Killing Saddam
The summer blockbuster to come
BY TOM HAYDEN
"....It has been a bad summer for the Pentagon and the White House, but Saddam's death could be their summer hit. Nothing the growing number of critics can say compares to the potential public gratification and fortification of righteousness that the White House hopes to generate by the coming assassination. That the administration lied, that the occupation costs $4-billion per month, that we have antagonized our allies, that thousands of Iraqis are collateral damage -- all these venial sins will be forgiven, they assume, when Saddam is dead and gone. To seal the victory, at some later date, weapons of mass destruction will be discovered, both Bush and Blair assure us. That prospect should finish off the lingering critics and set the stage for a triumphal November 2004.
But what if the master plan is left unfulfilled? It seems unlikely, but Saddam may elude the Delta posse or already be dead. Or what if the pursuit climaxes in Saddam's ritual death, but the chaos in Iraq continues unabated? What if Saddam, living or dead, is not the deux ex machina behind the daily shootings and woundings of American soldiers? What if the occupiers are facing a vengeful Iraqi nationalism, not the remnants of the old regime?
There is an opening for the peace movement here. If and when Saddam is killed the question becomes, "Why should American troops continue to die if the dictator is dead?" If the ritual symbolizes victory, why shouldn't the American troops come home and leave the rest to the Iraqis? Why shouldn't Paul Bremer III declare victory, set a date for a national Iraqi election and a parallel American troops withdrawal? Or are American troops dying for purposes other than overthrowing the dictatorship?"....
Foreign Policy:
George Will separates the Conservatives from the Neo-Conservatives
I think Mr. Will has done a very good job deconstructing Tony Blair's
neoconservative rhetoric here and reforming it in the light of reality.
THE FACE OF NEOCONSERVATISM
Excerpt:
"...Blair seems to think: Boston, Baghdad, Manchester, Monrovia -- what's the difference? Such thinking is dangerous. Blair's argument is true only if it is trivial: "Ordinary" people choose freedom, democracy and the rule of law because those who do not so choose prove thereby that they are not ordinary.
But there are a lot of them in the world. Some of them are waging guerrilla war against American forces in Iraq.
Blair's thinking is Bush's, too. "There is a value system that cannot be compromised, and that is the values we praise," the president says. "And if the values are good enough for our people, they ought to be good enough for others."
But one must compromise in the face of facts, those stubborn things. It is a fact that not everyone is inclined to praise "the values we praise." And not every society has the prerequisites -- of institutions (political parties, media) and manners (civility, acceptance of pluralism) -- of a free society.
Bush and Blair and many people called neoconservatives believe that moral objectives in politics are universally applicable imperatives. If so, then either national cultures do not significantly differ, or they do not matter or they are infinitely malleable under the touch of enlightened reformers. But all three propositions are false and antithetical to all that conservatism teaches about the importance of cultural inertia and historical circumstances."
Lessons in how to lie about Iraq
The problem is not propaganda but the relentless control of the kind of things we think about
Brian Eno
Sunday August 17, 2003
The Observer
"....When I first visited Russia, in 1986, I made friends with a musician whose father had been Brezhnev's personal doctor. One day we were talking about life during 'the period of stagnation' - the Brezhnev era. 'It must have been strange being so completely immersed in propaganda,' I said.
'Ah, but there is the difference. We knew it was propaganda,' replied Sacha...."
The Criminal Revenge Against The Wilson Family:
Will there be an investigation into whether Bush administration officials violated the law and undermined national security in order to mount a political vendetta?
by David Corn
"Under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, it is a crime for anyone with access to classified information to reveal intentionally the identity of an undercover intelligence officer."
_____________________________
Just another reason to impeach the worst President in U.S. History.
*Which apparently doesn't happen anymore unless the President is Democrat who has an affair.
The GOP impeachers don't "do" criminal and totally unethical liars who are one of their own.*
Visit the
all-new
Pakistani-Fried
KFC!!
Hundreds of angry Pakistani Shi'ite Muslims went on a rampage in Karachi on Sunday, setting fire to a a Kentucky Fried Chicken outlet.
"WE DO CHICKEN RIGHT BRIGHT"
Knock Knock!
Hundreds of insurgents in a convoy of trucks attacked a police
headquarters in southeastern Afghanistan yesterday, triggering a gunbattle
that killed 22 people.
www.mnftiu.cc/mnftiu.cc/home.html
VP Dick Cheney took marching orders early in 2001 about how to handle the California crisis--
directly from Enron's Ken Lay.
"Nooo price caps, Dick.."
"Aye-Aye, Cap'n Enron!"
