Ugly, ugly

So now what? We torture them, they behead us. This is madness. Worse than anything we've undergone before during wartime because we're witness to its abiding ugliness. One thing: They're more brutal than we are. Another thing: If this becomes a battle of brutality, we lose.

Prisoners of their own prison

The Senate hearings into the prison scandals are as politicized as any hearings I've seen. Republicans trying to "limit the damage" to the general (a woman named Karpinski) who was in charge of the central Iraq prison system; the Democrats trying to expand it up and out. The effect will be to drag the proceedings out for months. This, plus the drip-drip of further evidence, is going to enliven our summer bigtime.

Today in Iraq

This is a fabulous day-by-day recital of events in Iraq, from an Iraqi blogger. Check it out.

Read it and weep

Here are portions of the Red Cross report on prisoner abuse. No wonder we never heard about it. Recall, readers, that we invaded this country (think Germany invading France) and rounded up those who wouldn't lie down for us (or those who we thought didn't lie down quick enough), and determined to find out stuff about the resistance. Recall, too, that as invaders we were all the while, including now, bound by the Geneva Convention, which prohibits all of this. Even Rummie, the fascist, has conceded that the Geneva Convention applies to these prisoners, as opposed to those whom Bush has deemed "enemy combatants." In other words, all of what is described is illegal under international law, under treaties that are the supreme law of the land (of the United States and of any nation that has ratified same) violation of which are war crimes.

We have acted with the very evil that we've vowed to defeat. We are the enemy now.

So far so good

Bush has just appeared on television after "visiting the Pentagon for a briefing" about the Iraq war. He gave a five-minute pre-written statement supporting Rumsfeld, preaching about the rightness of our cause, blathering about the "abuse issue," and, if I may be so bold, his speech sounded (complete with Texas accent) just like LBJ's ramblings as the Viet Nam conflict ground on in the sixties.

This is terrific. Nothing new, nothing significant, and the newscasters and analysts are already jumping on the story. Blood is in the water, the Chinese water torture has begun, the dike has a hole in it. Pick your trite metaphor.

One pissed off lady

Riverbend, author of the Baghdad Burning blog, is outraged by these latest revelations about torture and abuse at the Baghdad prison. She--a relatively moderate Iraqi--wants us out. Now!

Let the Games Begin

Let's face it folks: When someone like Rumsfeld says he's taking full responsibility for a FUBAR operation like Abu Ghraib, what he really means is that he'll make sure that appropriate scapegoats take the fall.

We all know that command is just as responsible as rank and file in this deal, but a few Courts Martial will make for good copy, and in the end, everything will be business as usual at Bush Co. Cynical? Naw it was ever thus, that's all.

Well, isn't that precious...

The Sunnis and Shias have joined together to demand that the post-June 30 governance be controlled by a group other than one chosen by the US or the governing council. A truly independent group, just like--could it be?--democracy.

I wonder how Tribune Bremer and his boss, Bush, will react to this. Could they handle Iraqis chosing their own form of governance? We have less than two months to wait until we find out.

More Bad News for Bush

The News for Bush just keeps getting better and better. Or worse, depending on your perspective.

Sick, sick, sick

I watched Rummie and the generals at the House hearing. Imagine. They actually had the gall to say that these hearings--that is, the fact that the US, through its congress, was holding these hearings in public and so forth--would send a strong message to the rest of the world that we are a worthy nation, a strong and principled democracy, able to air its dirty laundry on such a sensitive subject and vow to correct the abuses.

As I say, imagine the gall. These abuses, the photos, the hearings, never would have been aired at all if the Pentagon had anything to say about it, nor would Bush/Cheney or the Army have taken any action except perhaps in secret. All of the last week's activities arose only because the CBS program, Sixty Minutes II, televised the photos, and Sy Hersh was about to publish a detailed expose in the New Yorker magazine. In fact, the underlying Army report that detailed the abuses, as well as the photos, were buried in the Pentagon for months before, suddenly, all of Rummie's fake "democracy" became necessary.

The status of the United States in the world

is well depicted by the recent vote in the General Assembly opposing Israel's unilateral actions in the Middle East. The vote was 140 to 6, critical of Israel. The US was one of the 6. The other five? Micronesia, Marshall Islands, Nauru and Palau. Oh. And Israel.

Rummie and the brass hats

are sitting side by side before the Senate Armed Services Committee. The witnesses came armed with charts and timelines, gave muffled waffles/responses to muddled questions/speeches by the Senators. This quickie hearing won't do much except provide the media with grist for their presses and screens. It's not likely to resolve the questions, which will linger and, if all goes as usual, will simmer all summer, boiling over occasionally as new revelations are made and are processed by the media and the world.

Fabulous.

April Jobs report

For the second month in a row, the Labor Department has reported that job creation in the US has jumped above experts' expectations, including, even, a small addition of jobs in the manufacturing sector. It's possible that this means that the economy will continue to recover throughout the summer. This is good news for Bush, bad news for those of us who oppose his re-election. (I recognize this tension, BTW, which not too many of us liberals acknowledge is inherent in our position).

Does this mean that Bush is unbeatable in November? Almost. Bush's only significant liability may therefore be foreign policy, Iraq in particular. It's possible that with Iraq in such turmoil, and with the related scandals still roiling, he could be done in by foreign policy alone, but there's not much precedent for that. True, the war in Viet Nam caused LBJ to quit (hence we'll never know whether he would have been re-elected), but Nixon was re-elected during the worst of the Viet Nam conflict.

One thing might change this prospect: A powerful campaign by the Democratic candidates, Kerry and his veep, causing a groundswell of positive support. Could that happen?

