I believe that the Bush Administration is riding roughshod over the American economy and civil liberties, with unprecedented cynicism and moral indifference. Do you agree? Oppose the omnibus spending bill, on which Congress is about to vote:
MoveOn.org: Stop the Looting
Wednesday, December 03, 2003
A dollar and two dimes
For eight months, the cost in American dollars of one euro hovered between $1.10 and $1.18, but two days ago, for the first time, the cost penetrated the $1.20 barrier. As I type this, BBC radio has announced a new high cost of the euro against the dollar: $1.22.
As I've said before, I'm no economist, but it cannot bode well for the US economy that its currency is declining in value, even if it may mean in the short run that Americans may find foreign-produced goods pricier and hence be more likely to buy domestic products. The inevitable inflation, the commensurate rise in interest rates (affecting mortgage payments on adjustable-rate mortgages, affecting monthly minimum payments on credit card debt and so forth), and the lower purchasing power of a dollar will beat back the recent economic "recovery."
This may come to pass quite soon. I can only hope.
Update: "Put simply, the dollar is in dire distress."
As I've said before, I'm no economist, but it cannot bode well for the US economy that its currency is declining in value, even if it may mean in the short run that Americans may find foreign-produced goods pricier and hence be more likely to buy domestic products. The inevitable inflation, the commensurate rise in interest rates (affecting mortgage payments on adjustable-rate mortgages, affecting monthly minimum payments on credit card debt and so forth), and the lower purchasing power of a dollar will beat back the recent economic "recovery."
This may come to pass quite soon. I can only hope.
Update: "Put simply, the dollar is in dire distress."
This is getting old
Once again, again, the news reportage of the war in Iraq is inaccurately slanted in favor of the invaders/occupiers. Two weeks ago it was the false report that two US soldiers' throats were cut; two days ago it was the onesided account of the "ambush" of the cash-carrying convoy in which the Army reported that 46 (later revised to 54) attackers were killed. Locals and hospital officials disputed the latter story, and the Army later revised the former, but in neither case was the revision given the prominence of the first report, and in some cases no revision was reported at all.
After all of the falsehoods this Administration and the military have spread over the years, it's astounding that reporters--even those of "reputable" papers and wire services--continue to spread it further. Are we talking conspiracy, incompetence, sloth or all three?
After all of the falsehoods this Administration and the military have spread over the years, it's astounding that reporters--even those of "reputable" papers and wire services--continue to spread it further. Are we talking conspiracy, incompetence, sloth or all three?
Tuesday, December 02, 2003
And still counting...
It's ten p.m., PST, in the USA as I post this. It's already tomorrow (Wednesday morning) in Iraq, so they've begun another day of killing there. The numbers of US military casualties and deaths that I rely on and insert into my protest signs are drawn from this website, and as of this moment show 2 deaths and 24 woundeds, in the first two days of December.
We've now launched into another month of killing American and allied soldiers and civilians, and Iraqi insurgents and bystanders.
Would somebody out there be kind enough to send a comment explaining why?
We've now launched into another month of killing American and allied soldiers and civilians, and Iraqi insurgents and bystanders.
Would somebody out there be kind enough to send a comment explaining why?
Update on "Body Counts" post
Yup, as I suggested, according to this account of the attack in which many Iraqis were killed, the Army's strategy is to shoot indiscriminately (to "spray," and to perform "reconaissance by fire") in order to suppress locals' support for the insurgents.
The source of this account (a "combat leader") is unattributed, so its authenticity is unknown, but at least it's an unknown that I know is unknown, not one of Rumsfeld's prize-winning "unknown unknowns."
The source of this account (a "combat leader") is unattributed, so its authenticity is unknown, but at least it's an unknown that I know is unknown, not one of Rumsfeld's prize-winning "unknown unknowns."
Monday, December 01, 2003
The Uncompassionate Conservative
A great column. Molly Ivins has President Bush down cold.
What we're dealing with here is a man in such serious denial it would be pathetic if it weren't damaging so many lives.
What we're dealing with here is a man in such serious denial it would be pathetic if it weren't damaging so many lives.
Everybody spins a little, but this is ridiculous!
Same poll, same figures, but here are the differing headlines (with correlative "spin" on their accompanying stories) announcing the results of an Oxford International poll (which all stories pronounce as definitive and thorough):
79% of Iraqis do not trust US-led coalition--Middle East Online.
Iraqis welcome Saddam's fall--BBC News
Iraqis Do Not Trust US-Led Forces--Reuters UK
Poll: Most Iraqis distrustul of US-Led Coalition--China Daily
Iraqi Public Opinion Poll Finds Overwhelming Support for Democratic Future--Michael Drudge, VOA (Voice of America) News.
Okay, so there's nothing new about "spin." But gosh-all-rootie, when you read these articles, and the score of others that Google News reveals when you insert "Oxford International Poll" in its search engine, you'd think the stories, which reported, merely, a list of numbers next to a list of questions, were of utterly different events.
In this day of quick news, quick everything, we've handed over to ministerial monkeys, paid by huge vested interests, the creation of reality. Don't get me started on this subject, but for God's sake, my buddies, from now on, do at least this: Read the poll, not the report about the poll. Not too much to ask of an informed citizen, right?
79% of Iraqis do not trust US-led coalition--Middle East Online.
Iraqis welcome Saddam's fall--BBC News
Iraqis Do Not Trust US-Led Forces--Reuters UK
Poll: Most Iraqis distrustul of US-Led Coalition--China Daily
Iraqi Public Opinion Poll Finds Overwhelming Support for Democratic Future--Michael Drudge, VOA (Voice of America) News.
Okay, so there's nothing new about "spin." But gosh-all-rootie, when you read these articles, and the score of others that Google News reveals when you insert "Oxford International Poll" in its search engine, you'd think the stories, which reported, merely, a list of numbers next to a list of questions, were of utterly different events.
In this day of quick news, quick everything, we've handed over to ministerial monkeys, paid by huge vested interests, the creation of reality. Don't get me started on this subject, but for God's sake, my buddies, from now on, do at least this: Read the poll, not the report about the poll. Not too much to ask of an informed citizen, right?
Body counts?
Early in our invasion of Iraq, a Pentagon official announced, "We don't do body counts," a reference to the practice during the Vietnam War, where Army officers would report the number of dead enemy soldiers (often an inflated, imaginary figure) as the measure of success of a battle. And indeed, until recently, no such figures have been announced for US operations in Iraq, relating to deaths of either armed resistance or unarmed civilians.
With yesterday's battle, however, we now have a tally, 54, revised upward from 46 .
This bodes poorly for the Iraqis on two counts: First, if body counts now become a practice, any Iraqi in the vicinity of an attack becomes a target, to induce headlines which read, "Two US soldiers die in attack, fifteen Iraqis killed." This, it might be reasoned by the Pentagon, will make more palatable our losses. Second, these escalated attacks against Iraqis may be a means by which the Army seeks to discourage insurgents, by wreaking such havoc on the nearby civilians that the latter turn on the insurgents out of fear of American reprisal. This is another tactic fromt the Vietnam era.
It didn't work then, and it won't work now, but look out for such tactics and announcements in upcoming dispatches from the front. If they occurred to me, they have surely occurred to Rumsfeld.
With yesterday's battle, however, we now have a tally, 54, revised upward from 46 .
This bodes poorly for the Iraqis on two counts: First, if body counts now become a practice, any Iraqi in the vicinity of an attack becomes a target, to induce headlines which read, "Two US soldiers die in attack, fifteen Iraqis killed." This, it might be reasoned by the Pentagon, will make more palatable our losses. Second, these escalated attacks against Iraqis may be a means by which the Army seeks to discourage insurgents, by wreaking such havoc on the nearby civilians that the latter turn on the insurgents out of fear of American reprisal. This is another tactic fromt the Vietnam era.
It didn't work then, and it won't work now, but look out for such tactics and announcements in upcoming dispatches from the front. If they occurred to me, they have surely occurred to Rumsfeld.
A Prisoner Of Panic After 9/11
Yahoo! News - A Prisoner Of Panic After 9/11
Hard to believe this could happen in the America I grew up in.
Hard to believe this could happen in the America I grew up in.
Sunday, November 30, 2003
Iraq's oil may not be retrievable? Unbelievable!
Apparently, the damage to the Iraq's oilfields by defective pumping in the past could be exacerbated by our efforts to pull oil out hastily now, leaving the fields watery and hence depleted.
Ouch! Cheney's gotta be freaked!
Maybe now they'll bring our boys home. Nothing to fight about anymore.
Ouch! Cheney's gotta be freaked!
Maybe now they'll bring our boys home. Nothing to fight about anymore.
Saturday, November 29, 2003
War is a Useful Word
"I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, only as one who has seen its brutality, its futility, its stupidity." - General Dwight D. Eisenhower
The men and women who have waged this atrocity, this defilement of human endeavor and of human life, have done so, not to protect or to safeguard, but to legitimize their own power. War is obsolete. The wholesale slaughter of enemies no longer serves any purpose. But the word War is still useful, as Erik points out. So are other words, such as witch hunt and due process.
What else should we expect? We Americans all stood by, and because we are who we are and we believe that our system of government is essentially fair and benign, we allowed the peaceful ascension to power of a man who was not duly elected or qualified to serve.
President Bush is no statesman. By his arrogance, he has squandered the good will that most of the planet vested in America in the days following our national tragedy. Now because we are essentially, effectively alone, lacking any viable moral mandate, we have no means to defend ourselves from perceived threats but swaggering polemic and staggering violence.
I’m reminded of an old joke. A man working in a candy factory falls unseen into a giant vat of chocolate syrup and can’t get out. Facing death, he cries out desperately, “Fire!” Men come, pull him out, and ask him why he yelled, “Fire!” … “If I’d yelled, ‘Chocolate!’ no one would have come.”
Of course he’s going to keep bellowing “War!” It’s all he has. If he hollered anything else, such as “in God’s name, let us feed the hungry and house the poor,” or “let all the nations peacefully bring terrorists to justice,” the world would know he’s too small a man for such a vision. The curtain would fall away, so OZ would stand there as he is. But war is easy to say, a small word for a small man of small means; an easy word, like blood and ice and fire.
The men and women who have waged this atrocity, this defilement of human endeavor and of human life, have done so, not to protect or to safeguard, but to legitimize their own power. War is obsolete. The wholesale slaughter of enemies no longer serves any purpose. But the word War is still useful, as Erik points out. So are other words, such as witch hunt and due process.
What else should we expect? We Americans all stood by, and because we are who we are and we believe that our system of government is essentially fair and benign, we allowed the peaceful ascension to power of a man who was not duly elected or qualified to serve.
President Bush is no statesman. By his arrogance, he has squandered the good will that most of the planet vested in America in the days following our national tragedy. Now because we are essentially, effectively alone, lacking any viable moral mandate, we have no means to defend ourselves from perceived threats but swaggering polemic and staggering violence.
I’m reminded of an old joke. A man working in a candy factory falls unseen into a giant vat of chocolate syrup and can’t get out. Facing death, he cries out desperately, “Fire!” Men come, pull him out, and ask him why he yelled, “Fire!” … “If I’d yelled, ‘Chocolate!’ no one would have come.”
