Getting Stuffed

... And in the same article Erik cites in the last post, a White House official diliberately deceived American press into reporting that Bush was still in Crawford, Tx. Prooving not only the intent to insure his security but that the White House is not above spreading disinformation to the American media. Ben Franklin was right; turkey should have been our national bird. Much easier to cook up and serve with the stuffing that's always in such good supply in Washington.

Turkey shoot

According to WaPo, Bush wasn't serving that turkey to the troops in the ubiquitous photo of his stopover at the Baghdad airbase. He grabbed a tray containing a decorative turkey and held it for a photo op.

Words fail....

US army denies killing sisters

NEWS.com.au | US army denies killing sisters (November 29, 2003)

It takes a worried man to sing a worried song.

I read these two articles, at Al Jazeera and News Interactive, and was firmly tempted to close the browser windows displaying them and go in search of antidotal cartoons. I don’t want to be a party to the spreading of such worrisome disinformation. I don’t believe that US troops would shoot two young girls in a field. Seriously, I don’t believe it’s true.

As ugly as it is to see this kind of death, and to contemplate the accusation that our troops did such a thing, I think we need to look this war in the face and force ourselves not to blink. The cause of peace is not well served by averted eyes or timid hearts. We are confronted with evil, and we must battle it with lucid purpose.

So here it is, sisters aged 15 and 12, dead while gathering wood in a field. Is there anything you can do? Pray for them, pray for peace, vote against Bush. Our people shoudn't even be there, being accused of atrocities.

Who's counting?

A comment from reader Brian Churchill:

I am a retired US Air Force master sergeant who's been opposed to this war since last fall, because I didn't believe that Iraq presented a clear and present danger to the US, and that any military action needed to be approved by the UN Security Council as in the First Gulf War. I also told anyone who would listen in my circle of friends that, based on the history of the region, the occupation would be troubled.

Sadly, I was right. I've found "All That Arises" to be a strong voice for truth in a war that's being spun by cable news in the same way that William Randolph Hearst manipulated the public in the Spanish-American War in the search for profits and sales 105 years ago. I decided to forward my recent research on suspicious US military deaths in Iraq to you, as it may be of interest or assistance to the blog readership.

I've been doing research on the deaths that are being reported as non-combat or accidental, using the CNN database that's updated regularly at this CNN site. I found the number of traffic deaths to be quite high considering the circumstances, i.e., low traffic; large, sturdy vehicles; strictly enforced safety rules; wear of body armor, etc. Also, at least one new widow was reportedly contacted by her dead husband's comrades and told that he died from an attack that caused a crash, not a non-combat vehicle accident as the Army declared.

I also noted that there's a large number of poorly explained deaths--drownings, falls from buildings, troops just not waking up one morning, persons killed working on vehicles or hit by dump trucks, and the most ominous of all - non-hostile gunshot wounds. These can't be firing range or training accidents, because they're described differently. I've counted 47 deaths through Dec 1 classified as accidents that I, as a former military man, consider suspicious, i.e., it's really combat in the case of many traffic accidents. I suspect that many deaths were classified as accidents to try to keep the combat death toll down after May 1, as the Administration was hoping that the occupation would take hold within a few months at most and the numbers wouldn't be too high.

I've also counted 49 possible suicides in 7 months, while the military has grudgingly admitted to 14-17 so far. According to the World Almanac, there should be about 27 suicides a year in a group of 145,000 Americans of that age and gender makeup. Clearly the suicide rate is many times normal.

Considering that the military is insisting on unit rotation instead of individual rotation, as in Vietnam, since unit cohesion was deemed to be very important, it's clear that all is not well with the Army of One. I'd also add that many of the one-vehicle accidents, if they're not from hostile action, could be suicides as well, as state troopers will tell you that a certain percentage of one-vehicle rollovers or crashes are really suicides. Also, deaths by means other than self-inflicted gunshot wounds save face for relatives and friends, and eliminate complications with life insurance policies.

Thanks again for your articles, and keep up the good work.