Not exactly the party line

The Iraqi general who's been appointed by us to handle Fallujah for us says our troops should forthwith pull back--all the way to the United States.

A view of Kerry's "problem"

Many of my Bush-hater buddies are, like me, dismayed at John Kerry's performance so far in his campaign to unseat the entrenched, well-funded incumbent. I've got a whole essay, so far not reduced to writing, on the subject. But this quote is a good start.

"The result, as some of his supporters concede, is that [Kerry] comes across as just a generic Democrat. No one can finish the sentence 'I support John Kerry because...' except to say '...he is not George Bush.'

"If the election is just a referendum on Mr Bush, none of this may matter. Mr Kerry is raising huge amounts of money—a record $55m in the first quarter—which may be all that is necessary if the Republicans defeat themselves. But there are big risks to running a message-free campaign. It could depress Democratic turnout. It lets Mr Bush define Mr Kerry. And if he wants to fulfil the Democrats' pledge to 'take back the country', and seize the political initiative, Mr Kerry will need a governing strategy on inauguration day. To do all that, he needs to start imposing what he stands for on the party. That is the opportunity fast disappearing."

The way it is in Iraq, now and then

This Iraqi blogger reacts to a post that paints "pre-war vs. post-war" difference, pointing out, for example, that the claim of the high school attendance by girls is the same as it was before the US invasion.

Oh boy, oh boy

The prisoner abuse issue is becoming a "what did the president know and when did he know it?" question. The press loves this kind of thing ever since Watergate. It's pretty clear there was a report about prisoner abuse in both Iraq and Afghanistan that circulated to the White House many months ago, and the Congress is pissed off about being left out of the loop, so there may be some traction to the issue, even public hearings.

It could arise to a mini-Watergate summer. Fun, fun, fun.

Troops Reprimanded for Prison Abuse

OK, everybody can relax about the torture of Iraqi prisoners. The troops have been reprimanded. I guess they're just excitable boys. Yahoo! News

Hamill "escapes"

I'm not denigrating the conduct of the truckdriver who found his way to US Army troops, and thereupon to freedom. But two items have been reported that color the story. First, when, upon his "rescue," he was asked if he was hungry, he said, "No thank you. I've already eaten." Second, he'd already escaped once--a day or two before--and when he didn't find any US Army troops to pick him up he returned to his place of captivity and waited for another chance.

Is this another Jessica Lynch thing?

The latest litany of outrages and embarrassments

The systematic abuse of Iraqi prisoners by US military; the statement by Tribune Bremer, as head of a commission investigating terrorism, that the George Bush's administration wasn't paying attention to terrorism; the ongoing deaths of US soldiers; the "strategic retreat" of the US from Fallujah; the criticism of US treatment of Iraqis by the Brahimi--can Bush somehow spin all of this away, cause the public to shrug all of it off somehow? God, if he can, we're doomed.

Ted Koppel's list

of dead US soldiers on ABC Nightline felt endless. After ten minutes, I tuned away to check out the Comedy Channel. I switched back after almost a half hour and the list, plus the flash of young faces, was still proceeding apace. Each name, each photo, a healthy, active life. Somebody's son or daughter, somebody's mom or dad or husband or wife or dearest friend.

I oppose war in almost all circumstances. I oppose Bush's wars absolutely.

Those awful photos

of torture of Iraqis in prison may drift out of the conscience/conscious of Americans quickly, but not out of the Iraqis'.

Tweedle Dee speaks

I've been watching John Kerry's speech at Westminster College (a speech that was covered live by cable TV because the college offered Kerry the opportunity after Cheney used the podium to attack him last week). Kerry didn't abuse the speech to attack Bush/Cheney directly, although of course he posited his "plan" for Iraq in terms that I suppose he thought was in opposition to Bush/Cheney's.

However, it hardly was. He harped on "internationalization" of the effort in Iraq, suggested the appointment (by whom?) of an International High Commissioner, and took a swipe at "no-bid" contracts of reconstruction. But other than those fluffy words, it was more of the same war-making under the guise of "security" in Iraq and the world.

Kerry's delivery was okay, but hardly inspirational. And the content? Well, the speech was broadcast at mid-day, which explains why it didn't cause me to fall asleep.

Okay, I couldn't resist...

I just had to visit this site, that authoritatively details coalition deaths in Iraq. Please, if you haven't already added it to your Favorite Places (or whatever your homepage calls it), do so immediately--and check it out tonight. With one day to go in April, a year and a month after Bush started this war, the casualties are mounting, monstrously so.

And now, to something really important.

I may not blog this evening because notwithstanding the ongoing madness in Iraq and the cosmos, I'm busy with a more important matter: Watching a documentary on TV: "The Beach Boys: An American Band" on KADY.

Later, dude.

Sauce for the goose...

Bring me the head of Donald Rumsfeld.

Let us see...

if this minor item finds its way into the mainstream US press: Taliban seize control of capital of second largest province in Afghanistan.

Wishful thinking, I think

While the Marines are destroying Fallujah, the Army has Najav under siege. Bush knows he can't attack the holy city and so he's waiting, hoping that al-Sadr's supporters will fade away. This article reports that al-Sadr's militia may be dwindling, but I'm not sure. Neither, of course, is Bush and his minions and I gotta say, you can read the article as being predictive of a civil war between branches of Shia.

On this slender reed our war machine hangs?

Am I a Libertarian?

This lengthy piece by Justin Raimondo, blogger on AntiWar.com, details the passage of the Libertarian party from being the articulate right-wing of the Republican Party to occupying no position within the party because of the Republicans' NeoCon doctrines. Justin bemoans the direction of Bush's cadre of warmongers and calls upon his fellows to rise up in reaction, literally, by forming a viable presidential alternative to Bush. Indeed, the candidate closest to his views on the war in Iraq is Ralph Nader.

