Thursday, March 20, 2003

Germany…Japan… Iraq?!? The notion that we are going to install a genuine democratic regime in Iraq is apparently a powerful one for anyone who wants to excuse the pathetic, bumbling and deeply embarrassing descent in to the sort of unilateralism that we used to condemn in our enemies.   Is there any merit to the case? Josh Marshall, here and expanded upon here makes an observation that our ability to transform militaristic societies like Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan hinged upon the utter defeat and absolute terror visited upon the civilian populations through massive aerial bombardment.   For example, in the Hill article he states:   Violence, death and destruction on such a massive scale have a profound conditioning effect on the psyches of individuals. And the same applies to whole nations. Japan and Germany weren’t just ‘defeated’ or ‘occupied,’ they were crushed — not just their armies, but their civilian populations too. This led to a sort of national humiliation and a transformative willingness to embrace defeat and change.   I think that nothing could be further from the truth. If we want to seek the difference between what happened in Germany, Japan and what might unfold in Iraq, I think we need to examine more closely the political situation of each nation and the world political environment in which these situations find their context.   A key difference - perhaps the key difference – lies in the alternatives open to the subject populations. In the case of Germany and Japan, both were eager to surrender – if surrender they must – to the US and western powers because the very real alternative was Stalin’s USSR. We benefited from Stalin’s “bad cop” behavior – making us the “good cop” - and hence far more likely to benefit from civilian cooperation.   A second factor that Marshall overlooks is the nature of the wars and the propaganda that helped to sustain the war efforts. In both Germany and Japan myths of racial and cultural superiority were deliberately promoted as both means for explaining the necessity of war (to put down the untermenschen) and as a guarantee of ultimate success. If any psychological shattering took place I would suggest that Marshall take into account the cognitive dissonance introduced by the superior race being defeated by the debased, mongrelized, uncultured Americans.   The psychological toll of defeat – total as it was - would not have been as potent had it not been for the “expectations” built up by an ideology of superiority and ultimate success. In contrast no one can accuse Iraqis of harboring any illusions concerning their racial, cultural or even military hegemony. Their defeat – even if as total as in the case of Germany or Japan – is all but expected and hence should not be expected to produce the sort of psychological traumatization that shakes the very foundations of the core beliefs that anchored Iraqi society. There will be psychological trauma to be sure, but of the sort experienced by any people undergoing such an horrific experience, not the type to lead them to question bedrock notions of their identity.   Third and finally, we must remember that in WWII we had assembled a coalition of forces determined to bring about the destruction of the axis regimes and implement a thorough reorganization of the subject societies on the basis of principles devised and agreed to bringing about a new international order subject to international norms and laws (if not always honored in the breach). The promise of this was still young and fresh and departures from such promise could almost always be attributed to the “bad cop.” In contrast, today’s “Dubya-Dubya III” is the result of a unilateral act that smacks suspiciously of wanton self-interest (both in terms of oil and domestic politics) contradicted in points of fact by the examples of North Korea and - much more importantly in the case of the Iraqi people and Muslims generally - Israel.   The subject populations of Germany and Japan could look upon the benevolence of the victors as a good faith effort to build a better world system in opposition to the aggression that even ordinary Germans and Japanese would have to acknowledge were part and parcel of the previous regimes’ propaganda. No such promise exists for the Iraqis – they instead presented with either blatantly false declarations concerning Iraqi culpability for 9/11 or claims of failure to heed UN directives to disarm.  The former is self-defeating and only intended for US domestic consumption, the same may be said for the latter except that it is also inflammatory insofar as every Iraqi can contrast US behavior in the case of Iraq with the three decades of intransigence on the part of Israel in the face of UN directives to evacuate the occupied territories.   So there we have three reasons why victory in Iraq will not produce the relative docility we encountered at the end of WWII. None of them is dependent upon “shock and awe” but rather on the subject population’s perceptions of the intentions of the victors. In the case of WWII the mere fact of defeat was mortal blow to the enabling mythology of the defeated people, the post-war conventions provided a measure of optimism for a world order of equal nations – instead of the rapaciousness of victor and vanquished that characterized Versailles, and the USSR provided a negative incentive to get on board.   In marked contrast the current political climate seems to signal a return to the “law of the jungle” that characterized the world prior to FDR’s endless labors on behalf of the alliances and institutions that have subsequently ensured US influence and predominance in world affairs. This is underscored not only by the designs upon the oil of Iraq but also the double-standard that Moslems (and others) perceive in US policy in the case of Israel.   