Indescribable

As a writer, I'm not pleased to admit that I can't find a word--can't even find an approximation--to capture the outrage I feel upon hearing BBC's radio broadcast a moment ago of several UN Security Council members' reaction to their passage of the mealy-tongued Iraq-"self-government" resolution yesterday. The diplomats used phrases like, "recognizing the new reality," "putting the past behind us," and "coming together in the interests of Iraq's future."
So--the US/UK are forgiven. Everything is coming up roses. The thousands of dead and maimed and tortured Iraqis are forgotten, as are the young American and British troops who gave their lives and limbs for this patent violation of the UN Charter and international law. The violence we've done to the tenets of world order by the lying and intimidation we used to invade Iraq is subsumed in the slime of realpolitik. All's well that ends well. The end justifies the means.
I'll never--never--accede to such a cynical view of human governance. It's not governance at all, but an exercise in facile fakery by which those in power maintain their positions, then attempt to justify our keeping them there.
The two-year debacle we've witnessed within the United Nations (and, chiefly, without it) shows me this: Nothing has changed in the world order, or in the conduct of human affairs. We are, at base, still animals. Might, as always, makes right.

Call me insensitive, call me crass

but I'm already bored blind by remembrances of Ronald Reagan on TV during this week of mourning--and it's only Tuesday!

Crunch time

The proposed US/UK Security Council resolution on Iraq has been revised by the US four times, each time ceding more authority to Iraq's interim government, including the power to tell the US military to leave the country. Of course the US knows that that won't happen, but what might happen is that there is a disagreement between the interim government and the US Army or Marines over various military actions in Iraq.

A typical example would be the Fallujah debacle, in which the maltreatment of four "civilian" workers (read, mercenaries) led to the Marines' assault on Fallujah with hundreds dead on both sides, eventually leading to a withdrawal by the US and Fallujah in the hands of Sunni sheiks and their minions. (BTW--We never caught the Iraqis--if they were Iraqis--who killed the contractors, just as the US is pulling out of the Shiite towns without "capturing or killing" al-Sadr, which was the reason we invaded those towns.)

So, what happens if some US general, or Rummie or someone decides to launch an invasion of some segment of Iraq, perhaps on "intelligence" that al-Qaeda is lodged there or that Iranians or Syrians are sneaking in and up to no good? And, let's say, the interim government fears that such an action might end up killing hundreds of its citizens, as it might well do?

Well, as of the latest draft, we don't know. The two entities are supposed to exercise "close coordination" of such exercises.

What does that mean? Does it sound like "full sovereignty" to you?

The US/UK wants a vote on this draft Tuesday. France and Algeria are resisting, unless the above question is clarified, giving the Iraqis the power to negate any US military action. Sounds right to me, but who knows how long they can hold out against pressure from the other Security Council members, who are less strident on the subject.

Of course my dream is that just such a situation as I've described above comes to pass. The US makes a military move over the objection of the interim government and refuses to desist. The interim government appeals to the UN and/or calls out its own soldiers and the US is shown to be the warmongers that it lately has become. On Bush's watch, of course.

He who lives by the media dies by the media

Whoever planned Bush's sojourn to Europe to grab media attention around D-Day's 60th anniversary must be miffed that Ronnie chose this weekend to die. Bush's PR folks couldn't plan for this, of course, but are learning that the media are such whores that they'll cover the latest video-worthy event no matter what it is, and "great man" attributions to Reagan, plus peals of memorials and remembrances trump time-worn D-Day anytime.

Kinda like how Bush benefited from the coverage of the violence he inflicted on Iraq. He's now suffering from the media's coverage of the violence of "reconstructed Iraq."

Whatever goes around comes around.

I have two reactions to Rummie's speech yesterday

the report of which is headlined in the Seattle Times as follows: "Rumsfeld Fears Losing War on Terrorism." Rummie was in Bangladesh seeking support for the war in Iraq, fretting that the terrorists are churning out recruits faster than we can kill them.

My first reaction is, Wow! What an admission. Wouldn't you think that might make the mass media?

My second reaction is: Duh. And so you want more bombing and killing?

What the hell...

Call me a gossip, a scandal monger, whatever. Long ago I blogged on the prospect of designating Bush crazy, somehow scaring the undecideds to his opponent. Well, I'll spread this report, just doing my part.