If you want to read about the remarkable passage of American libertarianism over the last three decades, check out Raimondo's poignant essay.

Physically ill

Really. A roiling stomach as I watched CNN and Fox News this morning as we bombed and strafed in Fallujah. The reporters were cheerleading the attack. We have become monsters.

They still don't get it

Newscasters are wondering how Bush's favorability ratings are rising in the polls in the face of bushels of reports of military reversals in Iraq. What they still don't understand is that Bush wants this war to continue--this war, any war--so he can hold onto his status as war president, his position as tough guy and avoid answering for his mad administration.

Kerry's present position on Iraq sucks,

that much is certain. But here's a tack he can take that allows him to stake out a solid criticism of Bush's war, not as he has so far, merely parroting Bush's mantra of "staying the course."
He could fire high-power bullets at the administration's rush to war in Iraq--Cheney's war--by charging that it has been under-equipped, crony-run, and administered by goofballs, all because Bush couldn't wait for the UN inspectors to finish their task. This was, after all, an optional war and we've blundered into it without preparation and planning. He should hammer and hammer on this theme until Bush/Cheney bleeds.

This is too funny

After months of deliberation and a nationwide contest, the Iraqi Governing Councel has approved the new Iraqi flag.

Check it out. As I said, too funny.

After six months of silence...

This former US Army officer resumes his blogging now that he's been discharged. Insightful, painful.

Media bias

This article compiles instances of irrefutable media deference (and, for that matter, preference) for Bush over Kerry. I happen to have noticed both salient instances cited by the author: The extended coverage of Bush's stump speech in New Mexico, treating it as a news item, while cutting away from a policy speech by Kerry; and Tim Russert's puffball treatment of Bush during an interview, as opposed to his antagonistic questioning of Kerry.

This bald bias against Kerry, coupled with the broadcast radio and cable TV commentary favoring Bush, makes it clear: Kerry's going to have a tough time getting his message across the mass media. He's only going to win through grassroots effort.

Mike's Message

Check out Michael Moore's Message:

"I have never seen a head so far up a Presidential ass (pardon my Falluja) than the one I saw last night at the 'news conference' given by George W. Bush. He's still talking about finding 'weapons of mass destruction' -- this time on Saddam's 'turkey farm.' Turkey indeed. "

Great stuff, guaranteed.

Corruption and mendacity won't rescue Iraq's occupiers

As the occupation forces sink deeper into the Iraq imbroglio and the deadline for the bogus "transfer of sovereignty" on June 30 draws nearer, those responsible are lashing out in all directions.Guardian Unlimited

Poor little misrable failure...

He's facing a tough decision in Fallujah, and this time daddy can't bail him out. Even his Father's not on his side. What do bet he screws this up, as he's screwed up everything he's ever done in his life.

Problem is, as with all his failures, his life isn't on the line. But maybe, just maybe, his future is. And a certain Sunni cleric isn't making his choice any easier.

What say we make it so.

Support the Troops

OK, I’ve officially had it with the civilian rhetoric, just as much as with the political/military doublespeak we’ve become inured to. I was just listening to comments about the death of Pat Tillman at the NFL draft. What he did was an amazing act of patriotism. He's set a fine example of a selfless American. And it is a tragedy and our military people are all in a sense heroic. But then someone said something about them giving their lives for all of us. The other day, I was driving down the San Joaquin and on the radio a minister was speaking at the funeral of a fallen soldier. He said this young man died to protect our liberty. I found myself yelling at the radio.



I'm grateful for our volunteer armed forces. I'm proud of them. I'm sad they’re dying, I wish them God’s mercy and protection and I grieve with their families when they die. But they are not dying in Iraq or Afghanistan for our liberty. They are not giving their lives for us. The United States was never in any danger of attack by Iraq; our liberty was in no jeopardy. Afghanistan bred terrorists under the Taliban, but it’s a quagmire, a fire that was never completely out, and our troops there are in greater danger because resources have been siphoned off to Iraq.

George Bush’s miserable military atrocities are founded on nothing but lies and megalomania. He’s getting our bravest young people killed for nothing but an absurdity, with no clear mission but to own a land and civilization that Bush doesn’t even comprehend, cannot hope to govern.

Support the Troops – Bring them Home. Someday, our Liberty will be in danger, and we’ll need these protectors. We do them no honor by cloaking their losses of life and limb in misbegotten patriotism.

Say they have all the heart to love a country with fine dreams and flawed character.
Say they deserve an education, and shouldn't have to buy it with their limbs, their minds or their lives.
Say they are serving and dying well, with honor, following orders as they must, not being civilians like me, with the luxury and duty to question the ulterior motives and base cravings of Power.
Call them heroes if you must, though I don't know if they will agree.
But don't say they're fighting and dying for a great and noble cause, because our nation is engaged in no such thing.

We have marched forth and fallen in a quick sand of reactionary self-defense and a literal tar pit of self-interest. And we can't glorify needless sacrifice with a crass pawing of words.

Link

Tick, tick, tick...

The siege of Fallujah, the standoff with cleric al-Sadr, the rage of Chalabi at not being picked for the interim triumvirate, the rising temperature as summer approaches, the approaching date for the "sovereignty" handoff, the escalating number of deaths of US troops and Iraqis, the withdrawal of "coalition partners," Bush's slumping poll numbers on his handling of Iraq. How do you spell cataclysm?

Bremer on Bush's terrorism efforts

Two months into Bush's regime, now-Tribune Bremer talked about Bush's inadequate preparation for a terrorist attack. I'd love to cross-examine him. Will the 9/11 commission call him as a witness? Don't count on it.