Of course he’s going to keep bellowing “War!” It’s all he has. If he hollered anything else, such as “in God’s name, let us feed the hungry and house the poor,” or “let all the nations peacefully bring terrorists to justice,” the world would know he’s too small a man for such a vision. The curtain would fall away, so OZ would stand there as he is. But war is easy to say, a small word for a small man of small means; an easy word, like blood and ice and fire.
Comment on "Name that War," Kyle's post, two posts below
I find the imaginativeness of NYT readers heartening--and distressing. The suggested names for this latest "war" were illuminating, entertaining, clever, incisive, but I'm troubled by the use of the word "war" in this context, as in so many recent contexts.
I recall that for years the pols wouldn't refer to the Korean War as a war. It was a "conflict" or a "police action," because no one was willing to use the word "war." We'd fought two devasting world wars and weren't able to admit to another, even though hundreds of thousands of lives were lost in the four-year "police action."
Same with Viet Nam. For years, it wasn't called a war, but a "conflict."
But lately we've cheapened the word war. We have wars on poverty, drugs, AIDS, and, lately, terror, or as our eloquent president pronounces it, terr'r. We've diluted the terrible consequence of the word "war," making it a Madison Avenue term to be applied to any challenge, of any parameters, against even nameless enemies, such as addiction, unfair distribution of wealth and, lately, terr'r. For those who've lived through real wars, these recent appications must be galling indeed.
Then threre's this: Even though the standard dictionary definition of war doesn't include any reference to the military balance or fairness of the conflict--no factor such as the odds of victory--I've always felt that if a military encounter is to be called a "war" there must be some element of risk, some question about the outcome. Accordingly, our invasion of Grenada couldn't be called a "war," not because we didn't invade a sovereign state (which we assuredly did), but because that state hadn't declared war on us, hadn't done anything to us, in fact, and was a little-bitty place that was manifestly vulnerable. Same with Panama. We invaded Panama, raced through its capital city and killed innocent Panamanians (as well as hundreds of Noriega's soldiers) to "arrest" its ruler. Not a war, though, because there was no doubt about the outcome. We were too powerful to have "made war" on Panama.
Now, however, with Afghanistan and Iraq, suddenly "war." Why do we use this word? Are we hyping here? Are we justifying, or sliding away from what's really happening? Are we electing to use the awful, horrifying word war so that we don't have to admit that we're really just invading powerless foes to act out our aggression on helpless states? Are we willing--are we psychologically compelled--to use the word war to avoid acknowledging that we're really empire-building, defeating hapless foes in order to entrench our forces worldwide, to allow us to dominate the planet?
Just asking.
I recall that for years the pols wouldn't refer to the Korean War as a war. It was a "conflict" or a "police action," because no one was willing to use the word "war." We'd fought two devasting world wars and weren't able to admit to another, even though hundreds of thousands of lives were lost in the four-year "police action."
Same with Viet Nam. For years, it wasn't called a war, but a "conflict."
But lately we've cheapened the word war. We have wars on poverty, drugs, AIDS, and, lately, terror, or as our eloquent president pronounces it, terr'r. We've diluted the terrible consequence of the word "war," making it a Madison Avenue term to be applied to any challenge, of any parameters, against even nameless enemies, such as addiction, unfair distribution of wealth and, lately, terr'r. For those who've lived through real wars, these recent appications must be galling indeed.
Then threre's this: Even though the standard dictionary definition of war doesn't include any reference to the military balance or fairness of the conflict--no factor such as the odds of victory--I've always felt that if a military encounter is to be called a "war" there must be some element of risk, some question about the outcome. Accordingly, our invasion of Grenada couldn't be called a "war," not because we didn't invade a sovereign state (which we assuredly did), but because that state hadn't declared war on us, hadn't done anything to us, in fact, and was a little-bitty place that was manifestly vulnerable. Same with Panama. We invaded Panama, raced through its capital city and killed innocent Panamanians (as well as hundreds of Noriega's soldiers) to "arrest" its ruler. Not a war, though, because there was no doubt about the outcome. We were too powerful to have "made war" on Panama.
Now, however, with Afghanistan and Iraq, suddenly "war." Why do we use this word? Are we hyping here? Are we justifying, or sliding away from what's really happening? Are we electing to use the awful, horrifying word war so that we don't have to admit that we're really just invading powerless foes to act out our aggression on helpless states? Are we willing--are we psychologically compelled--to use the word war to avoid acknowledging that we're really empire-building, defeating hapless foes in order to entrench our forces worldwide, to allow us to dominate the planet?
Just asking.
The power of incumbency
This article, unhappily headlined "President's Iraq Trip Reinforces Role as Leader,", makes the points I make in previous posts, and points up the frustrating impact of incumbency on those who are opposing the officeholder.
I admit it. My posts were reactive, angry that his trip was such a well-presented political ploy: quick, perfectly timed, with super effect. It drives me crazy. I guess my only solace is that Clinton must have driven his opposition nuts too. But it still stings.
Howver, the voters have short memories, and there's almost a year before the election. Meanwhile our troops keep dying, and that doesn't require memory, just conscience.
I admit it. My posts were reactive, angry that his trip was such a well-presented political ploy: quick, perfectly timed, with super effect. It drives me crazy. I guess my only solace is that Clinton must have driven his opposition nuts too. But it still stings.
Howver, the voters have short memories, and there's almost a year before the election. Meanwhile our troops keep dying, and that doesn't require memory, just conscience.
Name That War
Check out Name That War at the NY Times ... it's pretty interesting, what some folks came up with.
Friday, November 28, 2003
"A long, hard slog"
The words that Ubermensch Rumsfeld used to describe America's occupation of Iraq apply equally to the task that lies ahead to defeat Bush's reelection. He's got the money, the media (see below) and the ability to control events, such as his cutesy Thanksgiving sojourn to Iraq and, as I noted in an earlier post, the likely announcement of some major development about Iraq--probably our "handing over of power"--just before the election.
I happened to watch NBC's Nightly News report of Bush's Thanksgiving fiasco last night. (I don't have a TV and so rarely see television news, and haven't seen a major-network telecast for months.) I was astounded by the coverage. Bush's visit--video of him chowing down with the troops, ladling out gravy in the cafeteria line and so forth--was the lead story, of course. This was followed by a separate piece about how dangerous the trip was and how secret, likening it to Ike's trip to Korea and Johnson's trips to Viet Nam (neither of which was secret; and not mentioning Clinton's trip to Kosovo, which seems more relevant), and how morale-boosting his arrival was for the troops.
The NBC coverage was slatheringly sweet--an advertisement, not a report--and baldly obeisant. Not a critical word: Nothing about how different this security-fraught visit was from what we'd been led to expect about our success in Iraq, nor a whisper about its obvious political purpose.
And that's not all. The Nightly News closed its half-hour "newscast" with yet a third piece about the trip, this with snippets of Bush's speech to the troops, which BTW was greeted with only mild applause, even though Bush waited often for cheers that didn't come.
On top of this, of course, is Google News listings of press accounts of the trip, in the thousands!
So, how can the opposition defeat such a juggernaut? I have ideas, that I will share in later posts. But all of them require a long, hard slog.
(Not all accounts of the trip were uncritical and naive. For reports from newspapers in the Middle East, go here. Tickler: Islam Online labels the trip a "PR stunt.")
I happened to watch NBC's Nightly News report of Bush's Thanksgiving fiasco last night. (I don't have a TV and so rarely see television news, and haven't seen a major-network telecast for months.) I was astounded by the coverage. Bush's visit--video of him chowing down with the troops, ladling out gravy in the cafeteria line and so forth--was the lead story, of course. This was followed by a separate piece about how dangerous the trip was and how secret, likening it to Ike's trip to Korea and Johnson's trips to Viet Nam (neither of which was secret; and not mentioning Clinton's trip to Kosovo, which seems more relevant), and how morale-boosting his arrival was for the troops.
The NBC coverage was slatheringly sweet--an advertisement, not a report--and baldly obeisant. Not a critical word: Nothing about how different this security-fraught visit was from what we'd been led to expect about our success in Iraq, nor a whisper about its obvious political purpose.
And that's not all. The Nightly News closed its half-hour "newscast" with yet a third piece about the trip, this with snippets of Bush's speech to the troops, which BTW was greeted with only mild applause, even though Bush waited often for cheers that didn't come.
On top of this, of course, is Google News listings of press accounts of the trip, in the thousands!
So, how can the opposition defeat such a juggernaut? I have ideas, that I will share in later posts. But all of them require a long, hard slog.
(Not all accounts of the trip were uncritical and naive. For reports from newspapers in the Middle East, go here. Tickler: Islam Online labels the trip a "PR stunt.")
Thursday, November 27, 2003
They're onto Bush in Baghdad. Why not in America?
The plans of Tribune Bremer to pass "authority" over to the Iraqis by June 1, 2004, have hit a snag. Seems that a powerful Shiite cleric believes the people who draw up the constitution must be elected--not a series of appointed bodies--and this may delay the process.
Bremer and others are trying to work out some program that will satisfy the cleric, and the Iraqis know why Bush is in such a hurry to complete the power transfer by June 1. According to the NYT, Ahmad Chalabi, a savvy Iraqi Governing Council member, said: "The whole thing was set up so President Bush could come to the airport in October for a ceremony to congratulate the new Iraqi government. When you work backwards from that, you understand the dates the Americans were insisting on." American officials deny that electoral concerns played a role in their planning.
Bremer and others are trying to work out some program that will satisfy the cleric, and the Iraqis know why Bush is in such a hurry to complete the power transfer by June 1. According to the NYT, Ahmad Chalabi, a savvy Iraqi Governing Council member, said: "The whole thing was set up so President Bush could come to the airport in October for a ceremony to congratulate the new Iraqi government. When you work backwards from that, you understand the dates the Americans were insisting on." American officials deny that electoral concerns played a role in their planning.
A poll koan
The Globe & Mail conducted an online poll recently, in which the question was: "Do you participate in online polls?"
Results: 81% Yes. 19% no (?!)
Results: 81% Yes. 19% no (?!)
Hail, the conquering hero
Seven months after landing in a jet fighter on the deck of the carrier Abraham Lincoln, with (literally) fanfare and banners flying, our fearless leader has visited the troops who fought the mission that he proclaimed was accomplished.
No fanfare, no banners this time. A night-shrouded, secret flight into an airbase outside of Baghdad for a quick meal, and a flight out two hours later. Too dangerous to announce the trip. The mission, it seems, is not quite accomplished after all.
But this much I grant the president. He's consistent. He's still a media-manipulating coward.
No fanfare, no banners this time. A night-shrouded, secret flight into an airbase outside of Baghdad for a quick meal, and a flight out two hours later. Too dangerous to announce the trip. The mission, it seems, is not quite accomplished after all.
But this much I grant the president. He's consistent. He's still a media-manipulating coward.
