Thursday, April 03, 2003

That squawking you hear… …are the chickenhawks getting their feathers ruffled.   WASHINGTON - The top two Republicans in the House sharply criticized Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry on Thursday for saying that the United States, like Iraq, needs a regime change.   In a speech Wednesday in Peterborough, N.H., Kerry said President Bush so alienated allies prior to the U.S.-led war against Iraq that only a new president can rebuild damaged relationships with other countries.   "What we need now is not just a regime change in Saddam Hussein and Iraq, but we need a regime change in the United States," said Kerry, a Democratic senator from Massachusetts.   House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., released a statement that said in the midst of war, the nation should pull together to support the troops and commander in chief.   "Once this war is over, there will be plenty of time for the next election," the statement said. "But the war is not yet over, and we still have much work to do to rid the world of Saddam Hussein and his brutal regime."   House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, released a statement calling Kerry's words "desperate and inappropriate."   "America before New Hampshire," DeLay said.   Kerry backed a congressional resolution last fall giving Bush the authority to use force to oust Saddam, but he repeatedly has criticized the president for failing to give diplomacy more time.   "Clearly, Senator Kerry intended no disrespect or lack of support for our commander in chief during wartime, but the point of this campaign is, obviously, to change the administration of this government," said Kerry spokesman Robert Gibbs. "And unlike many of his Republican critics, Senator Kerry has worn the uniform, served his country, seen combat, so he'd just as soon skip their lectures about supporting our troops."   Kerry is a decorated Vietnam War veteran. Hastert and DeLay did not serve in the military.   In response to Gibbs, DeLay's spokesman Jonathan Grella said, "His service to our country was admirable, but his words now are shamelessly political."   [snip]   That’s the best Grella  could do? “His words now are… shamelessly political”?   I’m sorry but that’s pretty lame, even for a press aid to a former bug exterminator.   What’s his next “stinging” comeback going to be… "His service to our country was admirable, but… he’s got a furrowed brow (nope, used that one already).   Maybe "His service to our country was admirable, but… he’s got real fancy hair-cuts (nah that one’s already been around the circuit).   I know "His service to our country was admirable, but… but he’s really a Jew! (sure it’s an “oldie,” but a “goodie”).   Kerry should really be cleaning the floor with these folks, using every opportunity to discuss the war to demonstrate his bond with those in uniform while pointing out the lack of any such willingness to sacrifice on the part of the über-patriots. They’re big on bluster but short on bite.   Too bad it took Dean winning the anti-war vote and Edwards the fundraising to get Kerry to start playing ball… what does he think this is, pattycake?   4:01:40 PM

Can you say “double-dip” As found in the phrase “double dip” recession?   From Associated Press WASHINGTON -- New claims for unemployment benefits shot up last week to their highest point in nearly a year as businesses made work forces leaner amid a muddled wartime economic climate.   The Labor Department reported today that new applications jumped by a seasonally adjusted 38,000 to 445,000 for the week ending March 29. That represented the highest level of new claims since the week ending April 13, 2002.   Today's report highlighted the difficulties both companies and workers are facing, not only because of war but also because of a muddled economic climate.   "It is the pall of the Iraqi war, higher energy prices and lower stock prices just weighing on the willingness of companies to maintain jobs," said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Economy.com. "The uncertainty is so high they just can't think about expanding their businesses at this point."   Meanwhile Junior’s busy getting his fix of war porn off the satellite dish… can’t he spare the economy a hand?   Wait, let me rephrase that… what’s he doing to pump up the economy?   No, hold it, I mean - ohh fageddaboutit.   Why couldn’t Junior just get a blow-job instead of f*cking us in the @ss? 3:25:23 PM

Alert Alert Alert Media alert: time to change Bush’s persona to match latest poll readings - now he is “deeply immersed in war” rather than “going about his everyday routine.”   George W. Bush was standing three feet from his television screen in his cabin at Camp David last weekend, absorbed in every detail of the news from Iraq, when a correspondent came on to report that the president of the United States, according to White House officials, was not glued to the TV.   Mr. Bush started laughing, said his close friend Roland Betts, who was with the president at the time.   "He is just totally immersed," Mr. Betts said in an interview.   How do the media whores report such contradictory crapola with a straight face?   And why do they think they can do so?   Well, don’t you all feel better now knowing that Jr. gets off on TV war porn?   Give you one guess which network he watches… with one hand on the remote.   (thanks to MWO) 2:58:19 PM

Something to raise your spirits Check out this link for a laugh.   (thanks to MWO - its back so check it out) 2:21:53 PM