Nor would defeat represent a novel, shattering experience for the peoples of the Middle East. One more defeat at the hands of “colonizing” powers is not likely to "shake the confidence" of those who have experience little else over the course of the past half century. If any thing it will strengthen the hand of those – like bin Laden – who claim that nothing short of a single-minded jihad will restore the ancient dignity and respect once accorded Islamic nations.   Finally, with regard to “good cop – bad cop” what else has the US become but a “bad cop” addicted to oil, who turns a blind eye on certain illegal behavior (Israel’s occupation) and when trouble brews at home “rounds up the usual suspects”? The idea that a populace freed of the constraints of dictatorship will all of a sudden rally to the side of what in their view is only the latest in a long line of overlords is more than a bit romantic. You’ve all seen the polls of our current reputation in counties predisposed to like us…  what do your really think the sentiment will be in Iraq once the fear of immediate vaporization is over?   There will be no “uncle Stalin” looming over the horizon to cow those who are suffering, miserable, having lost loved ones, all in order to “get Saddam.” A Yankee overlord or a local tyrant – all will seem as one to many, except that the Yankee represents a hated adversary who kills by remote control and defiles the holy sites of Islam either directly (in Saudi Arabia) or by proxy (in Palestine). Who do you think they are going to side with? Democracy will not be an option because it would allow Iraqis to vent the very frustrations and hatreds that we have done so much to exacerbate. So when it comes down to a US “puppet regime” propped up through arms and torture (basically like the Shah) or an authoritarian but indigenous alternative – who do you think the people will flock too? 4:13:46 PM

Dems never tire of playing patsies… When will these idiots learn that the only way to confront a sand-box bully like bush is head on? Hoping for the war to get over to talk about domestic issues didn’t work in ’02 and won’t in ’04. Simply sticking your head in the sand will win you no friends. The critique of world opinion has softened Bush up, now is the time to press home the advantage. That minority of the electorate that cannot hold two thoughts in their heads at the same time (against unilateral war, for troops) were not going to vote for the Dems anyway. No is the time to win over the hearts and minds of independents. But to do so you have to attack the resident – not give him a pass.   What a bunch of frustrating idiots! I was hoping Dean might be better but I guess even he doesn’t have the stomach for the street-fighting that will characterize ’04. Presidential Hopefuls Line Up Behind War The Democratic campaigns are just beginning to grapple with the longer-term question of how to reformulate their broader critique of Bush's foreign policy By Ronald Brownstein, Times Staff Writer WASHINGTON -- The leading contenders for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2004 all quickly lined up behind President Bush's decision to invade Iraq, with even former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean backing away from earlier plans to continue criticizing the war after the shooting began. But the Democratic campaigns are just beginning to grapple with the longer-term question of how to reformulate their broader critique of Bush's foreign policy in light of the war that has just begun. In rapid fire, all of the top contenders for the nomination released statements Wednesday and today backing Bush as he ordered the first attacks on Iraq. The most emphatic support came from Senators Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut and John Edwards of North Carolina. "This is a task of high justice, necessity and idealism in the best tradition of American principles and patriotism," said Lieberman. In backing the attack, Edwards seemed to subtly distance himself from Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD), who charged Monday the nation had been "forced to war" because Bush had "failed so miserably at diplomacy." "Make no mistake," Edwards said, "Saddam Hussein alone has chosen war over peace. He has defied international law rather than disarm his weapons of mass destruction." Rep. Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.), another consistent supporter of Bush on Iraq, struck a slightly more equivocal note. "I wish that it didn't come to this; nobody wishes for war," Gephardt said. "But we must face the challenge of terrorism head on..." Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass) has long appeared the most ambivalent about the war among the leading Democrats: although he voted last fall for the resolution authorizing Bush to use force, Kerry has repeatedly urged Bush to delay an attack in the hope of attracting wider international backing. On Monday, after Bush announced he was abandoning efforts at a diplomatic solution, Kerry charged the president had "botched the diplomacy" and "clumsily and arrogantly" alienated potential allies. But once the attack began, Kerry issued a statement of strong support. "For America now, the only exit strategy is victory," Kerry said today. "This is our common mission and the world's cause." Even Dean, the leading opponent of the war among the top-tier Democratic candidates, joined that chorus. Dean's intense opposition to the war has jump-started his campaign, winning him loud applause at gatherings of Democratic activists from Sacramento to Washington D.C. On Monday Dean turned heads by announcing in New Hampshire that he would continue to denounce the war even after it starts. But in a Washington speech to a group of newspaper editors today, Dean said, "When the troops are in the field, they are all our kids, they are all our grandchildren....this is not the time to beat up the president on the war." In an interview after the speech, Dean said he would continue to express his belief that the war was "a foreign policy blunder." But he said that he found that after Monday's speech he felt "uncomfortable" offering his usual pointed critique of the war because he believed such criticism could be interpreted abroad as a lack of American resolve. In addition, now that Bush had committed the troops, Dean said he believed the United States had "to finish" the mission it had begun to remove Hussein. "We hope [the troops] come home as fast as they can," Dean said. "But now that we've started we can't stop...we certainly can't pull the troops out." Dean did offer one partisan twist in his remarks. Reacting to Republican attacks on Daschle's comments, Dean said that if Democrats are expected to shelve criticism of Bush's foreign policy during the war, the Republican majority in Congress should "not try to use the war as cover" for passing legislation that sharply divides the parties, such as the administration's proposed tax cut. Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), a long-shot 2004 hopeful, broke from the pack with a statement denouncing the war as "unjustified" and a violation of both the constitution and international law. The general Democratic endorsement of Bush's decision follows the tradition of rallying to the commander-in-chief at the outset of hostilities. But aides to several of the campaigns said that once the war concludes, they expect to resume their broader indictment of Bush's foreign policy. All of the leading contenders have converged around a charge that Bush has unnecessarily isolated America in the world and alienated traditional allies in ways that could ultimately endanger national security. Republicans think it may be tougher to make that case if war goes smoothly even after Bush was unable to win authorization from the United Nations, and some Democrats privately agree. But the Democratic campaigns insist the critique will remain relevant no matter what happens in Iraq. "If it goes well, it is harder to make the argument that we needed the support of our allies to acquit ourselves well in Iraq," says an aide to one Democratic contender who has backed the war. "But that doesn't mean voters won't feel we are safer in general with more support from our allies."   2:20:47 PM

Idiocy of the Day Some times you don’t even need to comment on a story – it’s foolishness speaks for itself.   A free speech award given to someone who doesn’t ever permit radio or TV coverage (after all, they didn’t have either back in 1789 when the 1st amendment was drafted…).   Never mind that he doesn’t believe that “free speech” extends beyond the narrow bounds of “strictly political speech”… whatever he interprtets that to mean.   Some 'Mystified' by Award to Scalia for Free Speech Law experts say the justice, who controls media access to his talks, has a mixed record. By David G. Savage, Times Staff Writer WASHINGTON -- Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was lauded by a Cleveland club Wednesday as a champion of free speech. But before he spoke to the lunch crowd on his views of the U.S. Constitution, he insisted that television and radio reporters leave the room. The City Club of Cleveland gives its annual Citadel of Free Speech award to a "distinguished American" who has contributed significantly to "the preservation of the 1st Amendment." This year's award cited Scalia's 1989 vote in a 5-4 ruling that struck down the laws against flag-burning and his 1992 opinion that struck down a city law against cross-burning. Scalia is the most talkative, but least seen, of the nine Supreme Court justices. Although he speaks often at law schools and other venues, he refuses to allow TV or audio recordings. If an organization refuses to go along with his demand, Scalia refuses to appear. "I understand the irony, but the fact is we made the agreement," said James H. Foster, executive director of the City Club of Cleveland. "I think the award was appropriate. He's been consistent." Foster also was struck by the irony of having TV reporters and camera crews converge on the luncheon. "Usually, I'm trying to get them to cover our speakers, but the news directors say, 'We have a big accident on the interstate to cover,' " he said. Although the cable network C-SPAN regularly broadcasts speeches by top government officials, Scalia has proved a constant frustration. "Every time we ask, the answer is always no. And there is never an explanation," said vice president Terry Murphy. "We don't have this problem with any other Supreme Court justice. We have even covered panel discussions and the screen goes blank when he begins to speak." Scalia's exclusionary rule doesn't apply to print reporters. While free-speech experts weren't surprised to hear he had banned TV cameras, some said they were surprised to hear he'd won a 1st Amendment award. "I'm mystified by that. He is not a person I would consider to be champion of free expression," said Jane Kirtley, a University of Minnesota law professor. "He has a mixed record," said professor Robert M. O'Neil, who heads the Thomas Jefferson Center for Free Expression at the University of Virginia. Scalia has voted to strike down limits on campaign contributions, but to uphold a ban on doctors in federal clinics from advising patients about abortion, he said. Last year, Scalia dissented when the court struck down a law against computer-generated child