Drip, drip, drip

Tenet resigns (plus a deputy operative in the CIA) on the eve of a stinging report about the intelligence before 9/11. Drip. That report will be issued in a couple of weeks. Drip. It will be followed by a report on the intelligence that was used by the Bush administration to justify the invasion of Iraq. Drip. Bush hires a lawyer to deal with the Valerie Plame disclosure. Drip. Indictments in that matter are likely imminent. Drip. Afghanistan is seething before its national election in September. Drip. The turnover in Baghdad is problematical and may lead to further violence, possibly with tension between the "coalition" and the interim government. Drip. The prisoner-abuse trials and investigations are just getting started, with subpoenas being issued for higher-ups, including Rummie and Wolfowitz. Drip. And I haven't enumerated the bribery scandal over the passage of the Medicare drug bill, the investigation of which is still pending, nor the numerous investigations of Halliburton, B&R and others for larceny in the reconstruction of Iraq, nor the numerous other scandals among Bush-supporting businesses, including Enron and its boss, "Kenny-boy".
When the ground becomes saturated, the dripping will turn into a flood and will carry Bush out of office. Right?

Finally, a super reaction by John Kerry

I've read that Kerry's team has decided to stay out of the day-to-day decline of Bush's administration of foreign policy, to stay on a positive message, to hover above the fray. This has drawn the ire of activists, including me.
But Kerry has leapt in at just the right time, on the right issue: the "backdoor draft" by Bush of enlisted personnel by extending their tours of duty by means of a "stop loss" order. Kerry should hit hard on this issue throughout the summer as these soldiers swelter and die in orderthat Bush, for political reasons, can maintain that he's not increasing the deployment of forces in Iraq.

Now what we want is coverage of Kerry's outrage, so that the military's outrage will follow.

Okay, I'm now a believer

that the New York Times has become untenable dogshit. Not just because of the recurring scandals about its misreporting, its acknowledged screwups in plumping for war in Iraq, its complete lack of truly investigative reporting in the last decade or so. These are symptomatic, merely, of being so wedded to the capitalistic system that it can't see history, can't see beyond the present-day morass, can't address anything larger than last week's stale headline.

(I just watched columnist Tom Friedman on CNN defend foreign outsourcing as good for our workers "in the long run," even though it costs American jobs in the short run; and waffle, totally, on the question of sovereignty in Iraq. This guy gets a salary?)

What have we become?

The results of this Gallup poll are more disturbing to me than even the state of public sentiment about George Bush and his wars: In answer to the question whether in the US the death penalty was imposed "too often," "the right amount" or "not enough," the percentages were 23%, 25% and 48%, respectively. Almost half of us feel we don't execute each other often enough? More than two-thirds think we're executing each other at about the right rate?

Is this the United States? If so, maybe those America-haters are right.

Meanwhile, back in Afghanistan

The poppy harvest is proceeding apace. Amazing incompetence. Almost makes you wonder if Rummie is one of the warlords who's taking a cut.

Elephant in the living room

Not talked about by the mainstream media is a principal reason Bush decided to invade Iraq: the establishment of US military bases in Iraq in order to gain leverage in the Middle East. With already-existing bases in Afghanistan and elsewhere, Iran and Syria would be surrounded by American forces.

I'll bet Rummie and Halliburton and the gang have already constructed huge installations in Iraq, probably using "reconstruction" money, and that we'll learn about this sometime this summer when the interim leadership of Iraq decides to question it.

Maybe not--but why isn't it a burning question when we are told that Iraq will gain full sovereignty?

Timid liberals

As this essay points out, all but a few democrats are strikingly mute in this election season, giving Bush a free pass about this nightmare he's created in the Middle East. Al Gore and Ted Kennedy have spoken out of late, as has Senator Robert Byrd (who's been doing so for more than a year), but others? Daschle, Feinstein, Boxer, Harkin--where are they? Why aren't we hearing from them daily, railing, as they should, against the militarism, incompetence, evil of Bush/Cheney?

Is it "timidity" as the author of the essay says? If so, who are they afraid of? The media, their constituents, the Republican attack dogs? All of these?