Al Jazeera further demonstrates independence (Sigh… I wish our media would do the same.)   It is not as if Al Jazeera had to – anyone who has been paying attention understood that Al Jazeera was anything but (as I heard on a local TV newscast) “an Iraqi news channel.”   I wonder how that news anchor will square an “Iraqi” news channel suspending broadcasts from Iraq?   And I’ll bet those folks at the NYSE won’t understand the irony that they now share the company of Saddam in attempting to intimidate an independent news network.   Given the idiocy we routinely field from knee-jerk GOPers I expect we’ll be hearing soon how it was all the unfair criticism of Al Jazeera in the US that led them to “abandon” their “ties” to Iraq… ya sure – what do you think they are pushover Democrats?   (For those who are curious Al Jazeera is an independent network dedicated to editorial independence like the BBC that broadcasts out of Qatar – the site of our HQ in the gulf, hardly anti-western. You could have found this all out for yourself at their website link to the left – if it hadn’t been hacked by flag-before-liberty fanatics.)   Al Jazeera pulls plug after bans The Arab satellite television station Al Jazeera has suspended broadcasts from Iraq, after its journalists were banned from working in Baghdad.   The Iraqi authorities are also expelling one of the station's reporters.   Al Jazeera's editor in chief, Ibrahim Helal, says it is not the first time the Iraqi authorities have tried to ban its journalists.   "We are not surprised by such moves because we [faced]... lots of things like that before from the Iraqi Government and other Arab governments in the region because this is the way they think," he said.   "They think they can impose some conditions on Al Jazeera or change the reporters or put their own criterias on our work." 2:00:20 PM

This shouldn’t be a surprise Don’t get me wrong – as a military planner you should always plan for the worst and hope for the best.   But as a political commentator and student of history it seemed clear that at this moment in history Iraq possessed at best a rudimentary capacity for chemical weapons. Of course all the evidence for this – as presented by the UN inspectors - was swept aside as “unreliable.” After more than two weeks of war it seems that the only “unreliable” factor in this war was the intel guiding the Bush regime politicos.   Iraqi chemical threat 'negligible' The threat of an Iraqi chemical or biological attack against coalition forces has become "negligible", according to US military sources in Iraq.   Captain Adam Mastrianni, the intelligence officer of the 101st Airborne Division's Aviation Brigade, said: "Now that we have penetrated Baghdad's outer ring, the likelihood [of a chemical or biological attack] is negligible.   "The commanding general of the 101st, General David Petraeus gave the order at 9:00pm that soldiers in the division would be able to take off their anti-chemical and biological suits as of Friday morning," he added.   Capt Mastrianni's aviation brigade is still based near the central Iraqi town of Najaf.   He has explained to correspondents travelling with US troops that the non-conventional threat against coalition troops engaged in Iraq has receded.   US military planners had feared that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein might launch a chemical attack when US and British troops reached three zones.   "We thought if he was going to use chemicals, the first major town he was going to use them in was in Karbala," Capt Mastrianni said.   "The next major zone was when we penetrated outer Baghdad," he said, explaining that could be defined as areas within 30 kilometres of the capital.   "Now the 3ID (3rd Division) is in Baghdad and no chemicals have been used," he said.   1:43:51 PM

Diplomatic suicide Perhaps the Bushies are so used to breaking with international law and convention that it has become a reflexive gesture.   Perhaps they really just don’t see why decisions like this or the treatment of prisoners in Guantanamo can come back to haunt us (as well as retroactively legitimating terrorist acts like 9/11 in the eyes of large parts of the rest of the world).   And so much yet another of the various, changing rationales put forward for this war at this time… let’s see now: nukes – nope, links to al Qaeda – nope, links to 9/11 – nope, he’s a bad guy -yes, but then so are many, many others, chemical weapons – well, I guess we’ll beat the Iraqis to them.   The US is going to deploy chemical weapons. And that is the US alone, even Britain refuses.   Maybe that helps explain why so many Iraqis have been carrying around gas masks… ya think?   (thanks to intel dump)   Bush Approves Use of Tear Gas in Battlefield Weapons experts fear violation of law   by Nicholas Wade and Eric Schmitt New York Times    President George W. Bush has authorized American military forces to use tear gas in Iraq, the Pentagon says, a development that some weapons experts said could set up a conflict between American and international law.   The U.S. Defense Department said that tear gas, which has been issued to American troops but not used by them, would be used only to save civilian lives and in accordance with the Chemical Weapons Convention, ratified by the United States in 1997. Critics say any battlefield use of tear gas would violate the convention, offend crucial allies including Britain, and hand Saddam Hussein a legal basis for using chemical weapons against the United States.   [snip]   Riot-control agents may be used behind battlefield lines, to quell riots or control prisoners being transported, but the chemical weapons convention says riot-control agents may not be used as a "method of warfare." Signatories feared their deployment might escalate to the use of lethal chemicals and had done so in the past.   In four major uses of chemical weapons in the past — by combatants in World War I; by the Italians in Ethiopia; by the Egyptians in Yemen; and in the Iran-Iraq war — deployment was preceded by use of non-lethal agents, Harris said. The framers of the convention therefore sought to draw a clear line against use of all chemical agents on the battlefield. This is the position of signatories including Britain. The British Defense minister, Geoff Hoon, said last week that non-lethal chemical agents "would not be used by the United Kingdom in any military operation or on any battlefield."   The U.S. Senate, in a convention-ratifying resolution, wrote in a condition allowing battlefield use of riot-control agents with presidential approval.   Copyright 1996-2003. Toronto Star Newspapers Limited     12:50:52 PM