pornography. He also wrote a ruling for a 5-4 majority that struck down state bans on judges taking stands on issues during election campaigns. In the case before the court, a Republican candidate for the Minnesota Supreme Court had been sanctioned for proclaiming his antiabortion views. "He is in the middle of the pack on the current court on free-speech issues," said UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh, who tracks voting patterns. "If I had to name a justice who broadly supports protection for speech, I would say Justice [Anthony M.] Kennedy, and then Justices [David H.] Souter and [Clarence] Thomas," he said. "With Scalia, it's a matter of expectations," he added. Scalia, he said, benefits from the assumption that conservatives will vote against free speech. During Wednesday's luncheon, Scalia spoke about one of his favorite topics: "originalism" -- his belief that the Constitution should be interpreted based on its original meaning in 1787. He delivers the same speech over and over. But, as he has told friends, it remains fresh for those who have not seen it on TV.   2:10:35 PM

Just a taste… …of the humor available at tbogg that may help you get through these troubled times…. Check it out.   Sense of entitlement You've got to hand it to the Bush Administration; America is their playpen and they want all the toys. And the odd bagel. Here's hapless, over-his-head Tommy Thompson stealing food and newspapers on an airplane:   NPR's "On the Media" co-host Bob Garfield -- on his way to New York last Thursday morning to promote his book "And Now a Few Words From Me" -- stowed his bagel and newspaper on a front-row seat on the Delta Shuttle before walking back to confer with another passenger, former assistant secretary of state Charlotte Beers.   When he returned, Garfield told us, he was irked to discover that both the paper and the bagel were missing.   "If I find the person who took my bagel, I'll kill the SOB!" the media critic announced to a man sitting behind him -- a grim-looking, gray-suited, beefy type who, Garfield belatedly realized, was wearing a wire in his ear and protecting the gentleman sitting across the aisle -- the man who was, in fact, reading Garfield's newspaper and holding Garfield's bagel.   Namely, Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson.   It turns out that Thompson's traveling aide had assumed the bagel and paper were meant for his boss -- who's on a diet and isn't eating bagels these days anyway. When Garfield told Thompson the items were his, they were immediately surrendered.   "I guess you can never have too many newspapers," Garfield said. "Oh yes, you can," Thompson muttered.   Yesterday Thompson spokesman Tony Jewell said the mix-up was the unidentified aide's, not the secretary's. Jewell added: "At a time when the nation has more important things going on than Mr. Garfield's bagel, this is obviously another example of why some people are fed up with certain members of the media. Maybe this is a subject Mr. Garfield can carefully examine on his show."   For those keeping score at home, this incident involved Thompson, his bodyguard, his spokesman, and an aide who's responsible for procuring newspapers and snacks for Tommy, as well as presumably cutting his meat for him.   Hope it's not the same guy who shakes his dick for him after he pees.   posted by Tom at 11:32 AM   1:55:13 PM

This guy can forget a gig on CNN But he actually reports the news, not some sanitized version to preserve his career possibilities like so many of the media-celebs that he discusses in the worthwhile article below   (thanks to Atrios)   Bush can wage war, but if CNN does so, news balance suffers 03/19/03 Bush can wage war, but if CNN does so, news balance suffers Carlin: Chung and Dobbs skew coverage to pro-war Leading his nation to the threshold of war Monday night, President Bush spoke with the stern righteousness of an angry minister.   His brow puckered thoughtfully. His eyes glinted like steel. When he referred to dissenters in the United Nations ("some members of the Security Council"), his voice curdled with quiet contempt.   This is war. This is the commander-in-chief.   You might support the war in Iraq. You might believe there's a better way to disarm or displace Saddam Hussein. Patriots of all political stripes have debated -- and will continue to debate -- the complex tangle of threats, promises, brinksmanship and alliances leading up to the conflict.   Just don't expect to hear much of it on the cable news channels. CNN's coverage has tilted noticeably toward the war in the last few weeks, both in the monochromatic opinions of the majority of its guests and in the unabashed advocacy from some of its own anchors and correspondents.   After Bush's speech Monday night, the sole dissenter on the "Larry King Live" studio panel, Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., was tag-teamed by three Republican colleagues, all of whom took turns advancing the president's position. A panel of ex-senators discussing the issue a week earlier was divided 60/40 in favor of the president's party.   Also last week, the always-daffy Connie Chung brought out Iraqi expatriate Zainab Al-Suwajj to explain why Iraqi citizens support the U.S. efforts to liberate them from Saddam Hussein. Not that Al-Suwajj will be dodging bombs herself -- she has lived in the United States since the early '90s, and now works as the executive director of the American Islamic Congress. But that fact didn't stop Chung from citing her guest as an authoritative voice from the streets of Iraq.   "If they want to be liberated, then a United States invasion is warranted," Chung proposed to the antiwar activist she had booked for a balancing perspective. He turned out to be the irritatingly pious actor/activist Tim Robbins.   