Wednesday, June 02, 2004

The Road to Losing Hearts and Minds: "Iraq-On the Brink"

The Road to Losing Hearts and Minds:
"Iraq-On The Brink"

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


I'll begin with a news article from Yahoo News titled "Three US soldiers killed in Iraq", dated November 23, 2003, which included the following (limited) information:

"We want to present a new image of Iraq, different from that of the old regime. In years to come, Iraq will need the support of the United States."

--Hoshyar Zebari, Foreign Minister of interim gov't in Iraq

"I want to erase the image of the detestable past..."

--Mrs Rand Rahim Franki, who previously worked for the Iraq Foundation in Washington.

A US soldier was killed and two wounded when their vehicle struck an improvised explosive device in Baqubah, north the capital, 4th Infantry Division spokesman Colonel Bill MacDonald said. Sunday's deadly Baqubah attack came a day after US troops seized a former lieutenant general in Saddam's army, Taha Hassan Abbas, in a raid in the town........"

Question:

Would we have understood the situation better if we'd been made fully aware of what had actually occurred the night before? Would we have had a different opinion on the entire Iraq situation if our media had been independent and far more objective?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



In a Boston Phoenix feature titled "On-the-ground-reality TV", there's an interview by Jason Vest with seasoned independent journalist Ross Coulthart. Coulthart is the featured journalist in a yet-to-be-released documentary titled "Iraq-On The Brink" (produced by Nick Farrow) which explains how the "disconnect" of the Iraqi heart and mind occurred during and after the intended American "liberation" of Iraq. Coulthart shows how, because of improper media coverage and/or distribution, the American people don’t seem to realize the incalculable damage that has been done in Iraq. He refers to footage taken of the arrest of a suspected Ba'athist leader, Taha Hassan Abbas, taken from his home in the middle of the night.

Coulthart says: "You can see on the face of the young woman [a family member of the arrested leader] that her heart and mind are gone forever to the Americans. When we first saw this footage, the first reaction of our Iraqi fixers was absolute anger — I can only begin to guess what the reaction is to the scenes from Abu Ghraib."

Coulthart says he’s not sure what’s more troubling: that the arrest of a former Iraqi lieutenant general apparently merited no coverage; that footage showing an arrest almost completely at odds with the official account was not distributed in its entirety by Associated Press Television News; or that what was distributed wasn’t of interest to any APTN clients.

Coulthart also claims that, while a handful of journalists has provided a steady stream of exemplary reporting, there are some who feel that whatever good reporting has been done since the end of "major combat operations" has involved an even greater uphill battle for attention than usual. Why? Because the Bush administration’s practice of embedding journalists with the troops set the tenor of Iraq-war reporting. (The lack of independent reporting naturally lead to propagandizing rather than objectivity).

The New York Times recently presented its own mea culpa about their own angst about errant pre-war and 'combat-phase' reporting.

I think the whole of the American media needs to reflect and repent for the misleading reports from Iraq during that period of time.

Like Abu Ghraib, it was a collective sin..not just the actions of a few scapegoats. Judith Miller, although terribly negligent, wasn't the only reporter who failed to be dependent upon limited sources and/or properly objective.

As long as the media continues down this path, we will continue to have leaders like G.W. Bush who are allowed to lie and get away with waging unnecesary wars.

If we choose to stand back and let this happen in silence, we will deserve the consequences of the re-election of such a leader.

Excerpt from video by Ross Coulthart:



The soldiers don’t exactly approach with stealth. They kick open a gate to the house’s yard. What happens next..illustrates a perilous gap in American and Iraqi cultural understanding.

Coulthart voice-over on video:
"First, you have to understand that guns are ubiquitous in Iraq — most people have them, and it’s very common for them to shoot them in the air all the time for any number of reasons — from celebrations to anger to whatever. Burglary has become very common in the past year, and oftentimes, if people hear something outside their homes at night, they’ll fire a shot or two into the air to scare burglars away. Now, you could just go up to a house, like other soldiers do, and just knock on the door. But some treat these missions like full-fledged combat operations and start kicking things in with guns drawn, and then you get what happens next. The officer’s son — thinking the soldiers are thieves — goes to the roof of the house and fires into the air to scare them away." The response from US soldiers: "We’ve got a shooter on the roof!" followed by a hail of bullets loosed at the house.

The next shot — of film, that is — shows Abbas, a clearly unarmed, middle-aged, balding man in pajamas, hands above his head, trembling as he stands across from at least a half-dozen US soldiers whose M-16s are trained on him.

Voiceover:

"Inside the house, the officer surrenders, but he doesn’t understand what the Americans are saying — and they don’t have a translator. Abbas repeats the only English he appears to know — "Welcome! Welcome!" — over and over again, keeping his hands far above his head as the Fourth Infantry Division soldiers handle the situation in a way almost exactly the opposite of how the Third Cav troops acted in similar circumstances. The Fourth Infantry soldiers’ manner foreshadows the images at Abu Ghraib that the world would see months later.."


(Photo credit: Journeyman Pictures


"Want me to shoot him in the leg?" one soldier yells. "I might shoot you!" another growls at Abbas. As Abbas stands motionless in the doorway between his kitchen and the next room, one soldier shouts, "He’s trying to draw us in there!" Another solider half mutters, half yells, "I don’t give a sh*t, I’m gonna shoot, I’m gonna shoot, I’m gonna shoot!" while another hollers, "I can shoot him in the leg!"

"Get the f*ck over here, get the f*ck over here," shouts another, while the previous soldier repeats his desire to shoot Abbas in the leg, adding that someone should also "shoot him in the foot."

Abbas steps away from the doorway and moves his back to the wall.

Voiceover:

"The Iraqi officer, thinking he’s about to die, can now be heard praying. The American response is far from ecumenical, with one soldier yelling, "Who the f*ck are you talking to? Who the f*ck are you talking to? Shut the f*ck up! Shut the f*ck up!" The soldier then grabs the man’s pajama top and hurls him across the room into the hands of another soldier, who in turn hurls him into a chair that goes flying as the Iraqi sprawls onto the floor. One soldier begins to kick Abbas, who, though on his back, has his hands in the air again, repeating "Welcome! Welcome!" Three soldiers put their gun barrels in his face, with one solider yelling repeatedly, "Shoot him!" Another asks, "Who’s shooting?" when he hears gunfire from the roof, and then yells, "Bullsh*t" at the prone Abbas, who continues to repeat, "Welcome!"

The next sequence shows the capture of Abbas’s adult son, who had shot the gun off on the roof; as he’s being restrained, a soldier’s voice barks menacingly, "Take the camera off him." The film then resumes with a shot of two women — apparently Abbas’s wife and daughter — kneeling on the ground at gunpoint, their hands on their heads, their faces pictures of anger and humiliation.

The final shot shows the former general. Though fleeting, it is, perhaps, the most disturbing sequence of the film, given that in his previous appearance Abbas was terrified but physically unharmed. Now, his arms are restrained behind his back. His face is battered and bruised. His left eye is beginning to swell shut. The front of his shirt is stained with blood, and a stream of snot and blood dangles from his left nostril.."

Final voiceover:

"No one here was killed, But it’s raids like this that can only fuel the resentment against Coalition forces."
[LINK]


[LINK TO VIDEO TRAILER OF "Iraq-On the Brink"]


A quote from the documentary:

"What’s fuelling at least part of the antagonism towards Americans here in Iraq from ordinary Iraqis is the growing suspicion that the Americans aren’t being entirely honest about their long-term strategic intentions with this country. There’s talk of permanent American military bases here in Iraq and once you’ve seen this sprawling Al Asad airbase three hours west of Baghdad – another of Saddam Hussein’s follies – it’s not hard to see why if you were an American policymaker, you wouldn’t be leaving in a hurry. Israel’s just minutes flying time by jet in that direction. Syria, same thing in that direction. An unstable Saudi Arabia, about ten minutes by fighter in that direction. And Iran about the same time over there. Indeed, why would America be leaving in a hurry?"




What Force Is Your Soul?

What Force Is Your Soul?

Earth

You are guided by the earth itself. People like you are very rare. You are in tune with everything around you. While you try to bring peace to the world, you can sometimes create pain to those around you. You generally don't take risks.


What force is your soul?

"Fahrenheit 9/11" Gets U.S. Distributor

"Fahrenheit 9/11" Gets
U.S. Distributor



At Last!



"Fahrenheit 9/11" will hit American theaters this June 25th, thanks to Lions Gate Films, IFC Films and the Fellowship Adventure Group, which was formed by Harvey and Bob Weinstein.

[LINK]


CBS: Enron Was Devoid of Ethics

CBS: Enron Was Devoid of Ethics

CBS News has revealed their exclusive story on the totally unethical company known as Enron. You can hear audio-proof that they were no better than modern-day pirates who loved the fact that Bush was their Privateer-in-Chief.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has released two Enron memos describing company plans to inflate energy prices during California's energy crisis of 2000.
The practices were considered so outrageous, that an attorney with the California Public Utilities Commission dubbed them a "smoking gun memo."

