice presidential shit.

As Defense Secretary, Mr. Cheney commissioned a study for the U.S. Department of Defense by Brown and Root Services (now Kellogg, Brown and Root), a wholly owned subsidiary of Halliburton. The study recommended that private firms like Halliburton should take over logistical support programs for U.S. military operations around the world. Just two years after he was Secretary of Defense, Cheney stepped through the revolving door linking the Department of Defense with defense contractors and became CEO of Halliburton. Halliburton was the principal beneficiary of Cheney’s privatization efforts for our military’s logistical support and Cheney was paid $44 million for five year's work with them before he slipped back through the revolving door of war profiteering to become Vice-President of the United States. When asked about the money he received from Halliburton, Cheney said. "I tell you that the government had absolutely nothing to do with it."

No wonder Cheney’s bathroom habits are such a strain, as finally revealed by Dan Aykroyd in War, Inc. That is one huge stinking pile he’s trying to pass. Getting back to the 8th house and other people’s money, Cheney is hardly spending his own. U.S. taxpayers, those are YOUR billions going to Halliburton.

Lest we think U.S. war profiteering is Dick Cheney’s invention, however, let’s remember that General Smedley Butler admitted to having made Mexico safe for American oil interests way back in 1914, and that George W. Bush’s family has war profiteering interests going back to at least the 1920s, including dealings with the Nazis in the 1930s, according to the book American Dynasty: Aristocracy, Fortune, and the Politics of Deceit in the House of Bush, written by former Nixon staffer Kevin Phillips.

What, you might ask, does all of this have to do with garbage trucks?

Pluto, one of Scorpio’s rulers, has a morbid fascination with death, decay, and rotting, stinking garbage --- in other words, the Bush administration. And doesn’t this all just make you want to take the trash out?

Fortunately, in the sign of Scorpio, we have the opportunity to do just that on November 4th, when we can all get out and vote, support a transformational regime change, and let in a breath of fresh air. (But then we’ll have to put pressure on Obama to end the war profiteering once and for all.)

When disposing of famous British actors, however, please recycle.

How’s that for a load of “astonishing half-true frontier gibberish,” Ms. Hegalhuzen?

John Cusack explains this all so much better than I do.

UPDATED TIME: John Edwards to rebut Bush on MSNBC

Tonight, after George Bush's address to the nation, presidential candidate John Edwards will offer a rebuttal on MSNBC. Edwards has purchased two minutes of air time so that he can respond to Bush.

John will challenge the President's remarks with a strong call to the nation to end the war now.

Bush is scheduled to speak at 9:00 p.m. Eastern for 15 minutes. Edwards will speak immediately afterwards.

UPDATE Now the Edwards campaign is saying that Edwards will be on MSNBC at 9:53 p.m. I'd really like to know who pushed back on the original time.

"Tell Congress you know the truth," Edwards says. "They have the power to end this war and you expect them to use it. When the president asks for more money and more time, Congress needs to tell him he only gets one choice — a firm timeline for withdrawal."

Edwards will also appear on Larry King Live on CNN tonight.

Keeping up with John Edwards

Sometimes I think people reading my blog must think that I'm a professional political junkie or something like that. I know all of my posts are about the Edwards campaign. In the past six months, for me, it's all about the Edwards campaign. Every single day the question I ask myself is "what can I do to help get the word out about John Edwards today?" It was not always this way.

Once, I had a life. Up until late 2003, as a matter of fact, I had more or less ignored politics for 20 years. I voted, but that was about it. Then, two things happened. Bush cheated his way into office and proceeded to ruin my country, which eventually angered me so much that I felt I had to do something about it. Then, in the course of looking for a Democratic candidate to challenge him in 2004, I discovered someone who I thought would be not just a good president, but a great president. That is John Edwards. I've been rooting for him ever since.

It's not easy these days to keep up with John Edwards. I write blogs about him at least a few times a week, but if all you know about John Edwards is what I write in my blog, I will be the first to confess that you're missing a lot of substantial news about him.

For one thing, the guy is a nonstop policy guru. His campaign puts out several press releases every week with new and detailed policy proposals, only some of which I find the time to write about. In this post, I'll do a quick update on a few things I didn't have time to write about in the past week or so.

A few days ago, Edwards announced a plan to protect our food supply, require country of origin labels, and strengthen the FDA. The plan would require imported food to meet the same safety standards as homegrown food produced in the USA, and would help protect the business of family farmers, too. From the press release:

Des Moines, Iowa – Senator John Edwards today announced a new initiative he would pursue as President to ensure the safety of food for American consumers and to help farmers and ranchers in Iowa and across the nation. Edwards will discuss the initiative on a conference call with Iowa reporters today and will be joined by Congresswoman Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (D-S.D.), who is supporting his campaign for President.