But when it comes to full-throttle violation of the traditional lines dividing news from commentary, it was impossible to eclipse the efforts of "Moneyline" host Lou Dobbs. Now, Dobbs usually does an editorial segment near the end of his daily show. The piece comes as it should, separated in look and tone from his usual reportage, with a prominent "commentary" heading on the screen. It's worth checking out. Dobbs is a smart guy, and his arguments about the problems with the United Nations and the virtues of the current administration are thoughtful and thought-provoking.   Dobbs' sentiments are harder to take, however, when he's supposed to be presenting a balanced look at news.   Dobbs was particularly egregious last week, when he hosted Darryl Worley, the country musician whose song "Have You Forgotten" proposes that the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, give the nation plenty of justification for the coming war.   And while it's one thing for Dobbs to congratulate Worley for his "wonderful" song and its "compelling" and "powerful" lyrics, it's something else altogether for him to accompany Worley's performance of the tune with a video montage coupling the horrors of Sept. 11 with shots of American soldiers preparing for battle.   Viewed together, scant moments after Dobbs' fiery editorial denouncing the United Nations' attempt to rein in the United States, the images are nothing short of incendiary. Is Dobbs -- and CNN -- actually proposing that Iraq was responsible for the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon? The Bush administration is not arguing that assertion as fact.   Neither is Dobbs, as it turns out.   Reached moments after his show ended last week, the "Moneyline" host said, rather disingenuously, that he hadn't meant to connect Sept. 11 with the war in Iraq. "Do I think Saddam had something to do with Sept. 11? Not at all. Do I think he supports terror? Yes, I do."   Worley's song, he added, "is a pro-military song. It's about support of the U.S. military and the war against terror. Is it a problem?"   Of course not. "Have You Forgotten" falls into the rich tradition of American folk songs, many of which have described the heroism and sacrifice of the nation's soldiers.   The problem is Dobbs. If he wants to advance a particular philosophy, he's more than welcome to run his "commentary" sign on the screen and say what's on his mind. But using powerful, disturbing images to leverage a partisan position about a prospective war in Iraq -- in the course of what is supposed to be a news program -- reveals a dismaying lapse in news judgment.   Dobbs should know better. And if he doesn't, someone at CNN should.   In, one hopes, an unrelated note: If past trends are any indication, CNN and all the other cable news channels will enjoy a massive bounce in viewership when the shooting starts. Hence the new sets, the fresh graphics and freshly minted teams of military consultants.   Peter Ames Carlin: 503-221-8562; petercarlin@news.oregonian.com   1:33:47 PM

Dump on Daschle – and American Liberties That’s what the GOP is doing now and would have you do - all for exercising his rights as an American and speaking the truth concerning the current situation.   "I'm saddened, saddened that this president failed so miserably at diplomacy that we're now forced to war," Daschle told a convention of firefighters Monday, the day Bush concluded that the time for diplomacy had run out. "Saddened that we have to give up one life because this president couldn't create the kind of diplomatic effort that was so critical."   USA Today smartly notes that nothing Daschle has said compares to the complaints and innuendo that the GOP heaped upon Clinton during the Kosovo crisis:   Most of the Democratic complaints about Bush and Iraq echo Republican critiques of President Clinton when he led a NATO coalition to bomb Serbia in 1999:   ·                   "This conflict and the resulting thousands of casualties could have been avoided had this administration exercised stronger leadership in the diplomatic realm," Rep. Cliff Stearns of Florida told the Ledger in Lakeland, Fla., shortly before the NATO campaign led to a cease-fire.   ·                   The president needs to "better explain the goals, the costs and the long-term strategy of why we are here," House Speaker Dennis Hastert said in April 1999.   ·                   Just before Clinton went ahead with the military action, one senator said he had reservations because it was the first time NATO would be attacking a sovereign state, the bombing would proceed "without a clear United Nations mandate," and Clinton hadn't sufficiently explained his post-war plans. "Can we accomplish achievable results? What are our real commitments long-term" asked the senator, Bill Frist. He's now majority leader.   Kathleen Hall Jamieson, dean of the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania, says Daschle's criticism was not as damning as some Republicans' suggestions that Clinton was trying to divert attention from his Monica Lewinsky woes. "No one is suggesting that Bush isn't doing what he thinks is best for the country," she says.   The appearance of a double-standard or hypocrisy hasn’t stopped the GOP personal destruction machine from attempting to silence Daschle.   But this is about more that Tom Daschle, it is about cowing and browbeating all Americans into obedience and submission by equating a critique of the current regime’s ineptitude or poor policy. How else explain rhetoric like the following:   "Those comments may not undermine the president as he leads us into war, and they may not give comfort to our adversaries, but they come mighty close," [Republican speaker of the House of Representatives] Hastert said.   Of course the ultimate irony – as it so often is with the GOPers – is that (as Josh Marshall notes) Daschle is a Vietnam vet who put his life on the line for the county he loves whereas Hastert – who has the temerity to question Daschle’s patriotism - somehow never managed to serve his country during that conflict.   1:24:01 PM

