Internet muse.
Daring, bold, never sold.
My daily weblog of politics, humor, philosophy...and a constant and nagging reminder of the existence of universal love....
Tuesday, June 01, 2004
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 andNucularNuclear programmes smack dab in the middle)
[LINK-Independent UK]
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
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]
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]
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.”
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:
(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]
[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]]
And Why It Matters to Marketers
From: AdAge.com
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.
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]
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.
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]
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:
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]
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]
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]
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]
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
#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?"
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
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
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:
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:
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
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]
"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]
"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]
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]
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)