Brian Churchill
USAF Retired (1976-1996)

Back to Iraq

Christopher Allbritton, a seasoned reporter who blogged from the Middle East on a freelance basis before it was trendy, is contemplating going back to Iraq to give us the straight skinny on life as it is "on the ground." (God, I hate that phrase now that I've heard it from Rummie and Condi and their ilk.)

Anyhoo, give him a click and, if you wish, a dollar or a dime. He's a fine writer and we need to know, with clarity, whazzup over there. There are, of course, other bloggers who are good sources, as well as good coverage from the Middle East press, but Chris is an incisive analyst who's giving up his day job to bring us an upclose view of the reality and effect of our imperial doings. Log on, check him out.

Stop the Looting

I believe that the Bush Administration is riding roughshod over the American economy and civil liberties, with unprecedented cynicism and moral indifference. Do you agree? Oppose the omnibus spending bill, on which Congress is about to vote:
MoveOn.org: Stop the Looting

A dollar and two dimes

For eight months, the cost in American dollars of one euro hovered between $1.10 and $1.18, but two days ago, for the first time, the cost penetrated the $1.20 barrier. As I type this, BBC radio has announced a new high cost of the euro against the dollar: $1.22.

As I've said before, I'm no economist, but it cannot bode well for the US economy that its currency is declining in value, even if it may mean in the short run that Americans may find foreign-produced goods pricier and hence be more likely to buy domestic products. The inevitable inflation, the commensurate rise in interest rates (affecting mortgage payments on adjustable-rate mortgages, affecting monthly minimum payments on credit card debt and so forth), and the lower purchasing power of a dollar will beat back the recent economic "recovery."

This may come to pass quite soon. I can only hope.

Update: "Put simply, the dollar is in dire distress."

This is getting old

Once again, again, the news reportage of the war in Iraq is inaccurately slanted in favor of the invaders/occupiers. Two weeks ago it was the false report that two US soldiers' throats were cut; two days ago it was the onesided account of the "ambush" of the cash-carrying convoy in which the Army reported that 46 (later revised to 54) attackers were killed. Locals and hospital officials disputed the latter story, and the Army later revised the former, but in neither case was the revision given the prominence of the first report, and in some cases no revision was reported at all.

After all of the falsehoods this Administration and the military have spread over the years, it's astounding that reporters--even those of "reputable" papers and wire services--continue to spread it further. Are we talking conspiracy, incompetence, sloth or all three?

And still counting...

It's ten p.m., PST, in the USA as I post this. It's already tomorrow (Wednesday morning) in Iraq, so they've begun another day of killing there. The numbers of US military casualties and deaths that I rely on and insert into my protest signs are drawn from this website, and as of this moment show 2 deaths and 24 woundeds, in the first two days of December.

We've now launched into another month of killing American and allied soldiers and civilians, and Iraqi insurgents and bystanders.

Would somebody out there be kind enough to send a comment explaining why?

Update on "Body Counts" post

Yup, as I suggested, according to this account of the attack in which many Iraqis were killed, the Army's strategy is to shoot indiscriminately (to "spray," and to perform "reconaissance by fire") in order to suppress locals' support for the insurgents.

The source of this account (a "combat leader") is unattributed, so its authenticity is unknown, but at least it's an unknown that I know is unknown, not one of Rumsfeld's prize-winning "unknown unknowns."

The Uncompassionate Conservative

A great column. Molly Ivins has President Bush down cold.

What we're dealing with here is a man in such serious denial it would be pathetic if it weren't damaging so many lives.

Everybody spins a little, but this is ridiculous!

Same poll, same figures, but here are the differing headlines (with correlative "spin" on their accompanying stories) announcing the results of an Oxford International poll (which all stories pronounce as definitive and thorough):

79% of Iraqis do not trust US-led coalition--Middle East Online.

Iraqis welcome Saddam's fall--BBC News

Iraqis Do Not Trust US-Led Forces--Reuters UK

Poll: Most Iraqis distrustul of US-Led Coalition--China Daily

Iraqi Public Opinion Poll Finds Overwhelming Support for Democratic Future--Michael Drudge, VOA (Voice of America) News.

Okay, so there's nothing new about "spin." But gosh-all-rootie, when you read these articles, and the score of others that Google News reveals when you insert "Oxford International Poll" in its search engine, you'd think the stories, which reported, merely, a list of numbers next to a list of questions, were of utterly different events.

