doublethink: Archives: March 19 - May 18, 2003

You Say Slovenia, and I Say Slovenia-- Uh, Waitasec

Sat, 28 Jun 2003 03:41:40 GMT

Originally Posted March 28, 2003

The only thing I know about Slovakia is what I learned first-hand from your foreign minister, who came to Texas.

-- George W. Bush to a Slovak journalist,
after meeting with Janez Drnovsek,

Prime Minister of Slovenia
Knight-Ridder News Service

June 22, 1999

This just in from Ljubljana! Hundreds of Slovenians hit the streets Wednesday to protest their country's inclusion in President Bush's $75 billion Iraq war budget as a partner in the war against Iraq. The White House asked for $4.5 million for Slovenia as part of the grants to members of the vast "coalition of the willing."

Small problem: The lovely Alpine nation isn't a member. "When we asked for an explanation, the State Department told us we were named in the document by mistake," Prime Minister Anton Rop said at what Reuters called "a hastily arranged news conference."

This of course would not be the first time someone confused Slovenia and Slovakia...

They Got the 'Slov' Part Right
Washington Post

March 28, 2003

Comments

From LGBTBinat on 03/31/03

Doublethink, ya know, everytime I come to read your latest entry in your journal (and you know by reading your stats that I am here a lot), I always scroll back down to this one article. Something kept grabbing me, but I couldn;t work out what, that is until tonight.

It is the quote of Bush*s you have up the top. It shows just how dumb this guy truly is. I guess I am used to seeing how dumb the bastard is, but you think, as a world leader he would atleast take the time to learn something about the country he is _meant_ to be talking about.

From doublethink on 03/31/03

Hey, remember -- this is the guy who A) confused Canadian Prime Minister Chretien with the name of a Canuck dish of french fries and gravy, B) asked if Brazil had "blacks, too?" and C) managed to reconfigure U.S. geography in his own head so that Texas practically butts up against California.

Among many, many other things.

(Can you say "nuclear"? He can't.)

From LGBTBinat on 03/31/03

I never heard about the geography one, but damn I can picture him saying it. LOL

Yes I can say nuclear, only it is with an Aussie accent. ;)

From doublethink on 03/31/03

Here you go:

I was raised in the West. The west of Texas. It's pretty close to California. In more ways than Washington, D.C., is close to California.

-- George W. Bush cozying up to Angelenos

Los Angeles, 2000

I suppose he might have been trying to be figurative -- but if so, it would be the first time!

Quick Takes

Sat, 28 Jun 2003 03:36:19 GMT

Originally Posted March 28, 2003

The war against Iraq was going extremely well, Prime Minister John Howard said today...

"I believe in all the circumstances (it is) going extremely well," he told reporters.

"To those who are suggesting that because it hasn't in effect resulted in complete victory in the space of a week, I suggest they take a reality check and understand a number of things."

War is going 'extremely well', says Howard

Sydney Morning Herald

March 28, 2003

"Complete victory"? Those boys rationed down to a single bottle of water per day would probably settle for one lousy supply convoy getting to its destination.

Or do you mean it's going "extremely well" because the only Australian casualty so far has been a news cameraman?

Bush has said he believes, as commander-in-chief, that he should be the last person in the chain of command to express doubts or worries about what his administration is doing, fearing that would quickly demoralize his team.

CEO Bush No Longer Delegates Message

Washington Post

March 27, 2003

So, Georgie, you're afraid to hurt somebody's feelings by questioning the massive screw-ups in Iraq? Or were you ever in the driver's seat at all? Well, at least we know who's not in charge. Call to tell us who's really calling the shots? Rove, Cheney, Rummy, Perle? Or all of the above?

Oh, wait a minute! If Georgie isn't really running the show, that's what John Howard must have meant by things going "extremely well."

US-led forces have yet to get their hands on Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein but they may have hit him where it hurts -- sinking his luxurious yacht, a British commander said.

Allies sink Saddam's yacht: report
News.com.au

March 28, 2003

And I was worried that we weren't making any progress. Now, let's blow up his SUV -- that'll really hurt!

Despite official statements that everything is fine on America's southern border, the Bush administration seems to be giving cold treatment to Mexican President Vicente Fox after Mexico's decision not to back the U.S. stand on Iraq in the U.N. Security Council.

In sharp contrast to their much-publicized friendship two years ago, when they bragged about being on the phone constantly to consult on major issues, President Bush waited four days before returning a call from the Mexican president, senior U.S. officials told me.

"Fox wanted to test the waters, to see how the relationship was," says one U.S. official familiar with the conversation. "He should realize that the relationship has been affected."

Bush putting Mexican president on hold
Miami Herald

March 27, 2003

That's right, Georgie, piss off both our nearest neighbors. At least Fox has the class not to stay mad about Javier Medina.

Felicitaciones, Señor Presidente, para tener los cojones para hacer el primer gesto de amistad. Me disculpo por el "hissy fit" de Señor Bush.

Despite the desert conditions of the Iraqi campaign, many American soldiers are sporting deep-green combat fatigues. Why are some troops donning woodland camouflage?

According to published reports, the Pentagon simply goofed by not anticipating the demand for sand-colored desert fatigues, formally known as battle-dress uniforms. When Army and Marine units were preparing for deployment, several discovered that they lacked enough desert BDUs to outfit each soldier with the requisite three outfits. The UPI reports that the Army's 4th Infantry Division, headquartered at Fort Hood, Texas, chose to dress all its troops in the more traditional green fatigues -- commonly referred to as woodland BDUs -- rather than have only some don desert dress.

Homogeneity is generally preferred among military commanders...

Oh, heavens, that makes all the sense in the world! Mixing dark-green camouflage and desert-sand would be like wearing white after Labor Day! We simply can't sacrifice good fashion sense for a little safety, can we?

Military leaders insist that the shortage of desert BDUs will not affect the safety of American soldiers. They point out that Iraq's terrain is not entirely Sahara-like, and that green camouflage may actually work better near the banks of the Euphrates River, where vegetation and mud are present.

Why Are U.S. Troops Wearing Dark-Green Camouflage?
Slate

March 26, 2003

What a relief. Now we just have to hold our collective breath until they make it to the river. But considering their progress so far...

Ignoring a presidential ban, Afghanistan's farmers are growing more opium poppies than ever throughout the country, including areas previously free of the crop, officials said Thursday...

The production of opium, from which heroin is refined, was wiped out under the hard-line Taliban regime, but farmers began planting it again when the religious militia was deposed in 2001 during the U.S.-led war on terror. Some farmers ripped up their wheat fields to plant the lucrative drug-producing plant, which brings in hundreds of times the revenue.