The effect of the lack of liberal-based critics is that those who do speak out may be isolated by the Republicans and assailed as "demented," as Gore was after his fiery speech last week.

C'mon, you liberal chickenshits. Join the democracy!

Memorial Day

I attended the evening ceremony at East Beach yesterday at a display of white crosses that the Veterans for Peace lay out every weekend. Each of the 810 crosses (one for each soldier that has died in Iraq) was underlit by a red votive candle, just after sunset, while "Taps" was played.

I got weepy, actually teary-eyed, during the ceremony. I was surprised, because, frankly, I haven't been proud of much of my nation's actions over the last several years. Fact is, I suppose I do "love America" in some deep recess--cultural conditioning, no doubt--and I was moved by the fact that so many of those assembled did so too. Many of them, like me, continue to care very much for the ideals which our founding documents set forth and in the sometimes fulfillment of them by our elected leaders.

Enough. Time to get back to work to defeat Bush/Cheney's election.

Pat Buchanan and me

I never thought I'd agree with this guy--old wounds take time to heal--but on the antiwar issue he's right on. He and "true conservatives" (as opposed to neocons) think this Iraq thing is nuts. Now, he believes Bush has got the message, and is merely posturing until he can find a graceful way out, a la Nixon and Vietnam.
Well, as I foretold a year ago, here's whazzup. After the "turnover," regardless of the state of security and so forth, Bush will announce major withdrawals of US forces just before the election, declaring a "victory" in time to help with his re-election.

(If he's re-electioned--God forbid--he'll "redeploy" troops into Iraq in a heartbeat, you bet your ass, because his dream for a US-dominated Middle East will still be extant, and now he'll have four full years to effect it.)

Sooo--stay tuned.

If I were an Iraqi, I would be mightily pissed off

at the mendacity of Bush and his minions. On the one hand they say that they must keep our troops in Iraq to ensure its security; on the other hand they boast to US citizens that they've succeeded in luring the terrorists to Iraq, so as to fight them there, rather than on our soil. Finally, Bush claims, our mission in Iraq is to bring the Iraqis peace and democracy. How infuriating it must be to try to exist in the meatgrinder we've made of their nation.

When Do Workers Get Their Share?

Check out this study from the Economic Policy Institute, comparing the percentage participations of workers, through increased income, and corporations, through increased profit, during the last three "recoveries." Profits now are higher than in any previous recovery, by multiples, while income increases are pitiful compared to previous times. And these increases are actually decreases when the soaring costs of medical benefits are taken into account.

When are those to whom Bush's "trickle" isn't trickling going to rise up and smell the fraud?

Who's Bush trying to kid?

Bush has been on the telephone telling members of the Security Council, including the Russians, that "full sovereignty" will be transferred to Iraq on June 30. Putting aside the question of the immutability of laws previously imposed on Iraq by Bremer, which I've referred to in previous posts, the Security Council resolution proposed by the US/UK is specific on the point. It reaffirms the structure of the "multinational force" (led by the United States) and then provides that the Security Council

"6. ... decides that the multinational force shall have authority to take all necessary measures to contribute to the maintenance of security and stability in Iraq including by preventing and deterring terrorism..."

No mention whatsoever of the involvement (certainly not of a "veto power") of the Iraqis in taking these "necessary measures." How would we like to have a international force stationed in the US (say, with bases outside of New York, Washington, Los Angeles) with such powers? Would the neo-cons, much less the macho George Bush, call this "full sovereignty"?

Proof that Bush supporters can't think or write without assistance

Here's a page on the Bush/Cheney website urging visitors to write specific formulations to their newspapers, presumably so Google will pick them up.

Stopping at nothing

This analysis of a paragraph in Attorney General Ashcroft's press conference today shows how far the Bushies will go to gain their man's re-election, even so far as to suggest that Osama bin Laden might attack the US in the pre-election period in order to swing the election to Bush's opponent, citing the outcome of the terrorists' train bombing in Spain. Ashcroft implied, of course, that bin Laden would prefer a Kerry to a Bush presidency, the further implication being that Kerry would be softer on terrorism than Bush.