Now for a little humor… …unfortunately it is very little :^(   (thanks to DailyKos)   More Bush success in his War on the Economy If Bush's Iraq war goes as well as his War on the Economy, we're in for an easy ride.   In yet another stunning victory for Bush and his economic team, first-time jobless claims remained above the magic 400,000 mark for the fifth straight week. In the week of March 15, 421,000 lost their jobs. Even better news for Bush (and bad news for his enemy -- the American working people) was the more salient 4-week moving average.   Initial claims for state unemployment insurance benefits have now remained above the key 400,000 watermark -- a level that economists consider the sign of a beleaguered jobs market -- for five straight weeks.   The closely watched four-week moving average -- a more reliable barometer of employment market trends -- rose for the seventh consecutive week to 424,750 from 421,000 in the previous week and to its highest since measuring 429,500 in the May 4, 2002 week. Bush is confident he can continue to fight this three-front war: against Al Qaeda and the Taliban, against Iraq, and against the nation's economy. 11:01:01 AM

The Logic of War Why are the Iraqis blowing up oil wells? There is a lot more to it than simply spite. DailyKos puts it into perspective below:     Iraqis start blowing oil wells   Iraq has supposedly begun blowing oil wells, with at least three reported burning near Basra. The press is playing this as economic sabotage from a spiteful Saddam, but there are military reasons for blowing the wells.   The black smoke and soot hamper visibility from the air, making it more difficult to target defenders on the ground. Laser-guided munitions cannot follow their laser-pinpointed target through the haze. This would theoretically allow Iraqi forces to put up a stiffer defense on the ground. I doubt that will happen, especially since the Republican Guards -- the guys who will most likely put up a fight, have been pulled back into Baghdad. Rather, Iraqi saboteurs will likely be able to better harrass US troops and our supply lines under cover of the smoke, relatively protected from air attack.   US forces will also be traveling north to Baghdad. One of the side-effects of the botched Turkey deal was the need to channel the entire invasion through Kuwait. The burning oil wells will provide challenges to those troops, forcing them to travel through the choking, burning smoke. Those troops will face long- and short-term health risks from inhaling the smoke. Indeed, the burning oil wells in Kuwait are a a prime suspected cause of Gulf War Syndrome, which has afflicted tens of thousands of Gulf War I vets and killed thousands. Shorter term, the smoke can aggravate or inflict respiratory ailments on our soldiers.   And of course, having to trudge through this apocalyptic inferno on their way to Baghdad won't do wonders on morale.   But the biggest benefit for Iraq? It will slow down the US march north, and the entire Iraqi defense strategy is predicated on this very simple goal -- slow the Americans at all costs. Drag out the war. Bog them down. Threaten their single logistical supply line. And there's no doubt that polluting that supply line north with choking, polluting smoke is a relatively easy way to slow any invading army.   Blowing the oil wells is the logical first step. 10:58:04 AM

War on Terror Kaput? That seems to be the prevailing sentiment among the intelligence professionals. They are demoralized, depressed and downright dumbfounded at the dismantling of the war on terror in favor of the “splendid little war” in Iraq   Thanks to Monkey for the link Top White House anti-terror boss resigns By P. Mitchell Prothero UNITED PRESS INTERNATIONAL      WASHINGTON, March 19 (UPI) -- The top National Security Council official in the war on terror resigned this week for what a NSC spokesman said were personal reasons, but intelligence sources say the move reflects concern that the looming war with Iraq is hurting the fight against terrorism.      Rand Beers would not comment for this article, but he and several sources close to him are emphatic that the resignation was not a protest against an invasion of Iraq. But the same sources, and other current and former intelligence officials, described a broad consensus in the anti-terrorism and intelligence community that an invasion of Iraq would divert critical resources from the war on terror.      Beers has served as the NSC's senior director for counter-terrorism only since August. The White House said Wednesday that he officially remains on the job and has yet to set a departure date.      "Hardly a surprise," said one former intelligence official. "We have sacrificed a war on terror for a war with Iraq. I don't blame Randy at all. This just reflects the widespread thought that the war on terror is being set aside for the war with Iraq at the expense of our military and intel resources and the relationships with our allies."      A Senate Intelligence Committee staffer familiar with the resignation agreed that it was not a protest against the war against Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein but confirmed that frustration is widespread in the anti-terror establishment and played a part in Beers' decision.      "Randy said that he was 'just tired' and did not have an interest in adding the stress that would come with a war with Iraq," the source said.      