"It's time to stop the delays and stop giving in to big agribusiness and food importers," Edwards said. "We need to give Americans the information they need to choose the best, and safest, food for their families."

"Senator Edwards grew up in rural America and understands the challenges we face, and that's reflected in his proposals to strengthen agriculture," Herseth Sandlin said. "We need the kind of presidential leadership he's offering, whether it's protecting our food supply, helping our agricultural producers, or revitalizing rural America."

Edwards is clearly right in step with what voters want on this one. A recent consumer reports poll shows that 92% of Americans favor country of origin labels on food.

What I didn't know, and wouldn't have known from the campaign's press release, is that Edwards has been an advocate of country of origin labeling since at least 2002. As MontanaMaven wrote in her great diary on the subject on Daily Kos,

Senator Edwards support of the 2002 Bill which mandated Country of Origin Labeling(COOL) for beef,pork,lamb, fish, perishable agriculture commodities and peanuts. (The fish and seafood part has already been implemented.)

Proving once again that John Edwards is COOL.

Then, just today, Edwards announced a plan to train 150,000 American workers every year for "green collar" jobs.

Des Moines, Iowa – Senator John Edwards today announced a new initiative he would pursue as President to ensure that regular Americans share in the benefits of the new energy economy. His investments in a new energy future are projected to create over a million new jobs economy-wide, and the new Green Collar Jobs training plan will offer job training and placement for up to 150,000 workers a year.

"We can turn the crisis of climate change into an opportunity for a new energy economy, right here in America – and Iowa in particular," Edwards said. "Now is the time to make sure that the economy of tomorrow is an all-aboard economy where nobody is left behind."

Green collar jobs! How cool is that?!

Another thing I like about Edwards is that he isn't afraid to speak out on things that other politicians find inconvenient to bring up. George Bush's mental problems, for example. This is what Edwards said yesterday about Bush's statement on Iraq:

"The president's remarks today defending his Iraq policy without regard to actual facts border on the delusional. The president claimed that the same people attacking U.S. troops today are the ones who perpetrated 9/11. It must be nice to live in a world where your actions have no consequences. There was no group called Al Qaeda in Iraq before the president's disastrous mismanagement of the war gave them a foothold, a fact the president flagrantly ignores. After being discredited again and again, the president is still trying to link Iraq and 9/11 - a rationale for the war that virtually everyone except Dick Cheney has now recognized was false.

"The president needs to stop pretending and start taking responsibility for the results of his failed strategy: There are more terrorists. Al Qaeda is resurgent and restored to full strength. And that's according to the Bush Administration.

"We need a real strategy against terrorism, like the one I have offered. We need to take Al Qaeda in Iraq as seriously as we take terrorism anywhere. As president, I will apply the full extent of our security apparatus to protect our vital interests, to take measures to root out terrorist cells, and to strike swiftly and strongly against those who would do us harm. I will also launch a sweeping effort to eliminate the conditions that generate instability, radicalism, and violence toward the U.S. and our allies."

I would have left out "bordering on," but I'm not a Southern gentleman.

Well, those are a few of the key events this week. I know that's not all. I expect to have even more trouble keeping up with John Edwards next week, when he launches his Road to One America tour to highlight the issue of poverty in the United States. Should be an exciting week!

Edwards slams Republicans on the politics of terror

John Edwards gave a speech today about his plans to combat terrorism. Here's the full transcript:

Remarks by Senator John Edwards
New York, New York
June 7, 2007

For six years George Bush has used the language ‘war on terrorism’ to force through an ideological agenda that undermines our values and does nothing to undermine terrorism. The Bush ‘Global War on Terror Doctrine’ is a political slogan—a political slogan that the president has used to stifle opposition to the biggest uses and worst mistakes of his administration—Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, spying on Americans, torture. None of this has made us safer, and all of it has undermined American values and the perception of American values around the world.

In fact, by the Bush Administration’s own admission, we’re less safe today. Terrorism is on the rise, the Taliban is resurgent, and Al Qaeda is expanding across the Middle East and even into Europe. The Administration’s mismanagement of the war in Iraq and neglect of the situation in Afghanistan has turned both nations into breeding grounds for terrorists. There’s been a 29 percent increase in worldwide terrorism from 2005 to 2006 according to this Administration’s own State Department. And the number of deaths due to terrorism has climbed 40 percent. That’s an increase of 6,000 deaths for a terrible total of more than 20,000.