Shades of stupid

Critical mass. Cognitive dissonance. Stubborness. Stupidity. Insanity. These are terms I've heard applied to the phenomenon (or lack of same) by which at long last that hard-core 46% of American adults comes to realize that Bush/Cheney are evil, crazed men, bent on leading America on a nightmarish quest of empire, funded by the masses of US workers who pay payroll taxes and who, idiots as they are, continue to support them.

There's time--seven months--for the scales to fall from their eyes, the critical mass to be reached, their stupidity to become obvious. But it won't happen overnight. It will take every day of those seven months to bring about the mass of the masses.

Democracy, Army style

From the same people who suppress photographs of dead soldiers' coffins, comes this idea of free speech: Forcefully taking down posters of al-Sadr in Baghdad because of his opposition to the coalition.

Who comes up with these things?

Okay, it wasn't a great leap from "Coaltion of the Willing" to "Coalition of the Killing" and later, because of the US payment for their involvement, to "Coalition of the Billing." But the latest version, you gotta love: Coaltion of the Dwindling.

Well whaddya know?

This Lahkdar Brahimi guy--you know, the UN dude who's trying to put together an "interim government" for Iraq, effective July 1--may not be so bad after all. Recall, Bush has already signed onto Brahimi's efforts, has already stroked him at a press conference. (Of course Bush's ass is in such a crack over Iraq that he'd sign onto any "plan" for Iraq, so long as he could find a favorable spin for it.)

So now it turns out that Brahimi's no patsy for the US, not at all. He's chiding the US for its bullying ways in the region, and castigating Israel for its unilateralism (and Bush's agreement to it) in dealings with the Palestinians. Kofi Annan's not pleased with Brahimi, it looks like. But I am.

Cut and run, or sink or swim?

Here's a case for an early exit, within a year or so, from Iraq. Although it's not a bad case, I think it's too mildly put. I think the costs of our continued presence in Iraq are much greater than Abramowitz sets out. I think five years from now we'll be immersed in a fourth world war, this time over oil as well as hegemony. And I think the benefits of departure now are much stronger than he says. We'll admit the US policy to collapse other nations' leadership by force is wrong--we've always held to that fiction, right?--and we'll gain the favor of the civilized nations of the world by turning to the UN as the vehicle for international progress.

Too much to hope for? No, not when one considers the alternative.

Why am I not surprised

that Bush's highly-touted "turnover of sovereignty to Iraq" on June 30 will in truth only "be limited"? Naomi Klein, cited in two of my previous posts, has been predicting precisely that for months, based on her reading of the various laws that the CPA has already put into place. Now, finally, the Congress has wheedled such a concession/confession out of the Bush administration, resulting, predictably, in skepticism in both our national legislative body and in the international community.

The Bush administration intends that the US will keep its forces in place, its power in place and its laws in place. Sovereignty? Who's kidding whom?

I'm happy to see that somebody's enjoying the war

Body armor manufacturer's profits are soaring as demand exceeds production.

Today in 1965

Most people, when they think of 1965, they think first year of the Ford Mustang, right? Right. Not me. I was almost four on April 21 65, and at least tangentially concerned for the presence of North Vietnamese regulars in the South. It was clear to me that LBJ would have to act fast to stabilize the situation. Otherwise, it was just a short boat trip and the reds would be slinking up the supports of the Golden Gate Bridge in their PJs. Just like now with Iraq. Gotta throw some bodies and bucks at the problem, to save our liberty.

A missing piece

in the recent hubbub about Bush's prewar determination to go to war against Iraq is provided by the following question, that someone needs to focus on: Why was the administration (including Colin Powell) so slow in providing the UN weapons inspectors their intelligence about WMD? And when, on the eve of Powell's long-winded, false presentation to the Security Council, the US finally did tell the inspectors about some sites (which turned out to be "garbage on garbage," according to the UN inspectors), why was the report delivered verbally rather than in writing?

It's clear that the US didn't want the UN inspectors to find any WMD because it would show that the inspection process was working and this might delay the predetermined US assault plans.

Jews and Cubans

I'm watching Meet the Press, John Kerry is guest. So far he's doing just fine, except with the issues of Palestine and Cuba. He supports continuation of the embargo of Castro's regime (although he supports some ameliorative measures) and he's fully in line with Bush on his new Sharon-surrender on the issues of settlements, right of return and the boundary wall in Palestine.
He's making it tough to support him, damned tough. But what choice do I have?

On the brink

The Fallujah seige is wearing to an end. The Najaf seige is too. It's likely the chickenhawks will attack one of the cities or the other, or both, on the theory that if they get the bloodbaths over with in April the US electorate will forget about it by November. If they don't smash the rebellion now it will fester and emerge as a power once the "transfer of power" (fictitious as it is) takes place at the end of June, and this might obstruct the facade of democracy in Iraq.

We've got to stop thinking like human beings in order to figure out this administration. More like predators--raptors or the like. They'll do whatever it takes to maintain power.

Here' s a delightful story

about three deaths in Kosovo, including two American police, who were fighting with Jordanians about, you guessed it: Iraq.

If there were ever any doubt

this CNN interview dispels it. Israel is in bed with us, or we are with them, and they're turning up the theremostat on the electric blanket.

The Neocons and Sharon believe that a favorable political result can follow conquest. I don't think so, and I don't believe it ever has.

You need to read this

Billmon's sense of the inevitably of his own demise in a car-wreck, and his equating that sensation to the current situation in the Middle East--especially after Kerry appears to signed on to Bush/Blair's recent sellout of Palestine--mirrors my sensation exactly. I'm looking out the windshield with genuine curiosity; I really want to see what happens and have a surprising dispassion about it at the moment. Like a good mystery novel with forty pages to go.