The source said that the concern by the administration about low morale in the intelligence community led national security adviser Condoleezza Rice to ask Beers twice during an exit interview whether the resignation was a protest against the war with Iraq. The source said that although Beers insisted it was not, the tone of the interview concerned Rice enough that she felt she had to ask the question twice.      "This is a very intriguing decision (by Beers)," said author and intelligence expert James Bamford. "There is a predominant belief in the intelligence community that an invasion of Iraq will cause more terrorism than it will prevent. There is also a tremendous amount of embarrassment by intelligence professionals that there have been so many lies out of the administration -- by the president, (Vice President Dick) Cheney and (Secretary of State Colin) Powell -- over Iraq."      Bamford cited a recent address by President Bush that cited documents, which allegedly proved Iraq was continuing to pursue a nuclear program, that were later shown to be forgeries.      "It is absurd that the president of the United States mentioned in a speech before the world information from phony documents and no one got fired," Bamford said. "That alone has offended intelligence professionals throughout the services."      But some involved in the fight on terror said that it was dangerous to look too far into one resignation -- particularly from an official who has not blamed the war on Iraq.      "I found his resignation shocking," said one official closely involved in the domestic fight on terror. "And it might reflect a certain frustration over the allocation of resources. But I'm not positive that there's a consensus (among intelligence services) that deposing Saddam's regime is a bad idea for fighting terror. I think that there are serious concerns about resources and alienating allies, but some of us see an upside."      But others point out that the CIA warned Congress last year that an invasion might lead to a rise in terrorism. This, they say, is evidence there's more than just ambivalence about the war among the spy community.      "If it was your job to prevent terror attacks, would you be happy about an action that many see as unnecessary, that is almost guaranteed to cause more terror in the short-term?" said one official. "I know I'm not (happy)."      Beers joined the NSC in August after heading the State Department's International Narcotics and Law Enforcement branch, where he ran the Plan Colombia program to fight narco-traffickers in that country. Beers served both Bush administrations as well as serving in similar capacities with both the Clinton and Reagan administrations.   10:40:43 AM

Senator Robert Byrd:     "The Arrogance of Power"       I believe in this beautiful country.  I have studied its roots and gloried in the wisdom of its magnificent Constitution.  I have marveled at the wisdom of its founders and framers.  Generation after generation of Americans has understood the lofty ideals that underlie our great Republic.  I have been inspired by the story of their sacrifice and their strength.    But, today I weep for my country.  I have watched the events of recent months with a heavy, heavy heart.  No more is the image of America one of strong, yet benevolent peacekeeper.  The image of America has changed.  Around the globe, our friends mistrust us, our word is disputed, our intentions are questioned.    Instead of reasoning with those with whom we disagree, we demand obedience or threaten recrimination.  Instead of isolating Saddam Hussein, we seem to have isolated ourselves.  We proclaim a new doctrine of preemption which is understood by few and feared by many.  We say that the United States has the right to turn its firepower on any corner of the globe which might be suspect in the war on terrorism.  We assert that right without the sanction of any international body.  As a result, the world has become a much more dangerous place.   We flaunt our superpower status with arrogance.  We treat UN Security Council members like ingrates who offend our princely dignity by lifting their heads from the carpet.  Valuable alliances are split.  After war has ended, the United States will have to rebuild much more than the country of Iraq.  We will have to rebuild America's image around the globe.   The case this Administration tries to make to justify its fixation with war is tainted by charges of falsified documents and circumstantial evidence.  We cannot convince the world of the necessity of this war for one simple reason.  This is a war of choice.    There is no credible information to connect Saddam Hussein to 9/11.  The twin towers fell because a world-wide terrorist group, Al Qaeda, with cells in over 60 nations, struck at our wealth and our influence by turning our own planes into missiles, one of which would likely have slammed into the dome of this beautiful Capitol except for the brave sacrifice of the passengers on board.   The brutality seen on September 11th and in other terrorist attacks we have witnessed around the globe are the violent and desperate efforts by extremists to stop the daily encroachment of western values upon their cultures.  That is what we fight.  It is a force not confined to borders.  It is a shadowy entity with many faces, many names, and many addresses.   But, this Administration has directed all of the anger, fear, and grief which emerged from the ashes of the twin towers and the twisted metal of the Pentagon towards a tangible villain, one we can see and hate and attack.  And villain he is.  But, he is the wrong villain.  And this is the wrong war.  If we attack Saddam Hussein, we will probably drive him from power.  