Wednesday, November 26, 2003
Early warning signs
Here's the deal. Certain regional groups (how selected, how administered?) will choose representatives (how will they choose, how many will they choose?) to meet and then choose (how, when?) a body that will have power (how determined, how administered?) to decide (by what vote, by what form of ballot?) to draft a constitution (of what import?) that will then be submitted (by what means, with what amending or reviewing power?) to the public (of what composition?) for ratification (by what percentage, how determined?), which will then (when--and if not ratified, then what?) be the governing instrument in Iraq.
And what if, at the onset of this process, leading forces of the majority Shiites opposes its cant and emphasis?
And what if, at the onset of this process, leading forces of the majority Shiites opposes its cant and emphasis?
Ah--Somebody's finally catching on.
Of course it's the French. For those of you who read their language, go here. For the rest of you (including me), here is a translation.
The final paragraphs are too telling to summarize. Read them and weep for us.
"...the [NeoCon's] demonization of al-Qaeda is very practical. A superb media invention, a security haute couture label, a consensual poster for the bounty-hunters of another age, a crude, but effective, propaganda: if al-Qaeda didn't exist, it would have to be invented.
"Since September 11, 2001 the al-Qaeda label has surreptitiously slid from designating a criminal band with Bin Laden at their head, to specifying a high-tech organization, to finally qualifying as a planetary network: al-Qaeda has "CNNized" itself, like the al-Jezira channel which serves its communications. Al-Qaeda is everywhere, therefore, nowhere. Just as the hidden Imam, Bin Laden, simultaneously dead and alive, is behind every unexplained bomb explosion. Fortunately, his organization is there to give sense to all the world's disorders.
"The phantasm of a planetary, pyramidal al-Qaeda, that of a new orchestration or of an International similar in all respects to Comintern's, is in the process of justifying the biggest American military-strategic redeployment effected since the end of the Second World War. The endless war against terror has replaced the war against the Communist monster. Consequently, it's not surprising to see old U.S.S.R. experts redeploying their old scholasticism on the pretext of an Islamist violence about which they know nothing, applying anachronistic Kremlinology schemas to it. These American neo-conservative ideological go-betweens stand guard on the old continent. For the American Empire, it's important that the al-Qaeda mythology persist. To survive, the empire needs an enemy to its measure and to make war on: endless war."
The final paragraphs are too telling to summarize. Read them and weep for us.
"...the [NeoCon's] demonization of al-Qaeda is very practical. A superb media invention, a security haute couture label, a consensual poster for the bounty-hunters of another age, a crude, but effective, propaganda: if al-Qaeda didn't exist, it would have to be invented.
"Since September 11, 2001 the al-Qaeda label has surreptitiously slid from designating a criminal band with Bin Laden at their head, to specifying a high-tech organization, to finally qualifying as a planetary network: al-Qaeda has "CNNized" itself, like the al-Jezira channel which serves its communications. Al-Qaeda is everywhere, therefore, nowhere. Just as the hidden Imam, Bin Laden, simultaneously dead and alive, is behind every unexplained bomb explosion. Fortunately, his organization is there to give sense to all the world's disorders.
"The phantasm of a planetary, pyramidal al-Qaeda, that of a new orchestration or of an International similar in all respects to Comintern's, is in the process of justifying the biggest American military-strategic redeployment effected since the end of the Second World War. The endless war against terror has replaced the war against the Communist monster. Consequently, it's not surprising to see old U.S.S.R. experts redeploying their old scholasticism on the pretext of an Islamist violence about which they know nothing, applying anachronistic Kremlinology schemas to it. These American neo-conservative ideological go-betweens stand guard on the old continent. For the American Empire, it's important that the al-Qaeda mythology persist. To survive, the empire needs an enemy to its measure and to make war on: endless war."
The docile media
I've read hundreds of articles, of which this is representative, haranguing the US media--press and television, but television with particular vitriol--for failing to report items that are unsupportive of the Administration's position on the Iraq invasion and aftermath. From the President's failure to attend funerals of soldiers, to the nonreportage of deaths and woundeds in Iraq, to the failure of the reconstruction efforts--including graft and unfairness in the bidding process, to the complaints by Iraqi police about their inferior equipment, to name just a few recent items that have been given no play by the mainstream media.
Equally mystifying to me is that I haven't heard from the spokespersons of the major media (putting Fox aside, because they are beyond the pale of this discussion) a single word of justification for their miserable reporting, a single defense or rebuttal. Has Brokaw, Rather or Jennings said anything, addressed these complaints at all? If so, I missed it.
If anyone has a citation to such an occasion I'd like to know of it.
Equally mystifying to me is that I haven't heard from the spokespersons of the major media (putting Fox aside, because they are beyond the pale of this discussion) a single word of justification for their miserable reporting, a single defense or rebuttal. Has Brokaw, Rather or Jennings said anything, addressed these complaints at all? If so, I missed it.
If anyone has a citation to such an occasion I'd like to know of it.
Wait a goldarned minute!
We've run out of money to pay Iraqi contractors for their reconstruction efforts?
Where'd it all go?
Where'd it all go?
Does this bother anyone?
This article reciting the US Army's arrest of the wife and daughter of a former Saddam Hussein official, "in an apparent attempt to pressure his surrender" strike me as odd. Not the tactic itself--it comes straight out of the Gestapo handbook--but the blandness with which it is reported.
What are we becoming?
What are we becoming?
Monday, November 24, 2003
Animations
This website presents some great animations, as well as a Real Player recast of Wesley Clark taking on Fox News, head-to-head. Well done, General.
Mass firing of teachers?
This UPI report says that the Provisional Authority, with Bremer's concurrence, has fired 28,000 teachers in Iraq. Seems they were Baathists, which was a condition of gaining public school teaching positions under Saddam Hussein's regime.
So, who's teaching the kids, Wahhabis?
So, who's teaching the kids, Wahhabis?
Sunday, November 23, 2003
Funnny
So Japan is considering sending some materiel to Iraq, but not troops. Seems there's a snag. As reported by AP, the newly-reelected PM "Koizumi won approval from Parliament in July to send Japanese ground troops to help with reconstruction and other non-combat duties. But the legislation specifies they can only serve in "non-combat areas" — which the prime minister's political opponents say don't exist in Iraq."
Ode to our soldiers
The Favorite Poem Project that Kyle turned me onto includes a poem by Wilfred Owen entitled "Dulce et Decorum Est." It can be found here, and I recommend watching the video of the woman who recites it. (Click on her image.)
I wonder if Bush, Rumsfeld and the NeoCons have read it. Certainly not recently.
I wonder if Bush, Rumsfeld and the NeoCons have read it. Certainly not recently.
"Major combat operations"
Recall the flap some months ago about Bush's announcement from the flight deck of the carrrier Abraham Lincoln that "major combat operations" in Iraq were concluded? The White House, after combat continued, even amended its website to add the word "major" to a headline.
Well, even as amended, Bush's announcement was/is bullshit, because as of today, the number of military deaths during the month of November for both US soldiers (74) and total number of deaths (95) exceeds the death toll during any previous month, including March, April or May, at the height of the war. And November isn't nearly over.
Bring 'em on?
Well, even as amended, Bush's announcement was/is bullshit, because as of today, the number of military deaths during the month of November for both US soldiers (74) and total number of deaths (95) exceeds the death toll during any previous month, including March, April or May, at the height of the war. And November isn't nearly over.
Bring 'em on?
F.B.I. Scrutinizes Antiwar Rallies
Are you feeling in the mood to get out and exercise your First Amendment rights and fulfill the moral imperative of informed dissent and skeptical scrutiny of leadership? Well, you have my support but be forewarned: Big Brother lives. They're making a list at the FBI, checking it twice ... no, sorry, wrong autocrat.
Come to think of it, doesn't Santa know a little more about us than due process should allow? He knows where we live, whether we've been naughty or nice, and what we want for Christmas....
Hey Erik, whataya say we slap a class action suit on that suspiciously jolly guy. Invasion of privacy, trespass, product defect, racketeering, mail fraud, intentional infliction of emotional distress. I'm just getting warmed up. Of course, I've got no problems with him, but there must be a billion kids out there who've been royally hosed over the years. Contingency OK?
New York Times article
Come to think of it, doesn't Santa know a little more about us than due process should allow? He knows where we live, whether we've been naughty or nice, and what we want for Christmas....
Hey Erik, whataya say we slap a class action suit on that suspiciously jolly guy. Invasion of privacy, trespass, product defect, racketeering, mail fraud, intentional infliction of emotional distress. I'm just getting warmed up. Of course, I've got no problems with him, but there must be a billion kids out there who've been royally hosed over the years. Contingency OK?
New York Times article
Saturday, November 22, 2003
Forty years ago
I was in law school at Georgetown when Kennedy was shot. I, like all of you, recall where I was when I learned of the shooting in Dallas, and I recall Cronkite's announcement on the TV like it was yesterday.
I didn't wait in the miles-long line to go through the Capitol rotunda to view the coffin (it was freezing cold that day and I had studies, mucho studies that Sunday), but on Monday Georgetown called off classes and I, and my buddies, lined up early on Constitution Avenue for the funeral procession.
Yeah, I recall that too, like yesterday. I know what coat I wore (still cold, and we waited for two hours), and dead quiet. As the place filled up, we backed away from the curb (we were right across from an old hotel, don't recall the name) and found a higher spot behind.
I recall the clack of the horse's hooves (sp?) and the rattle of the wheels of the caisson along the asphalt. I recall my nose was about to fall off from the cold. I recall that for the first time in my life (I'm a western guy, CA and AZ), the tears actually slowed down after they squeezed out of the corners of my eyes. I recall wiping the tears away, expecting ice, but no.
The caisson clacked away, the few soldiers and automobiles behind it were an aftermath. Stuart (my roomate--we lived in an apartment about a quarter mile away from the route) went home and caught the rest of the funeral on TV: the makeshift eternal flame, the salute of the cannons, the black-garbed family, Jackie, the kids, Bobby and Ethel and Teddy.
Jesus. What has happened to my love of such stuff? What happened to my idealism? What happened to America?
I didn't wait in the miles-long line to go through the Capitol rotunda to view the coffin (it was freezing cold that day and I had studies, mucho studies that Sunday), but on Monday Georgetown called off classes and I, and my buddies, lined up early on Constitution Avenue for the funeral procession.
Yeah, I recall that too, like yesterday. I know what coat I wore (still cold, and we waited for two hours), and dead quiet. As the place filled up, we backed away from the curb (we were right across from an old hotel, don't recall the name) and found a higher spot behind.
I recall the clack of the horse's hooves (sp?) and the rattle of the wheels of the caisson along the asphalt. I recall my nose was about to fall off from the cold. I recall that for the first time in my life (I'm a western guy, CA and AZ), the tears actually slowed down after they squeezed out of the corners of my eyes. I recall wiping the tears away, expecting ice, but no.
The caisson clacked away, the few soldiers and automobiles behind it were an aftermath. Stuart (my roomate--we lived in an apartment about a quarter mile away from the route) went home and caught the rest of the funeral on TV: the makeshift eternal flame, the salute of the cannons, the black-garbed family, Jackie, the kids, Bobby and Ethel and Teddy.
Jesus. What has happened to my love of such stuff? What happened to my idealism? What happened to America?