Afghanistan's Farmers Growing More Opium
Newsday

March 27, 2003

Oh, so that's what we "liberated" Afghanistan for!

Or is there some sort of dirty deal in the works?

April, 1978: Soviet-backed coup in Afghanistan sets stage for explosive growth in Southwest Asian heroin trade. New Marxist regime undertakes vigorous anti-narcotics campaign aimed at suppressing poppy production, triggering a revolt by semi-autonomous tribal groups that traditionally raised opium for export. The CIA-supported rebel Mujahedeen begins expanding production to finance their insurgency. Between 1982 and 1989, during which time the CIA ships billions of dollars in weapons and other aid to guerrilla forces, annual opium production in Afghanistan increases to about 800 tons from 250 tons. By 1986, the State Department admits that Afghanistan is 'probably the world's largest producer of opium for export' and 'the poppy source for a majority of the Southwest Asian heroin found in the United States.' U.S. officials, however, fail to take action to curb production. Their silence not only serves to maintain public support for the Mujahedeen, it also smooths relations with Pakistan, whose leaders, deeply implicated in the heroin trade, help channel CIA support to the Afghan rebels.

A Tangled Web: A History of CIA Complicity

in Drug International Trafficking

Federation of American Scientists

Tommy Franks "Reveals" Something We Already Knew

Sat, 28 Jun 2003 03:29:14 GMT

Originally Posted March 28, 2003

Time magazine reports that the president poked his head into the office of Condoleezza Rice, his national security adviser, in March 2002 and told three senators sitting there: "[Expletive deleted] Saddam. We’re taking him out."

How long has war been in the cards?

MSNBC

March 27, 2003

Now, that's just wrong. Georgie would never say "expletive deleted." Heck, he probably couldn't even pronounce the word "expletive." What he really said was, "F--k Saddam. We’re taking him out."

That word, he can pronounce. Just ask Al Hunt. In fact, you'd be surprised at some of the two-syllable words Georgie can pronounce, with very little effort.

What do you mean, I missed the point of the article? As they say in Texas, not hardly. You think the idea of invading Iraq -- inspections be damned -- just popped into Little Georgie's head in March of 2002?

Haven't you been listening? The plans have been in the works for ages; Wolfowitz's people finally put it on paper in early 1992, and the newly-formed PNAC presented the plan to Bill Clinton in 1998.

Hey, don't get on Bill's case -- King George I had plenty of opportunity to take out Saddam, and declined. The momentum from the "win" in Kuwait would have been enough to garner support both at home and abroad -- and might have even won Poppy another four years in office.

(Come to think of it, if we'd known all along Iraq was such a threat, why didn't Little George make it a major talking point of Campaign 2000?)

And don't give me that tired old excuse that congressional Democrats wouldn't let George I act on his own. The CIA director-cum-Veep and his ex-boss waged unconscionable war, trained, funded, and armed terrorists (hint: initials include OBL and SH), and installed puppet dictators throughout the Mideast and Latin America without so much as a "screw you" to Congress or the American people, for far less legal or ethical reasons (and with far more disastrous results) than Poppy could have armed himself with.

(And they accuse peaceniks of "aiding and comforting the enemy"?)

So don't try to feed me that old line about Bush I being "prevented" from doing any damned thing he wanted.

What Poppy did do was miss his window of opportunity -- and the neo-cons had to wait for Junior to hit the trifecta.

So, the big, whoop-de-doo Franks "revelation" is old news -- at least to those of us who have been paying attention.

Still, one wonders if Georgie Boy has fingers enough to plug any more leaks.

Oh, THANK YOU, William R. Schaffer of Tacoma, Washington

Sat, 28 Jun 2003 03:22:36 GMT

Originally Posted March 28, 2003

...who wrote a letter to the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, whining about "left-wing" media, calling us peaceniks "America bashers" who "spend their nights burning flags" (oh, yeah, right, can't walk through my living room for all the ashes!) and "starting fights with those who oppose their views" (sure -- and you oughta see the other guy!), yada yada yada ad nauseum -- the same paranoid crap I've heard a thousand times... but for one difference:

Today, I salute YOU, Mr. William R. Schaffer, for giving me the opportunity to say something I have longed to say, all my life, to an ignorant, brainwashed, hysterical, reactionary, hypocritical, First-Amendment-usurping, robotic, Limbaugh-parroting, garden-variety extremist warmonger who has never entertained an original thought in his life.

You wrote:

I'm ashamed to be living here and ashamed to be part of the fighting force protecting their rights.

And I reply:

Mr. Schaffer...
Love it or leave it!

Damn, that felt good!

Comments

From P---- on 03/28/03

Hey! No fair stealing our trite and hackneyed phrases!

Just wait. Someday I'll find a way to use one of you guys's trite, hackneyed phrases against you! And then I'll be all like, "No blood for oil!" all over your butt. Just wait and see.

FYI, the 2003 Federal Homeland Security Act which was passed this morning prohibits the use of more than three adjectives in referring to registered Republicans. Also, as a matter of national security, all hyphenated adjectives are now prohibited when discussing persons who support Operation Iraqi Freedom. Please edit your description of Mr. Schaffer so that you are in compliance with all legal requirements, or I shall have no choice but to report you to the proper authorities.

(See? I could have so easily been a self-righteous, right-wing-baiting comsymp! :-) It's so much fun! And then I would get a link in your "Eyes Wide Open" (i.e., "Agrees with Me") section! LOL)

From doublethink on 03/28/03

If it'll make you feel better, I'll stand with you outside Tom Daschle's office (or Hillary's, or Gep's, or any one of those DINOs) with "No Blood for Oil" signs. I'd be more than happy to call those opportunistic hypocrites on the carpet. (That was only one adjective -- but you will tell me if words of five or more syllables are tabu, won't you?)

No more than three adjectives? Damn. I'll have to consult my Newspeak dictionary. But if memory serves, I think I can replace all the adjectives with one word: doubleplusbad.

And, P----, the eternal optimist in me envisions the day you, too, will claim your rightful place in the Left-Wing Journalers Hall of Fame at right. I have hope for everyone! *evil grin*

From P---- on 03/28/03

You may use as many adjectives as you wish in referring to DINOs or other Democrats. Only registered Republicans and persons who sincerely support Operation Iraqi Freedom are protected under the 2003 Homeland Security Act. If you are at a loss for adjectives to refer to Democrats/DINOs, please so advise, and I will be happy to lend you a few of mine.