Fascinating

This link to Mosaic TV brings streaming audio and video of broadcasts of channels in the Middle East. We Americans don't get such news, and I must say that if the bias of the media there is similar to ours, I sure understand why they hate us. From now on I'm going to watch Faux news on TV, and watch the Mosaic stream and somewhere in there, somehow discern the truth.

Bush the madman

Apparently, the recent flurry of early-campaign TV ads are intended by their proponent to define the opposing candidate. Bush's ads paint Kerry as tax-and-spend and as a "waffler." Kerry's ads, and those of MoveOn, haven't been as effective in defining Bush yet, but it's early.
My advice to MoveOn is that they do the Bush-defining, allowing Kerry's ads to focus on Kerry's positives, especially since each ad promulgated directly by the candidate must bear the audible assurance that he/she approves the ad.
Further advice to MoveOn: Subtly at first, but repeatedly and with increasing intensity, suggest that Bush/Cheney are crazy. Nuts. Driven by demons and the hearing of voices.
The recent revelations that Bush was fixated on invading Iraq from the outset of his administration, that Cheney and Rumsfeld were plumping for it shortly after 9/11 and over-riding Colin Powell's will, are well documented by former Bush administration officials including his Treasury Secretary and of course Richard Clark. Now, in a book to be published next week, Bob Woodward tells of these fixations and more. Frightening evidence that Bush is crazy, loony, over the edge.

Meanwhile, back at the economy...

The International Monetary Fund, no fount of liberal propoganda, warns the the bloated US deficits will cause a world economic downturn unless they're brought under control. The prospect of inflation, which will increase the cost of US borrowing to finance the huge deficits, is imminent. The US must act now, the IMF report says.

And of course we haven't heard a peep about this from Bush; and hardly a peep from Kerry, even though the US populace is worried about the deficits too, and would willingly swap tax decreases for decrease in the deficit.

I'm no expert

but I recall that the "roadmap" to peace in the Middle East involved the taking of tiny steps of process, leaving the substantive issues (boundaries, settlements, "right of return" and so forth) to the end, once the process for decision was in place. Now, however, the adoption by Bush/Blair of Sharon's unilateral decision to withdraw from Gaza, leave large settlements in place on the West Bank and deny the "right of return" is a complete reversal of the road map process-first method. It in essence determines the outcome before the map is even opened. Have you ever traveled by such a method?

Voices in the wilderness

I shouldn't have gotten a TV, shouldn't subscribe to a newspaper, shouldn't even surf most Intenet sites, because their reporting and analysis of the state of the world is so pitiful, infantile and short-sighted.

Take Bush's recent capitulation to Sharon's insidious plan to give up the Gaza Strip in consideration of keeping settlements on the West Bank and denying to the Palestinians the "right of return" to their homes within Israel. Bush's decision has not simply infuriated the Arab/Muslim world, but with one stroke has not only made the prospect of any resolution of the Israel/Palestine conflict impossible and has caused eternal perpetuation of conflict in the Middle East.
Question: Who benefits from such conflict? Certainly not the populace of the Middle East. Answer: Sharon, of course. Second answer: Bush. The War President.

Badhdad Burning

and Riverbend is fuming.

If it weren't so sad...

it would be hilarious. In fact, it is hilarious.

In a BBC article, a private contractor in Iraq says that

"with the US Army unable to guarantee security, company personnel needed to travel with armed bodyguards, in convoy with armoured vehicles, and should wear body armour and helmets when travelling in insecure areas.

"And he warned that they would have to take their own food and water, organise medical care for their staff, and bring satellite phones for communication.

"On the bright side, he reported that Baghdad's hotels were open, cheap and not full - but many lacked basic services like air-conditioning."

Who Kerry's?

I've been following John Kerry's machinations lately and I gotta say I'm about as enthused about him as president as I was about Al Gore four years ago. For those of you who don't know I voted for Nader in 2000, let me inform you I thought Gore (the Democratic Party) was Tweedle Dee, only slightly better than Dum.
But it's not just Kerry that bores me to distraction, it's his campaign and his positions. Take Iraq. He sounds like Bush lite when it comes to answering "What would you do to change the policy in Iraq?" His answers are mush.
I propose that instead, (1) he would announce that he'd immediately review reconstruction contracts to allow Iraqi companies to work on their own reconstruction so that their people could have jobs and participate in their own rebuilding--and we could save money. (2) He would announce that US troops will remain only upon the explicit invitation of the duly constituted body governing of Iraq, so that the Iraqis would know that we weren't plotting to remain there forever. (3) He would invite the leaders of the entire Muslim/Arab region to a meeting to discuss the disposition of the problems in Iraq, including cooperation to help in the reconstruction, in the supply of Arabic-speaking assistants, in the sharing of Iraq's oil wealth and so forth, thereby turning the Iraq problem into a regional issue.
I have other ideas, but these are just a few, none of which have I heard from Tweedle Dee Kerry. If he keeps this up, he's gonna lose the election. Not because Bush is doing a good job, but because, like Gore, he fucks up his run for the presidency.

Lunatics are running the asylum

Bremer has no control over the US military in Iraq, which accounts for the Army's brusque and brutal actions against Fallujah and its criminal announcements about its intention to capture or kill the cleric al-Sadr.