Friday, November 21, 2003
Iraqis Shut Out of Lucrative Rebuilding Deals
There's an old saying, "When your neighbor's house is on fire, you don't haggle over the price of your hose." Right, no need to. You'll make out later, if you're the only builder in town. Halliburton, Bechtel, Bremer ... I wouldn't want to be in their shoes on Judgement Day. Yahoo! News
The Hundred Acre Kill Zone
Baghdad Burning
In her blog Today, Riverbend relates that a Baghdad child thought one of the LPDs (Launch Platform Donkeys) looked just like the donkey in "Winnie Dab-doob." I thought this might need explaining, so I sat down in my Thoughtful Spot, and discovered that Winnie Dab-doob is Winnie the Pooh in Arabic. Making the donkey's alterego noneother than Eeyore.
It begs the question though, will Tribune Bremmer have Eeyore added to the deck of cards?
In her blog Today, Riverbend relates that a Baghdad child thought one of the LPDs (Launch Platform Donkeys) looked just like the donkey in "Winnie Dab-doob." I thought this might need explaining, so I sat down in my Thoughtful Spot, and discovered that Winnie Dab-doob is Winnie the Pooh in Arabic. Making the donkey's alterego noneother than Eeyore.
It begs the question though, will Tribune Bremmer have Eeyore added to the deck of cards?
A rant worth ranting about
This LOL bit by Patrick Sullivan, at the Keep Going website, is worth the extra time it takes to giggle, snort and, maybe, recover.
Of donkey carts and preempted compassion
Boy, Erik's been busy today, hasn't he? Except for a tuna melt I had for lunch, I've been avoiding anything with chips today. But I have two brief remarks:
On the donkeys: Holy AssRams, Batman!
On the statement by Mr. Bell of CARE: Codswallop. As much as I'm willing to decry America's hateful and arrogant foreign policy, there's another side to that coin. The US is all over the world with foreign aid. We're doing a helluva lot to get food to the hungry and resources to the poor. And everywhere we send food, it's diverted by corrupt officials or rotting on the docks. Aid workers are as much targets as soldiers these days. So I don't wanna hear anybody talk about poverty. It's hard to pass out bread when you're under attack.
Somebody tell the poor and disenfranchised of the middle east to think about how their bread is buttered. At least we're trying to do the right thing, pouring in billions for rebuilding. We try to send food and medicine and help where it's needed. But it's damn sure the donkey cart and suicide bomber boys never fed so much as a hungry dog.
On the donkeys: Holy AssRams, Batman!
On the statement by Mr. Bell of CARE: Codswallop. As much as I'm willing to decry America's hateful and arrogant foreign policy, there's another side to that coin. The US is all over the world with foreign aid. We're doing a helluva lot to get food to the hungry and resources to the poor. And everywhere we send food, it's diverted by corrupt officials or rotting on the docks. Aid workers are as much targets as soldiers these days. So I don't wanna hear anybody talk about poverty. It's hard to pass out bread when you're under attack.
Somebody tell the poor and disenfranchised of the middle east to think about how their bread is buttered. At least we're trying to do the right thing, pouring in billions for rebuilding. We try to send food and medicine and help where it's needed. But it's damn sure the donkey cart and suicide bomber boys never fed so much as a hungry dog.
Donkeys--finally, the Al Qaida link
Even Riverbend, who lives in Baghdad where the donkey-cart attacks occurred, has gotten into the act, finding humor in the chaos. Donkeys to Gitmo?
Another shoe dropping
The US Congress has dropped one billion dollars from its previous 1.65 billion-dollar international development contribution toward the reduction of world poverty. The billion has been channeled to reconstruction of Iraq and Afghanistan, giving short-shrift to the other third-world nations, and leading the UN to conclude that it cannot meet its goal to alleviate half of the worst pockets of grave poverty by 2015.
According to the BBC, "the head of the large American aid agency CARE USA, Peter Bell, said the US Government should realise that the safety of Americans depended not only on vanquishing enemies such as al-Qaeda and the Taleban but on limiting the poverty which bred extremism."
According to the BBC, "the head of the large American aid agency CARE USA, Peter Bell, said the US Government should realise that the safety of Americans depended not only on vanquishing enemies such as al-Qaeda and the Taleban but on limiting the poverty which bred extremism."
Meanwhile, as the Bushes and Blairs crack a cold one...
The two "Other Developments" blurbs at the bottom of CNN's latest dispatch about the war in Iraq are revealing:
"--President Bush ended his state visit to Britain Friday standing side by side with Prime Minister Tony Blair in the British leader's home town. The president and first lady Laura Bush boarded Air Force One Friday after having lunch with the prime minister and his wife at a local pub.
--Two children were killed Thursday in an explosion after a child picked up an explosive device in a school yard in Karbala, Iraq, and took it into a classroom, a coalition spokesman said. The student who brought the device into the classroom was between 10 and 12 years old. An unknown number of children were wounded in what the spokesman termed a 'sad accident.'"
"--President Bush ended his state visit to Britain Friday standing side by side with Prime Minister Tony Blair in the British leader's home town. The president and first lady Laura Bush boarded Air Force One Friday after having lunch with the prime minister and his wife at a local pub.
--Two children were killed Thursday in an explosion after a child picked up an explosive device in a school yard in Karbala, Iraq, and took it into a classroom, a coalition spokesman said. The student who brought the device into the classroom was between 10 and 12 years old. An unknown number of children were wounded in what the spokesman termed a 'sad accident.'"
A blog to die for
I agree with Sean-Paul at The Agonist weblog. Billmon at The Whiskey Bar is my favorite libbie blogger (although I haven't checked out all of them, and new blogs arise every minute, literally).
My favorite phrase of the day, lifted from a comment to Billmon's post (which gives due credit to another blogger), commenting on the rocket fussilade that damaged Baghdad buildings and were apparently concealed in donkey carts:
Yeah, you guessed it: "Weapons of ass destruction."
(Feel free to scroll down from Billmon's post to follow the humor displayed in the comments about the donkey cart attack. Who says Liberals are mirthless bombasts? Well, mostly we are, but this Administration give us so much fodder, you can't help laughing sometimes. And for those of you who don't care to scroll, two examples: (1) "This brings new meaning to the phrase, 'Kick ass.'" (2) You watch--the Republicans will now claim the Democrats are behind these attacks. -- Donkey, symbol of the party, get it?)
My favorite phrase of the day, lifted from a comment to Billmon's post (which gives due credit to another blogger), commenting on the rocket fussilade that damaged Baghdad buildings and were apparently concealed in donkey carts:
Yeah, you guessed it: "Weapons of ass destruction."
(Feel free to scroll down from Billmon's post to follow the humor displayed in the comments about the donkey cart attack. Who says Liberals are mirthless bombasts? Well, mostly we are, but this Administration give us so much fodder, you can't help laughing sometimes. And for those of you who don't care to scroll, two examples: (1) "This brings new meaning to the phrase, 'Kick ass.'" (2) You watch--the Republicans will now claim the Democrats are behind these attacks. -- Donkey, symbol of the party, get it?)
First manufacturing jobs, now "outsourcing"
Opportunities for meaningful jobs in the US (meaning moderate pay, moderate skills) are shrinking rapidly, not just because of the ongoing loss of manufacturing within our borders, but also by reason of service companys' "outsourcing" of Internet communications systems to foreign countries. For example, when my Compaq (HP, now) laptop went blank some weeks ago and I called the Help telephone line, I was given re-booting directions by a male voice that had a distinctive Indian lilt. I asked the man where he was--that is, where my landline call had reached--and he answered, "Delhi."
I recall that a couple of years ago I called the same 1-800 number for help and my helper was located in Oklahoma. We talked about the Sooners while I waited for his instructions to take effect on my computer. (In both cases, I will editorialize, the telephonic Help was successful).
Upshot: I wonder how much money HP is saving by hiring Help in India?
Upshot no. 2: I wonder what my Sooner-backer buddy is doing for work now?
I recall that a couple of years ago I called the same 1-800 number for help and my helper was located in Oklahoma. We talked about the Sooners while I waited for his instructions to take effect on my computer. (In both cases, I will editorialize, the telephonic Help was successful).
Upshot: I wonder how much money HP is saving by hiring Help in India?
Upshot no. 2: I wonder what my Sooner-backer buddy is doing for work now?
However, for a bit of perspective...
Check out these photos from the Hubble telescope, set to music.
Quotes from the dark side
#1--From Tommie Franks, Army commander during Iraq invasion, concluding an interview in which he predicted that if America were subjected to a terrorist attack using WMD, the US constitution would be abandoned and replaced with a military dictatorship:
“It’s not in the history of civilization for peace ever to reign. Never has in the history of man. ... I doubt that we’ll ever have a time when the world will actually be at peace.”
#2--Inscribed on a "collector's item" photo-portrait of Bush, this literary masterpiece from an address to Congress:
"We will not waver; we will not tire; we will not falter; and we will not fail. Peace and freedom will prevail."
#3--From Laura Bush, while touring Buckingham Palace's collection of jeweled Faberge eggs during Bush's trip to England, as thousands of demonstators were kept miles away from the presidential entourage:
"We've seen plenty of American flags. We've seen plenty of people waving to us -- many, many more people in fact than protesters."
“It’s not in the history of civilization for peace ever to reign. Never has in the history of man. ... I doubt that we’ll ever have a time when the world will actually be at peace.”
#2--Inscribed on a "collector's item" photo-portrait of Bush, this literary masterpiece from an address to Congress:
"We will not waver; we will not tire; we will not falter; and we will not fail. Peace and freedom will prevail."
#3--From Laura Bush, while touring Buckingham Palace's collection of jeweled Faberge eggs during Bush's trip to England, as thousands of demonstators were kept miles away from the presidential entourage:
"We've seen plenty of American flags. We've seen plenty of people waving to us -- many, many more people in fact than protesters."
Fanning flames, cracking walnuts with sledgehammers, and so forth
From blog-contributor John comes this observation:
Bush's speechifying at Whitehall and consorting with British Royalty, only make him a more pathetic figure; and his use of the Army in Iraq is strikingly similar to the Israelis' use of their military against the Palestinians. In guerilla warfare, the use of tanks and artillery are not effective except to arouse anger and hostility of the population and to indiscriminately kill and maim innocent civilians.
[Ed--To a similar effect, check out this article, comparing our tactics to the Israelis', and to our failed effort in Viet Nam.]
Bush's speechifying at Whitehall and consorting with British Royalty, only make him a more pathetic figure; and his use of the Army in Iraq is strikingly similar to the Israelis' use of their military against the Palestinians. In guerilla warfare, the use of tanks and artillery are not effective except to arouse anger and hostility of the population and to indiscriminately kill and maim innocent civilians.
[Ed--To a similar effect, check out this article, comparing our tactics to the Israelis', and to our failed effort in Viet Nam.]
I told ya so
Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, Turkey--Wasn't one of the principal reasons not to invade Iraq that doing so would spread the terrorists' attacks throughout the world? Shocking, says Bush. What's shocking is that he's allowed to feign shock while taking delight in the effect these attacks are having on his control over the American unwashed. So long as terr'r attacks are unabated, he can manipulate them and remain in power.
