Tuesday, April 01, 2003

Now I can actually look forward to 2004 Oscar winning documentary film maker Michael Moore just inked a deal with Mel Gibson's (?!) Icon Productions to created a new film which will explore the ties between the Bush and bin Laden families. The release date is scheduled to coincide with the 2004 presidential elections. I hereby cast my vote to Michael Moore for "Documentary Film Maker Most Likely To Be Mysteriously Run Off The Road By A Big, Black Suburban." Rumsfeld = Robert McNamara Which bastion of leftist ideology made this outrageous comparison? Why the Pentagon, of course! This week seems to be going from bad to worse for everyone's favorite infallible military strategist, Donald Rumsfeld. Still stinging from Lt. General William S. Wallace's battlefield criticism last Thursday, Rummy is now taking it on the chin from a number of unidentified Pentagon officers who complain that Herr Rumsfeld miscalculated the necessary troop strength for Operation Iraqi Occupation...er...Freedom. The embattled Sec. need not worry though, since GW dismissed the criticism as "second guessing" by one of "1,000 colonels" at the Pentagon. Ouch. If the administration keeps dissing the Pentagon this badly maybe we'll get a coup out of it. Ok, word on the street is that FOX News broadcast a montage of bombing explosions in Baghdad.... set to music. If anyone can corroborate this, or better yet send me a link to some streaming video, I'll make sure the Easter Bunny is especially good to you this year. - M.C. No Shame 3:36:34 PM    comment []

Buzzflash=Awesome From Maureen Farrell’s editorial on Buzzflash: "Even if Baghdad readmits United Nations arms inspectors, the United States will still pursue a 'regime change' policy, with or without the support of its allies." - The Sydney Morning Herald, February 8, 2002 "In short, ‘patriotic Americans’ have failed to notice that: 1) The Bush administration relied on a series of fabrications and forgeries to make its case 2) This war was planned before Sept. 11 and 3) The neocons are deliberating driving us towards World War III." Farrell’s excellent editorial hits strongly upon one key fact about this war: even if the administration’s stated goals are noble (disarmament, liberation, etc.), it is painfully obvious that such stated goals are 100% fabricated. The problem, of course, is that nobody seems to be able to catch on to the obvious, or they fail to care when they do take notice. - Marcus-Marcus 1:07:11 PM    comment []