It's driving me crazy

as I listen to the 9/11 Commission hearings, with all its bureaucratic bullshit and blame and so forth, grandstanding by the questioners, evasion and equivocation by the answerers. Astounding lack of focus and fact-gathering. I hope the staff that drafts the eventual report, due out in late July, will spend some energy on this burning question:
During the near two-hour gap between when the first airplane hit a tower in NYC and the last plane hit the Pentagon, what precisely was going on inside the government to take steps to prevent the latter. If I had a loved one die in the Pentagon, I'd sure as hell want to know why that plane wasn't stopped. For all of the attention on the failure to discover the plot before it was launched, how about the failure to stop it once it was well underway?
I keep remembering that five-minute gap when the President was talking to school kids as the airplane banked and turned toward the Pentagon, with almost thirty minutes left to go before impact and with the knowledge that two planes had already been used as missles. And, if it must be said, the Pentagon, and Washington D.C. at least, were obvious targets, even more obvious than the twin towers (although with the earlier attack on it, maybe not.)

Bush's press conference

I listened to a bit of Bush's "press conference" (a 20-minute speech followed by 11 long speeches that were unresponsive to 11 moderately penetrating questions about Iraq and so forth. I had to turn off the radio--couldn't handle it.

Now, however, I've watched it on TV and have seen the commentators' reactions. Not good for Bush. He's being savaged by the Left and Far Right. Many are saying he's "out of touch with reality," a label that doomed his father, recall, when he marvelled at a grocery store checkout process. But W's "nonreality" is about something more important: war and invasion and death and billions of dollars.
The initial poll, the unscientific poll of AOL that is usually pro-Bush by 20% is slightly anti-Bush, which means that tomorrow's less biased polls will be slanted against his "performance."

Kerry and Move-On and so on should jump on this "unreality" thing, really start the drumbeat that Bush is goddam crazy, going so far as to do collages of his sound bites about how well things are going in Iraq with how awful it is over there, months after the "peace."

Wait just a goddam minute

As the occupying authority, under international law, we don't have the option to "capture or kill" anybody in Iraq. That may be the choice when a nation is at war, but under occupation authority we're limited by civilian law. Even if we have evidence that al-Sadr fomented insurgency, even if we have evidence that he committed murder, we can't kill him. I don't know much about international law, but I'm pretty sure that's called summary punishment, illegal in any context except in a true wartime theater.

Conflicted

As a long-time civil libertarian, I've always been troubled by the fair-trial/free-press question. Who's rights are more important: The right of the public to know whazzup in our public institutions or of the defendant to have an impartial jury? What amount of pretrial muzzling of the press may be allowed in the interest of not tainting the jury pool?

A more recent conflict: between the concept of open borders (actually, no borders) as I long believed was furthered by NAFTA, GATT and other "free trade" notions; and the truth, expressed by this compelling analysis , that these treaties and the rubric of free trade are a guise for capitalist exploitation of the labor class.

I suppose someday there'll be one world, but I'm not counting on Mobil or Microsoft to create it.

"Battle Stations"

That's the phrase Condi Rice used to describe the Bush White House after the now-disclosed Presidential Daily Briefing five weeks before 9/11/01. I'd hate to think how slowly they would have reacted had we not been so alert.

King George

About 250 years ago, a previous King George probably said the same thing about those pesky revolutionaries in the colonies:

"We just can't let a few people and I say 'a few,' listen,
there was enough to cause harm - but a few relative to the rest of the people. You just can't let, you know, a small percentage of the ... people decide the fate of everybody and that's what you're seeing."

Looming Jihad

This dispatch from Iraq throws light on the sense of chaos prevailing there, and the mindset of the "average Joe" as jihad looms ... We're talking general uprising, complete mayhem, utter disaster. Sorry, just call 'em as I read 'em.

Woops!

Turns out the Iraqi security forces that the US has so assiduously trained, and on which the nation we're building is supposed to depend for ensuring peace in Iraq, has refused orders to participate in the assault on Fallujah. They apparently didn't sign up for shooting their fellow citizens.

What a bunch of crop!

As I've pointed out in previous posts, essayist Naomi Klein has parsed the documents that the US-dominated Iraqi Governing Council has signed, and has found that the "turnover of sovereignty" is hardly that. Through clever clauses, the US retains control over virtually everything, from military to commercial, long after 6/31. The turnover, it turns out, is a fiction.
Now this fact has been formally acknowledged, by no less an authority than Colin Powell. All that the Iraqis will control is agriculture.

Critical mass, timing, and similar thoughts

I've been watching the television networks, plus CNN, CNBC and MSNBC (I can't bring myself to watch Faux), and I must say the reporters seem to reaching that point where their point of view begins to switch to become critical of Bush's administration. Not all of them, of course, but the more mainstream reporters. It shows in the stories they choose to report, the sequence in which they present them and the language they choose. Words like, "however," and "but" when they're reporting on developments and programs of the US at home and abroad.

Trouble is, they could backslide, like they did in the Viet Nam experience. For almost three years, when Nixon was elected in 1968, they bided their time and finally came fully aligned with the peace movement only when Nixon's (and Kissinger's) plan for "peace with honor" was shown to be hopeless.

These days, things happen more quickly. Let's hope the critical mass is reached around July, during the Democratic Convention and the heat of the summer in Iraq, and that it slides ahead to swamp the Republican Convention in New York which, along with the demonstation of possibly millions, becomes a nightmarish debacle.

The next seven months are going to be more interesting, more critical, than any in US history--within my lifetime.

I'm departing grossly,

for sure, from the beliefs of my co-blogger, Kyle; and certainly from the baseline of this blog, but I gotta say this to conform to its title, All That Arises.