I say again--as frustrating as it is to admit it--Bush has created a no-lose political situation: If terror abates, he claims victory. If it continues, he claims a need to stay in power.
And here's the scary part. The terrorists adore Bush. He's their best ally. So long as he keeps bombing, they keep bombing. He keeps them in power just as they keep him in power. The madmen on both sides are feeding on each other.
Only our side can break this insane spiral of violence. How? By adopting a truly equitable and beneficent foreign (and for that matter, domestic) policy, in which we share our economic largesse with the rest of the world, treat other nations as partners on the planet and reach out even-handedly to address the injustices and inequities that now plague the peoples to the south and east of us. In short, by sharing our wealth and wisdom with the rest of the world instead of hoarding it to feed our greed.
Bush and the neocons are the true evildoers on this planet. Only when they are removed from power is there any hope the US will change the face and the reality that it presents to the world--and only then is there a chance the violence will cease.
This American-language Greek newspaper commentary on the Istanbul bombings takes a more balanced position than I do, but its final three paragraphs, to me, present a founded solution as well as I've seen it laid out.
"For the counterterrorism campaign to be effective, it must be coupled with initiatives that seek to remedy the ideological and political factors that incubate Islamic fundamentalism. Otherwise, the relentless extremists will be seen as heroes in the eyes of angry Muslims, while ideas about the clash of religions and civilizations will increasingly resonate with these populations.
"For hundreds of millions of Muslims, the US is Satan and Bin Laden a hero. The combination of rampant poverty and of the widespread conviction that the Americans are giving Israel support while they seek to humiliate Islam is fueling anti-American sentiment and blind vengeance. The Istanbul explosions may well be the first in a long chain of similar attacks in other European nations whose governments have fallen behind Washington’s policies.
"Much of the responsibility lies with US President George W. Bush. For his war on terrorism to be effective, it must not be used as a pretext for settling broader geopolitical scores. The occupation of Iraq has allowed the US to assert control over the oil fields of the region and to gain a foothold in the heart of the Middle East, but it has done nothing to undermine Islamic terrorism. It has played right into its hands, providing terrorists, if not with political legitimacy, then at least with a new scope of activity."
I say again--as frustrating as it is to admit it--Bush has created a no-lose political situation: If terror abates, he claims victory. If it continues, he claims a need to stay in power.
And here's the scary part. The terrorists adore Bush. He's their best ally. So long as he keeps bombing, they keep bombing. He keeps them in power just as they keep him in power. The madmen on both sides are feeding on each other.
Only our side can break this insane spiral of violence. How? By adopting a truly equitable and beneficent foreign (and for that matter, domestic) policy, in which we share our economic largesse with the rest of the world, treat other nations as partners on the planet and reach out even-handedly to address the injustices and inequities that now plague the peoples to the south and east of us. In short, by sharing our wealth and wisdom with the rest of the world instead of hoarding it to feed our greed.
Bush and the neocons are the true evildoers on this planet. Only when they are removed from power is there any hope the US will change the face and the reality that it presents to the world--and only then is there a chance the violence will cease.
This American-language Greek newspaper commentary on the Istanbul bombings takes a more balanced position than I do, but its final three paragraphs, to me, present a founded solution as well as I've seen it laid out.
"For the counterterrorism campaign to be effective, it must be coupled with initiatives that seek to remedy the ideological and political factors that incubate Islamic fundamentalism. Otherwise, the relentless extremists will be seen as heroes in the eyes of angry Muslims, while ideas about the clash of religions and civilizations will increasingly resonate with these populations.
"For hundreds of millions of Muslims, the US is Satan and Bin Laden a hero. The combination of rampant poverty and of the widespread conviction that the Americans are giving Israel support while they seek to humiliate Islam is fueling anti-American sentiment and blind vengeance. The Istanbul explosions may well be the first in a long chain of similar attacks in other European nations whose governments have fallen behind Washington’s policies.
"Much of the responsibility lies with US President George W. Bush. For his war on terrorism to be effective, it must not be used as a pretext for settling broader geopolitical scores. The occupation of Iraq has allowed the US to assert control over the oil fields of the region and to gain a foothold in the heart of the Middle East, but it has done nothing to undermine Islamic terrorism. It has played right into its hands, providing terrorists, if not with political legitimacy, then at least with a new scope of activity."
100,000 March Against Bush in London
Yahoo! News
There was a time when I was offended by protests against American presidents in foreign cities. I considered it a slap in the face to America, by people to whom we are neighborly and generous to a fault. Not tonight. I think they're right to protest against Bush and his indefensible foreign policy. I just wish we could muster this kind of dissent on this side of the pond.
There was a time when I was offended by protests against American presidents in foreign cities. I considered it a slap in the face to America, by people to whom we are neighborly and generous to a fault. Not tonight. I think they're right to protest against Bush and his indefensible foreign policy. I just wish we could muster this kind of dissent on this side of the pond.
Wednesday, November 19, 2003
"What's news?" update
As I was saying in my "What's News?" post yesterday, the news covers the noise and the Bushies must have heard me. Now, with bombs blasting, mortars firing, the US Army is filling the Baghdad/Tikrit sky with sound, light and fury. To no avail as a matter of military strategy, probably, but all those rockets firing into the puke-green lenses of our TV reporters' nightscopes sure makes teriffic copy.
So, Bush once again declares war and has the might to win it. Not to defeat terr'r, of course, but to gain coverage. Which, as we know, is what matters.
So, Bush once again declares war and has the might to win it. Not to defeat terr'r, of course, but to gain coverage. Which, as we know, is what matters.
Dollar and hi-tech jobs decline
The dollar's value against the euro is at an all-time low (it takes more than $1.19 to buy one euro) and the number of lucrative high-tech jobs is plunging.
Does this sound like an economic recovery to you?
Does this sound like an economic recovery to you?
Dow Jones predicts economic chaos in Iraq
The legality of Tribune Bremer's decree some months ago handing Iraqi commerce over to foreign investment was questioned in this blog and elsewhere. Now, this article, written by no Bush-basher, does the same, and furthermore points out the economic disaster that will befall Iraq as a result of the decree.
So far Bremer hasn't done anything right. He spends most of his time flying back to D.C. for new marching orders, then pawning them off on the Governing Council. What a mess!
So far Bremer hasn't done anything right. He spends most of his time flying back to D.C. for new marching orders, then pawning them off on the Governing Council. What a mess!
Riverbend is pissed off
The US Army's new tack--bombing, shelling in Tikrit--drives The Baghdad Blogger crazy. For this and other reactions--well written, potent observations from the front--check her out.
Tuesday, November 18, 2003
What's news?
This piece in the Christian Science Monitor about news reporting from Iraq is a concise, definitive exposition of the concept of "news" as US culture has come to expect and define it. News has an "inherent limitation." "It can't give you all of reality. It necessarily focuses on a tiny piece of reality that is making the most noise at the moment."
During the invasion itself, what was making noise were our tanks and troops' forward progress (and of course Western reporters embedded therein were more able to witness same), so that such activities dominated the news, to the dismay of those who protested the invasion and blamed the news for being pro-Administration. Now, as the noise is being made by the guerillas' attacks on US troops (and coverage of same is available) the news has shifted to focus on that.
The effect is, of course, that now the Adminstration is claiming the news is biased against it.
Oh well.
During the invasion itself, what was making noise were our tanks and troops' forward progress (and of course Western reporters embedded therein were more able to witness same), so that such activities dominated the news, to the dismay of those who protested the invasion and blamed the news for being pro-Administration. Now, as the noise is being made by the guerillas' attacks on US troops (and coverage of same is available) the news has shifted to focus on that.
The effect is, of course, that now the Adminstration is claiming the news is biased against it.
Oh well.
"The Whole World is Watching!"
Recall the chant in Chicago during the "police riot" at the 1968 Democratic convention? In truth, the mass arrests of demonstators was actually seen by few TV viewers, because only one network covered the story live--the other two stuck with their "normal programming"--and there were no other channels.
But Bush's state visit to England is going to be seen by millions, and this fact has already caused Bush to limit his exposure to embarrassment, by canceling a speech to Parliament where he would likely have been heckled, as he was in Australia. There are those (including this writer) who would label Bush chickenshit as well as chickenhawk.
But Bush's state visit to England is going to be seen by millions, and this fact has already caused Bush to limit his exposure to embarrassment, by canceling a speech to Parliament where he would likely have been heckled, as he was in Australia. There are those (including this writer) who would label Bush chickenshit as well as chickenhawk.
Monday, November 17, 2003
Road map redux
I'm no Israel/Palestine officianado, but I cannot help wondering why Israel and the US are opposed to Russia's suggestion that the UN re-affirm its commitment to the "road map" that the US (and Russia, the EU and the UN) previously proffered. Could it be that such a commitment requires that Israel eventually tear down its apartheid fence/wall? Just asking.
A little slice of heaven
According to a report that won't make the US news, a couple of nameless Iraqis, including an eleven-year old boy, were shot dead by US forces in Baghdad yesterday, when someone fired a gun in the air to test the weapon as our troops passed by in an armored column. I point this out not to disparage our troops, who are young kids frightened of the locals (in Baghdad, not in the "Sunni Triangle" BTW), and armed to the teeth. I am instead making sure it's not forgotten that such acts, however explicable, are those of a force that is more likely to create hatred than peace.
Let's face it, the notion that we can impose "democracy" (whatever that might mean in an arab, Muslim desert, ruled for centuries by nondemocratic tribes), is nonsense. Even more nonsensical is the idea that the US can shed its mantle as occupier simply by the passage of time. We are digging a deeper hole for ourselves and our troops every day, with every killing. And these killings, we now know, go unreported, unacknowledged, unknown, except by those who witnessed them, who survived them and remember.
Let's face it, the notion that we can impose "democracy" (whatever that might mean in an arab, Muslim desert, ruled for centuries by nondemocratic tribes), is nonsense. Even more nonsensical is the idea that the US can shed its mantle as occupier simply by the passage of time. We are digging a deeper hole for ourselves and our troops every day, with every killing. And these killings, we now know, go unreported, unacknowledged, unknown, except by those who witnessed them, who survived them and remember.
So many apt slogans, so little space
"Saving face," "window dressing," "too little too late," "just plain bullshit,"--These are among the phrases that come to mind upon the report of Bush's latest maneuver: his announcement that "sovereignty will be passed to the Iraqis" by June 1. Particularly when the announcement is coupled with Bremer's statement that there will be a "side agreement" (with whom? how can that be known in advance?) that the US troops will be "invited" to remain to provide "security."
In the same Independent article, it is suggested (for the first time, I think) that the US may be willing to cede authority for command of its military forces in Iraq to an international authority, but of course that authority is NATO, which the US dominates. In the first place, it's unlikely the US will do so unless, as with the Iraqis, it can have a "side agreement" that NATO members (including naysayers France, Germany, Belgium) will agree to the US military program. In the second place, the bulk of troops, as with the NATO command in Afghanistan, will be American.