I don't think Ashcroft's quite evil enough to stage an attack on the US just before the election (although I'm not as certain of this as I'd like to be). I have this hunch, however, namely, that Ashcroft and FBI Muller's list of seven terrorists that was presented at the same press conference contains one or more already-incarcerated people. They'll be dribbled out one by one between now and the election by means of a series of announcements of their capture and immediate incarceration (incommunicado, of course, at Gitmo). This way, Ashcroft can assure Bush's re-election without having to rely on the not-quite-so-reliable Osama bin Laden.

Transition or manipulation?

This is my third post in two days on this subject, but Bush's hypocrisy won't allow me to stay silent. He speaks of "full sovereignty" for Iraq as of July 1, 2004, both in his speech last Monday and in statements thereafter, when trying to assuage the French and German about the extent of the "transfer of power." What a crock! Does he think his audience, like he, doesn't read?

Even CNN/MSNBC have caught on to the tension between Tony Blair's statement that the Iraqis will have a "veto" over military operations in Iraq, including, presumably, US forces, and the insistence by Colin Powell and other US officials that this is not so. Military force is of course a vital question of sovereignty--and will no doubt draw much attention during the debate on the UN resolution that the US is presently seeking.

But the focus on sovereignty should be much wider. Naomi Klein, many months ago--as noted in a few of my posts back then--pointed out actions by Tribune Bremer that locked in US hegemony over Iraqi law, including privatization of commerce and control over resources. These laws, by their terms, extended long past any "turnover of sovereignty" and were immutable by subsequent legislation. Now, she's not alone in her analysis. No less a Bush supporter than the Wall Street Journal has observed that Bremer's actions have, in essence, frozen Iraq into acceptance of a complex of laws for years to come, laws covering a broad span of authority under any definition of sovereignty.
The WSJ article, however, appeared on May 13, 2004, and so far hasn't gotten any play beyond its pages. Is that because the networks and cable stations still don't want to ask the tough questions even after months of discrediting reports about Bush's handling of the occupation of Iraq? Or are they just incompetent? Or both?

Religiosity in the US

This current and historical Gallup poll on the religious beliefs of Americans is, to me, amazing. I had no idea these figures were so elevated--high percentages of believers in heaven, angels, the devil. Astounding percentages believing in the literal truth of bible stories, such as Noah's Ark.

I don't believe in God in any traditional religious sense, but the concept of some form of grand force or design in the formation of our material world makes some sense. But the notion that this force created the great flood, parted the Red Sea and so forth--am I missing something?

Testing, testing

Okay, this story --that a learned study has found that al-Qaeda has grown remarkably, not diminished, since Bush began his war on terr'r--has made it to the Associated Press. Will it make the cable and network newscasts? Any readers who spot it on these sources, please let us know.

Update: A report about the study appeared on CNN this morning (5/26). It wasn't an incisive interview, however, and didn't make the point that the numbers of terrorists have grown due to the invasion of Iraq, which was a major thrust of the report.

Okay, fair's fair

If (as shown on CNN) George Bush can invite Iraqi businessmen to the White House to shake their "hands" (that is, their prosthetic hands supplied by the US, their real ones having been cut off by Saddam Hussein), thereby by inference claiming that we're better than Saddam because we brutalize our prisoners more subtley; then Michael Moore can say anything he wants to about Bush, because he's right: Bush is capable of anything to gain and keep his power.

I'm not crazy after all

As many of the readers of this blog know, I'm a regular demonstrator (Saturdays and three or four afternoons per week), displaying an antiwar/anti-Bush sign throughout Santa Barbara. Over the last two months, I've noted a marked change in the reaction to my sign, a distinct shift against Bush and the war. I've felt this, and now there's evidence of it.

Leave it to the French

to recognize the hypocrisy in Bush's claim that "full sovereignty" will be transferred to Iraq on July 1. Under the draft UN resolution that the US is proposing to support the transition, the US military will retain authority to take all necessary measures, without Iraqi approval, to handle security measures and will not be subject to Iraq's control, particularly in connection with its departure.

The French intend to insist on such provisions. Good for them.

Same o, same o

The US/British proposed UN resolution for the interim governance of Iraq merely parrots the stand of the "coalition" heretofore announced and effected. The US military force may remain, under the proposal, regardless of any request of the interim government to depart; Iraqi forces must obey US military orders; there is no departure date for US forces; and the commander of any "international peacekeepers" must be from the US.

