Riverbend rises

from a monthlong hiatus, her first post on Baghdad Burning since mid-August. When you read it, you'll understand why.

Meanwhile, up in northern Iraq

we're pissing off Turkey with our bombing. Turkey, our one friend in the region. Read this essay to see how volative the area is, and, because of its history how justified Turkey's outrage is.

They're digging mass graves in Iraq again

But now it's to bury Iraqis killed by the bombs dropped on the order of George Bush.

Didja ever wonder why it's called terrorism when the bomb that kills civilians is strapped to a person's chest or stuffed in a car, but it's not called terrorism when it's dropped from an airplane?

Finally, finally

Kerry's speechwriters are getting the drift, are piercing the core. Kerry's "Bush is living in a fantasy" speech is treading close to my thesis of nine months ago that the effective attack on Bush (or on any powerful incumbent) is on his fitness, his sanity, even. Kerry should continue, should march on firmly and quickly, from fantasy to evil fantasy to delusional madness. Kerry has six weeks to paint Bush/Cheney as madmen--no less dramatic an image will suffice to defeat these media-driven incumbents--and has bushels of ammo. Kofi Annan's announcment that Bush's invasion of Iraq violated international law; the CIA's prediction that Iraq's a losing cause for us, probably headed to civil war; Bush's speckled National Guard record; the terrible numbers in Iraqi deaths and in jobs. Maybe, maybe, Kerry's "fantasy" lingo can assemble these facts and figures and give them traction, driving Bush over the cliff as he cries out, "I'm not crazy!"

"We don't do body counts"

even of our own bodies, apparently.

You wanna catch a liar in a lie?

Check out these two statements by Colin Powell, the first made a few months after his February 2003 pitch to the UN Security Council to justify the US invasion; the second made yesterday.

Which is it, Colin? Did you check out the sources for the information for "four days and nights" before the UN speech; or did you rely on the information from the CIA without checking it?

Protests are of no value

according to this essay. They don't sway the few undecideds who are still in play in this heated election, and all they do is expend energy "singing to the choir," or falling on deaf ears of the opponents. Indeed, they may alienate the undecideds or at least turn them off marginally from the cause that's being espoused. And since this year, the cause is opposed to an incumbent president, the protests play into his hands.

So--what's a body to do? Walk the streets, register voters, sign up noncommitteds in a silent, compelling way? Okay.

Except that the incumbent has CNN, Fox and all the networks on his side.

So it's Molotov cocktails, right?

Who is Major Doug Rokke?

And why is he saying all those terrible things about DU (depleted uranium) in Iraq?

You need to read this

Blog, entitled, "Today in Iraq." Just take a peek at the entries for today, September 12. Twenty-two entries, detailing the swarm of killings, explosions, hospital admittances in Baghdad and throughout the country. "Bloody Sunday," and worse.

If you watched network or cable news, you'd learn it was a bad day in Iraq, but nothing like the detail. Enough to tear your heart out.

And, if it need be asked: To what end? Oh, please, tell me: To what end?

"Hearts and minds" by the back door

I just figured it out: Why a US helicopter gunship would fire upon and kill 13 Iraqis who were gathered around a burning Army vehicle that had been blown up some time before. Surely it couldn't be to kill those responsible for the explosion. They wouldn't be hanging out at the site, or if they were there wouldn't be any means to distinguish them from onlookers. In fact, in this incident a member of a TV crew was killed by the fire from the helicopter.

It's clear, therefore, that such random fire by our soldiers isn't meant to win the Iraqis "hearts and minds" in the traditional sense. No, it's the reverse. Once there's an insurgent attack, the US responds with such force, including killing innocents, so that the populace becomes so fearful of an insurgent uprising that they turn against the insurgents out of fear of reprisal by the US.

Is this so obvious that I'm wasting cyberspace here? Well, it wasn't obvious to me, just as it wasn't initially obvious to me that Bush/Cheney/Rummie love this ongoing violence in Iraq and elsewhere--they adore it, they sponsor it--because it attracts the idiot-faction of US voters to their cause. Just witness the recent polls, showing Bush's numbers increasing as the violence increases.

So, does Bush win the election if there's an increase in violence--and if there's a decrease? Well, if you're Karl Rove, that's precisely what you planned.

Wallowing, not solving

I'm tired of watching us wallow in the 9/11 thing. The TV is full of tributes, memorials, remembrances of the event.

Yeah, the attack and its aftermath were traumatic, but the answer isn't for us to continue to scratch the wound, but to reflect for just a moment, to try to reach for a balm to salve it.

Isn't there anybody in a position of leadership, in the U.S. or in the world, who sees that the wound is merely a symptom of a worldwide malady, the product of an historical virus that has caused an imbalance between the world of haves and have-nots?

Let me ask this, demanding an answer: Why haven't the whites, those who inhabit the portion of the planet north of bottom tip of Florida and Texas and Italy, chosen to share the benefits of inhabiting the majesty of this planet with those who live to the south? Why, at all events, are humans so little like the gods--and their messengers--whom we say we aspire to; and so much like the animals that we say are "less than human?" Why do we hoard our wealth, our resources and arms, within our national limits--and why do we allow our corporations to exploit the riches of poorer nations, without fair compensation?

This longstanding conduct by America and its supporters is why we're being attacked. It's not about freedom, not about violence. It's about planetary justice, human justice, spiritual fairness.