The military importance of politics:   Remember, we never lost a battle in Vietnam, we just lost the war because the politics of it was so clumsily done.   Read more here 11:49:54 AM

Civil disobedience = terrorism? You know it’s coming…   …unless you’re protesting against the exercise of a constitutionally protected right to privacy.   ...and this is in a blue state Are we getting stupider?   An Oregon anti-terrorism bill would jail street-blocking protesters for at least 25 years in a thinly veiled effort to discourage anti-war demonstrations, critics say.   The bill has met strong opposition but lawmakers still expect a debate on the definition of terrorism and the value of free speech before a vote by the state senate judiciary committee, whose Chairman, Republican Senator John Minnis, wrote the proposed legislation.   Dubbed Senate Bill 742, it identifies a terrorist as a person who "plans or participates in an act that is intended, by at least one of its participants, to disrupt" business, transportation, schools, government, or free assembly.   The bill's few public supporters say police need stronger laws to break up protests that have created havoc in cities like Portland, where thousands of people have marched and demonstrated against war in Iraq since last fall.   "We need some additional tools to control protests that shut down the city," said Lars Larson, a conservative radio talk show host who has aggressively stumped for the bill.   I don't know what more dangerous: small-minded small-town legislators or over-the-hill top 40 DJ's who become radio hatemongers.   ...and speaking of morons.   In comparison, we may someday look back on Joe McCarthy with fondness.   posted by Tom at 7:48 PM   1:08:06 AM