In this day of quick news, quick everything, we've handed over to ministerial monkeys, paid by huge vested interests, the creation of reality. Don't get me started on this subject, but for God's sake, my buddies, from now on, do at least this: Read the poll, not the report about the poll. Not too much to ask of an informed citizen, right?

Body counts?

Early in our invasion of Iraq, a Pentagon official announced, "We don't do body counts," a reference to the practice during the Vietnam War, where Army officers would report the number of dead enemy soldiers (often an inflated, imaginary figure) as the measure of success of a battle. And indeed, until recently, no such figures have been announced for US operations in Iraq, relating to deaths of either armed resistance or unarmed civilians.
With yesterday's battle, however, we now have a tally, 54, revised upward from 46 .


This bodes poorly for the Iraqis on two counts: First, if body counts now become a practice, any Iraqi in the vicinity of an attack becomes a target, to induce headlines which read, "Two US soldiers die in attack, fifteen Iraqis killed." This, it might be reasoned by the Pentagon, will make more palatable our losses. Second, these escalated attacks against Iraqis may be a means by which the Army seeks to discourage insurgents, by wreaking such havoc on the nearby civilians that the latter turn on the insurgents out of fear of American reprisal. This is another tactic fromt the Vietnam era.

It didn't work then, and it won't work now, but look out for such tactics and announcements in upcoming dispatches from the front. If they occurred to me, they have surely occurred to Rumsfeld.

A Prisoner Of Panic After 9/11

Yahoo! News - A Prisoner Of Panic After 9/11

Hard to believe this could happen in the America I grew up in.

Iraq's oil may not be retrievable? Unbelievable!

Apparently, the damage to the Iraq's oilfields by defective pumping in the past could be exacerbated by our efforts to pull oil out hastily now, leaving the fields watery and hence depleted.
Ouch! Cheney's gotta be freaked!

Maybe now they'll bring our boys home. Nothing to fight about anymore.

War is a Useful Word

"I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, only as one who has seen its brutality, its futility, its stupidity." - General Dwight D. Eisenhower

The men and women who have waged this atrocity, this defilement of human endeavor and of human life, have done so, not to protect or to safeguard, but to legitimize their own power. War is obsolete. The wholesale slaughter of enemies no longer serves any purpose. But the word War is still useful, as Erik points out. So are other words, such as witch hunt and due process.

What else should we expect? We Americans all stood by, and because we are who we are and we believe that our system of government is essentially fair and benign, we allowed the peaceful ascension to power of a man who was not duly elected or qualified to serve.

President Bush is no statesman. By his arrogance, he has squandered the good will that most of the planet vested in America in the days following our national tragedy. Now because we are essentially, effectively alone, lacking any viable moral mandate, we have no means to defend ourselves from perceived threats but swaggering polemic and staggering violence.

I’m reminded of an old joke. A man working in a candy factory falls unseen into a giant vat of chocolate syrup and can’t get out. Facing death, he cries out desperately, “Fire!” Men come, pull him out, and ask him why he yelled, “Fire!” … “If I’d yelled, ‘Chocolate!’ no one would have come.”

Of course he’s going to keep bellowing “War!” It’s all he has. If he hollered anything else, such as “in God’s name, let us feed the hungry and house the poor,” or “let all the nations peacefully bring terrorists to justice,” the world would know he’s too small a man for such a vision. The curtain would fall away, so OZ would stand there as he is. But war is easy to say, a small word for a small man of small means; an easy word, like blood and ice and fire.

Comment on "Name that War," Kyle's post, two posts below

I find the imaginativeness of NYT readers heartening--and distressing. The suggested names for this latest "war" were illuminating, entertaining, clever, incisive, but I'm troubled by the use of the word "war" in this context, as in so many recent contexts.

I recall that for years the pols wouldn't refer to the Korean War as a war. It was a "conflict" or a "police action," because no one was willing to use the word "war." We'd fought two devasting world wars and weren't able to admit to another, even though hundreds of thousands of lives were lost in the four-year "police action."