Another word, accordingly, springs to mind: "sham." The fact is Bush is getting his ass whipped in Iraq. His "war on terr'r" is a foul, evil design meant to exploit the reaction of grieving, frightened Americans into allowing him and his warmongering, profiteering capitalists to rule the world; and to his dismay, he is being thwarted by stubborn Iraqis (and resilient Taliban in Afghanistan). To avoid admitting failure, he is papering over these realities by announcements that won't change anything. American troops will continue to die, hatred of the United States will continue to grow, and so will "terr'r."
It can't be more clearly seen than in this latest charade, this latest burst of glossed-over retreats from his supposed "policy," that Bush is worse than wrong and wrong-headed. He is--without doubt now--a cunning, callous cynic.
In the same Independent article, it is suggested (for the first time, I think) that the US may be willing to cede authority for command of its military forces in Iraq to an international authority, but of course that authority is NATO, which the US dominates. In the first place, it's unlikely the US will do so unless, as with the Iraqis, it can have a "side agreement" that NATO members (including naysayers France, Germany, Belgium) will agree to the US military program. In the second place, the bulk of troops, as with the NATO command in Afghanistan, will be American.
Another word, accordingly, springs to mind: "sham." The fact is Bush is getting his ass whipped in Iraq. His "war on terr'r" is a foul, evil design meant to exploit the reaction of grieving, frightened Americans into allowing him and his warmongering, profiteering capitalists to rule the world; and to his dismay, he is being thwarted by stubborn Iraqis (and resilient Taliban in Afghanistan). To avoid admitting failure, he is papering over these realities by announcements that won't change anything. American troops will continue to die, hatred of the United States will continue to grow, and so will "terr'r."
It can't be more clearly seen than in this latest charade, this latest burst of glossed-over retreats from his supposed "policy," that Bush is worse than wrong and wrong-headed. He is--without doubt now--a cunning, callous cynic.
Sunday, November 16, 2003
"Victory" in Iraq
A "scholarly" study of Americans' tolerance for the increasing death toll in Iraq concludes that the "swing voters," (those people other than perennial "doves" who are sensitive to the death and injuries to American troops) will abide more casualties if they believe "victory" is imminent.
A question not posed by this study (and one that seems manifestly significant) is this: What is "victory"?
Certainly it's not the creation of some happy-talking, hula-hooping, jump-roping society where all is rosy and fine all the time. We don't have that in America, even. Nor, one would think, is it a grateful, peaceloving body politic that exudes democratic confidence and somnolent satisfaction with the status quo. We don't have that, either.
Here's what I think: The best we can hope for--and what Bush and the neocons are after--is some strongly-funded autocracy that is US-oriented and will nod and scrape when called upon, no matter what the citizenry really wants.
Such a system, of course, will only perpetuate violence in Iraq. But get this: That's what the neocons really want. As with the US, where they maintain their power with the constant "threat" of danger, they wish to do so in Iraq, so they can keep troops there indefinitely.
I must keep reminding myself: Bush doesn't want peace, doesn't want democracy. He can stay in power only if the conflict continues.
A question not posed by this study (and one that seems manifestly significant) is this: What is "victory"?
Certainly it's not the creation of some happy-talking, hula-hooping, jump-roping society where all is rosy and fine all the time. We don't have that in America, even. Nor, one would think, is it a grateful, peaceloving body politic that exudes democratic confidence and somnolent satisfaction with the status quo. We don't have that, either.
Here's what I think: The best we can hope for--and what Bush and the neocons are after--is some strongly-funded autocracy that is US-oriented and will nod and scrape when called upon, no matter what the citizenry really wants.
Such a system, of course, will only perpetuate violence in Iraq. But get this: That's what the neocons really want. As with the US, where they maintain their power with the constant "threat" of danger, they wish to do so in Iraq, so they can keep troops there indefinitely.
I must keep reminding myself: Bush doesn't want peace, doesn't want democracy. He can stay in power only if the conflict continues.
No toadies, the Brits
Whoever said the British were simply our stooges in Bush's war on terr'r? They stand up to us all the time, defying our most reasonable requests. Like yesterday, when they refused to give Bush's security force "shoot to kill" authority during his upcoming trip to London.
Next they'll be demanding that we come up with a reasonable justification for having invaded Iraq. That's gratitude for you.
Next they'll be demanding that we come up with a reasonable justification for having invaded Iraq. That's gratitude for you.
Saturday, November 15, 2003
One hundred bin Ladens
Who was it--the President of Egypt, I think--who said our invasion of Iraq would bring out one hundred bin Ladens. Well, in addition to the scores in Iraq, here's a carful in Istanbul.
General Anthony Zinni's words
This essay in The Nation quotes Zinni at length. His prewar statements are hauntingly prescient. He was in charge of Cent Com from 1997 to 2000, and it's tempting to reflect upon the course of history had he stayed on after 9-11.
Probably nothing would have changed. The Chickenhawk neocons were so bent to attacking Iraq that they would have done so even had Zinni counseled against it, and he would either have dutifully followed orders or slipped into retirement.
But still...
Probably nothing would have changed. The Chickenhawk neocons were so bent to attacking Iraq that they would have done so even had Zinni counseled against it, and he would either have dutifully followed orders or slipped into retirement.
But still...
Friday, November 14, 2003
Arcane, but perhaps true
This explanation (scroll down to "It's Good to Be the King" post of 11/13) of the present state of the US economy, in particular, how we manage to stay afloat despite our enormous borrowing and trade deficit, isn't heartening for this Bush-basher. According to Billmon, the "big three" foreign banks will continue to buy our bonds, even at these puny rates of return, because they cannot afford our collapse and they benefit from our trade imbalance. I've read this elsewhere, and the predictions seem to be that this charade can continue for another year or so, viz. until after the election of 2004.
If so, we may have Bush for another four years, and then face twenty-five years of surviving what he's done to our nation's economy and standing in the world.
I hate to say this, but Pray for a Disaster.
If so, we may have Bush for another four years, and then face twenty-five years of surviving what he's done to our nation's economy and standing in the world.
I hate to say this, but Pray for a Disaster.
If it weren't so tragic...
...it would be hilarious. First, there's "mission accomplished," the disbanding of Saddam's army, and the announcement of a systematic plan for creation of an all-inclusive, democratic Iraq. Then, the first attack of "Saddam loyalists" occurs, then another, then another. Soon, "Saddam loyalists" becomes "foreign terrorists" and "mission accomplished" becomes a call for monetary and personnel assistance from other nations. When this is largely rebuffed, and the attacks cause the UN, the Red Cross and other NGO's to pull out, the effort becomes a "long hard slog" and the US determines that "Iraqization" of the defense force is needed. Then, when the Congress authorizes and additional $87 billion for military and reconstruction efforts, the Iraq Provisional Council is chided for being dilatory and is given a deadline to create a plan for the drafting of a constitution. Then, as the attacks intensify, causing deaths of US soldiers and "coalition" forces in scores, the US determines to prod the council further, to hasten the democracization process and to "outlast" the enemy, whoever it is.
Our modern culture, with its technology, has telescoped history. Wars now take months, sometimes weeks, not years and decades. Explanations--rationalizations--pour forth daily, hourly. In less than eight months, we've seen a tableau of tragedy played out by our evil folly. And, I predict, the pace will continue. By this time next year--election time--all will be known: the madness, the corruption, the deceit , with only one benefit: the casting out of power of the men and women who caused it.
Or not.
Our modern culture, with its technology, has telescoped history. Wars now take months, sometimes weeks, not years and decades. Explanations--rationalizations--pour forth daily, hourly. In less than eight months, we've seen a tableau of tragedy played out by our evil folly. And, I predict, the pace will continue. By this time next year--election time--all will be known: the madness, the corruption, the deceit , with only one benefit: the casting out of power of the men and women who caused it.
Or not.
The democratization of Iraq or the battle of the Somme?
Rumsfeld has told reporters that we're not going "to leave early," that we're going to maintain our forces in Iraq for "as long as necessary." And straight out of the handbook of most meaningless, brutal bloodbath of the twentieth century, he says this: "We are going to outlast them."
A real shot in the arm for our troops. A rallying cry for the resistance.
Rummie, you're not just evil, you're stupid.
A real shot in the arm for our troops. A rallying cry for the resistance.
Rummie, you're not just evil, you're stupid.
Thursday, November 13, 2003
All That Arises ... eventually returns
Readers of this blog may not have been aware, but I've been gone for over a week, spending time with family. Circumstances made contributing to the blog difficult. I'm back, and may eventually have something to contribute again.
I'd like to begin with an observation on Erik's Nov 11 entry, "Who's minding the store?" I suppose a return to the draft is a possibility. I'm 42, fat, and nearsighted ... they won't be coming for me. The bastards missed their chance at my tender years. But my nephew will have to register soon, in April 2019. Should I be concerned?
Is there any hope that in 16 years we will have stopped sending young men and women to make the ultimate sacrifice by dying needlessly for obscure and indefensible reasons? I only ask because he’s enamored of mermaids, Finding Nemo, and a favorite blankie with a design of clouds and sky. I’d like to get a head start, making sure he has the appropriate desert equipment … maybe a Cinderella biohazard mask, little Nemos on his boots, that sort of thing.
Maybe we should check with parents of two year olds now, and arrange for personalized body bags with favorite cartoon characters. And a few gross of prosthetic limbs with the characters from Monsters Inc.
I’m thinking ahead. What else is an Uncle for?
I'd like to begin with an observation on Erik's Nov 11 entry, "Who's minding the store?" I suppose a return to the draft is a possibility. I'm 42, fat, and nearsighted ... they won't be coming for me. The bastards missed their chance at my tender years. But my nephew will have to register soon, in April 2019. Should I be concerned?
Is there any hope that in 16 years we will have stopped sending young men and women to make the ultimate sacrifice by dying needlessly for obscure and indefensible reasons? I only ask because he’s enamored of mermaids, Finding Nemo, and a favorite blankie with a design of clouds and sky. I’d like to get a head start, making sure he has the appropriate desert equipment … maybe a Cinderella biohazard mask, little Nemos on his boots, that sort of thing.
Maybe we should check with parents of two year olds now, and arrange for personalized body bags with favorite cartoon characters. And a few gross of prosthetic limbs with the characters from Monsters Inc.
I’m thinking ahead. What else is an Uncle for?
Bedlam in Baghdad
Now we're bombing Baghdad, having switched from months of obtrusive searches, then to more civilian-friendly intrusions, and now to all-out demolition. The explosions that light up the Baghdad sky will have no effect, says an Iraqi administrator, but may enhance the morale of the American troops.
And, in the same WaPo article we learn that a newly-reopened bridge across the Tigris, one that took millions to rebuild, will now be closed. It seems it leads directly into the government complex of Baghdad, and it's too dangerous to leave it open to possible attackers.
So much for the new, thriving Babylon.
And, in the same WaPo article we learn that a newly-reopened bridge across the Tigris, one that took millions to rebuild, will now be closed. It seems it leads directly into the government complex of Baghdad, and it's too dangerous to leave it open to possible attackers.
So much for the new, thriving Babylon.
Wednesday, November 12, 2003
And the beat goes on...