But, the zeal of our friends to assist our global war on terrorism may have already taken flight.   The general unease surrounding this war is not just due to "orange alert."  There is a pervasive sense of rush and risk and too many questions unanswered.   How long will we be in Iraq?  What will be the cost?  What is the ultimate mission?  How great is the danger at home?  A pall has fallen over the Senate Chamber.  We avoid our solemn duty to debate the one topic on the minds of all Americans, even while scores of thousands of our sons and daughters faithfully do their duty in Iraq.    What is happening to this country?  When did we become a nation which ignores and berates our friends?  When did we decide to risk undermining international order by adopting a radical and doctrinaire approach to using our awesome military might?  How can we abandon diplomatic efforts when the turmoil in the world cries out for diplomacy? Why can this President not seem to see that America's true power lies not in its will to intimidate, but in its ability to inspire?    War appears inevitable.  But, I continue to hope that the cloud will lift.  Perhaps Saddam will yet turn tail and run.  Perhaps reason will somehow still prevail.  I along with millions of Americans will pray for the safety of our troops, for the innocent civilians in Iraq, and for the security of our homeland.  May God continue to bless the United States of America in the troubled days ahead, and may we somehow recapture the vision which for the present eludes us. 12:57:39 AM

Constitution suspended during red alert How can they do this you ask? Just through a declaration? How can they? It couldn’t happen here, could it?   Read the post below to find out one person who thinks it could…   Thanks to Atrios   Red alert? Stay home, await word Sunday, March 16, 2003 By TOM BALDWIN Gannett State Bureau TRENTON If the nation escalates to "red alert," which is the highest in the color-coded readiness against terror, you will be assumed by authorities to be the enemy if you so much as venture outside your home, the state's anti-terror czar says.   "This state is on top of it," said Sid Caspersen, New Jersey's director of the office of counter-terrorism. Caspersen, a former FBI agent, was briefing reporters, alongside Gov. James E. McGreevey, on Thursday, when for the first time he disclosed the realities of how a red alert would shut the state down.   A red alert would also tear away virtually all personal freedoms to move about and associate. "Red means all noncritical functions cease," Caspersen said. "Noncritical would be almost all businesses, except health-related."   A red alert means there is a severe risk of terrorist attack, according to federal guidelines from the Department of Homeland Security.   "The state will restrict transportation and access to critical locations," says the state's new brochure on dealing with terrorism.   "You must adhere to the restrictions announced by authorities and prepare to evacuate, if instructed. Stay alert for emergency messages."   Caspersen went further than the brochure. "The government agencies would run at a very low threshold," he said.   "The state police and the emergency management people would take control over the highways. "You literally are staying home, is what happens, unless you are required to be out. No different than if you had a state of emergency with a snowstorm."   12:43:05 AM

A Taste of Things to Come? Scalia apparently is ready to edit the constitution to fit his own personal interpretation of appropriate “minimums.”   Why am I not surprised?   After all this is the guy who stopped the counting of ballots because they might impugn the “legitimacy” of a Bush residency. He stopped democracy to preserve the “legitimacy” of his desired result… guess democracy is not one of those minimum rights.   And now we find out that he believes the constitution limits individual liberties but not the powers of the state… can you say fascist?   Thanks to Atrios   Scalia addresses wartime constitutional rights The Associated Press 3/18/03 7:55 PM UNIVERSITY HEIGHTS, Ohio (AP) -- Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said Tuesday night that government has room to scale back individual rights during wartime without violating the Constitution.   "The Constitution just sets minimums," Scalia said at John Carroll University. "Most of the rights that you enjoy go way beyond what the Constitution requires."   Scalia was responding to a question about the Justice Department's pursuit of terrorism suspects and whether their rights are being violated.   The conservative justice did not discuss what rights he believed are constitutionally protected.   Scalia spoke for more than an hour before a crowd of several hundred people in the gymnasium of the Jesuit university in suburban Cleveland.   He said that in wartime or other situations where lawbreaking is rampant, government sometimes has to scale back individual rights of suspects.   Scalia said the constitutional rights are minimums adding that society has extended protections for individuals that go far beyond that.   He said that in wartime, one can expect "the protections will be ratcheted right down to the constitutional minimum. I won't let it go beyond the constitutional minimum."   Scalia was interrupted once briefly by a protester who shouted an anti-war statement. The protester was one of eight people wearing white T-shirts spelling out "STOP WAR."   The protester was booed by the crowd and taken from the room by security officers. Scalia stopped speaking during the scuffle, then joked that the protest probably was more interesting than his topic, which was constitutional protection of religions.   12:42:48 AM