We have just witnessed the worst blackout in American history.
In the case of the northeast grid, which corporate-energy taskmaster will he now obey?
"The moral of the story? Don't have heartburn over those 16 words. Have it instead over the folks who’ve gotten our nation in a megamess that might cost hundreds more casualties and around $100 billion by Christmas, a figure this regime’s Liars Club is busy doing its best to hide. Judgment is the essence of leadership. It seems sorely lacking when it comes to the president’s Iraqi solution. "
David Hackworth
What happens when truths are laid out beautifully ......
"....whether you're a Democrat or a Republican -- or an Independent, a Libertarian, a Green or a Mugwump -- you've got a big stake in making sure that Representative Democracy works the way it is supposed to. And today, it just isn't working very well. We all need to figure out how to fix it because we simply cannot keep on making such bad decisions on the basis of false impressions and mistaken assumptions.
Earlier, I mentioned the feeling many have that something basic has gone wrong. Whatever it is, I think it has a lot to do with the way we seek the truth and try in good faith to use facts as the basis for debates about our future -- allowing for the unavoidable tendency we all have to get swept up in our enthusiasms........"
Al Gore
....and no one (if you watch TV or read newspapers) seems to be listening?
"......Al Gore slipped into Manhattan last week and gave a rousing speech downtown before a very young audience at New York University. He got some coverage, but Mr. Gore has never been mistaken for an entertainer. In the superamplified media din created by the likes of Arnold and Kobe and Ben and Jen, it's very difficult for the former vice president, a certified square, to break into the national conversation.
That says a lot about us and the direction we're headed in as a nation. You can agree with Mr. Gore's politics or not, but some of the points he's raising, especially with regard to President Bush's credibility on such crucial issues as war and terror and the troubled economy, deserve much closer attention....."
Bob Herbert/NY Times
..instead, on our TV screens, we are fed propped-up propaganda laced with Laci and cobbled up with Kobe. To boot, we get all that serious-sounding pumped-up epic-style music behind the repetitive 'slogan du jour' in big important-looking graphics.
The truth would make us too angry, so FOX, CNN, and MSNBC transmit the nearly-meaningless old fluff-n-hype 24/7.
FROM LE CIRQUE DU FLUFF-N-HYPE:
Spread it, baby.....
___________________
0
0
0
*Northeastern U.S. 8-14-03*
*don't forget about us*
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From the speech: "We Stand Our Ground" by William Rivers Pitt:
"....If the American people fully knew what this war in Iraq was really about, if they fully knew what it means today to be a soldier in that part of the world, they would tear the White House apart brick by brick. If the people had but a taste of the horror and the lies, they would repudiate this administration and all it stands for. They don't know, because they have been fed a glutton's diet of misinformation and fraud. Changing that is why we are here...."
".... You will note that I did not name George W. Bush, for blaming Bush for the gross misadministration of this government is like blaming Mickey Mouse when Disney screws up. He is not in charge. Truman said "The buck stops here," and so we point to Bush as a symbol of all that has gone wrong. But he is not in charge. These other men, these New American Century men, have delivered us to this wretched estate, and by God in Heaven, there will be a reckoning for it....."
Quotes from William Rivers Pitt
*From a soldier's letter:
"... While the Army did a great in winning the war, what is not being covered is how broke the Army logistics system is and the damage it is doing to the long term readiness and moral of the Army. The Army seems to have this NTC rotation mentality, which consists of fuck it live in the dirt and filth you only have to be here for a month. That works at NTC, but it seems no one has thought of how to sustain an Army in the field for weeks and months at a time...."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Paul Krugman wrote in one of his columns this week (entitled Thanks For The MREs):
"......Letters published in Stars and Stripes and e-mail published on the Web site of Col. David Hackworth (a decorated veteran and Pentagon critic) describe shortages of water. One writer reported that in his unit, "each soldier is limited to two 1.5-liter bottles a day," and that inadequate water rations were leading to "heat casualties." An American soldier died of heat stroke on Saturday; are poor supply and living conditions one reason why U.S. troops in Iraq are suffering such a high rate of noncombat deaths?
The U.S. military has always had superb logistics. What happened? The answer is a mix of penny-pinching and privatization — which makes our soldiers' discomfort a symptom of something more general.
Colonel Hackworth blames "dilettantes in the Pentagon" who "thought they could run a war and an occupation on the cheap." But the cheapness isn't restricted to Iraq. In general, the "support our troops" crowd draws the line when that support might actually cost something.