What arises for me with all the attention, during the Easter weekend, to the life and death of Jesus is that the Christian recounting of these events is just a centuries-long historical spin of a dramatic event in Jerusalem long before we had videos and Internet and similar fact-establishing technologies. Maybe there was a guy who was killed after the Jewish Passover. Maybe, even, he was crucified. But whatever happened to him wasn't written by eye-witnesses, wasn't even based on eye-witness accounts. The earliest published accounts weren't written until more than thirty years after the fact. More than a generation, without video, without the Internet or even movie newsreals to perpetuate the events.
But did Jesus arise from the dead? Was he the "son of God"? Is there a God? Did God have a son? Did He send His son to earth to become crucified, to turn water to wine, to hang out with fishermen? Did Jesus hang out with a prostitute; did she wash his feet?
To me, all of this is fable. Fine fable, to be sure, but not more likely to be true than the fable of Islam or of Judaism or, for that matter, of Moonie-ism. I understand the concept of faith, but I don't for a moment believe that faith is fact, and therefore find it to be more malleable, susceptible to disbelief and disobedience.
So why are we presently at war over beliefs? Because we're stupid, base and ugly of spirit.
I have much more to say on this subject--a lifetime of it--but will close now because so did Good Friday. Jesus is dead, some say, and so I'll be silent. Out of respect for the living, not belief in the dead.

We are not alone.

A majority of those polled by BBC News responded by stating the the US and its global aims are the biggest threat to the wellbeing of the world.

It's all in the numbers

Remember the body-counts in VietNam? Recall how the DOD, through its in-country officers, inflated the kills of the enemy?

Well, in this war we have the opposite. The DOD has re-calculated the manner of reporting the number of American wounded, and has delayed the reporting, in the process actually reducing the number of wounded they've already reported.

Another VietNam? At least. Probably worse.

What does it take

to get the mainstream US media to report--not to support, but just to report--any take on the misery in Iraq except our own? Don't they read the onsite weblogs?

Of course they do. So why don't we hear anything, anything at all, of what they report?

And even the unbiased media are failing to pick up on what Riverbend's blog has observed: That the Marines' siege of Fallujah, the massive number of civilian casualties and the latest re-invasion of the city is absolutely forbidden under international law as "collective punishment." Forbidden because it was practiced by the most heinous of armed forces, most recently, the Nazis.

Good Friday

I had this thought last night as I watched on TV a piece about the trial and death of Jesus. I wondered whether, thousands of years later to the day, the United States, as armed occupier of a chunk of land just a bit to the north of Jerusalem, would find and kill Mutaqa al-Sadr and thereby make him a martyr to the muslims, inflaming them against our empire. I realize the parallels aren't parallel in many respects, but one appears so: The use of military force--bombing, killing--by opposing ideologies and policies to enforce their will on each other.

So--two millenia later, we "Christians" have learned nothing from our long-ago teacher and martyr; and neither have the Muslims.

AirAmerica

is the new radio network with liberal commentators and guests. Click here to check it out and to link to the streaming audio.

This is so weird

it couldn't be true. The Iraqi Governing Council is willing to drop the murder charges against al-Sadr and quash the arrest warrant that Bremer's trying to serve on him if al-Sadr agrees to call off his insurgent militia?

But if it's true, what does Bremer do?

I've hardly ever read Forbes

and never cited it, but this story about the massive defection of Bush's counter-terrorism staff is an astoundingly damning piece of evidence that Bush has gone nuts. Nuts. Crazy. Bug-eyed wacko.

Probably not the best authority, but

Pakistan's dictator says that the US investment of troops and materiel in the Iraq conflagration is diminishing the campaign against al-Queda.

Even so, it does support Clarke's assertion--and common sense--that one war is easier to fight than two.

Just like a computer game ...

Where is Raed ?:

"Dear US administration,
Welcome to the next level. Please don't act surprised and what sort of timing is that it: planning to go on a huge attack on the west of Iraq and provoking a group you know very well (I pray to god you knew) that they are trouble makers. "

Our leaders are idiots

Even I--even before I read this piece from AsiaTimes Online--understood that once the US decided to arrest al-Sadr it was doomed to (1) kill him and create a dead martyr; or (2) arrest him and create a live prisoner.

Every once in a while I wish this blog were read more widely

Such as this observation:

There's a new phenomenon on the airwaves (new to me, anyhoo) called the Video News Release (VNR), which, as I understand it, is a pre-packaged TV piece that's transmitted to broadcasting stations as a news item, and is broadcast to the public as such (it's format and tone appears as such, too), but it's really a really a disguised plug, sometimes for a commercial product, sometimes for something more insidious. For example, a governmental program, supporting (you guessed it) Bush/Cheney.

Now B/C have been caught, however. A woman playing a reporter, "reporting" on the benefits of the prescription drug benefit in the newly-enacted Medicare amendment, wasn't a reporter at all, but rather a part-time actress/publicist of the Bush administration. Using public money to plug the President. Another example of Big Brother Bush, controlling the media, the corporations, the government and the money. It's unlikely this practice will be stopped before the election in November, which is of course B/C's purpose.

If Bush isn't re-elected it will be the biggest triumph of democracy ever. And if he is re-elected, we may not see democracy again in the United States in our (my) lifetime.

an ambitious man

A photomontage of Americans killed in Iraq. This is worth seeing!

from antiwar.com

Conspiracy theory?

Naomi Klein, whose books on globalism are right-on, reports from Baghdad that the place is a cauldron of craziness. She wonders, even, if Tribune Bremer was acting on political instructions to bring the business with al-Sadr to a head now by seizing his paper and arresting his publicist, and now by chasing down al-Sadr himself. The reason to foment this resistance now, she thinks, might be to give Bush/Cheney a basis for delaying the turnover of sovereignty past June 30, allowing them to continue on in battle.
Maybe. Maybe, however, they've fallen victim to the syndrome of many bullies. When you're beat, keep fighting.
Whatever's behind it all, even if there's nothing behind our current actions, the effects are the same. Bush/Cheney are taking the heat for this latest outrage, as they should be. Iraq was their war, these deaths are their deaths and we can't let anyone forget it.