France and Germany are recalcitrant, as are other Security Council members. For good reason.

How many deaths?

Yes, 'n' how many deaths will it take till he knows
That too many people have died?

According to antiwar.com, deaths of our troops have now topped 800.

God help us.

Been Wondering?

Have you been wondering how many Iraqis have died in the war? I know I have. Looks like roughly 5500, according to morgue records. That's just Baghdad and three provinces.

When it hits 6000, should we sell?

Chalabi Raid

The Agonist has posted an e-mail -- the author claims to have witnessed events of the Chalabi raid. Judge for your self.

Geneva Concoction

The latest from the subterranean vaults of Kyle's Strange But True:

Should the US government release all of the prisoner abuse photos, videos and records and just get it over with. Some think so; best to clean out the worst from the back of the fridge and be done. The American people, they theorize, will sublimate it all by summer and Bush's doublethink team can get on with heading up the herd for the election.

But some Administration lawyers think they can't do that, because releasing the images would be a violation of the Geneva Convention's proscriptions, prohibiting holding up a prisoner to humiliation.

That's right folks. If they aren't released, the abused prisoners get no justice; their suffering gets buried with the truth. If they are released, that's humiliating, therefore wrong. Pretty good catch, that catch-22.

So much to post, so little time

Hard to keep up lately. Not on account of lack of blogging time, but on account of a myriad of subjects, too many to follow. Pardon my lack of links in the following recitation, but the mainstream media will soon (I trust) trumpet the following:

1. Chalabi's dead meat. The Pentagon's pretty boy, seated beside Laura Bush at a recent White House event, turns out to be a schemer, plotting with Iranians to make Iraq his turf, with an Islamic-based legal system, with Chalabi as the boss. How is Rummie going to explain this, since Chalabi was the source of much of the prewar intelligence, earning $300,000 per month? What else can Rummie do wrong?

2. We sprayed a wedding party with copter-bullets--again. Recall, we also did this in Afghanistan, and then, as now, claimed it was a legitimate defensive and/or interdictive measure. Ya know, it doesn't matter what we say to the arabs anymore. It matters only what they believe, and given our recent activities, they invariably believe the worst. As do I, I might add.

3. Two new prison-abuse photos have surfaced, these depicting a dog-attack on a prisoner and a box-standing torture. At the rate of these disclosures, we could end up with a trickle of photos that ends only on election day. Goody.

4. Republican members of Congress are balking at various of Bush's actions. They say he's sold out to the leftist Democrats on some issues and so may stay at home on election day. I love this, of course, but can the Republicans be serious--Bush isn't conservative enough!!! Goes to show you what we'd be in for if he's elected for another four years without the need to stay in the "center" in order to retain electability. If left alone, on reelection, Bush would indeed become der Fuhrer, I kid you not.

Old habits die hard

Amazing how stupid politicians are. Sure, I can understand why Bush (or Nixon or Clinton or all the others) might think that they can wait out various scandals. We Americans do indeed have short memories; and so it might make sense for Bush to bury the report of the "prewar WMD intelligence" committee until after the election. And of course the Valerie Plame thing may go away too, if delayed long enough.

But the prisoner abuse scandal--that's something else. With new photos leaking out slowly and new prisoner deaths being reported, this item isn't going to leave the radar all summer. Certainly not in the minds of Muslims; not even in the minds of Americans. But the Bushies can't break the habit of stonewalling, and so I guess we'll just have to wait for the revelations to dribble out.

Gosh all roonie.

US fire 'kills 40 Iraqi wedding guests'

It seems our forces have blasted the bejesus out of another wedding. I have the same remarks to share as I made when this happened in Afghanistan a couple of years ago:

1. How incredibly, profoundly tragic. May God have mercy on the souls of the dead, grant comfort to those grieving, and forgive the sins of those who caused this. Apropos of which ...
2. How abjectly stupid do people have to be to fire their weapons into the air, to celebrate a wedding, in a war zone?

Guardian Unlimited | US fire 'kills 40 Iraqi wedding guests'

Growing Fears of Failure

I understand the fear of failure. Not everything in my life has gone according to plan. And maybe it's my fault for never dreaming big enough. Perhaps if I'd occupied another country and converted it's assets, my career would be farther along. Anyway, it seems it's beginning to dawn on a few dunderheads that things aren't going so well in Iraq. The whole thing just might be a monumental failure. Hmm. You think?