The latest target of opportunity in the war against terr'r. Chickens of mass production.
Baghdad blogging
Two observations:
(1) Salam Pax, who hit the bigtime (a column in the Guardian, a book deal) has foresaken his blogroots, having not posted meaningfully for months, and so has forfeited his claim to be the Baghdad Blogger.
(2) The newly-anointed BB (and, to me, always the more incisive, informative and certainly consistent) is Riverbend, whose posts, including her latest one about the "Governing" Council, are so right on that one wants to shout them from the rooftops (or the minarets or whatever).
Write on, Riverbend, right on.
(1) Salam Pax, who hit the bigtime (a column in the Guardian, a book deal) has foresaken his blogroots, having not posted meaningfully for months, and so has forfeited his claim to be the Baghdad Blogger.
(2) The newly-anointed BB (and, to me, always the more incisive, informative and certainly consistent) is Riverbend, whose posts, including her latest one about the "Governing" Council, are so right on that one wants to shout them from the rooftops (or the minarets or whatever).
Write on, Riverbend, right on.
Tuesday, November 11, 2003
Who's minding the store?
Rumsfeld says he's ready to send more troops to Iraq if his generals tell him they're neeeded. But guess what? We're running out of bodies. Indeed, there weren't enough soldiers stateside to fill out Veterans Day parades. And so, according to this NYT story (last 4 paragraphs), in some cities the ranks were filled by Boy Scouts and local drill teams.
I'm sure glad we're fighting the terrorists in Iraq. If they ever find out we have no soldiers back home, we're in deep poopie.
I'm sure glad we're fighting the terrorists in Iraq. If they ever find out we have no soldiers back home, we're in deep poopie.
The House Negro speaks
Colin Powell has picked up Bush's "preach democracy" gambit, confirming the US drive to spread the word throughout the world. No one who's affected by it is buying their blather, of course, and even the BBC is dubious, noting that Bush has spared his allies, many of whom are dictators. Its report of Powell's concurring speech concludes with this sage, if somewhat cynical, observation:
"Both Mr Powell and President Bush are arguing that the fight for democracy is a historic mission, similar to the battle with communism during the Cold War. Their critics will be watching to see if Washington is really willing to condemn and perhaps even to destabilise its allies in the name of freedom."
"Both Mr Powell and President Bush are arguing that the fight for democracy is a historic mission, similar to the battle with communism during the Cold War. Their critics will be watching to see if Washington is really willing to condemn and perhaps even to destabilise its allies in the name of freedom."
"Beatings will continue until morale improves."
A concise reaction to the renewed US bombing in Iraq.
Monday, November 10, 2003
Tribune Bremer's "guess"
The first whisper. Tribune Bremer guesses (scroll to penultimate paragraph) that after the Iraqi "government" takes over it will request that US troops remain in Iraq.
Surprise, surprise.
Surprise, surprise.
This makes perfect sense
Now we're fighting "Kurdish rebels" in Northern Iraq. The Kurds, who supposedly are our buddies, have a small faction that hangs out in Iraq near the Turkish border and have their sights on rebellion against Turkey, which also has installed a force in northern Iraq to restrain the rebels. The US, which wants to ingratiate itself to Turkey so that Turkey will send troops to Iraq to help fight the Iraqi resistance in the south, has joined Turkey in fighting the Kurds in the north. Got it?
Does this have anything to do with Bush's war on terr'r?
Does this have anything to do with Bush's war on terr'r?
Saturday, November 08, 2003
Halliburton vs. the Army
The Corps of Engineers is considering terminating its contract with Halliburton for overcharging on gasoline ($2.65 per gallon). It seems other sources are available at less than half the price. Could this really happen? Stay tuned.
It's a madhouse!
The Army reports that it still isn't certain what caused the Black Hawk helicopter to crash in Tikrit yesterday, killing 6 GI's. Nevertheless, to show the inhabitants that we have "teeth and claws," we have bombed and bulldozed buildings in Tikrit. If we don't know the cause of the crash, these can only be the blind flailings of frustration and rage. And the targets? Empty, abandoned buildings.
Does any of this make sense? Does it begin to feel like Israel/Palestine? Nazis/Paris? Rome/Carthage?
Does any of this make sense? Does it begin to feel like Israel/Palestine? Nazis/Paris? Rome/Carthage?
Revisiting yesterday's news
The two stories I referred to in Thursday's post--the Pentagon's rejection of Iraq's last-minute back-channel effort to avoid war, and Jessica Lynch's alleged rape--have indeed found different fates. The first never made it onto the Google News front page (which presents and categorizes the ongoing parade of most-reported stories) while the second was the lead article most of yesterday.
What's in a phrase
Editors at the Los Angeles Times have banned the use of the phrase "resistance fighters" to describe those who are attacking US troops in Iraq, while they admit the phrase may be accurate. It romanticizes them, the paper says.
So?
So?
Thursday, November 06, 2003
I can remain silent no longer
I waited through the day and am about to leave for an evening of dining out (I'll be baaaack in four hours or so), but cannot wait to make this observation about our times:
The New York Times reported 24 hours ago that it was possible that the US invasion of Iraq could have been avoided entirely because the Iraqis proffered what amounted to an unconditional surrender (see my post below entitled "Watching the Fur Fly") just about the same time as it was reported that the "biographer" of Jessica Lynch announced (without Jessica's memory of the event) that she was raped.
It's now a full newsday after these announcements, of somewhat differing global dimension, one would think. And guess which is trumpeted by the media (I won't link to the trumpets, because they're everywhere), and which is mute (and hence no links, notwithstanding that the Gray Lady was, after extensive investigation, the source).
Later tonight I'll check to see whazzup with the reporting, but there's no way anything now disseminated, after everybody's locked onto "Friends" or "Enemies" or whatever we TV-addicted idiots will be watching, can displace the rape report.
And so it goes. American media, and its slaves, abiding in the trough.
The New York Times reported 24 hours ago that it was possible that the US invasion of Iraq could have been avoided entirely because the Iraqis proffered what amounted to an unconditional surrender (see my post below entitled "Watching the Fur Fly") just about the same time as it was reported that the "biographer" of Jessica Lynch announced (without Jessica's memory of the event) that she was raped.
It's now a full newsday after these announcements, of somewhat differing global dimension, one would think. And guess which is trumpeted by the media (I won't link to the trumpets, because they're everywhere), and which is mute (and hence no links, notwithstanding that the Gray Lady was, after extensive investigation, the source).
Later tonight I'll check to see whazzup with the reporting, but there's no way anything now disseminated, after everybody's locked onto "Friends" or "Enemies" or whatever we TV-addicted idiots will be watching, can displace the rape report.
And so it goes. American media, and its slaves, abiding in the trough.
Deja vu all over again
This pamphlet, Scott Nearing's The Great Madness, was written ninety years ago as America was about to enter WWI. It could have been written yesterday. The plutocracy he describes, the use of a crisis and a claim of the need for national defense to galvanize public opinion in favor of big business as a salvation--my God, where have we heard that before?
Of course he was prosecuted for the pamphlet--which wouldn't happen today, right?
Here is his closing argument in defense of the charge of violating the Espionage Act
Of course he was prosecuted for the pamphlet--which wouldn't happen today, right?
Here is his closing argument in defense of the charge of violating the Espionage Act
Wednesday, November 05, 2003
It's the jobs, stupid
For a straightforward take on the true effect of the present economic morass, including an illuminating chart that shows the relative job/income performance of the economy during the various cycles of recession/recovery, check out this short, telling article.
Bottom line: Not since records have been kept, through five decades of such cycles, have jobs and incomes continued to remain mired in loss for so long. Indeed, we're now losing ground on real income of wage-earners, long after the "recovery" should have floated all boats.
Bottom line: Not since records have been kept, through five decades of such cycles, have jobs and incomes continued to remain mired in loss for so long. Indeed, we're now losing ground on real income of wage-earners, long after the "recovery" should have floated all boats.
Watching the fur fly
This article from the NYT, relating in detail the last-weeks-before-the-war overture/capitulation by Iraq (essentially an unconditional surrender) that was conveyed to the Pentagon but not accepted by the US is going to create a firestorm of outrage. From the depth of the investigation, it looks like the NYT has got the goodies on the maniacs in the administration who have now killed thousands when it was likely all could have been avoided. Powerful stuff.
As intriguing as will be watching the administration try to squirm out of this one, will be observing the finger-pointing. From the tenor of the story, it looks like CIA finally put the kabosh on Iraq's overtures. But I'll bet, given the rift between the CIA and the other branches of government, that they won't take it lying down.
Stay very tuned.
As intriguing as will be watching the administration try to squirm out of this one, will be observing the finger-pointing. From the tenor of the story, it looks like CIA finally put the kabosh on Iraq's overtures. But I'll bet, given the rift between the CIA and the other branches of government, that they won't take it lying down.
Stay very tuned.
Monday, November 03, 2003
Rooney Rocks
Andy Rooney ain't no rad, but this proposed speech for our current president is right on, Rooney.
Is the herd finally catching on?
At long last, a majority of people disapprove of Mr Bush's handling of Iraq, as the floundering war and sickly economy take their toll on his approval ratings. Now if the democrats will stop chewing cud and field a serious candidate or two, there's hope. News
A comparison
Iraq is about the same size as California, with about ten million fewer inhabitants--23 million. The contention that much of Iraq is "back to normal," in that context, seems odd. Consider if during any given day, there were thirty-five armed attacks on police in our state, and the area around Los Angeles experienced a cop killing and three or four bombings per day; and imagine how the Bush administration, after six months of such a situation, would regard California. We'd be immersed in National Guardsmen, and the first time one of them was killed, we'd be an armed camp, a state in a state of siege.
Could it be that what Bush (and Wolfie and Rummie and that whore Condie, not to mention the house-slave Colin Powell) regard what is intolerable for us white folks as "normal" for arabs?
Does this begin to feel a bit like the British Empire, except that our wogs are arabs?
Could it be that what Bush (and Wolfie and Rummie and that whore Condie, not to mention the house-slave Colin Powell) regard what is intolerable for us white folks as "normal" for arabs?
Does this begin to feel a bit like the British Empire, except that our wogs are arabs?
Sunday, November 02, 2003
And as if the previous post wasn't enough...
According to Australia's foremost daily paper, two U.S. GI's are facing court martial for having married Iraqi women, both physicians who were working in hospitals where the soldiers were stationed. "Fraternization," or something, is the formal charge.
What the hell? Is this madness, or what?
What the hell? Is this madness, or what?
Can't Bremer do anything right?
With $87 billion to play with, you'd think Tribune Bremer could toss a few sheckles to the Iraq national soccer team, whose field and equipment we demolished, so that they have a chance to make it into the Asia playoff. But no, and the recently-appointed coach has threatened to resign on account of it.
Let me do you a favor
I know there are more important things to blog about (such as the near-score of dead GI's in Iraq today), but if you read this you'll receive an immediate pecuniary benefit: You'll save eight dollars.
Don't see Quentin Tarantino's Kill Bill vol. 1.
Or, to save you four dollars: Don't rent it, either.