Smoking hot! This gal pulls no punches and has some funny lines as well - love the one about dancing in the street.   And she’s after bigger fish than Bush (which you’ll see if you click on the link below and read the whole thing).   I can’t agree that it just boils down to “empire,” although that is one very important component. The industries Bush fronts for are the old economy dinosaurs – resource extraction (oil, gas, coal, timber) as well as the well connected government contractors (Bechtel, Halliburton, Raytheon).   But to focus solely on them ignores the true “crusader” element of this war – the Christian fundamentalists who provide the intellectuals and fill out the rank and file of Bush zealots. They, like Bush, feel that this is a mission entrusted by god to the US (as they conceive it). And finally let’s not overlook the owners and sponsors of the right-wing media and its support apparatus (think tanks, institutes, foundations etc.), who apparently agree with fundamentalists on the need to undo both FDR’s New Deal and his commitment of the US to multilateral international institutions.   All these elements of Bush’s “coalition” are ardently opposed to democracy – they want to win and they don’t care if they “win dirty.” That’s what they did in the US in 2000 and that’s what they’re doing in Iraq now. This war is not just about oil and contracts but also about setting new precedents in the use of the American military both as a tool of foreign policy and domestic politics. This “splendid little war” is intended not only to remake the map of the Middle East but also the electoral map of American politics.   (thanks to tbogg) Update: corrected pronouns thanks to alert reader   Mesopotamia. Babylon. The Tigris and Euphrates   Arundhati Roy Wednesday April 2, 2003 The Guardian   On the steel torsos of their missiles, adolescent American soldiers scrawl colourful messages in childish handwriting: For Saddam, from the Fat Boy Posse. A building goes down. A marketplace. A home. A girl who loves a boy. A child who only ever wanted to play with his older brother's marbles. On March 21, the day after American and British troops began their illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq, an "embedded" CNN correspondent interviewed an American soldier. "I wanna get in there and get my nose dirty," Private AJ said. "I wanna take revenge for 9/11."   To be fair to the correspondent, even though he was "embedded" he did sort of weakly suggest that so far there was no real evidence that linked the Iraqi government to the September 11 attacks. Private AJ stuck his teenage tongue out all the way down to the end of his chin. "Yeah, well that stuff's way over my head," he said.   According to a New York Times/CBS News survey, 42 per cent of the American public believes that Saddam Hussein is directly responsible for the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon. And an ABC news poll says that 55 per cent of Americans believe that Saddam Hussein directly supports al-Qaida. What percentage of America's armed forces believe these fabrications is anybody's guess.   It is unlikely that British and American troops fighting in Iraq are aware that their governments supported Saddam Hussein both politically and financially through his worst excesses.   But why should poor AJ and his fellow soldiers be burdened with these details? It does not matter any more, does it? Hundreds of thousands of men, tanks, ships, choppers, bombs, ammunition, gas masks, high-protein food, whole aircrafts ferrying toilet paper, insect repellent, vitamins and bottled mineral water, are on the move. The phenomenal logistics of Operation Iraqi Freedom make it a universe unto itself. It doesn't need to justify its existence any more. It exists. It is.   President George W Bush, commander in chief of the US army, navy, airforce and marines has issued clear instructions: "Iraq. Will. Be. Liberated." (Perhaps he means that even if Iraqi people's bodies are killed, their souls will be liberated.) American and British citizens owe it to the supreme commander to forsake thought and rally behind their troops. Their countries are at war. And what a war it is.…   When invading American soldiers (from the army "that's only here to help") are taken prisoner and shown on Iraqi TV, George Bush says it violates the Geneva convention and "exposes the evil at the heart of the regime". But it is entirely acceptable for US television stations to show the hundreds of prisoners being held by the US government in Guantanamo Bay, kneeling on the ground with their hands tied behind their backs, blinded with opaque goggles and with earphones clamped on their ears, to ensure complete visual and aural deprivation. When questioned about the treatment of these prisoners, US Government officials don't deny that they're being being ill-treated. They deny that they're "prisoners of war"! They call them "unlawful combatants", implying that their ill-treatment is legitimate! (So what's the party line on the massacre of prisoners in Mazar-e-Sharif, Afghanistan? Forgive and forget? And what of the prisoner tortured to death by the special forces at the Bagram airforce base? Doctors have formally called it homicide.)…   And now we have the siege of Basra. About a million and a half people, 40 per cent of them children. Without clean water, and with very little food. We're still waiting for the legendary Shia "uprising", for the happy hordes to stream out of the city and rain roses and hosannahs on the "liberating" army. Where are the hordes? Don't they know that television productions work to tight schedules? (It may well be that if Saddam's regime falls there will be dancing on the streets of Basra. But then, if the Bush regime were to fall, there would be dancing on the streets the world over.)   After days of enforcing hunger and thirst on the citizens of Basra, the "Allies" have brought in a few trucks of food and water and positioned them tantalisingly on the outskirts of the city. Desperate people flock to the trucks and fight each other for food. (The water we hear, is being sold. To revitalise the dying economy, you understand.) On top of the trucks, desperate photographers fought each other to get pictures of desperate people fighting each other for food. Those pictures will go out through photo agencies to newspapers and glossy magazines that pay extremely well. Their message: The messiahs are at hand, distributing fishes and loaves.   As of July last year the delivery of $5.4bn worth of supplies to Iraq was blocked by the Bush/Blair Pair. It didn't really make the news. But now under the loving caress of live TV, 450 tonnes of humanitarian aid - a minuscule fraction of what's actually needed (call it a script prop) - arrived on a British ship, the "Sir Galahad". Its arrival in the port of Umm Qasr merited a whole day of live TV broadcasts. Barf bag, anyone?   Nick Guttmann, head of emergencies for Christian Aid, writing for the Independent on Sunday said that it would take 32 Sir Galahad's a day to match the amount of food Iraq was receiving before the bombing began.   We oughtn't to be surprised though. It's old tactics. They've been at it for years. Consider this moderate proposal by John McNaughton from the Pentagon Papers, published during the Vietnam war: "Strikes at population targets (per se) are likely not only to create a counterproductive wave of revulsion abroad and at home, but greatly to increase the risk of enlarging the war with China or the Soviet Union. Destruction of locks and dams, however - if handled right - might ... offer promise. It should be studied. Such destruction does not kill or drown people. By shallow-flooding the rice, it leads after time to widespread starvation (more than a million?) unless food is provided - which we could offer to do 'at the conference table'."   Times haven't changed very much. The technique has evolved into a doctrine. It's called "Winning Hearts and Minds".…   Finally, there's the matter of Saddam's arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. (Oops, nearly forgot about those!)   In the fog of war - one thing's for sure - if Saddam 's regime indeed has weapons of mass destruction, it is showing an astonishing degree of responsibility and restraint in the teeth of extreme provocation. Under similar circumstances, (say if Iraqi troops were bombing New York and laying siege to Washington DC) could we expect the same of the Bush regime? Would it keep its thousands of nuclear warheads in their wrapping paper? What about its chemical and biological weapons? Its stocks of anthrax, smallpox and nerve gas? Would it?   Excuse me while I laugh….   1:01:23 AM