Please: If you ever feel that I have qualified for your Agrees with Me list, I expect that you will, being an honorable man, shoot me. (Hey, you're the gun guy, not me.)

Similarly, I will give you my solemn vow that if I ever feel compelled to put you in any listing of "People Who Have Learned From History", or similarly question-begging category which means "Agrees with P----", I will - oh, I don't know, how do you want to go? I'm not much with a gun; just my measly USAF training, which was long ago.

I'll let you choose. :-)

From doublethink on 03/28/03

Trust me -- I'll let you know. One thing you'll find is that I will admit to being wrong when proven so. (And believe me, I am dying for you or anyone else to prove me dead-wrong about Pax Americana.)

In the meantime...

P----, where in the world did you ever get the idea I was a guy?

Hmm, maybe it's because I don't "write female" (you know, using those unnecessary, self-undermining qualifier sentences: "I think..." and "It's only my opinion, but..." and "Maybe I don't know much, but...").

Well, I always do take it as a compliment that I can play just as well as the boys. :D

From jadedgrrl on 03/30/03

haha! when i realized you were a grrl i'm like 'whoa, a grrl with 'tude, how totally fucking cool!'

From doublethink on 03/30/03

LOL! From one grrl with a 'tude to another: Gracias, chica! :)

I Couldn't Make Up a Headline This Scary

Sun, 08 Jun 2003 10:11:39 GMT

Originally Posted March 27, 2003

Moscow launches intercontinental ballistic missile

The Russian military has launched a test intercontinental ballistic missile from its northwestern Plisetsk base, military officials said.

The Topol rocket, which was 18 years old, was fired at the Kamchatka peninsula, the usual target for most Russian intercontinental test sights.

Military officials told AFP that the launch was not linked with the United States' decision to launch the Iraqi war...

When contacted by AFP earlier, a Russian military space agency official had refused to answer whether the test had been planned before or after the US-British military attack on Iraq...

Sydney Morning Herald

March 28, 2003

Let's see now... With a high concentration of U.S. troops within spitting distance of Russia's backdoor, and a high probability Kim Il Jung is eyeing a target anywhere from the Aleutians to Hawaii to San Francisco...

Yep, I'd say "they" have us pretty well covered. Like 275 million sitting ducks.

Anyone up for pushing France or India over the edge?

I can already smell the biggest barbecue in the world.

Thanks, George. I feel a LOT safer now.

Comments

From LostDreamer on 03/27/03

that last sentence sounds like sarcasm...i think that might be bad. seeing as how i am politically challenged...what does that entry mean. feel free to use food as an example again..or if you dont want to explain it to me thats ok too. hahahaha.

From P---- on 03/28/03

Hey, LostDreamer. doublethink already used a food example: "I can already smell the biggest barbecue in the world." :-)

Here's another one. Let's say Taco Bell had these super-gigantic burritos that they could mount on intercontinental missiles. And then McDonald's had these giant cheeseburgers that they could shoot out of submarines . . . .

Ah, geez, I can't do this. doublethink's gonna have to do it.

-P----

From doublethink on 03/28/03

Okay, LD, I'll give it a shot. No food this time, though...

It's like this: Most of the kids in the neighborhood are fed up with the neighborhood bully. He has a long history of pushing everybody else around all the time, stealing smaller kids' lunch money, and beating up on kids who can't defend themselves. (He also makes a lot of threats to bigger kids who can defend themselves, but until recently he's been pretty good at talking his way out of fighting them, because he doesn't really know if he can kick their butts.) Even the two kids who live right next-door to the bully have finally come out and said they're mad at him -- and these two have always been pretty quiet, because they didn't want to upset him.

Well, now there's a lot of gossip racing through the neighborhood. The buzz sounds like a bunch of the other kids, including a few who used to belong to the bully's old gang, are planning on ganging up on the bully and beating the crap out of him.

They've all tried talking to him, but it hasn't worked. It's not that the bully is stupid or anything, but right now, he's stuck on this idea that he's going to be top dog of the whole neighborhood, no matter what anybody else wants -- and there's been no way to make the bully listen. A lot of the kids who used to belong to his gang are surprised, and scared -- and while none of them really wants to mix it up with the bully, they're quickly getting the idea that the only language the bully understands right now is brute force.

Still, nobody's sure if anybody really has the guts to take on the bully, because he really is the biggest, strongest kid in the neighborhood. Some of the kids are secretly hoping that all they'll have to do is pants the bully in the middle of Main Street, so the bully's -- uh, shortcomings are exposed to the whole town, and the bully is so embarrassed, he bursts into tears and goes home.

The thing nobody counts on is that there are a couple of other really big strong kids (who used to be bigger bullies, but neither of them has punched anybody out in a long time) getting into the act.

One of these guys -- Ivan -- is a lot weaker since his gang broke up a few years ago, but he's still pretty scary, because he has a lot of guns, knives, and brickbats (and he's been seen sharpening his collection of knives lately) -- even though he promised the bully he wouldn't use them. But then, the bully kind of gave him permission to use them, by backing out on a deal the two of them had made a long time ago. Plus, the bully's been messing around in Ivan's backyard, where Ivan's got a bunch of pennies buried in coffee cans. And Ivan is very protective of his penny collection.

Then there's this other big dude -- huge, really -- called Pao (as in "pow!"), who's a lot older and tougher than most of the other kids. Pao hasn't punched out anybody in a long time either -- but everybody in the whole town is afraid of making him mad, because if he ever decided to hit you, he could kill you with one punch. And the other thing about Pao is that nobody can really figure out what's going on in his head -- he's really secretive. He keeps to himself, and keeps everybody else guessing.

Then there's this other kid, who's smaller than Pao, but right now he's as scary as Pao used to be. The scariest thing about this kid is that he's crazy as a woodtick -- a real loose cannon -- who's been stockpiling illegal fireworks. If you get into a fight with this kid, he won't try to beat you up -- his fireworks would do a lot more damage than his fists, and he's been talking about setting them off. The worst part is, the bully has been ignoring this crazy, out-of-control kid. Some people think that's because the bully is scared to start anything with somebody so crazy and dangerous -- and some people think it's because the bully knows this crazy kid can't fire his bottle rockets very far: He'd probably only be able to blow up the bully's cousins, on the other side of town -- cousins the bully really doesn't like anyway.

Oh yeah, one other thing: This crazy kid isn't exactly the best of friends with Pao, but if the bully goes messing with the crazy kid to stop him before he can start lighting his fireworks, Pao is likely to step in and kick the bully's ass.