The usually conservative Army Times has run blistering editorials on this subject. Its June 30 blast, titled "Nothing but Lip Service," begins: "In recent months, President Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress have missed no opportunity to heap richly deserved praise on the military. But talk is cheap — and getting cheaper by the day, judging from the nickel-and-dime treatment the troops are getting lately." The article goes on to detail a series of promises broken and benefits cut...."
ALSO-SEE: "Some Of Army's Civilian Contractors Are No-Shows In Iraq"
I found this blog entry by Demosthenes to be very interesting.
Excerpt:
"....Thus, 2004. If Dean gets the nomination, or even if he doesn't, there will be an army of politically activated, angry, and nearly fanatical Democrats with a single goal: get the pretender off the throne. There will also be an army of political activated, desperate, and nearly fanatical Republicans with a single goal: keep their man around for that all-important second term. They already loathe each other: the former believes the latter to be psychotic and megalomanaical warmongers and profiteers, and the latter believes the former to be treasonous socialists who want America to die in flames. Appeals to bi-partisan consensus will likely be offered by the Republicans, who will have both 2002 and Grover Norquist's "Bi-partisanship is date rape" line thrown back in their faces. The media will focus less on the rhetoric, and more on the war. Civility is out the window; Republican calls for it will likely be quickly rebutted as well by the "Bourgeous riot" of 2000, where the Republicans proved that they have little taste for civility where it doesn't benefit them. Dirty tricks are out of bound only insofar as they might be found out....."
HOW SAD
*and out of touch*
Establishment Washington Post is the most current apologist for the liar BUSH's war... virtually endorsing the Loserman..the most-booed candidate by members of his own party:
"....He's {Al Gore's} not the only Democrat who thinks he can have it both ways, pandering to anti-Bush passion while protecting his national-security flank. .......
Sen. Joe Lieberman has found plenty to criticize in the Bush administration foreign policy without abandoning his longstanding support of American strength and democracy promotion. It's an honorable position, and one that doesn't depend on portraying everyone else as poor saps duped by wizardly Bush propaganda...."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39381-2003Aug9.html
Wizardly Bush propaganda? How about incredibly misinformed and gullible Americans?
Has the Washington Post forgotten this?
I certainly haven't!
Many Misinformed About Iraq, Sept. 11 Attacks
June 15, 2003:
"...A third of the American public believes U.S. forces found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, according to a recent poll. And 22 percent said Iraq actually used chemical or biological weapons. Before the war, half of those polled in a survey said Iraqis were among the 19 hijackers on Sept. 11, 2001....."
...Meanwhile, George ("I once took the blame--along with everyone else but Bush") Tenet, smelly and filthy from the Iraq-war lead-up, is allowed four Washington Post pages to try to regain his dignity and reputation:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35443-2003Aug8.html
Check Out MadKane's latest Song Parody
"Yellow Bush of Texas"
Excerpt:
"Dubya keeps the money flowing, fund raising from the right.
They pay big bucks to see him, though Dubya's not too bright.
They know that he'll remember where he got those piles of dough.
A promise of returns so great, their wealth will quickly grow..."
Head of Va. Republican Party accepts responsibility for charge, will serve 2 years probation
GOP chairman pleads guilty, quits
What Separates Him from the Others in today's GOP?
THE STUPID BASTARD GOT CAUGHT!!!
Bush Can't Lay Out a Decent Economic Plan,
but.. ..Damn..
He's Sho Nuff Gonna Have One Bang-Up Detailed Layout for Armageddon.
Wooo Hooo!
http://www.msnbc.com/news/943879.asp?cp1=1
"...Apocalyptic preacher Jack Van Impe is claiming that he was contacted by Condoleezza Rice’s office and the White House Office of Public Liaison for an “outline” of his take on world events. ...He has predicted that the end of the world will strike somewhere between 2003 and 2012..."
'..“I was contacted a few weeks ago by the Office of Public Liaison for the White House and by the National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice to make an outline. And I’ve spent hours preparing it. I will release this information to the public in September, but it’s in his hands. He will know exactly what is going to happen in the Middle East and what part he will have under the leading of the Holy Spirit of God. So, it’s a tremendous time to be alive....” Jack Van Impe
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Sin of Pride
Vision Thing: A scholar wonders if Bush has the humility to see the nuance of this conflict
By Martin E. Marty
"...Christian theologians are wary when Bush uses the words of Jesus to draw neat lines and challenge the whole rest of the world: if you are not for us, or with us, you are against us. Without question, belief in American democracy as one of God’s blessings is part of the move against Iraq. But, as theologians in a number of faiths remind us, the demonization of the enemy—an “us and them” mentality—can inhibit self-examination and repentant action, critical components of any faith...."
