Saturday, November 26, 2005

Ann Coulter

author of this mad monlogue, shouldn't be allowed on the airwaves.

Now you tell me...

Does this sound like a whitewash to you?

Friday, November 25, 2005

Letter to the editor

The following is a copy of a letter I wrote to the editor of the SB NewsPress. It probably won't be published--it's a bit lengthy--but what the hell.

Thirty-nine months after Bush/Cheney's invasion and occupation of Iraq,
after untold thousands of deaths and maimings of Iraqis, Americans and others,
and the expenditure of hundreds of billions of dollars, we are hearing
suggestions from some in the Bush administration that "withdrawal" or
"redeployment" of some coalition forces is likely, even imminent. These utterances are no doubt prompted by the growing rejection by the US public of our continued presence in Iraq, which is in turn based on a new awareness among the majority of our citizenry that the reasons the administration gave for the invasion were false: No weapons of mass destruction, no connection of Saddam Hussein to al Qaeda, no "imminent threat" by Iraq to the US or its allies. With increasing frequency, Americans are asking, "Why are we in Iraq, anyway?" It is to diffuse this growing
doubt about the rightness of our mission there that the administration is now making mutterings of withdrawal.

Don't be fooled. The Bush administration's invasion of Iraq was always about establishing US hegemony in the Middle East, and so when they speak of withdrawal or redeployment of forces, they don't mean our troops will come home, or even leave the area. They'll be ordered to stay indefinitely in the region to show US power--and use it if necessary--to enforce US interests (read access to oil and natural gas by our corporations). Indeed, we are presently building four "enduring" bases in Iraq to ensure our permanent military presence there.

These bases will only ensure continued attacks on US targets in the region and
throughout the world, by those who've long demanded that we give up our designs on the territory and resources of the Middle East. We'll continue to spend billions of dollars and risk innocent lives, just in slightly different locales.

We mustn't grow complacent. We must keep up the drumbeat, continue to demand to "support our troops" not by moving them a few miles farther into the desert, but by bringing them home. Home to the United States. Now.

Thursday, November 24, 2005

You read it here first

That is, here. No surprise, I suppose, that our oil barons are planning to rip off the Iraqis, but it still bears reporting, right?

I regularly check out Al-Jazeera's webpage to see whazzup. I know it's thought to be a shill for the bad guys--even a target of our bombing--but it seems moderately moderate to me, and it certainly publishes news that others don't touch, especially our MSM.

Of course that's why Bush wants it destroyed.

I'd like to attend a press conference

where President Bush is asked about Hugo Chavez's decision to deliver below-market heating oil to various cities on the east coast of the US. I hope the question comes up--maybe as part of the the Thanksgiving festivities--perhaps by means of a question like this: "Mr. President, Are you having turkey, or are you eating crow?"

Wednesday, November 23, 2005

Who's on first?

We are told that there's a new strategy for US forces: "go and stay." This involves not simply clearing various hotspots of insurgency, whole towns in many cases, but thereafter leaving a residual force sufficient to keep the town free of a return of the insurgents. However, this involves a significant increase in the number of troops on the ground for a significant period.

On the other hand, there are the hints by Condi Rice, that troop reductions in Iraq are in the offing. Is it possible that Condi's bullshitting us, just saying what the Bush administration thinks will placate the growing resistance to the war? Naa. Couldn't be, not in this administration with its implacable dedication to truth.

Craigslist rocks

Seems like alot of things rock for me today. This one--Craigslist--surely does.

When I was apartment-hunting in SB three months ago, I logged onto Craigslist hourly almost, to find the latest listings and to communicate by email with the owners. Really quick and efficient, an important feature being that when the space was rented, it was removed from Craigslist, unlike in the classifieds of the SB News-Press, where a rental could appear available long after it was rented. Other features, too, making Craigslist far superior to the newpaper for classified advertising. I'm certain that it, along with eBay and uBid (both of which I've used as well) are part of the problem the papers are facing, as shown in their declining revenues.

And now Craigslist is taking on the news component of newspapers. Right on, dog!

Depends on whose ox is being phosphorused

Is "white phosphorus" a "chemical weapon," the use of which in warfare is illegal? It is if you're Saddam Hussein, but not, apparently, if you're the good ol' USA.

The enemy of my enemy

I'm sure on many issues I don't agree with Libertarian Justin Raimondo, whose blog,, is one of my first sources for essay and news each morning. I trust he's anti-liberal on social issues, probably too on environmental questions. But as to this war in Iraq--and in critiquing those politicians of both parties who support it--he's right on. This post, to me, says it all, especially its castigation of Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton for their weak-kneed, mendacious positions on our occupation. I commend it to you.

BTW--There's a quote in this post, cited by Raimondo, which is attributed to Claire Booth Luce, criticizing FDR's actions in triggering our entry into WWII:

The President "lied us into war because he did not have the political courage to lead us into it."

Seems like history repeats itself each generation. FDR in 1941, LBJ in 1966, GWB in 2003. Like the song says, "When will they ever learn, when will they ever learn?"

Juan Cole rocks

I've mentioned this before, I know, but the blog of this university professor, a Middle East expert, is must reading for those wanting to follow the developments in the region. Professor Cole speaks Arabic and has studied the area for years, as well as traveling there regularly.

Today's posts deal with Bush's conversation with Tony Blair, wherein the latter talked Bush out of bombing the Qatar broadcast station of al Jazeera (and the post describes the network accurately, in my opinion); the attempt by Big Oil to pirate Iraq's oil to their own profit; the disclosure that Bush was personally told by way of a President's Daily Brief (PDB) long before the Iraq invasion that there was no operational connection between Iraq and al Qaeda--and that Bush nevertheless told the US public that there was, and withheld the PDB from Congress in the runup to the war.

Other tidbits, too. All part of a day in the dwindling decade of our empire.

Monday, November 21, 2005

Read it and weep

How can you not? And, for those of you who aren't doing anything to get the US out of Iraq, get off your butts.

Triangle of Death

An Iraqi reporter tells of his observations of the Iraqi army's actions in these villages. I guess you'd say we need to do a bit more training of them--or are they just following our example?

Sunday, November 20, 2005

Loose tongues

I'm getting tired of this. When those people in Iraq who are fighting with small arms and crude IEDs the US occupation troops and the US-sponsored Iraqi military, they are called, variously, "insurgents" (not, of course, "patriots") and "terrorists," and if they shoot our troops the event is called an "ambush."

Does our media ever--I mean, ever--cast what's happening in Iraq as anything other than bad guys vs. good guys? I mean, isn't it at least possible that we're the bad guys? We are, after all, the invading army, invading in violation of international law, in the face of UN opposition, without justification. Can't at least one MSM headline writer at least try to fairly characterize what's really going on in Iraq?