Then there's Jean-Paul, and Vreeshna, two more kids who have their own awesome collections of fireworks. Jean-Paul probably wouldn't really do anything to the bully, but Vreeshna is kind of a wild card. See, the bully is friends with one of Vreeshna's enemies, Pak -- and Vreeshna and Pak have been threatening to have a major gang war any day now. If that happens, the bully might have to step in and help Pak -- but even the bully is smart enough to realize that this rumble would be so big, it could destroy a lot more than the neighborhood.

Does that make more sense?

From dsdhall on 03/28/03

Excellent!

You could tidy that up a bit, and repost that as an article in its own right!

From doublethink on 03/28/03

Thanks! I might just do that. :)

'Right from the top'

Sun, 25 May 2003 01:22:49 GMT

Originally Posted March 27, 2003

So, Cellucci wasn't just being an ass all on his own:

U.S. Ambassador Paul Cellucci was delivering a rebuke straight from President George W. Bush's White House this week when he complained of Canada's refusal to participate in the war in Iraq, U.S. officials confirmed yesterday.

Despite Liberal government assurances that the Bush administration had accepted the Canadian decision gracefully, U.S. officials say Mr. Bush and his advisers are furious, not only with the decision to stay out of the battle but also with what they say is the anti-American rhetoric that Prime Minister Jean Chrétien has tolerated.

Sources said national security adviser Condoleezza Rice consulted Mr. Cellucci about the message he was to deliver at a breakfast speech on Tuesday in Toronto.

"This came right from the top," one U.S. official said.

When Mr. Chrétien announced the Canadian position, Liberal ministers had assured the Bush team that, while Canada would not participate in the war, it also would not criticize the U.S. and British effort in Iraq.

However, American officials noted that Mr. Chrétien quickly characterized the war as "unjustified" and then failed to condemn Natural Resources Minister Herb Dhaliwal, who called Mr. Bush a "failed statesman." ...

U.S. diplomats have delivered similar messages in other countries that have failed to back the war in Iraq. In Mexico, which had a key seat on the Security Council, U.S. Ambassador Tony Garza, a Texas friend of Mr. Bush, irritated many Mexicans earlier this month when he said that the U.S. administration would not be "placated" by any half-hearted support from its neighbors.

...Mr. Cellucci warned obliquely that there could be some disruption in Canada-U.S. trade relations, saying "security will trump trade." ...

...Mr. Bush is scheduled to travel to Ottawa* for an official visit in early May.

Mr. Cellucci suggested, however, that Mr. Bush is a wartime president and may have to cancel the visit.

White House Consulted Cellucci on Rebuke

Globe & Mail

March 27, 2003

* Guess Canada has exempted Georgie's DUI.

Holy sacred cow!

Sun, 25 May 2003 01:12:42 GMT

Originally Posted March 27, 2003

Richard Perle has resigned!

I know most Americans have no idea who Richard Perle is -- but those of you who do will understand immediately why this is huge news.

Now, I don't believe for a moment that Perle won't still be hanging around the White House (look how hollow Karen Hughes' purely symbolic resignation was) -- but I am no less stunned by this announcement.

I have to think about the ramifications of this for a while. What it means, what it's supposed to mean, and what it really means.

And, yes, I'll be getting into the who, what, and how of Perle, PNAC, and all that stuff (I only wish I could have done it before this) -- it's just a very time-consuming, thought-intensive process of laying it out in an easily-digestible form.

(Not to insult anyone's intelligence, mind you -- I'm just well aware that not everyone on Planet Earth has been absorbing all this stuff as long as I have, and I don't want to overload anybody's circuits.)

Wow!

Wow, Wow, Wow!

Comments

From P---- on 03/27/03

A big deal indeed! Though I wonder what's behind it . . . more will be revealed.

From doublethink on 03/27/03

PR liability?

Kissinger-style conflict of interests (Global Crossing)?

No longer govt employee = no Senate investigation?

The possibilities are endless!

I love a mystery...!

From doublethink on 03/27/03

The mystery deepens:

In a brief phone conversation this afternoon before the Pentagon's announcement, Mr. Perle sounded angry. Asked whether he had resigned, he replied: "Let me just tell you something. If I had, you'd be the last person in the world I'd want to talk to." He then slammed down the phone.

New York Times

From doublethink on 03/27/03

AHA!

In a brief statement, Rumsfeld thanked Perle for his service and said he was grateful that the former Reagan administration official had agreed to remain a board member. Rumsfeld made no reference to a reason for Perle giving up the chairmanship.

Salon

So the "resignation" is a crock.

Now, why the smokescreen?

From P---- on 03/27/03

I thought that was clear from your first link - that he had been asked to remain on the board, and was only resigning as chairman. Though it's still curious why the move.

From doublethink on 03/27/03

Call it a case of Premature... Excitement.

It just didn't sink in. I was hoping and praying for a crack that would open the floodgates, and it just wasn't there.

P----, there's something I need to explain to you. Yes, I'm waiting and praying for the end of the Bush administration -- but not as some sort of political victory. I'm not competitive that way -- I don't need to "win" -- and I could certainly (and have, many times) lived under a Republican administration with little real concern. I'd do it again if the White House was being run by people I believed I could afford to trust.

The thing I need you to understand is that these people (especially "Prince of Darkness" Perle) scare me. To death. Literally.

I honestly, truly believe, to the depth of my little left-wing soul, that if Bush serves another four years (or even another two), my life will not be worth living.

They -- Bush and everyone around him -- hate people like me. I mean hate. You're smart, P----, you're well-read -- you know what I'm talking about. And I think, deep down, you know that they will squash my kind like a bug, as soon as it's possible and convenient.

Time is running out. So I'm grasping, desperately, at any sign of hope this nightmare will end soon.

I was wrong. This news means nothing. Absolutely nothing.

From P---- on 03/28/03

I guess I really don't agree with your suggestion that "Bush and everyone around him . . . hate people like me." And I *really* don't agree with your suggestion that "they will squash my kind like a bug, as soon as it's possible and convenient."

If by bug-squashing you mean becoming political prisoners or political death-casualties, I say, "Not a chance." Assuming they had this in mind, I would say - and I expect the overwhelming majority of Americans would say - "Let them try."

I am not attached to Bush the man. I am attached to what I believe he stands for. What he stands for, I believe, includes true liberty, including an unfettered right to speak, to protest, and even to be a no-hope lib. Or comsymp. Or socialist. Anything.