Don't see Quentin Tarantino's Kill Bill vol. 1.
Or, to save you four dollars: Don't rent it, either.
Saturday, November 01, 2003
The ghoul in me
I'm angry--at whom I don't know, precisely. Look, the more dead US soldiers in Iraq, the worse it is for Bush. And the sooner we'll pull out of there. So, when there's a persistent under-reporting of deaths in the media, I'm angered, but at least I'm alive to blog on the subject.
If I were a dead soldier, say the result of a humvee crash or a drowning in the Tigris, I'd be pissed off that my death didn't at least become a statistic that might help to effect a change the course of history. But no, if a soldier dies in Iraq by other than an enemy bullet or bomb, his death counts for nothing, not even in the tabulation of casualties that one day may cause the US citizenry to get rid of Bush and elect a sane president. (This form of refined, limited casualty-counting, BTW, is unique to this war.)
Even in death, I would be really pissed off.
If I were a dead soldier, say the result of a humvee crash or a drowning in the Tigris, I'd be pissed off that my death didn't at least become a statistic that might help to effect a change the course of history. But no, if a soldier dies in Iraq by other than an enemy bullet or bomb, his death counts for nothing, not even in the tabulation of casualties that one day may cause the US citizenry to get rid of Bush and elect a sane president. (This form of refined, limited casualty-counting, BTW, is unique to this war.)
Even in death, I would be really pissed off.
Victims of Arson
I have this to say about Erik's last post:
The Bush administration was right about one thing. We are in danger of being victims of terrorism, right here in the USA.
The Bush administration was right about one thing. We are in danger of being victims of terrorism, right here in the USA.
A bit scary
In spite of neighbors' protests, this Virginia couple installed on their porch a sign stating the number of U.S. military casualties in Iraq. "Egging" of their house, hoots and insults, were followed, one night, by arson of the sign--and as a result, the house.
I march on Saturday mornings, along with a few others, carrying a sign up and down State Street in SB that displays the latest casualty figures, and often, when I park my Volvo in parking lots, I place the sign atop my car, sticking through the sunroof. On one side it says, "Hey, Hey, USA! How many soldiers died today?" and on the other, "'Bring 'em On'-2388 U.S. Causualties-R U Happy Now, W?" I update the number regularly. (Today's total, BTW, is 2470.)
So far, I've received only these reactions: A few notes, half positive, half negative, pinned under my windshield wiper, and a couple of snide remarks ("Dirty hippie," "Get a life") as I install the sign. No egging or keying of my car, no harm to the sign. So far.
I march on Saturday mornings, along with a few others, carrying a sign up and down State Street in SB that displays the latest casualty figures, and often, when I park my Volvo in parking lots, I place the sign atop my car, sticking through the sunroof. On one side it says, "Hey, Hey, USA! How many soldiers died today?" and on the other, "'Bring 'em On'-2388 U.S. Causualties-R U Happy Now, W?" I update the number regularly. (Today's total, BTW, is 2470.)
So far, I've received only these reactions: A few notes, half positive, half negative, pinned under my windshield wiper, and a couple of snide remarks ("Dirty hippie," "Get a life") as I install the sign. No egging or keying of my car, no harm to the sign. So far.
Friday, October 31, 2003
Adolph Bush
I recall a WWII photo of Hitler patting the cheek of a child recruit who he was about to send into battle as the Third Reich came to an end. With our present Fuehrer's announcement of quickie training of Iraqi youths to take over for American soldiers, I'm getting an eerie feeling, not of deja vu, but of historical repetition.
Stupid questions
John, an occasional contributor, submits these questions:
I may be stupid but didn't we start this war to deprive Iraq of their WMD? If so, since we now have determined there are no WMD, doesn't this mean we accomplished our mission by default and should simply pack up and go home?
'Nuff said.
I may be stupid but didn't we start this war to deprive Iraq of their WMD? If so, since we now have determined there are no WMD, doesn't this mean we accomplished our mission by default and should simply pack up and go home?
'Nuff said.
Thursday, October 30, 2003
This is delicious
Okay, so now that Tribune Bremer has by fiat opened up Iraq to commercial exploitation by Bush's cronies, and they flock to Iraq to rip off the locals as well as the US taxpayers (who, it should be noted, are funding Iraq's reconstruction), this happens: Iraq, through its legally-constituted entity (not the CPA-appointed stooges) later decides to renege on some of the deals, leaving Bushies broke and stranded in the desert. All without legal recourse, because Bremer and friends had no legal power or authority to grant the contracts ab initio.
I can't wait.
I can't wait.
How much ya wanna bet?
So, the oilfield contract is going to be doubled in monetary scope and put out to bid on a noncompetitive basis. Who do you think is going to be granted the extra billion-plus?
Tuesday, October 28, 2003
The future of jobs in America looks dim, thank God
This analysis of a Job-is-worth-less economy is, for this Bush-hater (and non-jobseeker) heaven-sent. Indeed, in the face of all of this "recovery" noise, it makes sense.
The other evening, for example, my laptop crashed and I called the requisite 1-800 number for technical assistance (which BTW was timely and effective). As my tech-support person and I were waiting for some fix on my machine to take effect, I asked him where he was located, that is, what city I'd reached with my toll-free call.
"Delhi," he said.
And so it goes.
The other evening, for example, my laptop crashed and I called the requisite 1-800 number for technical assistance (which BTW was timely and effective). As my tech-support person and I were waiting for some fix on my machine to take effect, I asked him where he was located, that is, what city I'd reached with my toll-free call.
"Delhi," he said.
And so it goes.
Cher, Abe & Bush
If we love America, we have to pray for America. Before the president and the neocons trade our community chest for a handful of hate and we finally truly go the way of Rome.
We used to have leaders who would meet the coffins at Andrews AFB, and meet with the families of the dead. Remember Bill Clinton crying in the hanger at Andrews? And lest you think it's a partisan issue, remember Lincoln ministering to the nation's grief at Gettysburg?
"The father grieves for his son, and will not leave the room
where the coffin stands."
--Bly
Throughout the course of human life, it has been a common duty of substantive leadership to lead the people in mourning, and we as a nation have always wept together. Anyone who has seen the Vietnam Memorial wall knows this is true. We are supposed to be led to take "increased devotion" and "highly resolve that (the) dead shall not have died in vain."
Cher is right, and it illuminates the reality that his nation is not being led as the community of people that we thought we were. George W. Bush will not meet the coffins at the airport. He is cynical and drunk with power, obsessed with a vain and illusory victory. He cares little for the price paid by those who bear the duty, and he will not hug their grieving families. His minions have outlawed photos of the arrivals of our dead. It is beyond his poor power to consecrate or comfort, to add or detract. I doubt it's in his heart to even try.
"Mother whose heart hung humble as a button
On the bright splendid shroud of your son,
Do not weep.
War is kind."
--Crane
We used to have leaders who would meet the coffins at Andrews AFB, and meet with the families of the dead. Remember Bill Clinton crying in the hanger at Andrews? And lest you think it's a partisan issue, remember Lincoln ministering to the nation's grief at Gettysburg?
"The father grieves for his son, and will not leave the room
where the coffin stands."
--Bly
Throughout the course of human life, it has been a common duty of substantive leadership to lead the people in mourning, and we as a nation have always wept together. Anyone who has seen the Vietnam Memorial wall knows this is true. We are supposed to be led to take "increased devotion" and "highly resolve that (the) dead shall not have died in vain."
Cher is right, and it illuminates the reality that his nation is not being led as the community of people that we thought we were. George W. Bush will not meet the coffins at the airport. He is cynical and drunk with power, obsessed with a vain and illusory victory. He cares little for the price paid by those who bear the duty, and he will not hug their grieving families. His minions have outlawed photos of the arrivals of our dead. It is beyond his poor power to consecrate or comfort, to add or detract. I doubt it's in his heart to even try.
"Mother whose heart hung humble as a button
On the bright splendid shroud of your son,
Do not weep.
War is kind."
--Crane
Monday, October 27, 2003
Right on, Cher
You've got to read this transcript of a caller to C-Span. (Scroll down to "Cher on Cspan") Now I see what Sonny saw in her.
October surprise & tuna salad sucks, says Salam
Erik's theory that Caesar will attempt to fuel re-appointment by an October Surprise is shared by a man in Baghdad, not quite verbatim.
See the entry beginning, "My cousin, after his third beer ...." dated 10/19/03, on Where is Raed ?
See the entry beginning, "My cousin, after his third beer ...." dated 10/19/03, on Where is Raed ?
Sunday, October 26, 2003
I could'na said it better redux
This fun-written piece, reciting What We Can Do About It All, is uplifting. I wish I could change America by a wink and a nod, but no. However, this I can do.
Saturday, October 25, 2003
I could'na said it better
The new Jacobins. The end of America. A synthesis of Nascar Dads, hyperChristians, odd-bent historians, power-hungry sickos and corporations. Yeah--that's who's gonna be voting for Bush in 2004.
Friday, October 24, 2003
I'm baaack!
After a fine sojourn into the Sierras, I've returned to SB and my computer, only to learn that nothing has changed out here in the world. Of the several revelations I experienced on my trip, this is relevant to this blog:
The network and TV news programs are amazingly insufficient to convey what is really going on in the world, certainly with respect to our foreign policy. I don't own a TV, and so on nights that I stayed in motels on my trip, I would watch CNN or Fox or one of the other broadcasts and see nothing other than bites from Bush's trip to the far east, mixed in with stories of missing children, criminal cases in progress and so forth. Nothing of substance about the war, the economy, anything.
In fact, I'm surprised as many people (40%-plus, according to the polls) are opposed to Bush's handling of Iraq, given that so little news of the setbacks is filtered through to the public. If there's a filter at work, I might add, it's such a filter, not the one Bush complains about.
The network and TV news programs are amazingly insufficient to convey what is really going on in the world, certainly with respect to our foreign policy. I don't own a TV, and so on nights that I stayed in motels on my trip, I would watch CNN or Fox or one of the other broadcasts and see nothing other than bites from Bush's trip to the far east, mixed in with stories of missing children, criminal cases in progress and so forth. Nothing of substance about the war, the economy, anything.
In fact, I'm surprised as many people (40%-plus, according to the polls) are opposed to Bush's handling of Iraq, given that so little news of the setbacks is filtered through to the public. If there's a filter at work, I might add, it's such a filter, not the one Bush complains about.
Wednesday, October 22, 2003
No Media Coverage of Returning Coffins
The Bush Administration, in another quick end-run around the First Amendment and that pesky Fourth Estate, has ordered there will be no media coverage of coffins coming back from Iraq. Shows what the Bushies think of the American people, that when it comes to our war dead, out of sight is out of mind.
Curtains Ordered for Media Coverage of Returning Coffins (washingtonpost.com)
Curtains Ordered for Media Coverage of Returning Coffins (washingtonpost.com)
Blood Donations Halted From Our Forces in Iraq
Another great reason to bring our troops home. A nasty parasitic disease.
DefenseLINK News: Blood Donations Halted From Personnel Deployed To Iraq
DefenseLINK News: Blood Donations Halted From Personnel Deployed To Iraq
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