Bush/Cheney's petard

During the invasion of Iraq a year ago, all cameras were focused on the assaulting troops and the flare of bombs, to the benefit of Bush/Cheney's "war president" image. Both the Bush administration and the television news programs thrived on the drama of the combat.

Now there's a new eruption of violence on at least two fronts and guess what? The Bush/Cheney camp would rather not have the coverage spread all over the airwaves and are downplaying its significance. But the networks, like good capitalists, like money most of all and aren't inclined to pull back its cameras because like good Americans, we viewers love drama and adore watching violence.

Bush/Cheney turned on the war spigot and can't now turn it off.

CNN Reports

Senator Edward Kennedy, in a speech yesterday, apparently called the battle in Iraq "George Bush's Viet Nam." Tribune Bremer promptly called his remark "ridiculous" and "inappropriate."
Wolf Blitzer on CNN was just interviewing a retired Marine Major General (a so-called "military expert") and asked him if Kennedy's comparison was apt.
His reply (paraphrasing): "Well, actually, yes. We're committed to remaining in a situation we can't control, the world is watching and the situation is deteriorating. So, it sure feels like Viet Nam to me--and I served there for seven years."

When you pay your taxes in a few days

Reflect on the fact that over the last years American corporations paid little or none. None.

Bush Says He Lacked Intelligence

Yahoo! News - Bush Says He Lacked Info on Sept. 11:

"Let me just be very clear about this," he said. "Had we had the information that was necessary to stop an attack, I'd have stopped the attack. ... If we'd have known that the enemy was going to fly airplanes into our buildings, we would have done everything in our power to stop it." I had no intelligence before 9/11, no intelligence after 9/11. I just wish folks would stop accusing me of having intelligence. [OK, I added that last part.]

Well friends, it gets weirder and more twisted. Here's an article in my local weekly paper, in which accusations are made that the government was actually complicit in the tragedy on 9/11. Did the Bush administration take a dive? Whoa.

Meanwhile, back in Afghanistan...

Bush has created a warlord-powered, poppy-driven mess. Had enough?

I don't get it...quite

Tribune Bremer keeps on dictating the laws of Iraq, including this latest "private ownership" decree.

So now, we're fashioning not only a democracy but a capitalist democracy. And will these nation-altering laws remain, or are they merely the last gasps of a declining system?

It's Iraq, stupid

Okay, so some of the employment numbers have turned Bush's way. No problem. Shift to any one of the other outrages of Bush's presidency, most of them centered around his arrogant, mad march to war against Iraq. There's still the Valerie Plame thing, the 9/11 commission (with the concomitant question of Bush's fixation on Iraq), the Joint Committee's report about Iraq intelligence and so forth. Plenty of goodies to bring Bush/Cheney down.

With Tribune Bremer's latest edict to arrest al-Sadr we're assured that we'll still be fighting and dying in Iraq in November. So Kerry's task is to exploit this, to make it's so sore a point that Bush can't explain it away, and indeed to worry the Iraq madness with as many related questions as possible: The deficit, the trade imbalance, the loss of world position, the prevalence of fear in the US and throughout the world. In other words, Bush/Cheney must be painted as monsters, no less. No carping about small questions of policy, Kerry. Huge, powerful condemnations with sweeping, articulate phrasing that will stick to Bush/Cheney and become the mantras of the campaign.

That's what they're doing to you, Kerry. And you've got more ammo on them, more paint to apply.

Sixteen dead soldiers

in April and it's only day five. And now, we're going to try to arrest a Shia cleric, Muqtada al-Sadr, whom we contend is behind the violence in the Bagdad suburb of Sadr City. He's "holed up" in a mosque, no doubt surrounded by his followers, so that any attempt to arrest him will lead to a standoff (which will attract TV cameras) and of course more bloodshed--a perfect recruiting tool for anti-coalition Iraqis.

Bush's worst nightmare would be the melding of the Sunni resistance with this Shia resistance. Even if the majority of Iraqis don't join actively, that would be a huge chunk of Iraq's population opposing the US occupation. If the numbers grow big enough by the end of June, or in the months thereafter, it could happen that whoever's in charge of the Iraqi government might order the expulsion of the US military forces.

What a fitting way to bring our soldiers home, driven out by those we "liberated," leaving the country in ruin. How do you spell VietNam?

Class warfare explained

This post in the Bump in the Beltway blog lays out Bush's insidious plan to alter our taxing structure. The cruelest part is that the middle class wage earners are supporting their own demise by blindly backing him.

Baghdad [still] Burning

Riverbend throws some light on the demonstrations in Iraq, and other matters. I wonder when the cheering crowds are scheduled. Ambassador Bremer, is there a logistics problem? Isn't it about time for them to show universal gratitude for libervention?

Today Bremer also announced the fact that we now have an official 'Ministry of Defense'. The irony of the situation wasn't lost on Iraqis- the head of the occupation announcing a "Ministry of Defense". To defend against what? Occupation? Ha, ha… or maybe it's to secure the borders from unwelcome foreigners carrying guns and riding tanks?

Baghdad Burning

Misrble failure to the max

The Sunnis are killing our troops in the triangle, the Shias are killing our troops in Sadr City, the Kurds are biding their time and Islamic extremists are killing Iraqi police in Baghdad.

The "turnover" is imminent. Is it possible Bush has gotten himself into a quagmire that even Rove can't spin him out of?

Take just a moment

to place this event in perspective. Twenty Iraqis killed, hundreds wounded, in a protest. Can you imagine what would happen in the US if twenty people were killed during a protest? Kent State, a protest that sparked national outrage, involved four deaths.