And I truly believe, from the bottom of my soul, that if I am completely wrong, and Bush attempts to so obliterate the checks and balances of our Constitution so as to to meaningfully squash free speech -e.g, by banning guys like you from posting what you believe, there's going to be an uprising in this country the likes of which has never before been seen in the history of the world. And you and I will be comrades in that fight.

The only way he could pull off this doomsday scenario of which you speak is by force of arms- by using the military. So here's another one of my fundamental beliefs: while Bush is the commander in chief, our military is very like Turkey's. They are fiercely independent, and are not going to be made pawns of a civilian leader. They will obey without hesitation any lawful orders, but they are bright enough to read the Constitution, and will not obey unlawful orders. (There's both a danger and a blessing in this fierce independence, but the danger here comes from the Generals, not from Bush.)

But, as Clinton used to say, "I feel your pain." (The difference here is that I actually mean it. :)) I remember when Clinton was elected in 92. I didn't have any real use for Bush I, but viewed Clinton as a guy who would utterly decimate the Republic, especially with his left-leaning congress. For goodness sake, socialized medicine was right around the corner! The Canadians wouldn't have anywhere to go to get decent medical care!

Seriously, I can remember despairing. But we survived.

Finally: if I'm completely wrong, and they do try to squash you, you can hide in my basement. I'll let you use my computer to post from. Just be sure to log out as P---- and login as doublethink. Otherwise my friends will all think I've lost my mind :-)

From doublethink on 03/28/03

I wish I believed you were right, about the American people fighting back, but it's just not what I'm seeing or hearing, P----. On the other side of the fence, people who are just as oustpoken as I am are practically drooling over the idea of locking up dissenters, and seeing our blood literally flow in the streets. (You must know of freerepublic.com, don't you?) My God, they rejoice in such "victories" as the Israeli tank run-over of the American human shield in Palestine.

While I personally think being a human shield is posintless (especially when the attackers don't care who gets in the way), it's the reaction of people who swear they're "freedom-loving Americans" that chills my blood. (What about that truck driver who nearly mowed down 40 peace protesters on a bridge a couple of days ago? He said he was just trying to clear them away, as a patriotic act "for our boys.")

People like that crow about their own right to free speech, but they conveniently label my right to disagree with them as "treason."

And they're only encouraged by Bush and his cohorts. "Watch what you say, watch what you do" ... "You shouldn't criticize a wartime president" ... Paraphrases, yes, but you recognize the sources of those sentiments -- the White House.

And then there's the Patriot Act -- and Patriot Act II, which serves only to paint people like me -- as well as the real "bad guys" -- into a smaller corner in which to move around. You must have read at least some of Act I; the term "enemy combatant" can be applied for the most specious of reasons. And Act II actually threatens to strip U.S. citizenship from and expatriating anyone (even native-born) accused of funding or otherwise supporting any group even suspected of furthering or advocating domestic terrorism. (By that definition alone, the entire membership of Operation Rescue should be sitting in a cage at Gitmo -- but those are not the sort of "terrorists" I expect they're going to be rounding up.)

Finally, I don't forget for a moment the dozens of (verifiable) stories of FBI agents showing up on the doorsteps of the most casual dissenters (a 60-year-old man who tossed off an anti-Bush remark at the gym, a teenager whose anti-Bush poster inside her home caused somebody to rat her out as "suspicious" to the feds) -- or the woman blacklisted from flying because she worked for the Green Party... or the 22-year-old kid bounced from three different flights out of Phoenix -- and then finally banned for life by United -- because security thought the cover art of the book he was carrying to read on the plane looked "radical."

As for Bush using the military domestically, I don't doubt it will happen -- it's called martial law. And all we need is to ratchet the color-coded alert system up a single notch for it to happen.

I don't put a lot of faith in individual soldiers balking against unlawful orders. Regardless what you or I think, I'm sure there are more than a few in Iraq right now questioning the legality of the invasion, and yet they're sworn to duty. I'm sure many of them feel there is no choice, when that choice will result in spending the rest of your life in Leavenworth, while your family goes hungry because you stood by your morals.

If this ever goes as far as a war-crimes trial (and I don't believe it will, but if it does), I hope the only defendants at the next Nuremberg are the officers on up. While the average G.I. Joe and I share little more than the same carbon base, I honestly worry for the soldiers in this scenario.

And thanks for the offer of your basement, P---- -- you're a true Miep Gies, which is high praise from me.

But I think if it gets to that point, I won't be able to cross the stateline.

From dsdhall on 03/28/03

Sorry to break into your admittedly very interesting discussion there, but the BBC was reporting today that:

"Mr Perle had also not only argued for the need to go to war with Iraq, he had strongly suggested that the Iraqis would put up minimal resistance.

BBC correspondent Jon Leyne says that his days of power in Washington now appear to be over."

BBC (and other sources) also hinting Rumsfeld's days are numbered now.

Or is that total non news?

From doublethink on 03/28/03

Never be sorry for distracting me from my state of government-induced terror. LOL

Oh, it's new to me all right -- and all the more reason for me to go hang around the blessedly calm and rational BBC site tonight.

(Rummy? Be still, my hopeful heart!)

O, Canada... Oh, boy.

Sun, 25 May 2003 00:56:56 GMT

Originally Posted March 27, 2003

I was going to write about something else entirely tonight, but it will have to wait. I'm just in no mood. Of all the things to crack my composure tonight, it's Canada.

It's rant time. I'm afraid this will come out rather disjointed in spots, but it's the way my thoughts are running. I apologize for that. But right now, I have no use for form -- only substance.

The Canucks have had it with us. In spite of everything, the "bashing" back and forth between Yanks and Canadians has -- until now -- been nothing more than the sort of good-natured horseplay between cousins who don't always get along, but who, when pressed, will admit to a grudging respect and liking for each other. Sure, there are plenty of Canucks who detest Yanks, and vice versa, for reasons that have nothing to do with Iraq -- but is that any different between any two countries in the world? If I'm wrong, then my friendships with numerous Canadians over the years have been out of the ordinary. (Which I don't believe for a minute.)

I'm not just upset by Paul Cellucci -- although his Ugly American-ism is certainly a part of it (and if Canada's Liberals stick to their guns, Cellucci is thisclose to getting bounced out of Canada on his presumptuous ass).

I am upset because there's a type of openly anti-American hostility coming out of Canada right now that I've never seen before. Worse, I can't blame Canadians for feeling the way they do. We've given them more than enough reason.