Enron memo, Dec. 6, 2000 .pdf file

Enron memo, Dec. 8, 2000 .pdf file

Go here for video of Enron filthy-mouthed scammer-scums.

SEE ANONYMOSES'COMMENTS ON ENRON.

[LINK]

President Bush: Flip-Flopper-In-Chief

President Bush:
Flip-Flopper-In-Chief

From the Center for American Progress-
A documentation of President Bush's serial flip-flopping, which raises serious questions about whether Congress and foreign leaders can rely on what he says.

[LINK]

Tuesday, June 01, 2004

Allawi was responsible for 45-minute WMD claim

Allawi was responsible for 45-minute WMD claim

[LINK-Independent UK]

The Lying Game-Iraq A to Z

The lying game

An A-Z of the Iraq war and its aftermath, focusing on misrepresentation, manipulation, and mistakes

From Atta all the way to Zarqawi. (with Mobile biological labs and NucularNuclear programmes smack dab in the middle)

[LINK-Independent UK]

The Education of Alexandra Polier

The Education of Alexandra Polier
Falsely accused of having an affair with John Kerry, the “intern” sifts through the mud and the people who threw it.


Alexandra Polier (Photo credit: Robert Maxwell)

[LINK-New York Metro]


David Brock asks Rumsfeld to boot Rush Limbaugh

David Brock asks Rumsfeld to boot Rush Limbaugh

David Brock of Media Matters for America has sent a letter to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld requesting that he consider removing Rush Limbaugh from American Forces Radio.

The liberal media watchdog group complains that Limbaugh, whose program is broadcast at taxpayer expense for an hour a day to U.S. troops overseas, has “spent the past four weeks condoning and trivializing the abuse, torture, rape and possible murder of Iraqi prisoners by U.S. guards at the Abu Ghraib prison.”

[LINK]


Howard Dean turns to the written word

Howard Dean turns to the written word

[LINK]



(Photo Credit: SitNews.com)

See Howard's first Cagle column:

Electronic Voting - Not Ready For Prime Time
By Howard Dean


Excerpt:

Some politicians believe a solution to this problem can be found in electronic voting. Recently, the federal government passed legislation encouraging the use of "touch screen" voting machines even though they fail to provide a verifiable record that can be used in a recount. Furthermore, this equipment cannot even verify as to whether a voter did indeed cast a ballot for their intended candidate. Unfortunately, this November, as many as 28% of Americans - 50 million people - will cast ballots using machines that could produce such unreliable and unverifiable results.
[LINK-SitNews.com]


Understanding the Howard Dean Internet Effect

Understanding the Howard Dean Internet Effect
And Why It Matters to Marketers
From: AdAge.com
[[LINK]]


Hitchens sinks to ad hominem attack on Moore

Hitchens sinks to ad hominem attack on Moore

I thought I'd tune in to CSPAN this morning to watch Christopher Hitchens. I watched to the point where he said (about Michael Moore):

"Europeans think Americans are fat, vulgar, greedy, stupid, ambitious and ignorant and so on. And they've taken as their own, as their representative American... someone who actually embodies all of those qualities."

He lacked grace. For the first time, he totally lost me. I turned him off at that point.

Early on, he was asked if he knew anything about the new Iraqi interim President. He admitted knew nothing about him. I wonder, if in a few months, he'll claim to be an expert on the man he claimed to know nothing about today.

Bush vs. Kerry- Respective advantages in presidential race

Bush vs. Kerry- Respective advantages in presidential race

ABC News' Political Note lays out what they see as respective political advantages in the Bush/Kerry race:


Bush:

1. The war on terror serving as a potential trump issue, a la the communist threat during the Cold War.

2. Incumbency in a time of national crisis will seem safe(r) to a lot of voters.

3. The sustaining value of the "Bush brand" (highlighted again this month with 41@80).

4. The likeability and accessibility stops haven't even been pulled out yet.

5. Laura Bush.

6. An improving economy and seemingly successful POTUS projection of "if even one American is looking for work, that's too many" caring.

7. The rise of the Republican 527s.

8. Candidate confidence and rapid response confidence.

9. The political press' general belief the Kerry probably won't win, and inclination to scrutinize the Kerry "record" more than the Bush "record."

10. Most imaginable October Surprises favor the President.

11. The skew of the Electoral College.



Kerry:

1. An energized base which (we are now ready to say) viscerally dislikes President Bush as much as the right disliked Clinton. (Although no accusations of domestic murders yet..)

2. Stew of wrong track, events in Iraq, gas prices, and other only semi-controllable factors.

3. Famous capacity to close strong.

4. Potential week or more of positive coverage if he picks a good running mate.

5. Don't forget health care.

6. The regularity of the circularity of history (one-term Bush presidencies featuring a war victory in Iraq, stratospheric poll ratings, and, then, decline...).

7. The head start of the Democrat 527s.

8. Unchallenged in key Blue States such as California, Illinois, and New York.

9. Daughters, stepsons, vets unveiled big time in Boston.

10. In what would be a Bush irony (and The Note tries exceedingly hard not to misuse the term), the President's team's apparent* belief that Kerry is a phony, liberal, hypocritical Francophile might just blind them so much to his appeal to voters that they (mis)underestimate him all the way through November, and never take him seriously enough to stop him.

11. The political press' general preference for (a) underdogs; (b) challengers; (c) change; (d) Democrats; (e) good stories.


[LINK]

Today's Developments with Iraqi Interim Government

Today's Developments with Iraqi Interim Government

This from Yahoo News / AP:

The U.S. and Saudi-educated head of Iraq's Governing Council was named president of the interim Iraqi government Tuesday, after the Americans' preferred candidate turned down the post. Ghazi Mashal Ajil al-Yawer will have the largely ceremonial position. The Governing Council then decided to dissolve immediately rather than remain in office until the transfer of sovereignty to the new government.


...new Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi said that Iraq needs help from U.S. and other multinational forces to help defeat "the enemies of Iraq." The statement was seen as a prelude to the new government negotiating an agreement that would allow troops of the U.S.-led coalition to continue operating in the country.

...the council dissolved to allow the new government to begin taking over responsibilities immediately. Still, the U.S.-led occupation authority will continue to run Iraq until June 30.

...Allawi, whose appointment was announced Friday, was chosen because he was considered the best candidate to cope with the deteriorating security situation.

...Council members had angrily accused the American governor of Iraq, L. Paul Bremer, of trying to install Adnan Pachachi, a former foreign minister, over their opposition.

...Al-Yawer, who routinely wears traditional Arab robes and head gear, was sharply critical of the American occupation in a recent television interview, blaming U.S. ineptness for the deterioration in law and order. Al-Yawer also has denounced violence against American and other coalition forces.

...Most of the 22-member Governing Council backed al-Yawer, the current Governing Council president. A graduate of the Petroleum and Minerals University in Saudi Arabia and of Georgetown University, he is a prominent member of the Shammar tribe, one of the largest in the Gulf region that includes Shiite clans. He enjoys the support of Shiite and Kurdish council members.
[LINK]

Ineffective Management of Iraq Failures-TPM

Ineffective Management of Iraq Failures- TPM

At TPM, Josh Marshall compares Bush's recent ideas about Iraq to correcting miserably botched medical surgery (in light of collapse and near-total abandonment of policy).

Excerpt:

It has now become close to a commonplace that John Kerry's policies differ little from President Bush's. Where is the difference, we hear, since both candidates are for an openness to greater troop deployment, a fuller role for the United Nations and the country's traditional allies, and dropping support for the exilic hucksters who helped scam the country in the first place.

This is a weak argument on several grounds. But the most glaring is that what we see now isn't the president's policy. It's the president's triage -- his team's ad hoc reaction to the collapse of his policy, the rapid, near-total, but still incomplete and uncoordinated abandonment of his policy.

The president's actions, if not his words, concede that Iraq has become the geopolitical equivalent of a botched surgery -- botched through some mix of the misdiagnosis of the original malady and the incompetence of the surgeon. Achieving the original goal of the surgery is now close to an afterthought. The effort is confined to closing up as quickly as possible and preventing the patient from dying on the table. And now the 'doctor', pressed for time and desperate for insight, stands over the patient with a scalpel in one hand and the other hurriedly leafing through a first year anatomy text book.
[LINK]

Foreign fighters gain Fallujah foothold

Foreign fighters gain Fallujah foothold

A well-armed group infiltrated the city before fighting erupted in March and is continuing to mount operations against the coalition and Westerners in the area - in defiance of leaders of Fallujah's mosques, the army and the police force.

The group, led by Abu Abdullah, a young Saudi, is linked to kidnappings of Westerners, particularly journalists. Its members include Wahhabi Muslims, the ultra-fundamentalist sect that spawned Osama bin Laden.

Fallujah's leaders, who follow different Islamic fundamentalist teachings, fear that the Saudis belong to an al-Qaeda cell seeking a final showdown between Islam and America in the Middle East.

A senior sheikh in Fallujah said the group was "out of control".

....The Saudis were at first welcomed among the hundreds of foreign combatants who came to help Iraqis fighting the coalition. They fought in the southern section of Fallujah, where US marines met the stiffest resistance.

In all, about a quarter of those fighting the Americans were foreigners: Syrian, Saudi, Palestinian and Tunisian. They helped the Iraqi mujahideen - the collection of armed Islamic groups fighting the coalition - become better-organised and equipped,
aided by funds brought by the Saudi fighters. The Syrians were trained in tactics used against the Israelis in Lebanon.
[LINK-The Age]
[LINK-Telegraph]

Chalabi Duped Pentagon; Played U.S. vs. Iran for himself

Chalabi Duped Pentagon; Played U.S. vs. Iran for himself

I highly recommend you read a Stratfor.com analysis before it's removed from the site. In the analysis titled "Overdoing Chalabi", we are shown how the U.S. and Iran each used Ahmed Chalabi for its own purposes. At this point, it is honestly impossible to tell who got the better of whom.

The analysis doesn't discuss Chalabi's direct motive. They simply call him a "used-up-spook". The Iranians used him to screen information from the Americans more than to give false information. The Americans used him to try to convince the Iranians that they had a sufficient degree of control over the situation and that it was in their interests to maintain stability in the Shiite regions.

No one can say Chalabi didn't play one off the other for his own furtherance and his own hope for Iraq. Did he wind up the big loser? Time will tell.

I blame our leadership for being sucked into this quagmire. There is no one else to blame. No matter how the Bush administration tries to slice and dice Chalabi, it was always THEIR responsibility for going in without a realistic outloook or 'post-war' plans. Our Congress also failed in their serious duty to raise questions before giving the Bush administration free reign when they voted for the Iraq resolution in October, 2002.

Excerpts:


The implication was that the United States would have chosen a different course, except for Chalabi's disinformation campaign. We doubt that very much.

Iran wanted the United States to invade Iraq...The destruction of the Iraqi regime and army was at the heart of Iranian national interest...If the western frontier could be secured, Iran would achieve a level of national security it had not known in centuries...Iran knew it could not invade Iraq and win by itself. Another power had to do it.

Chalabi's job was to give the Americans a reason to invade, which he did with stories of weapons of mass destruction (WMD). But he had another job, which was to shield two critical pieces of information from the Americans: First, he was to shield the extent to which the Iranians had organized the Shiite south of Iraq. Second, he was to shield any information about Hussein's plans for a guerrilla campaign after the fall of Baghdad. These were the critical things -- taken together, they would create the dependency the Iranians badly wanted.

The United States did not want to invade Saudi Arabia....It wanted to change the Saudi strategy...The United States was interested not only in frightening Saudi Arabia, but also in increasing its dependence on the United States...The United States would take an indirect route...The solution: an invasion of Iraq.

Chalabi's claims about Iraqi WMD did not instigate the invasion, because the United States did not invade Iraq to get rid of WMD.

Al Qaeda was a Sunni movement. Following U.S. grand strategy, logic held that the solution to the problem was entering into an alliance of sorts with the Shia. The key to the Shia was the major Shiite power--Iran.

What is important to see here is how the Iranians were using the Americans, and how the Americans were using the Iranians.

Nothing he [Chalabi] said triggered the invasion [of Iraq]. It was what he did not say that is significant. Chalabi had to know that the Iranians controlled the Iraqi Shia. It is possible that he even told the Pentagon that...there is one thing that Chalabi should have known that he certainly didn't tell the Americans: that Hussein was going to wage a guerrilla war. On that point, there is no question but that the Pentagon was surprised, and it mattered a lot.

Chalabi did not share intelligence that the Iranians almost certainly had because the Iranians wanted the Americans to get bogged down in a guerrilla war. That would increase U.S. dependence on the Shia and Iran, and would hasten the American departure.

We suspect that the Pentagon intelligence offices and the CIA both knew all about Chalabi's relation to Iranian intelligence...Chalabi was a minor player in a dance between Iran and the United States that began on Sept. 11 and is still under way.
[LINK]

Sunday, May 30, 2004

This Was Spanky

Memorial Day-
This Was Spanky

Remember Who We Are Losing



It's guys like Spanky that we'll be remembering this Memorial Day weekend.

Army Spc. Philip Ian Spakosky, known as Spanky to family and friends, was killed on May 14th while defending the Mukhaiyam Mosque in downtown Karbala, Iraq.

Those who knew him have said there was nothing he wouldn't do for his leaders. He was an outstanding Soldier, very humorous and to-the-point, and full of life.

At his funeral, his Grandmother Good said, "When he joined the Army and was first sent over to Iraq, he was all for the war. He believed in the mission. But lately, when he would call or write, his tone was different. You could hear the doubt about the situation in his voice. He seemed to change his mind about being over there. He knew it wasn't safe, and he was worried."

Spanky's brother-in-arms Sgt. Michael Cannon said, "He didn't understand why we were here. But there was nothing he could do to change it, so he tried to make it positive for everyone."

His bereaved mother Lisa Good has stated, "The politicians have to resolve this conflict and bring everyone home alive. No more caskets for any family to bear."

His best Army-friend lamented that they'd 'been over there for a year', then they were 'sent to a place like' downtown Karbala.

The day before he died, Spanky spoke by satellite phone with his wife, Keisha, who was in Germany. They'd just observed their second wedding anniversary four days earlier, but he was afraid she was calling to say she was leaving him, Sergeant Cannon said. Instead, she told him she had gotten a tattoo over her heart with his name on it.

Spanky's younger brother, Jeff, is serving in Iraq with the Marine Corps, and family members have asked that he be reassigned to non-combat duty. It's not known when or if a decision will be made on the request.

I'll be performing with a choral group this Memorial Day singing songs of America. When I sing the words "Here rests in honored glory; an American soldier known but to God" and "Greater love hath no man than this; that a man lay down his life for his friends", I'll be especially thinking of Spc Spakosky and all the Americans who laid down their lives while courageously doing their duty, even when they had private doubts.

I'm here to publically express those doubts and relay their human fears. I do it not for myself, but for men and women just like Army Spc. Philip I. Spakosky.

[LINK]

The Top 25 Censored Media Stories of 2002-2003

The Top 25 Censored Media Stories of 2002-2003

#1: The Neoconservative Plan for Global Dominance
#2: Homeland Security Threatens Civil Liberty
#3: US Illegally Removes Pages from Iraq U.N. Report
#4: Rumsfeld's Plan to Provoke Terrorists
#5: The Effort to Make Unions Disappear
#6: Closing Access to Information Technology
#7: Treaty Busting by the United States
#8: US/British Forces Continue Use of Depleted Uranium Weapons Despite Massive Evidence of Negative Health Effects
#9: In Afghanistan: Poverty, Women's Rights, and Civil Disruption Worse than Ever
#10: Africa Faces Threat of New Colonialism
#11: U.S. Implicated in Taliban Massacre
#12: Bush Administration Behind Failed Military Coup in Venezuela
#13: Corporate Personhood Challenged
#14: Unwanted Refugees a Global Problem
#15: U.S. Military's War on the Earth
#16: Plan Puebla-Panama and the FTAA
#17: Clear Channel Monopoly Draws Criticism
#18: Charter Forest Proposal Threatens Access to Public Lands
#19: U.S. Dollar vs. the Euro: Another Reason for the Invasion of Iraq
#20: Pentagon Increases Private Military Contracts
#21: Third World Austerity Policies: Coming Soon to a City Near You
#22: Welfare Reform Up For Reauthorization, but Still No Safety Net
#23: Argentina Crisis Sparks Cooperative Growth
#24: Aid to Israel Fuels Repressive Occupation in Palestine
#25: Convicted Corporations Receive Perks Instead of Punishment

Bush Keeps Saddam's Tin-Pot As Trophy

Bush Keeps Saddam's Tin-Pot As Trophy

NOT.




Bush Keeps Saddam's Stuffed Fuzzy Head As Trophy

NOT.


Bush Keeps Saddam's Country As Trophy

Well, no, but some Iraqis believe it.


Bush Keeps Saddam's Pistol As Trophy

CORRECT

[LINK]

Play "Which Dictator Are YOU?"

Saturday, May 29, 2004

Billmon is back

Billmon is back

Billmon's back...and you really need to read his entry of re-entry.
[LINK]

NeoCons still love Chalabi-Inconvenient White House Friend

NeoCons Still Love Chalabi-
The Inconvenient White House Friend

Would their vociferous defense of con-man Chalabi make the NeoCons anti-American? Have NeoCons become inconvenient friends of the White House?
Wait! Some of the NeoCons are members of the White House administration!


From the New Yorker-
The Manipulator by Jane Mayer

At a moment when President Bush was struggling with multiple political burdens, Chalabi had become an inconvenient friend..


....A former admirer of Chalabi’s was alarmed by his turn toward Shiite nationalism, and said that his actions risked unleashing sectarian political strife that could pitch the country into civil war. He said, “There’s an irresponsibility in how he’s approaching this. It’s reckless. Iraq needs a stable government. But Ahmad’s pushing his private agenda at the cost of the country’s needs.”

....Chalabi claimed that his relationship with Tehran was purely expedient. “There are geopolitical reasons to be friendly with Iran,” he said. “Iran has the longest border with Iraq. Also, Iran is a much stronger state than Iraq, with three times the population. So strategically it’s not a good idea to be on bad terms. My good relations were not a secret from the U.S.”

.....Chalabi himself accused the C.P.A. of corruption, telling me, “There are so many bribes and kickbacks!"

.....One of his I.N.C. confidants told me that Chalabi might spend the summer repositioning himself as a fierce critic of Brahimi’s interim government, with an eye toward the coming election. Chalabi himself was less specific when I asked him about his plans. He said simply, “I think I have more of a future than the C.P.A.”

[LINK]


From the New York Times-
Conservative Allies Take Chalabi Case to the White House by Elisabeth Bumiller


On May 22, according to several of these Chalabi supporters, a small delegation of them marched into the West Wing office of national security adviser Condoleezza Rice to complain about the administration's abrupt change of heart about Chalabi and to register their concerns about the course of the war in Iraq.

"There is a smear campaign underway, and it is being perpetrated by the CIA and the DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency) and a gaggle of former intelligence officers who have succeeded in planting these stories, which are accepted with hardly any scrutiny," [Richard] Perle, a leading neoconservative, said in an interview. Perle added that the campaign against Chalabi was "an outrageous abuse of power" by U.S. government officials in Washington and Baghdad.

Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, who favored going to war in Iraq and was a patron of Chalabi, did not respond to numerous requests this week for an interview.

Wolfowitz's spokesman, Charley Cooper, said in an e-mail that Wolfowitz believed that Chalabi and the Iraqi National Congress "have provided valuable operational intelligence to our military forces in Iraq which has helped save American lives." Cooper added that "Wolfowitz hopes that the events of the last few weeks haven't undermined that."

The current views of Vice President Dick Cheney and Lewis Libby, Cheney's chief of staff, are not known. Both strongly supported Chalabi before and during the war in Iraq.

[LINK]


In a National Review article, NeoCon Michael Ledeen seems disapointed that the Chalabi accusations are serving to slow down his hoped-for war upon the nation of Iran. He's stooping so low as to calling Sidney Blumenthal a liar (point-blank). Ledeen blames the disinformation about Chalabi on Blumenthal, our State Department (meaning Colin Powell), and the Iranians. This is getting so twisted, my dear readers...I don't even know where to begin telling you just how twisted. We need to get this administration and their corrupt NeoCons out of power before our nation's credibility is completely destroyed.

While I do not share as much (weird) admiration for Chalabi as Christopher Hitchens, I wish to point out that even Hitchens has said:

[Former criticism] has now been replaced with a whole new indictment: that Chalabi tricked the United States into war, possibly on Iran's behalf, and that he has given national security secrets to Iran. The first half of this is grotesque on its face. Even if you assume the worst to be true—that the INC's "defectors" were either mistaken or were conscious, coached fabricators—the fact remains that the crucial presentation of the administration's case on WMD and terrorism was made at the United Nations by Secretary of State Colin Powell, with CIA Director George Tenet sitting right behind him, after those two men most hostile to Chalabi had been closeted together. Nor does the accusation about an alternative "stove pipe" of disinformation, bypassing the usual channels, hold much water (or air, or smoke). Woodward's book Plan of Attack makes it plain that the president was not very impressed with Tenet's ostensible evidence. The plain and overlooked truth is that the administration acted upon the worst assumption about Saddam Hussein..


Chalabi did all he did in his OWN nation's best interests, which is what anyone who LOVES his country might do. But that doesn't mean it was EVER our job to get into his slimy bed and do his bidding. The American public was totally misled, and even the President didn't trust George Tenet's WMD slam-dunk, but he tried to convince America, anyhow.

I disagree with Christopher Hitchens TOTALLY when he absolves Chalabi and Judith Miller of pre-war wrong-doing. Chalabi's misleadings were criminal. Miller, whether negligent or not, was gullible.

Bush will never have an excuse for taking us to unnecessary war, no matter HOW he slices and dices Chalabi.

The NeoCons want to kill off the U.N. by making the public believe they are a totally corrupt institution because of the Oil-for-Food-Program scandal. This is only one reason why NeoCons love Chalabi.

From A World Net Daily (un)Intelligence report:

[He [Chalabi] has also threatened to release damaging details on the corruption in the U.N. oil-for-food program, which included high U.N. officials, possibly including the son of Secretary-general Kofi Annan.

"I have opened up the investigation of the oil-for-food program, which has cast doubt about the integrity of the U.N. here," Chalabi said. "They don't like this."

But Bush and Secretary of State Colin Powell were not to be dissuaded. They are convinced that unless the administration converts Iraq into an international problem, the U.S. will never succeed in leaving Iraq.

The sight of U.S. boys dying daily in Iraq without a clear exit strategy is not seen as a reelection strategy.
[LINK]


What kind of line is that last line from World Net Daily? I'll tell you--it's a stupid unAmerican line! How about changing that last line to:
"The sight of U.S. men and women dying is f***ing sickening when we all know the war was unnecessary and pimped by Dick Cheney, the NeoCons and Chalabi and taken in by the all-too-war-willing Bush who, in turn, pimped his unnecessary war to the American public with lie after lie"?
None of these people...Bush, Cheney and his NeoCons, Tenet, Rumsfeld, Rice, Chalabi, Judith Miller, hoodwinked pundits.. not one of them was right. Wake up! It's time we truly started supporting our troops. We need the U.N. and we could certainly use new leadership in Washington.


The U.S. (including John Negroponte) was complicit in the oil-for-food corruption and the NeoCons and the Bush administration know it. We all know it. Negroponte's been given a new position of American power in Iraq. The Bush administration needs to cover any news that would make him look worse than he already does after his death-squad days. Perhaps Chalabi had "the goods" on Negroponte.

The NeoCons want suppport for Chalabi and they do not CARE that our troops' lives are endangered every day we fail to get world cooperation on Iraq. They are pushing stories to the public to slow down the possibility of U.N. involvement in Iraq...all for their own agenda.

They are fighting American diplomacy tooth and nail.

I submit to you that these NeoCons are acting as anti-Americans.

Rush Limbaugh is not acting in America's best interests, either, in pumping all the oil-for-food he can get partisan mileage out of.

The U.N. is our hope for world cooperation to get Iraq on its feet (rather than further destroy their weakened institutions). Chalabi has been instrumental in helping the NeoCons push this Oil-For-Food story. While the matter deserves investigation, it does not deserve front-page headlines at a time when we need a U.N. resolution and cooperation on Iraq.

The NeoCon war against the U.N. does not serve our country's best interests. It does NOT support our American soldiers.


Article worth reading:

Last Man Standing by Tom Engelhardt

Friday, May 28, 2004

Why is John Kerry calling for more troops?

Why is John Kerry calling for more troops?

I'm not saying he shouldn't, but I believe he needs to explain a lot to the American people first. Without a new U.N. resolution with U.N. peacekeeping commitments and/or commitment from NATO to contribute troops on a multilateral basis, I don't believe we should be discussing sending more loyal troops into this hell of a mess.

In Wisconsin today, John Kerry called for more troops to relieve the over-extended National Guard and reservists in Iraq...20,0000 MPs, 20,000 combat troops. Without giving specifics, he said he'd pay for the added troops by making cuts elsewhere in the Pentagon budget.

None of it sits right with me. While we are lost in the woods of civil chaos in Iraq, I don't want to hear about sending more of our loyal troops into a mess that has gone out of our control. I would feel much better hearing someone (like Kerry) who wanted to lead my country tell me they planned to move our limited number of troops out of the Iraqi cities (where they do not belong) and off to the western and northern borderlands to stop the flow of outside antagonists..with Special Forces to guard the Iraqi "Ho Chi Minh trail"...to search for those in legion with Osama Bin Laden. Conventional combat should have been over after Saddam's regime was taken out.

I want to hear someone say we must work to bring Iraq back into the community of nations, not through destruction, but through constructive action worldwide.

I want to hear a Presidential candidate say he (or she) is willing to commit to a plan to bring our troops home.

No one is saying that. Why not?

You don't simply add more fuel to a fire.

I'm not comfortable with the idea of sending more troops into harm's way.