The Dean factor
Critics say the former Vermont governor is taking his party too far to the left, but is he?
Column in its entirety:
First published: Thursday, August 7, 2003
This is a summer of navel gazing for the Democrats. The party that's out of power, and some would even say out of fresh ideas for regaining it, nonetheless seems to be on a mission to reclaim the political center. It's a smart enough strategy, except for the ensuing uncertainty over just where the center is these days. The navel gazers might be startled to see that dead center has moved much closer to the right flank. The old center strikes some in the party as too far to the left.
Nothing illustrates this better than the presidential campaign of former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, a sort of insurgency effort that's catching fire just as many Democrats who profess to know better had figured his 15 minutes of political notoriety would be over.
Mr. Dean has dared to be among the harsher critics of President Bush on two of the overriding issues of his presidency -- a relentless push for tax cuts and the not-quite-resolved war in Iraq. For that, he's cast as an early 21st century George McGovern, who prevailed over the old guard Democrats in an especially bitter primary campaign and went on to get trounced by President Nixon. Of course, that was in 1972, when Mr. Dean was barely out of Yale and years before he entered politics himself.
Mr. McGovern was on the losing end, ultimately, of nothing less than a political culture war. But it's hard to see how and where Mr. Dean is taking a similarly hard-line stand.
Is his opposition to the Iraq war, fought under circumstances that may yet be the subject of an inquiry by the Republican-controlled Congress, really a guarantee of another landslide defeat for the Democrats, as rival presidential candidate Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, among others, suggests?
If that assertion is premature, an even greater stretch would seem to be the assertion by Mr. Lieberman that Mr. Dean's call for repeal of all $1.7 trillion of Mr. Bush's tax cuts is another recipe for electoral disaster.
Mr. Lieberman says that amounts to a tax increase on the middle class. But didn't President Clinton, whose "third way" politics Mr. Lieberman seems so eager to emulate, raise taxes on the middle class, too? Why could Mr. Clinton get away with that -- literally so, in his case -- in the name of reducing the federal budget deficit? Why is it that Mr. Dean's determination to do away with tax cuts tilted toward the rich, and in the name of cutting a much bigger budget deficit, amounts to radical politics?
Has the political center shifted that much in less than a decade?
Oh, and then there are Mr. Dean's positions on gun control (he'd leave that to the states, mostly, and to the subsequent relief of the National Rifle Association) and the death penalty (he used to be against it, but now he's for it).
And he's too far to the left for the Democrats' best interests?
Somewhere in Mr. Bush's White House, in as right-leaning an administration as this country has had in a very long time, someone is having a good, long laugh.
An Unthinkable-But-True Anniversary: Remembering Hiroshima and Nagasaki
The Living Myths About Nuclear Murder
Hiroshima remembers horror in silence
"...tens of thousands of young Japanese fold origami cranes ever year in memory of a girl named Sadako. She suffered radiation sickness and believed that folding 1,000 cranes would make her well, but died before her task ended...."
Heed the lessons of Hiroshima, Nagasaki
By LAWRENCE S. WITTNER
Albany Times Union Aug 6, 2003
Excerpt:
"....It is this record of progress toward taming the nuclear menace that makes the Bush administration's nuclear policies so alarming. The President has withdrawn the United States from the ABM treaty, opposed U.S. Senate ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and -- by embarking on the building of a National Missile Defense (i.e. Star Wars) system -- has rendered the START II treaty defunct. Furthermore, the Bush administration is promoting plans for a resumption of U.S. nuclear testing and for the development of new nuclear weapons -- weapons that it hopes will be more practical than the larger variety, now effectively stigmatized by world opinion.
This break with the nuclear arms control and disarmament policies of the past will certainly magnify nuclear dangers. The Nonproliferation Treaty, after all, is based upon a bargain. The non-nuclear powers agreed to forgo the development of nuclear weapons on the condition that the nuclear powers begin divesting themselves of their nuclear arsenals. The result, over time, would be a nuclear-free world. If the Bush administration breaks this bargain, many non-nuclear powers seem likely to go nuclear. Also, the other nuclear powers may well throw off their previous restraint. Furthermore, with more nuclear weapons available, terrorist groups will find it easier to obtain them.
The Bush administration has good reason to be concerned about the dangers of weapons of mass destruction. Surely every sensible person is. But these U.S. government officials do not seem to realize that, through arms control and disarmament policies, we have developed an effective way to address the challenge of the nuclear age. Scrapping it is reckless and foolhardy."
IS TO 
IS TO 