We've pushed them too far. Not just Bush and his whole megalomaniacal operation -- I mean Americans themselves, specifically, the stupid, shortsighted bastards too damned childish to simply respect Canada's decision not to support Bush's war. Even Chrétien told his people they "have to respect the decision of the Americans" -- whether or not Chrétien means what he says, why can't Americans be half as grown-up as this?

Yes, I know all about Canadians booing the "Star Spangled Banner" last week. So now, the U.S. is booing back. And it looks like this is how it's going to go from now on, back and forth, until it comes to blows -- or until U.S. and Canadian teams stop playing each other altogether.

Does this make us big, brave Americans feel better? Are we "big men"?

Or would we be bigger to rise above such childishness?

And I thought sports had something to do with "sportsmanship." If we are unable to put aside political differences in the name of fair play, I guess the next Olympics will be a sham.

Incidentally, has everyone forgotten that the U.S. was the one started this shameful spectacle of disrespect -- a year ago?

No, I don't excuse Françoise Ducros for saying "Bush is a moron," or Carolyn Parrish for her "Damn Americans, I hate the bastards." I may defend every individual's right to say anything they want, but I also believe Ducros and Parrish each made a huge political mistake. It doesn't matter whether these are their personal opinions or whether they represent the majority opinion of Canada; as politicians, they erred.

(And, believe me, for me to defend Bush against being called a "moron" by anyone is proof that I believe in what I'm saying.)

Nevertheless, do you honestly think such remarks even approach the gall of Paul Cellucci telling Canada what they should be allowed to say? Do you think -- like booing "O, Canada!" -- it makes us grown-ups to "hit back"?

So, what in the world set me off tonight? Simple: The same, stupid, simpleminded anti-Canadian bigotry starting to roll across America in the style of stupid, simpleminded anti-French bigotry that's done nothing but make us all look like a bunch of spoiled crybabies.

I'm talking about that jerk in Atlanta who refused to honor a winning eBay bid because the buyer is Canadian (which is not only self-defeating, but in this case probably illegal). I'm talking about the disgusting pig in Grand Forks, North Dakota, vandalizing and pissing on Manitoba license plates. I'm talking about radio station WENG in Florida dropping a five-minute-long, Canadian-produced show it has aired for 25 years because of Canada's anti-war stance. (Great way to stimulate the all-but-dead U.S. tourism industry -- alienate the two million Canadians who vacation in Florida every year!)

And Cellucci thinks Canada should control its citizens? If we're going to adopt a permanent policy of silencing anybody who threatens to tarnish our image, I have a terrific suggestion for all that unused duct tape right here in the U. S. of A.

Hypocrite, you say? Condoning the suppression of dissent? Nope. All I'm suggesting is a level playing field -- but I need to know the rules of play first. If you believe that people like me shouldn't be allowed to speak out against the war, then you shouldn't be allowed to express your own beliefs, whatever they may be. But if you believe in open dissent without fear of retribution, as I do, then you don't go waltzing into another country and start demanding its citizens shut up.

Nor do you demand that your fellow citizens shut up. And I am not doing that myself. I am trying to illustrate how the actions of a brainless few -- who think they're being "patriotic" -- are not only not patriotic, but as un-American as can be.

And they're not improving an already bad situation.

Excuse me, dear readers, while I vent some rage upon the anti-Canadian idiots:

Jesus, people! What the HELL is wrong with you that you automatically brand every country opposed to the Iraq invasion as anti-American? They are not condemning America (which is what "anti-Americanism" is). They disagree with Bush's war. That's it! They may have other, fundamental beefs with us -- but it is not "anti-American" for a nation to say, "We don't like what you're doing, and we want no part of it."

And that is all that Canada is doing. They haven't stopped buying American cars, or eating American cheeseburgers, or going to American movies. But if we -- as individuals -- keep making such asses of ourselves, you can bet a mass boycott of American products and services is in the offing.

Why can't you separate this division of ideals from the relationship itself? Why must you equate one with the other? Didn't your mamma ever teach you not to "throw the baby out with the bathwater"?

It's not America or Americans the majority of western nations are opposing -- it's Bush and PNAC! Wake the hell UP!

But you don't see this. You seem utterly incapable of digesting the rationale behind anyone else's decisions. You are incapable of respecting anyone who disagrees with you. If you like vanilla, then everyone who likes rocky road is wrong, and bad, and should be punished. I envision some of you as the type who, if you think your wife is cheating on you, skip right past marriage counseling and divorce court, and just shoot her.

Obviously, you're also incapable of comprehending the fact that you can push people only so far (or have you never gotten a good butt-kicking after shooting your mouth off in a bar?).

It doesn't matter who we're talking about -- everyone has a breaking point. And no matter how tolerant he or she may be, even your best friend in the world is eventually going to resort to some serious "tough love" if you don't stop acting like a paranoid-schizophrenic Rambo with the emotional intelligence of a four-year-old, high on sugar and testosterone, swinging a hair-triggered Glock over your head.

Say whatever the hell you want -- but STOP these stupid, destructive acts! What do you think you're going to accomplish? You think your license-plate pissing is going to make Canada step back and say, "Gee, maybe we should rethink this. Maybe we should go help the U.S. bomb Iraq" - ?

And, no, I'm not defending Canada because I share their anti-war stance. (I would hope that no one who's read this far would by now think I was that shallow.) By comparison, I abhor the U.K.'s official pro-war stance, and think Tony Blair should have been thrown out of 10 Downing Street long ago. But not for one second do I fault the English people. Not one. I am not about to start burning Alfred Hitchcock DVD's in the street, or stomping up and down on top of a pile of English muffins in protest.

Ditto Australia, John Howard, "Crocodile Dundee" movies, and jars of Vegemite.

You screw around with Canadians the way you have with the French, and scenes like this are going to start appearing on our side of the Atlantic Ocean.

Shocked? What the hell kind of reaction do you expect?

You know, I can't count the number of times a Canadian has reassured me: "We don't fault the American people for any of this. We blame Bush."

Well, now, the American people -- at least a small minority of idiots grabbing the spotlight, as usual -- is giving Canada plenty of reasons to fault Yanks for acting like the neighborhood bullies our leaders have turned out to be.

And consider this, you who suddenly hate Canada: When you take "direct action" against an individual Canadian, how do you know that Canadian doesn't support the Iraq invasion?

What are you, psychic?

I'm not telling anyone what to think or say. I am telling narrowminded idiots that what they are doing is extremely damaging to our relationship with Canada. Canadians have forgiven Americans a multitude of sins, thanks to their ability to discern the difference between the American people and the leaders who act on our behalf -- regardless of whether or not their actions are in our best interests.