And this is actually the worst part of Bush’s ‘War on Terror Doctrine’: not only is it a distraction from the real war of stopping terrorists, it’s actually backfired. Today, we have more terrorists and fewer allies. And I want to say that again. Today, as a result of what George Bush has done, we have more terrorists and fewer allies. There was no group called "Al Qaeda in Iraq" before this president’s war in Iraq. But there was nearly global support for America in the period immediately following September the 11th.

The Bush Terror Doctrine actually misunderstands the problem and fails to offer an effective long term solution. This is not a war against a fixed enemy at specific locations that we can defeat just through a constant military operation. And because its origins are political and ideological, it leads to decisions imposed on the military that are sloppy, ill-defined and poorly focused, losing sight of the real mission, which is to protect Americans.

It is no wonder that so many generals and military experts and even leading Republicans have criticized this president’s ‘War on Terror’ approach. General Anthony Zinni has called it a counterproductive doctrine and Admiral William Fallon, the president’s Mideast commander, has instructed his staff to stop using the term ‘long war.’ And even former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has flatly told an interviewer -- this is a quote -- ‘It is not a war on terror,’ end quote, and said that the doctrine was one of his regrets.

We need a smart national security strategy to shut down terrorists, not a political strategy to shut down debate, which is what this president is engaged in. It actually doesn’t help, by the way, that the Republican presidential candidates seem intent on trying to one-up each other to try to be a bigger, badder George Bush. They want to become George Bush on steroids. I hope they, and all the candidates, both Democratic and Republican, will direct their attention to offering real plans to stopping terrorists instead of just political rhetoric.

I want to talk for just a minute about my plan, and what I think we need to do, and what I will do as commander in chief.

I’ll strengthen our military so that we can better address the threat that is posed by terrorist groups to the United States. We’re going to strengthen our force structure. I will hold regular conferences with my top military leadership so that they’re advice is not filtered through civilians—it comes directly to me, as president of the United States. And I will give back military professionals control over operational decisions, not have those operational decisions made by civilians.

Second, I recognize what our military commanders have already made clear. Military action is only one of the tools that should be used to fight terrorism. We have to supplant the lore of violent extremists with the hope of education, opportunity and prosperity. There are today thousands who are committed to violence. I fully recognize that. And they have to be stopped, wherever they are, using whatever means are available to us. But there are millions more who today are sitting on the fence. We have to offer them a hand to our side instead of a shove to the other side of that fence. I’ll launch a global—a sweeping global effort to provide education and fight poverty. Here in the United States we’ll create a 10,000-member-strong Marshall Corps, all to ensure that terrorism does not take root in weak and failing states, which is exactly what is happing in Iraq.

My strategy will actually put America on the offensive footing. We not only will go find terrorists where they are today, using every tool available to us -- military, intelligence, work and information gathered by our allies and alliances -- but also, we’re going to undermine the long term forces of terrorism. We’re going to fight terror—potential terrorists, those who are sitting on the fence, toward us, toward opportunity and hope. And the way we’re going to do it is America is going to lead an international effort that once again reestablishes America as a leader in the world.

I know that there are terrorists who mean us harm today, and they have to be stopped. To suggest otherwise is to do exactly what I have criticized the Bush Administration of doing: to reduce the fight against terrorists to a bumper sticker slogan and use it for political gains. Using fear as a wedge issue may help win elections, but it will not protect Americans. For more than 200 years we have defeated our enemies though strength, through ideas, with confidence and with honor. To win the struggle against terror and uphold the greatness of America, we have to do the same. We have to come together and we have to cast fear aside.

I got the transcript from Tracy Joan's diary on Daily Kos

I particularly love these lines:

And this is actually the worst part of Bush’s ‘War on Terror Doctrine’: not only is it a distraction from the real war of stopping terrorists, it’s actually backfired. Today, we have more terrorists and fewer allies. And I want to say that again. Today, as a result of what George Bush has done, we have more terrorists and fewer allies.

We need a smart national security strategy to shut down terrorists, not a political strategy to shut down debate, which is what this president is engaged in. It actually doesn’t help, by the way, that the Republican presidential candidates seem intent on trying to one-up each other to try to be a bigger, badder George Bush. They want to become George Bush on steroids. I hope they, and all the candidates, both Democratic and Republican, will direct their attention to offering real plans to stopping terrorists instead of just political rhetoric.

Here are some video excerpts: