Tuesday, April 01, 2003

Not just Muslims are upset… …by this unnecessary and unprovoked war.   (thanks to Buzzflash)   Bush, Rumsfeld, Blair, Straw entry banned to Church of Nativity Tuesday April 01, 2003 (0243 PST)   BETHLEHEM, April 01 (Online): The Church of Nativity, widely believed to be the birth-place of Jesus Christ, decided to ban entry each of the US President George Bush, his Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, British Prime Minister Tony Blair and his Foreign Secretary Jack Straw the privilege of visiting this sacred place, which is one of the holiest Christian shrines.   The move came in protest of "the aggressive war these leaders have waged against Iraq," top Clergy of the church said.   The Church Parishioner Father Panaritius made the decision public at a massive protest demonstration organized by Orthodox institutions in front of the Church of Nativity.   "They are war criminals and murderers of children. Therefore the Church of Nativity decided to ban them access into the holy shrine for ever," the parishioner said. 10:52:37 PM

Arnett critical of “right-wing media”   Arnett says US does not want credible reporting from Iraq   By Khalid Hasan   WASHINGTON: Peter Arnett, the celebrated foreign correspondent who was fired by National Broadcasting Corporation (NBC) for appearing on Iraqi television, has said that the US government is very sensitive to reports coming out of Iraq. “They don’t want credible news organisations reporting from here because it presents them with enormous problems.”   Mr Arnett, recently hired by the Daily Mirror, one of London’s leading tabloids, wrote in an article published on Tuesday by newspapers and various Internet sites that “Overnight my successful NBC reporting career was turned to ashes. And why? Because I stated the obvious to Iraqi television; that the US war timetable has fallen by the wayside.” He added that he had made the same comments to television stations around the world. “The right-wing media and politicians are looking for any opportunity to be critical of the reporters who are here, whatever their nationality. I made the misjudgment, which gave them the opportunity to do so. I gave an impromptu interview to Iraqi television feeling that after four months of interviewing hundreds of Iraqis, it was only a professional courtesy to give them a few comments. That was my Waterloo. Bang,” he wrote.…   “Fired by America for telling the truth... Hired by Daily Mirror to carry on telling it,” read the headline on the tabloid’s front page on Tuesday. “I report the truth of what is happening here in Baghdad and will not apologise for it,” Mr Arnett told the newspaper. —AFP 10:30:10 PM

The subversion of American values This article (which is sampled below) sums up my feelings about this war and the entire Bush regime. Neither promotes what has made this country the envy of the world – its freedoms and its openness.   America under Bush has become more closed, more paranoid and less free. And the Bush regime has encouraged this creeping “Saddamism” as a means of quelling popular dissent. Remember, you’re either with the Bushies or the terrorists.   Meanwhile US foreign policy has grown Byzantine – is has become so confused and chaotic that even its promoters cannot publicly defend it without risk of self-contradiction. Emperor George   What has become of American values and idealism? All swept away in this thoroughly un-American war   Jonathan Freedland Wednesday April 2, 2003 The Guardian   This war is un-American. That's an unlikely word to use, I know: it has an unhappy provenance, associated forever with the McCarthyite hunt for reds under the beds, purging anyone suspected of "un-American activities". Besides, for many outside the US, the problem with this war is not that it's un-American - but all too American.   But that does an injustice to the US and its history. It assumes that the Bush administration represents all America, at all times, when in fact the opposite is true. For this administration, and this war, are not typical of the US. On the contrary, on almost every measure, they are exceptions to the American rule.…   Until now. George Bush has cast off the restraint which held back America's 42 previous presidents - including his father. Now he is seeking, as an unashamed objective, to get into the empire business, aiming to rule a post-Saddam Iraq directly through an American governor-general, the retired soldier Jay Garner. As the Guardian reported yesterday, Washington's plan for Baghdad consists of 23 ministries - each one to be headed by an American. This is a form of foreign rule so direct we have not seen its like since the last days of the British empire. It represents a break with everything America has long believed in.…   Today's Washington has not only broken from the different strands of wisdom which guided the US since its birth, but also from the model that shaped American foreign policy since 1945. It's easy to forget this now, as US politicians and commentators queue up to denounce international institutions as French-dominated, limp-wristed, euro-faggot bodies barely worth the candle, but those bodies were almost all American inventions. Whether it was Nato, the global financial architecture designed at Bretton Woods or the UN itself, multilateralism was, at least in part, America's gift to the world. Every president from Roosevelt to Bush Senior honoured those creations. Seeking to change them in order to adapt to the 21st century is wholly legitimate; but drowning them in derision is to trash an American idea.   The very notion of unprovoked, uninvited, long-term and country-wide invasion is pretty un-American, too.…   The result is a sight which can look bizarre for those who have spent much time in the US. Americans who, back home, resent even the most trivial state meddling in their own affairs are determined to run the lives of a people on the other side of the planet. In New Hampshire car number plates bear the legend, Live Free or Die; a state motto is Don't Tread on Me. If a "government bureaucrat" comes near, even to perform what would be considered a routine task in Britain, they are liable to get an earful about the tyranny of Washington, DC. Yet Americans - whose passion for liberty is so great they talk seriously about keeping guns in case they ever need to fight their own government - assume Iraqis will welcome military rule by a foreign power.   Talk like this is not that comfortable in America just now; you'd be denounced fairly swiftly as a Saddam apologist or a traitor. The limits of acceptable discussion have narrowed sharply, just as civil liberties have taken a hammering as part of the post-9/11 war on terror. You might fall foul of the Patriot Act, or be denounced for insufficient love of country. There is something McCarthyite about the atmosphere which has spawned this war, making Democrats too fearful to be an opposition worthy of the name and closing down national debate. And things don't get much more un-American than that. 10:14:07 PM

Apparent proof that marketplace missile was US “smart” weapon.   And Rumsfeld and his cronies caught with their pants down again… How bad do you have to be to lose a propaganda war to Iraq?   (thanks to agonist) 8:50:14 PM

This is sad… A person emigrates to America in order to enjoy its freedoms and this happens... 3:01:29 PM

War Round-up I heard Rumsfeld and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Myers today on BBC. Both seemed to protest a bit much concerning the adequacy of the war plan, particularly in emphasizing that is was really Tommy Franks plan and also how everyone involved had “signed off” on it.   Given that Tommy Franks is reputed to give Rumsfeld whatever he wants, the first statement tells us nothing new, and the second only underscores the degree to which criticism previously voiced was marginalized and silenced – kinda what they want to do to US public opinion at large. What choice was open to commanders? Accept the plan presented or step down and at the same time abandon their men? Continue to voice criticisms that had already been marginalized, ridiculed and dismissed before? The very language used by Rumsfeld and Myers – very precise and circumscribed in stating that “all commanders had signed off” - reinforces my suspicions that the plan was not popular but merely accepted as the best one could obtain under Rummy and his coterie.   This was not a very convincing performance. As noted later on BBC, it demonstrated the degree to which criticism is hitting home. Funny how it is not US casualties but rather threats to careers that really attracts the ire of Rummy and his yes-men.   Things to read today:   DailyKos has another installment from “Officer X” and his analysis of the Iraq fiasco.   Intel dump addresses some of the problems that the Guantanamo “detentions” have caused our military.   And finally the following, thanks to atrios:   Only non-Muslims can apply for US base job: Advertisement Srinivasa Prasad Bangalore, March 26   Tucked in the classifieds of national Indian dailies on Wednesday was an advertisement that could further alienate the Muslim community from the United States.   The advertisement calls for applications from "non-Muslims only" for sundry jobs at the US base in northern Kuwait.   The US base "urgently requires" lift operators, store keepers, clerks, typists, security guards and drivers. The advertisement insists that the applicants, besides being non-Muslims, should speak English and be below 35.   The advertisement was issued by Indian head-hunters Rehman Enterprises and Continental Mercantile.   Executives of these firms said they were representing a Kuwaiti company, Marafi, which has a "maintenance contract" with the US army.   "The Americans are strict that we should only process applications sent in by non-Muslims," Rehman Enterprises' head Abdul Rehman told the Hindustan Times on Wednesday.   "What to do? They probably don't want to take chances with Muslims," said Continental Mercantile's manager in Kochi TS Jairaj.   There is an unmistakable sense of urgency in the advertisement which asks applicants to "contact immediately with relevant documents".   "The response has been very bad," said Jairaj. "We are getting very few calls."   The head-hunters are in a fix since the executives of Marafi are flying to India to interview and shortlist candidates on March 31 for a final selection by the US army.   "The poor response is not just because of the war situation," Jairaj explained. "The age limit and the condition on English speaking ability are also problems."   The recruitment effort could be an indication of the US intention of digging its heels in for a long time in the Middle East.   And here’s the follow-up, thanks to agonist:   Gulf job interviews scrapped   Srinivasa Prasad (Bangalore, March 28)   A Kuwaiti head-hunting company which sought to hire only non-Muslims from across India for jobs at the US army base in Kuwait has cancelled the whole recruitment process following the controversy raised by a report published in the Hindustan Times on Thursday.   The recruitment interviews slated for March 31 have been cancelled.   The Indian companies which put in newspaper advertisements on behalf of the Kuwaiti company, calling for applications for sundry jobs like clerks, lift operators and drivers for the base made it clear that only non-Muslims should apply.   While the Americans' reluctance to hire Muslims even for low-level civilian jobs became clear, the Kuwaiti company found itself in a fix for inadvertently exposing this through its Indian partners.   The Kuwaiti company's Indian partners became the target of Muslim ire. Rehman Enterprises, which inserted the tiny "non-Muslims'' only classified advertisement in a Bangalore daily received angry calls from several Muslims.   "It was a mistake," Abdul Rehman who heads this firm admitted to the Hindustan Times.   On Friday, officials of the American consulate in Chennai too are understood to have begun inquiries to find out how the "non-Muslims only" line appeared in the advertisements. 1:06:16 PM

Politics trumps national security The always invaluable Krugman pointing out the misguided priorities of the Bush regime: taking care of its cronies at the expense of national security. The article is provided in full for those readers not registered with the NY Times.   A Red-Blue Terror Alert By PAUL KRUGMAN   As recriminations fly over Operation Predicted Cakewalk, some commentators look back wistfully to the early post-Sept. 11 era, when — or so they imagine — the nation stood united against the terrorist threat. On my beat, that era was brief indeed: less than 48 hours after the atrocity, Congressional Republicans tried to exploit the event to pass a cut in the capital gains tax. But on national security issues, there was at first some real bipartisanship.   What happened to that bipartisanship? It fell prey to two enduring prejudices of the right: its deep hostility to nonmilitary government spending, and its exaltation of the "heartland" over the great urban states.   You might have expected the events of Sept. 11 to temper the right's opposition to some kinds of domestic spending. After thousands of Americans were killed by men armed only with box cutters, surely everyone would acknowledge that national security involves more than mere military might. But you would have been wrong. In a remarkable recent article titled "The 9/10 President," Jonathan Chait of The New Republic documents how the Bush administration has systematically neglected homeland security since 9/11. In its effort to keep spending down, the administration has repeatedly blocked proposals to enhance security at potential domestic targets like ports and nuclear plants.   What Mr. Chait doesn't point out is the extent to which already inadequate antiterrorism spending has been focused on the parts of the country that need it least.   I've written before about the myth of the heartland — roughly speaking, the "red states," which voted for George W. Bush in the 2000 election, as opposed to the "blue states," which voted for Al Gore. The nation's interior is supposedly a place of rugged individualists, unlike the spongers and whiners along the coasts. In reality, of course, rural states are heavily subsidized by urban states. New Jersey pays about $1.50 in federal taxes for every dollar it gets in return; Montana receives about $1.75 in federal spending for every dollar it pays in taxes.   Any sensible program of spending on homeland security would at least partly redress this balance. The most natural targets for terrorism lie in or near great metropolitan areas; surely protecting those areas is the highest priority, right?   Apparently not. Even in the first months after Sept. 11, Republican lawmakers made it clear that they would not support any major effort to rebuild or even secure New York. And now that anti-urban prejudice has taken statistical form: under the formula the Department of Homeland Security has adopted for handing out money, it spends 7 times as much protecting each resident of Wyoming as it does protecting each resident of New York.   Here's how it works. In its main grant programs, the department makes no attempt to assess needs. Instead, each state receives a base of 0.75 percent of the total, regardless of its population; the rest is then allocated in proportion to population. This is a very good deal for states with small populations, like Wyoming or Montana. It's a very bad deal for states like California or New York, which receives only 4.7 percent of the money. And since New York and other big urban states remain the most likely targets of another major attack, it's a very bad deal for the country.   Why adopt such a strange formula? Well, maybe it's not that strange: what it most resembles is the Electoral College, which also gives disproportionate weight (though not that disproportionate) to states with small populations. And with a few exceptions, small-population states are red states — indeed, the small-state bias of the Electoral College is what allowed Mr. Bush to claim the White House despite losing the popular vote. It's hard not to suspect that the formula — which makes absolutely no sense in terms of national security — was adopted precisely because it caters to that same constituency. (To be fair, there's one big "red state" loser from the formula: Texas. But one of these days, sooner than most people think, Texas may well turn blue.)   In other words, the allocation of money confirms Mr. Chait's point: even in a time of war — a war that seems oddly unrelated to the terrorist threat — the Bush administration isn't serious about protecting the homeland. Instead, it continues to subordinate U.S. security needs to its unchanged political agenda. 1:05:23 PM