"We had a plan that anticipated, I think, that we could proceed with an occupation regime for much longer than it turned out the Iraqis would have patience for. We had a plan that assumed we'd have basically more stable security conditions than we've encountered." -- Paul Wolfowitz, testifying before the Senate.

U.S. Faces Growing Fears of Failure (washingtonpost.com).

Who's on second?

Now we have the Secretary of State and the President at odds over the propriety of Israel's massive attacks in the Gaza Strip. This administration is not only evil, it's inept. Is there a word for that?

Look out below

Foreigners' purchases of US stocks is way down, and their purchases of US government securities is headed that way. Since they're the major purchasers of our securities, who'll take up the slack to support the US economy and its currency?

There's bad news and then...

Outsourcing of jobs is increasing dramatically. Interest rates are rising at a time of all-time high borrowing by Americans. The percentage of home ownership, while increasing for the wealthy, is declining for working class families with children.

Had enough?

Do as I say...

The US State Department has released a delayed annual update on human rights violations around the globe. As the CNN reporter points out, many of the abuses we cite, we practice.

"For example, the report summarized Saudi Arabia's 'poor' human rights record with these words: 'Security forces continued to torture and abuse detainees and prisoners, arbitrarily arrest and detain persons and detain them incommunicado.'

"Many countries and human rights groups likewise have criticized the United States for holding detainees at the naval station in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, without access to counsel.

"The report also criticizes many countries for restricting freedom of the press at a time the Coalition Provisional Authority has taken to task such Arabic-language media outlets as Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabiya for what it said were inflammatory, misleading reports against the U.S. military."

So--we have found the enemy and they is us.

Chink in the armor

Aha, the first schizm. Tony Blair's human rights envoy to Iraq tells of the deaf ears that were turned to her by Condi Rice and others when she repeatedly complained to them of defalcations at the Baghdad prison. Condi's delay and indifference (We'll get back to you on that") is consistent with her handling of other acute problems, most significantly, the threat of terrorist attack on the United States during the summer before 9/11.
So--Now she's in the gunsights as well as Rummie. That leaves Bush with only Cheney to take the flak for him. Could it be that Bush, at some point, may be held responsible for at least one of the nightmares that he's caused to America? Maybe soon, but surely on November 2.

Who's on first?

Bremer said a week ago that "If the Iraqis ask us (our military) to leave, we'll leave." Powell said the same thing a few days later. Then Bush said no, that we'll stay after July 1 for sure. And then today Powell split the difference. He says he expects the Iraqis to place our military under a multinational authority, with an American at its head.

Could it be that we don't have clarity even now, even on this critical issue?

Rummie's in deep poopie

A new article by Seymour Hersh spells doom for our Secretary of Defense, who, according to Hersh, informed the president. We'll hear the standard nondenials from DOD, but over time the truth will dribble out. Like maple or chocolate syrup, or honey. Delicious.

A Tangled Web

All this talk about "If the Iraqis ask us to leave, we'll leave": Pure BS. According to this Wall Street Journal article (a newspaper I rarely cite, I trust you've noticed), Tribune Bremer, over the last few months, has entered a series of decrees that completely eliminate the power of the interim governmental body to do anything, to decide anything, to appoint or fire anybody, or to pass any laws. For example, Bremer just entered an edict appointing a set of administrators (controlling the media and commmerce and the military) to five year terms, that may not be altered.
So much for democracy in the Middle East.

Fascinating possibilities

Okay, now that Tribune Bremer and Softie Colin Powell have both said that if Iraq's interim government asks our troops to leave, we'll leave, the following possibility emerges:

Bush, losing in the polls prior to the election, directs his minions manipulate an Iraqi "request" to leave so that the boys can come home in October, thus delivering Bush a "victory" and leaving Kerry with nothing to campaign on. I don't put it past Bush to declare such a victory, thus to gain re-election, only to declare a follow-up emergency and re-insert our troops within weeks after the election.

how many posts will it take 'til we know...

Just a quick note to note that All That Arises consists of 773 posts by Erik and myself. I just noticed that. In about a year, we've published into the void almost 800 times. Wow. Most of that's Erik's work; he's kickin' ass and takin' names. Cool.