But when you start pissing off individuals in a society -- especially one that is fiercely proud of its identity (and rightfully so, no matter how many stupid jokes you make about it) and separateness from the U.S. (no matter how blind you are to the differences), then that's when you're asking for trouble.

You need proof? Try this on for size: German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder was elected on an anti-war platform.

In other words, you get enough citizens against you, and they are going to elect leaders who don't like you, either.

How much clearer and simpler can I make it than that?

Have you ever seen a snowball roll downhill?

Stop screwing around, people. Your deliberate attempts as individual Americans, to hit back at individual Canadians because our leaders are at odds are going to backfire and do more damage, more permanently, than any one-term president could ever manage.

You are taking away the Canadians' last excuse to remain our friends. You are proving that Americans themselves are vindictive brats.

How short your memory! How fickle, how ungrateful you are! Without Canada, six more Americans would have been forced to endure 444 days in Iranian captivity. Without Canada, some 40,000 Americans wouldn't have had a place to sleep, clothes to wear, or a hot meal to eat while stranded by diverted flights after September 11th.

Canadians have fought beside us, died beside us, and been killed by us (and God only knows what prompted Chrétien to refrain from bringing charges against us). When our forests are ablaze, they send their firefighters, and their best equipment.

And YOU want to throw all that away because their leaders dare stand up for an ideological position in contrast to yours, and -- for the first time in my recollection -- refuse to quietly and meekly follow whatever the U.S. wants? Because Canada's official stance is that this "war" is wrong, just as strongly as you believe it's right?

You shame me. You shame us all.

I wouldn't blame Canada if they built a 3,000-mile wall just to keep unthinking morons like you -- and Pat "Soviet Canuckistan" Buchanan -- out.

End rant.

I've got to stop now. The thought of losing our friendship with Canada -- with Canadians -- is just too much for me to handle right now.

It's like anticipating a death in the family.

Comments

From P---- on 03/27/03

I agree with most of what you say: idiots in America make us all look bad; just like idiots in Canada make all Canadians look bad (the "moron" and "bastards" comments being the tip of an iceberg of a sort of populist anti-Americanism north of the border. http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=3212. NAFTA and the post-9/11 snub have helped fuel the fire. http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/3/17/160944.shtml

But my prediction is different than yours. I truly believe that this will prove to be a tempest in a teapot. We are joined at the hip with Canada, both culturally and economically. All thoughtful people on both sides of the border understand this, and appreciate their neighbor. The thoughtful people outnumber the numbskulls on both sides of the border by a very wide margin.

Ultimately, I think this will be a flash in the pan. In the meantime, thoughtful people will continue to cringe at the thought of booing each others' anthems, and casting aspersions like "moron" and "bastard", license plate abuse and refusals on "political" grounds to honor ebay contracts.

-P----

From japagow on 03/27/03

I'm not a religious person. I believe, naively some would say, that people are the same the world over and, that people are essentially GOOD.
Therefore in the wave of media/political activity since 9/11 I felt uncomfortable that here in the UK we were not getting the thoughts of ordinary GOOD Americans. Rather we received the emulsified pap of regurgitated political cant. Written with some agenda in mind.
I am delighted to read your journal (try CKM too, there's a real fight going on there!) It shows that the silence is over and americans are questioning their role in the world.
In journalspace I get the impression that the US is in turmoil over the rights and wrongs of what is going on in Iraq.
Every nation has bigots. Its when they get into power that ordinary GOOD people like you and I have to find our voice and protest.

From BobLoblaw on 03/27/03

I tend to agree with P---- on the Canadian/ American relations issue. The forces of our reasonably compatible economies will prevail over the stupidity and short-sightedness of so many people on both sides and at all levels.
There are many examples of strained relations between our countries which have had very little lasting impact on our generally positive symbiotic history.

From doublethink on 03/27/03

P----,

I know anti-American sentiment is growing north of the border. But -- now, now -- what in the world are you thinking, trying to poison minds with Newsmax, of all things, or a page to a "Canadian nationalist" site? Bad, P----, bad! LOL I do hope you're right, though, about it being a tempest in a teapot -- and yes, while Canada can't practically cut off ties with us, I'd rather the relationship be one of mutual respect, rather than force (by virtue of being, literally and figuratively, joined at the hip).

japagow,

Thanks very much for the kudos and encouragement. It's the "emulsified pap of regurgitated political cant" (brilliant turn of a phrase!) that was the impetus for doublethink.

I don't for a moment pretend that those of us who are against Bush's war, and/or extremely disturbed by the implementation of the Plan for the New American Century are in the majority in the U.S. -- but we do constitute a significant percentage that must not be ignored (and which would be a much stronger political force if the "average American" had the inclination, the analytical ability, and the attention span to educate him/herself).

But thanks to an Orwellian-style press here, you're not getting the complete picture across the pond any more than most Americans are getting at home. When I finally accepted the bitter truth that all my letters and phone calls and faxes to congressional representatives and newspaper editors weren't doing a bit of good, I asked myself what I could be doing that I hadn't yet done. So I started writing here, in the hopes of reaching uninformed Americans, bolstering the flagging spirits of peaceniks, and -- just as important -- touching base with Brits, Aussies, and other "coalition" individuals being unwillingly dragged into a globe-dividing conflict by their leaders.

I can't begin to tell you how happy it makes me to hear that even a single word from me has given you some insight into those of us who cringe in horror at the thought we are being represented overseas by the petty-minded "freedom fries" brigade.

One of these days (when the bombs aren't falling), I'll take up the issue of the pervasive knee-jerk reaction to blame every one of America's ills on Bill Clinton's penis. I bring it up now only to make a point: When Clinton was being grilled about the Lewinsky scandal, a lot of Yanks were horrified by the knowledge that the most intimate details were being broadcast across the globe.

I had a different take: Regardless of what I thought of the whole mess myself, I was actually very proud that the United States was so open about its skeletons-in-the-closet. And regardless of whether or not this openness was a result of sheer sensationalism, I was confident that we would always allow the world to see, to understand, to make sense of, what really goes on within our borders -- no matter how we looked.

After all, we had nothing to hide. Here we are, we said -- love us or hate us, here we are. Warts and all.

Obviously, it's not that way anymore. We've become a society of secrets. Worse, it's not just you who's been shut out of the loop -- our own citizens can't even delve into documents that were publicly accessibly to us just two years ago. And our mainstream media lies to us constantly, whether through spin or omission.