I'd be more comforted with the idea of getting the troops already IN Iraq OUT of harm's way and put into a place where they can make an effective strategic difference.

[LINK]

Philosophers and the Iraq war

Philosophers and the Iraq war

From TPM Online- Joseph Chandler asks:
Where were the philosophers when the US and UK went into Iraq?

- Most of the evidence points towards a strong trend of opposition to the conflict among professional academic philosophers. The clearest sign of this came when the American Philosophical Association eastern division passed a motion opposing war.

- Anecdotal evidence certainly does suggest that British philosophers were generally against the war, although perhaps not as interested in it as one might expect.

- There have not been many philosophers who have made their voices heard in public on the war, whether by choice or simply because the media takes no interest.

- It has been left to Roger Scruton to provide a lonely public voice of a philosopher generally supportive of the war.

- If there is an overall picture, then it is one of philosophers being much more opposed to the war than in favour of it, but not on the whole feeling as strongly on the issue as might be expected.

- If--and it remains a big "if" – this war turns out to have made the world a safer and better place, philosophers will be forced to reconsider the centuries-old principles of just war theory. And if it doesn’t, then the philosophical community can feel vindicated about the stand it took, albeit rather quietly.

[LINK]

Ref - See: Immanuel Kant and the Iraq war by Roger Scruton [LINK]

Press Stories on Iraq Hardly Reliable

Press Stories on Iraq Hardly Reliable

Yesterday the big headline was the al-Sadr-U.S. truce. It got "top-billing" on the ABC News Headlines last night and it was cautiously presented as one of the first (few) positive days in Iraq.

And today..it's like yesterday never happened.

I'm beginning to find it absolutely impossible to believe the stories coming from the White House Press these days. I don't really blame the writers..they're only reporting what they're fed. So many stories have gone down the sink soon after their reporting, though. In today's fast-paced competetve technological atmosphere, I hope journalists learn important lessons from making hasty reports. While it isn't their job to opine, it is their job to ask the right questions and to remain skeptical.

The lesson I've learned is that you can't believe what you read when a desperate and arrogant administration is putting out any story that makes them look like they have no problems. They have a busload of problems.

Jim Hoagland wrote a column I think we all should read...especially the Bush administration. It's time for Bush to get real. See Five Points of Reality That Bush Overlooked.

Excerpt:


Your talented speechwriters built this address around a five-step "plan." May I offer five realities I think you slighted but must still address if you are to dispel rising skepticism, including mine?

• The decision to concentrate power in the hands of the Coalition Provisional Authority rather than establish a provisional Iraqi government a year ago has had disastrous results. As Kurdish leader Massoud Barzani and others have said, that step "turned an army of liberation into an army of occupation" resented across Iraq. Liberation was successful, and ousting Hussein was a justifiable action. Denying power to Iraqis once he was gone was not. You must face that.

• Continuing to insist that a real transfer of sovereignty will occur on June 30 to what is at this point an unknown and untested Iraqi leadership is damaging your credibility. That entity would have power over U.S. troops and actions in Iraq if your assertion were true. Tell the American people and the world what you really intend to happen.

• Abandon the pretense that all goes well in the mission of U.N. negotiator Lakhdar Brahimi, who has spent most of his recent mission in Baghdad hunkered down inside the U.S.-protected "Green Zone." Your aides let you tell the nation Monday night that Brahimi would announce an interim government "this week," even though Baghdad sources say his choice of a Shiite to be prime minister has run into serious opposition. Brahimi's spokesman, Ahmed Fawzi, said on Monday that his boss is as much as a week behind his May 31 deadline. You should have known that before you spoke.

• NATO allies will not take up new burdens in Iraq while you are in the middle of a reelection campaign. Why would countries such as France and Germany risk that? Preemptive war may well be justified. But there are costs for firing the first shot. Accept the fact that you will now pay a price and proceed accordingly.

• Most important, move away from the obsession with secrecy that is a cancer at the center of your administration. Sept. 11, 2001, did change the world, and the Geneva Conventions do look outdated in places. Engage the nation and then the world in the debate about the changes -- and sacrifices -- that need to be made in fighting a war against terrorists. Don't confine that discussion to secret memos and directives.

Those directives and your own great confidence in the paramilitary warriors of the intelligence world helped bring you the Abu Ghraib scandal. You need the nation's engaged, informed support to rescue Iraq -- and yourself, Mr. President.


Saudi Arabia and Egypt WIll Stiff G8 Summit

Saudi Arabia and Egypt WIll Stiff G8 Summit

Saudi Arabia and Egypt are thumbing their noses at Washington's "Greater Middle East Initiative". Tunisia, Qatar, and Morocco will probably not attend, either. Egypt's particular concern is the dissolving of the Arab identity under the American plan. Other Arab states (as well as some European states) have been at odds about how the Initiative fits in with the Arab-Israeli peace efforts and the conflict in Iraq. King Abdullah of Jordan will attend and stress that he believes the Palestinian issue is an essential part of achieving reform in the region.

The Bush administration, in my opinion, is unrealistic in thinking they will get very far with this Initiative while failing to address obvious issues, especially the Arab-Israeli conflict. There are so many misgivings right now and so much Arab fury over the Iraq conflict that NATO is strategically avoiding issuing invitations to Middle East nations, including Israel, to its summit in Istanbul next month. The region is burning. [LINK]

Thursday, May 27, 2004

Michael Moore says has Nick Berg footage

Michael Moore says has Nick Berg footage

He isn't saying what the footage covers, but he has about 20 minutes of unused footage with Nick Berg (before he was killed in Iraq). [LINK]



Belated congratulations to Michael for winning top prize at Cannes for "Fahrenheit 9/11".

Wimpy White House spokesman Dan Bartlett called the film "outrageously false". You know it's got to be a provocative work of truth-in-art to get Dan's shorts in an uproar. I hope we Americans get to see it someday...no thanks to Disney.


Dan didn't think it was true and he's really pissed.


Which Monty Python character are you?

Which Monty Python character are you?





What Monty Python Character are you?

John Kerry Reassures U.S. Military

John Kerry Reassures
U.S. Military

"Human conscience, when it works, is the most divine thing in our small segment of the universe.

In today’s world, conscience marks the difference between tolerance and terror.

We do not have to live in fear or stand alone
."


The Promise:



"As president, on my first day in office, I will send a message to every man and woman in our armed forces: This commander-in-chief will ensure that you are the best-led, best-equipped and most respected fighting force in the world.

You will be armed with the right weapons, schooled in the right skills, and fully prepared to win on the battlefield. But you will never be sent into harm's way without enough troops for the task, or asked to fight a war without a plan to win the peace.

You will never be given assignments which have not been clearly defined and for which you are not professionally trained.

This Administration has disregarded the advice, wisdom, and experience of our professional military officers. And often ended the careers of those who dared to give their honest assessments. That is not the way to make the most solemn decisions of war and peace. As president, I will listen to and respect the views of our experienced military leaders – and never let ideology trump the truth.

This is not a partisan cause. Patriotism doesn't belong to any one party or president. And if I am president, I will enlist the best among us, regardless of party, to protect the security of this nation."

-John Kerry

[LINK]



The transcript of John Kerry's speech in Seattle is here.

Important points from speech:

- First, we must launch and lead a new era of alliances for the post 9-11 world. A return to the principle that guided us in peril and victory through the past century –alliances matter, and the United States must lead them. Never has this been more true than in the war on terrorism.

- Second, we must modernize the world’s most powerful military to meet the new threats. Kerry had a message for every man and woman in our armed forces (see quote above)

- Third, in addition to our military might, we must deploy all that is in America’s arsenal -- our diplomacy, our intelligence system, our economic power, and the appeal of our values and ideas. The single gravest threat to our security is the possibility of lawless states and terrorists being armed with weapons of mass destruction.

- This country is united in its determination to destroy those who employ lawlessness and terror.

- As President, Kerry will launch a global initiative to fully secure the materials needed for nuclear weapons that already exist and sharply limit and control future production.

- Fourth and finally, to secure our full independence and freedom, we must free America from its dangerous dependence on Mideast oil. A new national security policy demands an end to our dependence on Mideast oil. We have been constrained by their control over the oil that fuels too large a part of our economy. This is a weakness that this Administration has ignored – and one that must be addressed.

- We will not do business as usual with Saudi Arabia. They must take concrete steps to stop their clerics from fueling the fires of Islamic extremism.

Rush Limbaugh on Al Gore

Rush Limbaugh on Al Gore

...our adversaries and our enemies would be badly mistaken if they actually believe that Gore speaks for this nation, because he doesn't. I speak for more of this nation than Algore does, and I will say it on this program. Otherwise, why is he bothering to mention my name?