Same with Viet Nam. For years, it wasn't called a war, but a "conflict."

But lately we've cheapened the word war. We have wars on poverty, drugs, AIDS, and, lately, terror, or as our eloquent president pronounces it, terr'r. We've diluted the terrible consequence of the word "war," making it a Madison Avenue term to be applied to any challenge, of any parameters, against even nameless enemies, such as addiction, unfair distribution of wealth and, lately, terr'r. For those who've lived through real wars, these recent appications must be galling indeed.

Then threre's this: Even though the standard dictionary definition of war doesn't include any reference to the military balance or fairness of the conflict--no factor such as the odds of victory--I've always felt that if a military encounter is to be called a "war" there must be some element of risk, some question about the outcome. Accordingly, our invasion of Grenada couldn't be called a "war," not because we didn't invade a sovereign state (which we assuredly did), but because that state hadn't declared war on us, hadn't done anything to us, in fact, and was a little-bitty place that was manifestly vulnerable. Same with Panama. We invaded Panama, raced through its capital city and killed innocent Panamanians (as well as hundreds of Noriega's soldiers) to "arrest" its ruler. Not a war, though, because there was no doubt about the outcome. We were too powerful to have "made war" on Panama.

Now, however, with Afghanistan and Iraq, suddenly "war." Why do we use this word? Are we hyping here? Are we justifying, or sliding away from what's really happening? Are we electing to use the awful, horrifying word war so that we don't have to admit that we're really just invading powerless foes to act out our aggression on helpless states? Are we willing--are we psychologically compelled--to use the word war to avoid acknowledging that we're really empire-building, defeating hapless foes in order to entrench our forces worldwide, to allow us to dominate the planet?

Just asking.

The power of incumbency

This article, unhappily headlined "President's Iraq Trip Reinforces Role as Leader,", makes the points I make in previous posts, and points up the frustrating impact of incumbency on those who are opposing the officeholder.

I admit it. My posts were reactive, angry that his trip was such a well-presented political ploy: quick, perfectly timed, with super effect. It drives me crazy. I guess my only solace is that Clinton must have driven his opposition nuts too. But it still stings.

Howver, the voters have short memories, and there's almost a year before the election. Meanwhile our troops keep dying, and that doesn't require memory, just conscience.

Name That War

Check out Name That War at the NY Times ... it's pretty interesting, what some folks came up with.

"A long, hard slog"

The words that Ubermensch Rumsfeld used to describe America's occupation of Iraq apply equally to the task that lies ahead to defeat Bush's reelection. He's got the money, the media (see below) and the ability to control events, such as his cutesy Thanksgiving sojourn to Iraq and, as I noted in an earlier post, the likely announcement of some major development about Iraq--probably our "handing over of power"--just before the election.

I happened to watch NBC's Nightly News report of Bush's Thanksgiving fiasco last night. (I don't have a TV and so rarely see television news, and haven't seen a major-network telecast for months.) I was astounded by the coverage. Bush's visit--video of him chowing down with the troops, ladling out gravy in the cafeteria line and so forth--was the lead story, of course. This was followed by a separate piece about how dangerous the trip was and how secret, likening it to Ike's trip to Korea and Johnson's trips to Viet Nam (neither of which was secret; and not mentioning Clinton's trip to Kosovo, which seems more relevant), and how morale-boosting his arrival was for the troops.
The NBC coverage was slatheringly sweet--an advertisement, not a report--and baldly obeisant. Not a critical word: Nothing about how different this security-fraught visit was from what we'd been led to expect about our success in Iraq, nor a whisper about its obvious political purpose.
And that's not all. The Nightly News closed its half-hour "newscast" with yet a third piece about the trip, this with snippets of Bush's speech to the troops, which BTW was greeted with only mild applause, even though Bush waited often for cheers that didn't come.
On top of this, of course, is Google News listings of press accounts of the trip, in the thousands!

So, how can the opposition defeat such a juggernaut? I have ideas, that I will share in later posts. But all of them require a long, hard slog.

(Not all accounts of the trip were uncritical and naive. For reports from newspapers in the Middle East, go here. Tickler: Islam Online labels the trip a "PR stunt.")