Seven Iraqi civilians were killed in Southern Iraq on Monday as U.S. troops fired upon a van full of women and children which failed to stop quickly enough for a U.S. Army checkpoint. This incident is just the latest in a series which has illustrated the failure of the Pentagon’s ostensible efforts to avoid civilian casualties. On Friday, U.S. bombs hit a marketplace in Baghdad, killing as many as 62 civilians. After the Friday incident, the Pentagon claimed that the bomb that hit the marketplace could very well have been an Iraqi bomb.  (Update: It has been confirmed that the bomb was indeed an American one.) Today, following up with the patently absurd Blame Game, Spokesman Brig. Gen. Vincent Brooks placed the blame on the Iraqi regime for using guerrilla tactics and using civilians as human shields. "The blood is on the hands of the regime," he says, "If there’s a question of morality, it really should go back to the regime." (As I write this, President Bush has joined the chorus.) Implausible begets irresponsible which begets the downright surreal, as we see here. A van full of women and children (at a checkpoint as opposed to a firefight) is hardly use of human shields. Now, there is speculation in the news that these highly conspicuous civilian deaths may stoke the anger of the Arab world, but because such speculation is potentially devastating to any Liberation Theory justification of the war, its longevity is questionable. On the topic of speculation, while there is plenty of it regarding the wealth of information NOT being reported openly, stories of the censorship of (government and self-censorship, that is) coverage are so plentiful that such speculation is given legitimacy. One of yesterday’s big stories was NBC’s firing of Peter Arnett after he gave an interview on Iraqi TV, engaging in treasonous activities as alarming as the suggestion that the U.S./U.K. coalition was caught a little off guard by the resistance of the Iraqi army, a fact totally obvious to anyone with an IQ slightly above room temperature and access to a television or radio. On Laura Ingraham’s radio show last night, a caller suggested that the blood of any future Iraqi civilian casualties would be on the hands of Mr. Arnett for suggesting that the American public doesn’t like to see pictures of dead Iraqi civilians – the caller assuming that Saddam would order the killing and photographing of such civilians in an attempt to bring a quick end to the war after a huge public uprising in the United States. Ingraham quickly seconded these thoughts, suggesting that perhaps neither she nor the caller understands the unprecedented effectiveness of public opinion on policy in the U.S. nor the extent to which America takes such demonstrations seriously. Complaints about Arnett’s appearance specifically accused Arnett of disseminating propaganda to the Iraqis, but if there’s a legitimate complaint about propaganda anywhere in this war, it lies with the American press corps. It ranges from the obvious and outrageous (really, just turn on the Fox News Channel at any time during the day or night for that) to the very subtle. These subtleties are far worse than the extreme in that they lay an almost invisible foundation for a system of disinformation regarding the war. For example, Iraqi soldiers are "militants loyal to Saddam Hussein," armed resistance quite typical of war is called "defiance of U.S. and British forces." The more egregious of these examples are the stunning willingness of the major news media to adopt the more propagandistic elements of war reportage without question, such as calling Iraqi civilian casualties "human shields" as if adequate evidence for such a claim had been presented. In a comment to a recent Monster Limo post, Steve writes, "It’s a damn shame the Pentagon didn't choose box #3: ‘Perfect War where only the very bad guys get killed’ on their war application." While it might be naïve to deny that civilian deaths are a fact of war, it should be noted that because the United States picked this fight unprovoked, it is certainly its responsibility to avoid casualties at all costs. If that means messy urban warfare in the streets of Baghdad, that is the cost of "preemption." If the U.S. is the leader of the free world and if it is agreed that the U.S. is the Great Liberator in this campaign, then even minor civilian casualties are unacceptable. Whether you live in Iraq, Afghanistan or the United States, when the bodies start piling up (as they are), the Great Liberator quickly becomes the Murderous Invader. - Marcus-Marcus 12:06:16 PM    comment []

TODAY'S TOP FIVE More links, more opinions, more angry people. Let's do this.  Wing-nuts of the Day: The Presidential Prayer Team. . . For Kids!! That's right: Our old friends at the Presidential Prayer Team are back, and this time they've got a special message for America's Christian young people. What's that message? "It's important to remember that Iraq is very, very far away from America. So while many American soldiers, sailors, and airmen will be there working hard to defeat the bad leader of that country, the conflict will not be happening here in America. Just knowing that helps kids feel safe!" Hey, not just kids - I feel safer already! Also, the site asks kids to especially pray for Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Air Force Gen. Richard Myers. Iraqis Develop Blitz-like Spirit in War Not my headline, that's from Reuters. Boy, if only NBC could fire them! Freedom Cleaners in West Hartford! A 92-year-old dry-cleaning business in Connecticut has changed its name from French Cleaners to Freedom Cleaners as a way to "support the troops." In a story published today that doesn't seem to be online, though, the Courant reports that the move has proven so unpopular with the business's customers that the owner is thinking of changing the name back. Figh t Over US Plans for Post-War Iraq The British are upset because the entire show will be run by Americans: All the ministries will be headed by Americans, and Paul Wolfowitz seems to be calling all the shots. The head of Iraq will be someone named Jay Garner (for synchronicity fans, the number of ministries planned by the US is. . . that's right: 23). So Who the Hell is Jay Garner? Why, he's the ultra-right wing hawk and reputed war profiteer who ran "Operation Provide Comfort" for the Kurds in 1991, that's who! With a track record that includes the Patriot missile, Star Wars, and the sellout of the Kurds after the Gulf War, I say he's the perfect choice to run our Iraqi colony! - Consider Arms 12:06:01 PM    comment []

Four Murders Tied to 9/11 "Revenge" Fantasies New York police arrested a man charged with murdering four immigrants as "revenge" for the terrorist attacks of September 11. This guy would qualify as the Wing-nut of the Day if this weren't so sick and depressing. -Consider Arms 10:11:31 AM    comment []

© Copyright 2003 Monster Limo Organization.