[LINK]


Mr. Limbaugh must understand that he is a very popular talk-radio show host. He has a very devoted following. Many people put their faith in him, whether they should or not. He might tell them NOT to put their faith in his credibility, but he must realize they will do so, anyhow. The devoted listener hears more of Rush than they do of their elected leaders. He speaks to them on a daily basis for hours at a time. I find Rush to be very irresponsible with many of his daily statements. For this reason, I think concerned and responsible Americans should call upon their Conservative representatives (and the media who interview them) and ask them to get a public debate started about the damaging statements made by people who rule the American airwaves (and the markets that support them).

If Conservative/Republican representatives fail to respond to citizen pleas, we can assume they support the irresponsible comments made by fellows like Rush and his ilk.

I'm glad Al Gore threw down the gauntlet.

Rush Limbaugh is mistaken...delusionally mistaken...in his thinking that Al Gore doesn't speak for this nation. This nation is comprised of millions of individuals. This is a democratic Republic..does Rush forget? Al Gore is speaking for millions and millions of people with no loud talk-radio voice. I happen to think Rush would be shocked to learn there is a massive percentage of Americans who not only wholeheartedly disagree with his ideology, but are heartily grateful that men like Al Gore are speaking intelligently on their fund-poor market-silenced behalf.

Money talks...we know it.

Rush talks....a lot.

I think Rush talks so much and so loudly that he forgets there's anyone else with whom he shares this American nation. Would that make him a selfish ball of hypocritical greed in a constant state of denial? Perhaps.

Hey, adveraries! Hey, enemies! Listen up!
Al Gore speaks for me and probably the majority of American voters. After all, the majority of Americans voted for him in 2000 and probably
would do so again, given the opportunity.

Hey, adversaries! Hey, enemies!
Ask yourselves why Rush Limbaugh cares so deeply about what you think.

Shallow America prefers politicians on the Zombie-side

Shallow America prefers politicians on the Zombie-side

From Maureen Dowd's column in today's N.Y. Times, she says of Al Gore's speech:


John Kerry's advisers were surprised and annoyed to hear that Mr. Gore hollered so much, he made Howard Dean look like George Pataki.

[LINK]


This was a very funny line by Maureen. I laughed out loud, in spite of my often-too-serious self.


They don't want voters to be reminded of the wackadoo wing of the Democratic Party.


There is a difference between strongly making your case and "going wacko".

The problem I have with Maureen Dowd (who, even though she kids, she kids not) is that she speaks for most of today's mainstream media. If our politicians do not act with an air of mind-numbing gravitas (to the point of Zombie-like droning), they are categorized as nutballs.

(Although you'll notice, in the same column, Maureen puts John Kerry in the "mind-numbing" category.)

I did not see Al Gore's speech yesterday, but I did read it (twice).

I'll tell you this: everything he said needed to be said. He spoke the truth. Perhaps Mr. Gore spoke the truth with too much emotion for some. The shame is that the mainstream prefers style over substance. It's such a shallow attitude. Often, I find it no wonder Americans are seen as shallow fools to those outside our borders.

Perhaps it isn't Maureen Dowd's job to take a serious stand on such topics. She loves to play on personalities. Yet I feel compelled to point out the fact that Maureen is just one reflection of the problem with our dreadful state of democracy today. She hasn't done all that much good for the true American spirit in her role as a very-visible (albeit silly)political commentator. I recall in 2000, when she made Gore seem like a goofy boob at every opportunity.

Al Gore knows the truth about America. I read it in his words from yesterday's speech. Without some form of public support in the media, the average American will never hear his words of warning. What a pity that Maureen (and others like her) do not appreciate a decent American's raising of issues when they have the opportunity to intelligently discuss those important issues in their professional writings. Instead, they talk about the politician's demeanor and their hair.

The slick zombie liar is preferred. It's no wonder we have no Thomas Jeffersons or Ben Franklins offering public service anymore. We do have them...we just don't value them or bring them to light.

The most ironic part is that Maureen Dowd often compared Gore to a stiff tree trunk. Now that he emotes upon the truth about the disgrace to which America has been brought, he's a 'wackadoo'.

Rush Limbaugh agrees with Maureen Dowd:


Algore, this whole speech, he went nuts. He's flailing around wildly there.

[LINK]


At least Rush goes on to actually talk about the issues that matter (to him).

General Zinni: The 10 Mistakes

General Zinni: The 10 Mistakes

At Salon.com, Gen. Anthony Zinni, former CENTCOM commander, lists the catastrophic blunders made by the Bush team that led to the Iraq nightmare. Gen. Zinni delivered these remarks at the Center for Defense Information's board of directors dinner on May 12, 2004.

The mistakes include:

-Misjudging the success of containment
-Flawed strategy
-Creation of false rationales
-Failure to internationalize the effort
-A series of bad decisions on the ground

Gen Zinni said:

"No one in the region felt threatened by Saddam."

"The idea of creating Jeffersonian democracy overnight in Iraq is almost ridiculous."

"If you find yourself in a hole , stop digging."

"If I'm a battalion commander down there in the middle of Fallujah or Najaf, I need more than some kid who happens to be of Arab descent and speaks Arabic that I dragged over there and probably doesn't speak the dialect. I would like to have five or six of these guys that I went to school with, that I know, that would be there, that would be seconded there for me as planners, advisors, and to help me in these situations."

Gen. Zinni offers productive ideas as well as criticism.
This is a must-read.

[LINK] If you don't subscribe, you will need a one-day free pass to read the entire article

Chalabi and Judith Miller

Chalabi and Judith Miller

In the Salon.com article titled Not fit to print, James C. Moore discusses how Ahmed Chalabi and the Iraq war lobby used New York Times reporter Judith Miller to make the case for invasion.

To be fair to the N.Y. Times, even the "most seasoned of correspondents and the most august of publications, including the Times and the Washington Post, appear to have been as deftly used by Chalabi as were the CIA, the Department of Defense and the Bush administration". Judith Miller is the only journalist whose reliance on Chalabi became a matter of public debate.

Moore claims that an article by Miller and Michael Gordon that appeared on the front page of the New York Times on a Sunday morning in September 2002 titled "Threats and Responses: The Iraqis; US Says Hussein Intensifies Quest for A-Bomb Parts" couldn't have done more to advance the political cause of the neoconservatives driving the Bush administration to invade Iraq.

The White House had a perfect "deal" when it came to Miller. Chalabi would provide the Bushites with the information they needed to support their political objectives with Iraq, and he would supply the same material to Miller. Chalabi would tip her on something and then she'd go to the White House, which had already heard the same thing from Chalabi, and she'd get it corroborated by an insider she'd always described as a 'senior administration official.'

I'm not certain if it was arrogant ignorance or some greed or delusional heroic motive or downright intent to deceive the American public. All I know is that George W. Bush should have known better and his administration should have known what they were doing when they gave such enormous credence to Chalabi, whose own self-interest (and past indication of poor character) was totally invested in getting the Americans to invade Iraq.

The fact that the N.Y. Times failed to point out that much of its reporting was dependent on Chalabi and Iraqi defectors (while the Bushites apparently sucked up Chalabi's lies and distortions) is inexcusable.

Where was the intellectual discipline?

At the Drudge report, Matt is saying that Howell Raines is "assailing" yesterday's mea culpa. I don't see where he'll have an intellectual or moral leg to stand on.

[LINK] You will need to obtain a free one-day pass if you do not subscribe)


Wednesday, May 26, 2004

Gum Returns to Singapore After 12 Years

Gum Returns to Singapore After 12 Years

"It's ridiculous that it's easier for 16-year-olds to visit prostitutes than it is to get chewing gum here!"
--Fayen Wong, 22-year old college student. [LINK]



I want to know what, if any brand, our friend Ihsan will be looking for.
(I'm fond of Juicy Fruit and Big Red.)

Tomorrow: Kerry speech on national security and foreign policy

Tomorrow: Kerry speech on national security and foreign policy

John Kerry is due to give a key speech tomorrow on national security and foreign policy. It will mark the start-off of an 11-day period focusing on his ideas for winning the war in Iraq and fighting terrorism. He will allegedly promise to craft a foreign policy that would make it unnecessary to have a conventional military draft.

While Adam Nagourney and Richard W. Stevenson claim that Kerry's Iraq views are much like Bush's , I would implore them and all Americans to weigh this question (posed by LeMoyne College philosophy professor John Schonsheck):


At this point [in the Iraq war],there may well be no good options for either a President Kerry or a President Bush. But that does not imply there are no differences between them.

One distinguishing question that comes to the fore:

"Should we continue to follow the steely-eyed leadership of the candidate who has jumped us into deep water with large rocks in our pockets? Or perhaps more accurately - who has jumped us into deep water, with anvils chained to our necks?"

[LINK]

Gore: Rumsfeld, Rice, Tenet Should Resign

Gore: Rumsfeld, Rice, Tenet Should Resign

In a speech at New York University today, Gore argued that officials, including several of Rumsfeld’s top civilian deputies, should step down because the situation in Iraq is out of control. He called for the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, CIA director George Tenet, and national security adviser Condoleeza Rice. [LINK]

TRANSCRIPT OF TODAY'S SPEECH

27 Rationales for Iraq War

27 Rationales for Iraq War

27 reasons...were any good enough?

See Devon M. Largio's Senior Honors Thesis titled:
Uncovering the Rationales for the War on Iraq:
The Words of the Bush Administration, Congress, and the Media
from September 12, 2001 to October 11, 2002


Department of Political Science
University of Illinois

Ms. Largio covers them all..including everything from the five front-runners – war on terror, prevention of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, lack of weapons inspections, removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime, Saddam Hussein is 'evil', to the "also-rans" – Sen. Joe Lieberman’s “because Saddam Hussein hates us,” Colin Powell’s “because it’s a violation of international law,” and Richard Perle’s “because we can make Iraq an example and gain favor within the Middle East.” With regard to the Bush administration’s shift from bin Laden to Saddam, Ms. Largio found that Iraq was “part of the plan for the war on terror early in the game.”

A must-read.

[LINK] (pdf)

Conspiracy theories and Sibel Edmonds- Village Voice

Conspiracy theories and Sibel Edmonds-
Village Voice

Why are there so many conspiracy theories swimming around about the death of Nick Berg? At the Village Voice, Kareem Fahim explores the reasons for such skepticism. [LINK]

Richard Goldstein provides an exploration of why the news media keeps silent when rumors (like those surrounding Nick Berg's death) sweep the internet. [LINK]

James Ridgeway is trying to help us figure out why the FBI is going back in time and classifying some pretty basic information (involving 9-11 whistleblower Sibel Edmonds) that's already out there in the public sector. [LINK]

A dedicated Marine fed up with armchair hawks

A dedicated Marine fed up with armchair hawks

This letter to the editor appeared yesterday in the Syracuse Post Standard:


I am a Marine Corps officer in the reserves who was activated and deployed to Iraq in spring 2003 for the invasion phase of Operation Iraqi Freedom. I am proud of my unit and its performance in-theatre. We were going to defend our country against what we thought was an imminent threat to our soil. Regardless, my Marines deserve the highest praise for their performance. They did their duty without exception. They are very simply the best I have ever seen among men.

I would do my duty again in Iraq, as may be the case if a new unit of which I am a part is deployed next year (it's still up in the air, I'm told).

I am a Republican with conservative viewpoints. My point, ironically, is that I am sick to death of all of the "hawks" and pro-war slogans spewed from the mouths of individuals around our country who have never had to stare down a bullet or a piece of hot shrapnel that can very easily tear bodies in half.

Unless you are a hawk who has been in combat, or you have had a loved one go into harm's way and dealt with the long, sleepless hours, not knowing if he or she is alive and well, as my beloved mother had to endure, then shut the heck up! "Send more troops . . . Go get 'em, George" - please! Give such shortsighted individuals a helmet, body armor and a rifle, drop them off in Baghdad in 120-degree heat with no sleep or shower for weeks, and say: "You go get 'em, tough guy."

I'm sorry. I needed to vent that as I watch so many troops and their families who sacrifice on a daily basis. My thoughts are truly with them. God bless them for all they put up with.

Capt. Eric R. Lindgren, USMC

[LINK]

President Bush: Fire Douglas Feith!

President Bush: Fire Douglas Feith!


President Bush needs to make himself accountable as leader of the U.S. by firing those responsible for many accounted-for errors and misleadings.

Douglas Feith is only one of those responsible for the lies and screw-ups regarding the Iraq situation, but there is no doubt he played a major role and needs to suffer the consequences.

If there are no consequences to egregious actions, then the President deliberately harbors the egregious. This would make him vicariously egregious and highly negligent.

How can any American stand for such negligence of duty?

__________


General Tommy Franks on Douglas Feith:

"I have to deal with the f*cking stupidest guy on the face of the earth almost every day."
From Bob Woodward's book "Plan of Attack"

__________


The fact that Bush is failing to clean these incompetents from his administration leads me to confirm my belief that there ARE nothing BUT incompetents in the administration...starting at the very top.

From Pharyngula:

Once upon a time, America stood for liberty, democracy, and forward-thinking confidence. At least we could tell ourselves that we aspired to those things, even if we did frequently stumble over our flaws....
[LINK]

Cicada Sings

Cicada Sings



All these were gather'd at the Scaean gate;
By age exempt from war, but in discourse
Abundant, as the cricket, that on high
From topmost boughs of forest tree sends forth
His delicate music; so on Ilium's tow'rs
Sat the sage chiefs and councillors of Troy.


--From Homer's Iliad


Gas prices: Bush gets a lucky break on public perception

Gas prices: Bush gets a lucky break on public perception

In a recent Gallup poll, one in five people blamed corporate greed for the high cost of gas, and one in five blamed the war in Iraq. Only 5% blamed President Bush, suggesting he has escaped political damage so far.

President Bush is a pretty lucky political soul. If Americans kept themselves properly informed (see NY Times' $40-a-Barrel Mistake), they would easily see how some of the President's failures in leadership have, indeed, contributed to the higher fuel prices.

Until citizens commit themselves to self-education and until they can properly "connect the dots", we are going to be sadly bilked and will never realize who's actually picking our pockets.

Iraq photos (warning: graphic)

Iraq photos (warning: some graphic)




I literally stumbled upon this website today. There is a stunning collection of photos from the Iraq war (in its early stages) on the site. Some are quite graphic and show the ugliness of war. Others are inspirational. Mr. Denne has collected the works of a gifted photographer(photographers?).

Here is the LINK.

Slice of Life at Camps Baker, Hotel, and Golf

Slice of Life at Camps Baker, Hotel, and Golf

I dreamt last night that I was in the center of war-torn Baghdad and I heard the mortar shells exploding and felt a fear I'd not known before. I awoke and knew I was safe, for it was only a nightmare. I thought about the men and women living the nightmare...the troops...and the inncocent civilians of the cities of Iraq.


AP photo

I was reading the Army Times and noticed a nicely-written piece about the soldier's life in the camps and the feelings generated by extended tours.

I saw a reminder of an American's everyday fear and hope while working in Iraq:

Phil Kosnett, a 43-year-old American diplomat who heads the CPA team in Najaf, likes to highlight the contrast between his team’s situation and the image of Foreign Service work as one elegant cocktail party after another. Kosnett, of Black Mountain, N.C., keeps a pistol strapped to his thigh and hopes the mortars that strike the camps every day don’t find their mark.


I found it an unusual lesson- knowing that certain civilians are paid extremely well while the common American soldier takes a meager portion of the civilians' pay. It is also a lesson when you understand that the common soldier is looking forward to leaving the U.S. armed forces in the hopes to strike it rich as a privately-paid warrior.

Also banking on a prosperous future are some of the civilian contractors, especially security experts. One topic of conversation among American soldiers is how much these former Navy SEALs and Special Forces veterans earn, and how the servicemen can get one of those jobs when they get out of the army. The elite among them pocket up to $1,000 a day. That’s the same amount as the monthly bonus given to soldiers whose stay was extended last month.


What is the future of the strength and integrity of the U.S. armed forces when so many are planning on passing up the opportunity for re-enlistment because mercenary work is far more lucrative?

N.Y. Times admits flawed Iraq (Judith Miller) coverage

N.Y. Times admits flawed Iraq (Judith Miller) coverage

On Monday, I had commented:
"Over the past year and a half, I've been saying how wrong these journalists have been and what a disservice they've done to the American people. Will they suffer any consequences? The N.Y. Times will eventually have to apologize to the people of America (and the world) for an inept journalist they still employ..Judith Miller."


Slate had pointed out the truth about Judith Miller's nearly criminal journalism in a May 18th article and commented on the NY Times Editor's notes on May 25.

Today, the New York Times' mea culpa appeared.

See The Times and Iraq

We need to weed out those who perpetuate false and misleading information.
I saw Laurie Mylroie on CSPAN this morning. Not only is she perpetuating the tired fallacies about WMD and the Iraq-9-11 connection, she comes off as a bit of a giggling, bitter anti-Clinton simpleton. I can hardly believe she is professionally supported as a credible academic.

Tuesday, May 25, 2004

Unrealistic expectations will take more American lives

Unrealistic expectations will take more American lives

Those who stand to make the most money manipulate perception of reality for capital gain

There is no way on God's earth a new Iraqi force will be ready, willing, or able within "months".

"It will be very unusual if we were not able to secure security within the next year. The multinational force [in Iraq], as much as its presence is needed, will need
over time replaced by indigenous Iraqi forces, and we expect that to happen. It [will be] a matter of months before the Iraqi security forces are properly trained and equipped. So hopefully before the end of year - and certainly before the elections for the new constitutional assembly - we should have Iraqi security forces by and large in a position to take greater responsibility for security in their own country."


--Dr. Ali Alawi, Minister of Trade

[LINK]


Prepare for the "very unusual".

Don't miss the Rebuild Iraq trade show and don't forget your civic lessons.

We Need A Hero

We Need A Hero

It isn't going to be George W. Bush. Someone needs to sit down and have a serious chat with David Brooks.

First, Brooks claims our national creed states that "our creator has endowed all human beings with the right to liberty, and the ability to function as democratic citizens".

"Ability to function as democratic citizens"? Isn't Mr. Brooks taking God-given liberty to revise old Tom Jefferson's words? When Jefferson wrote "..they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation"...the word "they" didn't mean to give future Americans the right to impose undue influence on another nation's idea for independence!

Brooks says: "Bush is putting this tenet of our national creed to a fearsome test in the worst possible circumstances."

In other words, Bush is imposing freedom on the Iraqis in the name of the American way. The very words impose and freedom are impossible philosophical bedfellows. We had a chance to create the conditions for freedom in Iraq. That's as much as we will ever be able to do, in righteousness.

I still recall, however, how the American people were LIED TO (bald-faced)about the reasons for going to war in Iraq. Before the pre-emptive strike, it was about the imminent threat to America. It was about WMDs. Lies are not honorable. This war was not waged in an honorable light.

While it may have been ultimately good for the Iraqis to be rid of Saddam Hussein, the war has done too much damage to the trust of the American people. Almost 800 American families have forever given up their sons and daughters for the imposition of freedom upon a people who never required or desired it from us.

Our American soldiers are heroes.

We need a leader who can match their courage, wit, and understanding of what it means to love your country with your last breath, if need be. That's what it means to be a hero.



Bush is not the hero we seek.

David Brooks says that if Bush succeeds, the Iraqis will "take responsibility for their future" as they begin to "regard Americans as necessary guests" and they will ultimately "feel they control their lives".

I wonder how it is David Brooks doesn't see that the Iraqis are already "taking responsibility for their future" in their obvious desire to expel Americans from their lands? How is it that Brooks doesn't see that Iraqis obviously have a strong desire to "control their own lives"?

Is he blind?

There is going to be a civil war in Iraq this summer. Many more American troops will have to die because of too many blind pundits and the chickenhawk leaders who make the word "freedom" their political whore.

The best thing that could happen for Bush (and our troops) is to have the new Iraqi interim government tell the U.S., come July 1st, to get out of their country.

People who blow themselves up and leaders who command their armies to storm into nations with bombs and guns always claim to know the 'truth' better than everybody else. They almost always claim to know what "God wants" or "what God said". None of them are acting in righteousness, which, in the end, is always love.

Using the words of the poet Hafiz, truth means having "profound courage to never relinquish love".

Let the Iraqis be the free people and the free nation God intended them to be.
It's what they want.

America is not God.

God is God.

_____________________________


The Diamond Takes Shape



Some parrots
Have become so skilled with
The human voice

They could give a brilliant discourse
About freedom and God

And an unsighted man nearby might
Even begin applauding with
The thought:

I just heard jewels fall from a
Great saint's mouth,

Though my Master used to say,

"The diamond takes shape slowly
With integrity's great force,

And from

The profound courage to never relinquish love."



Some parrots have become so skilled
With words,

The blind turn over their gold
And lives to caged

Feathers.


--'The Gift - Poems by Hafiz The Great Sufi Master'
Translations by Daniel Ladinsky


The unaccountable Bush blames it on history

The unaccountable Bush blames it on history

"In the last 32 months, history has placed great demands on our country."

In the last 32 months, Bush has placed our country where she remains today. She is disgraced in the eyes of our allies after the Neocons barreled their way into convincing the soft-headed Mr. Bush to take America to unnecessary war.

History demands nothing.

History merely watches the sages and the fools.

Perhaps Mr. Bush will blame God next. After all, t'was God who whispered in his destiny-clad ears, yes?

What do I think of last night's speech, you ask? If you've noticed I've said nothing, you may already have your answer.

____________________


*Speaking of sages, NYCO says: "..it is such a time we live in, that mere adults come off as sages." Sad, yes?

WorldNetDaily helps launch plot to steal the election

Secession looming!

WorldNetDaily: Christians look to form 'new nation' within U.S.

"The plan initially calls for at least 12,000 Christians willing to be active in political campaigns to move to the Palmetto State. "

Pay close attention to who moves where in time for our lofty election coming up. Interstate redistricting? Can not these people play fair??

anonymoses

______________________


Good one, Dave. I've noticed public pleas for people to move to swing states to vote both GOP and Dem. Politics is such a dirty game. Unfortunately, the GOP always seems to know how to play the dirty games more efficiently.

About this secession news, perhaps Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson will become the President of the nation of South Carolina. Can you imagine? How rich!

The whole scenario is deliciously reminiscent of the secessions of the mid-nineteenth century when the argument was over slavery. Gays are the neo-slaves, I guess.

I wonder how many people would fight to the death in a bloody civil war while defending the cry- "Let my people marry!"?

Yesterday we had abolitionists.
Today we have abo-swish-inists.

The silliest (perhaps scariest) part is that our own President is one of these goofball fundamentalists.

Jude

Monday, May 24, 2004

Abu Graib and the Right Wing Culture Warriors

Abu Graib and the Right Wing Culture Warriors

Timothy Noah writes about how the right-wing culture warriors blame the Abu Graib prisoner abuse on moral relativism, gays, pornography, feminists, Quentin Tarantino, the Farrelly Brothers, women in the military, the academic left, the liberal media/entertainment complex, journalists' Vietnam-bred hostility toward the military, our "sick" society...

They blame anyone but those actually accountable--starting with the Commander in Chief and the Secretary of Defense..and on down.

Who or what do we blame for this kind of attempted blame-escape?
Ignorance? Poor character? Pride? Partisanship?


[LINK]

'Nick Berg Was a Soldier of Peace' by Michael Berg

'Nick Berg Was a Soldier of Peace'
by Michael Berg, father of Nicholas Berg
..George Bush can see neither the heart of Nicholas nor the American people — let alone the people his policies are killing daily.
..Donald Rumsfeld said that he took the responsibility for the sexual abuse of Iraqi prisoners. How could he take that responsibility when there was no consequence? Nick took the consequences of the policies both stated and given with a wink and a nod by the Bush administration. And, even more than those murderers who took my son's life, I can't stand those who sit and make policies to end lives and break the lives of the still living.
..George Bush's ineffective leadership is a weapon of mass destruction and it has allowed a chain reaction of events that lead to the unlawful detention of my son.
..Many people have offered to pray for Nick and my family. I appreciate their thoughts, but I ask them to include in their prayers a prayer for peace. I ask them to do more than pray. I ask them to demand it from the politicians and leaders in the White House and in the statehouses across the world and in the mountain camps where they may hide. And let them know that if you don't get it, they aren't going to work for you as their leaders any more.

It's Monday

It's Monday

NY Times- An American U.N. resolution draft, critical to efforts to make the United Nations more involved in Iraq, is expected to call for international donations and troops. It is also supposed to define any limitations on Iraq's sovereignty after the transfer of power planned for June 30.



Thanks to Bohemian Mama for pointing me to a listing of 25 things we have learned on Fox News. Bohemian Mama also has some interesting thoughts on Atrocity Fatigue.



This photo bothers me because of the distinct resemblance of the prisoner's stance to Christ's crucifixion pose. The shit on the prisoner's back doesn't increase my joy in seeing the image.

*Note: A friend mentioned to me today that he suspected this photo was a fake. We really don't know, but if you look at it very closely, it does seem quite suspect. In all fairness, I thought I'd submit this possibility to you, my fine readers.*



"This shit has been brewing for months. You don't keep prisoners naked in their cell and then let them get bitten by dogs. This is sick. We don't raise kids to do things like that. When you go after Mullah Omar, that's one thing. But when you give the authority to kids who don't know the rules, that's another."
-An unnamed Pentagon consultant
from Seymour Hersh/ The Gray Zone




I found a lovely recipe for homemade strawberry ice cream.


In The Sun magazine's May 2004 edition, Robert Bly says the U.S. is the insane, obsessed father who took Iraq and bombed it back into childhood. The negative father has come forward almost nakedly and has beaten a country that was already on its knees. We citizens are broken in spirit upon finding out that our father has been beating all our sisters and brothers. (We are all brothers and sisters, regardless of country).



What they see.....

Fragments of musical instruments, tufts of women's hair, and a large blood stain..



Pools of blood lay inside the green-domed Sahla mosque...


What we hear......

Wedding party?! Those killed were involved in smuggling foreign fighters into Iraq and that the houses attacked were way stations for militants.



We said we weren't going to attack sacred sites in holy cities. Well, we are. Period. U.S. soldiers fought militiamen (note-it doesn't say "terrorists"-) near Kufa's Sahla mosque and then raided it for weapons after an Iraqi counterterrorism force "cleared" the site.