It's about global goodness--which surely isn't the message of Bush/Cheney.

He who laughs last...

Well, now, isn't this delicious. A spat over the genuineness of documents. Between Dan Rather of CBS and the Republicans, with document experts weighing in. It couldn't come at a better time. Seven weeks before the election. Focusing on Bush's military service, calling into question his veracity and honor, the strong points of his poll-popularity, the cornerstone of his support.

And, I think, with more to come.

The maxim of this campaign is to attack the opposition on their strength. Kerry was attacked on his wartime record and on his legislative service. Now Bush's strength, credibility and straight-shooting and feistiness are drawn into question, and intrigue--document authenticity--adds to the drama.

Now's the time to go for the jugular, everybody. Bush is a flake, a frat-boy weenie, who's lied his way into high office, who's slid into power, who's worthless as a leader and as a man. Bring out the guns. Let's smash this cockroach of a human, sparing no quarter. Let's win, as we must, at any cost, even to our own honor.

Right?

The issues

I just spent two hours watching TV news (forgive me, I had to see what's being reported). There wasn't a whisper--not on CNN, not on the networks, not on PBS, about the policies of either side dealing with the economy, foreign affairs, civil liberties, or anything of substance. The entire media has bought into this presidential campaign as being one of lingo, personality, the latest hot-buttom item.

What else is new? How can we possibly survive as a nation when this is how we govern, how we choose our course?

The answer is we can't. The answer is, the US is now a full-fledged failed nation.

I won't be alive when it fails, I'm glad to say.

Like everything else about George Bush

his post-convention "bounce" in the polls has turned out to be a lead turd.

Isn't this special?

A US Army general states that in the upcoming national elections in Iraq in January (don't bet on that date, by the way), certain areas, such as Fallujah, where violence persists, may not be allowed to participate. What a hoot! Besides being fine testimony as to the state of our democratization of Iraq, it's the surest way I can think of to trigger a civil war.

Maybe that's not so stupid after all; maybe that's what the general wants.

According to this prestigous British study, moreover, civil war in Iraq is indeed the most likely outcome of our occupation.

Weather stories and news priorities in general

Look, I'm not particularly callous, not a mean-spirited American, but what's this with a Florida hurricane story (the latest one) dominating the news? Even the PBS report on TV this evening. A full first segment, talking about the dangers of standing water after the storm, leading to an increase of mosquito bites, absence of refrigeration in people's homes, and so forth. Cleanup will cost $2 billion, the storm took the lives of some trailer-dwellers, maybe 10.

Meanwhile, in the nations we've recently invaded (there are two, recall: Afghanistan and Iraq) $2 billions are spent every week, and scores of deaths, theirs and ours, occur. And--if I need to add this, as I apparently do--these deaths and expenditures are fully as colorful as those of Floridians, certainly as newsworthy in any sensible historical sense. I mean, weather happens, but wars are declared. Weather passes, wars change everything.

And a second segment on PBS devoted (interminably) to Clinton's surgery? Give me a break. He ate too many burgers, he had chest pains, he had surgery. Enough. He's a political eunuch, not much of a president at all events (recall, Clinton sold out the Democratic Party, wrecked it for salvation except through revolution--about which more in a later post, I'm certain). The surgeon on PBS, interviewed at boring length, called his surgery "enormously common."

So, we're two-fifths through "today's news" on PBS and all we know is that Florida is okay and so is Clinton, neither of which stories deserve more than a minute. And (I waited to the end of the PBS report to tell you this) nary a mention of the seven Marines and two Army grunts who died in Iraq today, nor of the scores who died there. And this, I must remind you, is PBS.

And so it goes in America.

The Great Unwashed

Check out these figures on the "favorability rating" of Bush: A Newsweek poll showing a "bounce" of from 48/48 favorable/unfavorable just before the Republican convention to 55/40 afterward. Seven percent of us were swayed from unfavorable to favorable, presumably based on the convention coverage, and subsequent media reports of it, because no other significant event occurred between pollings to explain the switchover. Indeed, during the interval, there was terrible news about the economy (increase in poverty and in loss of health insurance), a rising death toll in Iraq, and continued violence in Afghanistan.

So--The lesson is that the 2004 election is going to turn on the opinions of these seven percent; and they're idiots!

Everything you ever wanted to know

about Bush's actions on the morning of 9/11/01. Amazing.

Osama bin Lotto

There are hints that the US is about to capture Osama. We've had such feints before, but nothing's materialized. But now, on the eve of the election, it seems certain. Because if Bush is going to bring bin Laden out of storage and parade him up Pennsylvania Avenue in a cage, it's gotta be now. Check out this entertaining video to see how and why.

Look, I know it's tinfoil-headed to so opine, but here's the alternative. After three-plus years, Bush hasn't found bin Laden. What does that say about his war on terr'r?

October surprise

I've for so long feared a Bush-Rove October surprise--the idea being that in a close race they'd pop some big development at the last minute (capturing Osama bin Laden, withdrawing troops from Iraq, whatever)--that I didn't focus on the Democrats' prospect for same. What could Kerry/Edwards come up with that would swing the election their way in the last few weeks?

Discovering a nonwhite love-child of Bush? Maybe an under-the-desk intern? Perhaps, even, an allegation by Kobe Bryant's "friend" in Colorado about a similarly forceful tryst?

I'm open to suggestions, and to a means of effectuation thereof.