Rummie's photo op

Today Rumsfeld flew off to Iraq (more pleasant there for him nowadays than here) to "host a town hall" with the troops. I'm watching it live on CNN right now. My observations:
1. He thanked the troops for their efforts rebuilding schools, playgrounds, roads, bridges. My question: Why are our soldiers doing those tasks? Isn't that what we're paying Halliburton for?
2. Rummie quipped that he's stopped reading the papers back home. I understand why--but it's a dangerous notion.
3. Rummie appeared almost catatonic.
4. Joint Chiefs Chairman General Richard Meyers accompanied him. A complete stooge. Both he and Rummie kept using the phrase "the few" to describe the soldiers who are involved in the prisoner-abuse incidents. He had the gall to state the these soldiers were equal to "the greatest generation" of World War Two. Maybe the troops are. But the leadership? Not hardly.
5. A female soldier, I believe a "regular army" member, asked the first question: It was near-inaudible, but it wasn't a pleasant one for Rummie. Essentially, "when do we go home?" Rummie was obviously displeased and tap-danced around it. She also asked whether, since the prison-abusers were largely reservists, would fewer of them be deployed hereafter? Rummie said no.
6. Questions about equipment and armament arose. Meyers said they had the money, just couldn't produce the equipment fast enough. One soldier asked what the Pentagon policy was about arming US civilians who were placed "in harm's way" (such as that truck-driver who recently "escaped from captivity"). Remarkably, no one--Rummie, Meyers, even Sanchez, the Army commander--knew the answer. How could that be?
All in all, it was a nonevent although I imagine Faux news will make it a lead story.

Conspiracy theory

to the max.
I apologize in advance to my coblogger, Kyle. I'm sure he doesn't subscribe to the following, which I concede is the product of my personal dementia. My only defense is that Rove and his henchmen have shown themselves to be capable of anything and so I wonder...
Consider:
1. Berg was held for thirteen days by Iraqi police, who were under the dominion of US forces, during which time the FBI visited Berg's parents twice, asking about Berg's activities. He was an American citizen, known by us to be so, so that the FBI's claim that the US didn't have custody of him is plainly, and legally, false.
2. He was released the day after the parents sued the Department of Defense, but then he "disappeared." His body was "found," decapitated, a few days later. The video of the beheading was shown on an Arabic-language website a day or two later.
3. He emailed his friends and parents after his release and was seen by friends in Iraq before he disappeared. In these emails he apparently told them he wanted to leave Iraq as soon as possible. The FBI, however, is claiming that they offered Berg "free passage" out of Iraq, but that he refused.
4. The website, in Arabic, stated that al-Zarqawi, an al Qaida leader, executed Berg. But al-Zarqawi is a Jordanian and is missing one of his legs; whereas the speaker on the video and the knife-wielder spoke Arabic with an Iraqi accent and was not apparently handicapped.
5. The Berg family was Jewish, the father was on a conservative watch-list because of his antiwar activities and was listed as an officer of his son's company.
6. Other questionsare raised about the authenticity of the video, not all of which I subscribe to, but I nevertheless ask, who benefits from the display of Berg's "execution" in such a heinous way, just as Bush's poll numbers were declining due to the photos of US prisoner abuse?
I warned you I was becoming demented, but still...

The next shoe to drop?

This lengthy piece by Justin Raimondo penetrates the testimony given by General Taguba, setting out the possibility that immersed in the photographed torture/abuse activities were civilians from an unidentified foreign nation, which Justin takes to be Israel. Recall, stories were circulating some months ago that the CIA had asked Israel's intelligence service to advise them on interrogation of prisoners.
What a bombshell that would be--and on a CNN report this morning, it's being said that the woman Pfc. named London is claiming that she was instructed by outsiders specifically how to gesture and point at the prisoners as shown in the photos.
The Republicans'contention that these abusive practices, occurring at two different prisons in Iraq, at least, are the product of only a few low-ranking "bad apples" isn't going to survive the week.

Pat Buchanan for President?

Okay, I'm kidding. But his ideas for future US actions in Iraq, the Middle East and througout the world are more aligned with mine than Kerry's.

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?