I can't guarantee that the "silence is over." Those of us who disagree with the Bush administration (on any number of principles, not just war) have been effectively cowed by fear of retribution since 9-11. While the entire nation was reeling in shock, legislation was rammed through Congress that can easily be used to lock up dissidents, among other things in direct opposition to our once-reliable Bill of Rights.

I think what you're seeing is a rapidly-growing rise in the number of Americans who realize that their cherished "American way of life" may soon become nothing more than a fond memory if they don't get off their asses now and make themselves heard.

That noise you hear is a bursting at the seams.

Bob,

Just keep reassuring me of that, will you? :)

A True Loss

Sun, 25 May 2003 00:44:46 GMT

Originally Posted March 26, 2003

Generally too far to the right for my liking, but nevertheless a true statesman, a gifted and highly-educated writer and speaker, and one of the most respectable human beings ever to walk the halls of Congress:

R.I.P. Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Comments

From LostDreamer on 03/26/03

Wow i didnt even know he existed. when did he die?

From P---- on 03/26/03

I couldn't agree more with you, doublethink. One of the finest, most erudite men to ever serve the Republic, a man of impeccable integrity. Generally too far left in his domestic policies for my liking (big surprise, right?), but a man who got there thoughtfully and honestly. This is a real loss to the US and the world. RIP.

From doublethink on 03/27/03

No surprise at all, P----. LOL

Oh, my, I just thought of a great interview question for you...

From P---- on 03/27/03

Wow; that was a tough interview. I'll ask you the same interview question.

I was worried when I first posted about Pat Moynihan that this might be the only time we would find something we could both completely agree on. But as I went through the quiz, I decided there are probably a few other things we would probably agree on:

1. I think gays/lesbians should be allowed to enter into a legal relationship identical to marriage.

2. I oppose the death penalty in all circumstances.

3. I'm close to an ACLUer on 1st Amendment issues.

Yikes. I hope the National Republican Party doesn't see this. I'll be, like, banned!

-P----

From doublethink on 03/27/03

Done and done. Yes, it is tough. :) There are a few other great political tests out there; I'll have to remember to post the links one day.

Oh, I actually believe there are lots of issues we could agree on. Despite my nearly ultra-liberal outcome on the political quiz, I'd label myself an extreme social liberal, but fiscally pretty moderate... which probably makes me a traditional Libertarian in theory. (But theory and practice are seldom in perfect sync.)

Couldn't agree with you more on same-sex unions. I think the bugaboo for the general population is use of the word "marriage," which has all sorts of religious implications -- thus leading people to the misguided conclusion that if "gay marriage" were legalized, their own churches would be forced to sanction marriages against their beliefs. (Which, of course, is silly -- it's up to the discretion of every church whether or not to perform a marriage.)

Yep, I oppose the death penalty in all circumstances, for reasons that span the gamut from moral to practical (e.g., it doesn't "un-do" the crime, the cost of the appeals process dwarfs the cost of life imprisonment, etc.). No doubt I'll write a long diatribe on it someday.

Amen to First-Amendment issues. I grit my teeth every time I see the ACLU go to bat for the KKK or Pat Robertson (that case is still pending, I think), but I really will "defend to the death" anyone's right to free speech... even if it kills me. LOL

Other possible areas for agreement that might surprise you:

Gun control. I grew up in a "gun family," and my father was a lifetime NRA member (before they became so political; Dad was actually a moderate-liberal). I love to target-shoot (but I don't hunt, because I can't kill). I can understand the reasoning behind the idea of registering all gun purchases, but what's the point when only law-abiding citizens will register (since career criminals aren't about to?). And, damn it, I'm personally annoyed and inconvenienced by it. LOL

Abortion: I'm dead-set against it on a purely moral basis. That doesn't change the fact that I'm a staunch defender of Roe v. Wade. It means I recognize that I don't have the right to make such moral judgments for others, so I remain pro-choice. (Can't debate the "abortion is murder" argument either way, since my opinion is based on my feelings -- and feelings are no basis for scientific conclusions. Let's just say I feel it would only be murder if I did it.)

Size of government / government intervention. Strangely, limiting the size of the federal government as well as its ability to intervene in the private lives of citizens are two very traditionally conservative (and Jeffersonian) values. But neither seems to resonate with neo-conservatives. In any case, if they are still considered conservative values, then you can call me a traditional conservative in this area.

Nixon: Angry, paranoid, bigoted scoundrel whose biggest mistake was getting caught... BUT a godsend to U.S. foreign relations. If I didn't know what I know about Nixon personally (and, of course, if Watergate hadn't been discovered), I'd actually rate him as one of the most effective presidents of the 20th century. (I stop just short of saying I admire him -- but I do admire many of his accomplishments.)

I also like and admire (generally, with obvious reservations) Eisenhower, Goldwater, and McCain (more if he could figure out which side of the aisle he's really on), and many other old-school conservatives that don't come to mind at the moment.

While I couldn't care less about anything Bill Clinton has ever done with a cigar, and while I sorely miss his leadership, overall I think Bill is a waffler and a hyprocrite, because he presents himself as both much more liberal and much more conservative than he really is, depending on his audience.

I don't like Hillary Clinton for the same reason: She walks like a lib, talks like a lib -- but votes like a con. Can't respect that. Ditto Tom Daschle, Dick Gephardt, Dianne Feinstein, and many others -- complete and utter hypocrites. No spines.

Worst offender: Joe Lieberman. Has a spine, but completely misrepresents himself.

Oh, and I am NO fan of Ralph Nader's -- even though I don't believe for a moment that Nader "cost" Gore Election 2000.

And Al Sharpton gives me the creeps.

Plenty more examples, I'm sure, but I'll stop here.

And, hey, don't put too much stock in the RNC -- look what a pack of hypocrites the DNC has turned out to be! :D

From doublethink on 03/27/03

LostDreamer: Senator Moynihan died yesterday. Read up on him (and read some of his writing) when you get the chance.

Politics can seem like such a drag at times, but when you follow it closely for a long time (I got into it when I was just 12), one day you realize you're quite a "fan" of certain public figures, just like you might be a fan of a movie or pop star.

The downside is that very few politicians (with the possible exception of Bobby Kennedy) turn out sexy. LOL

(On the other hand, I think brains are sexier than looks, any day.)

From P---- on 03/27/03

An actual thinking Dem; I was worried with Scoop Jackson and now Pat Moynihan gone that you guys were maybe extinct :-)

I've read some pundits who say that the move of the DNC to the left due to the 2002 results will make things even worse than they are right now for the party. I doubt it. I think more pols get in trouble for not believing in anything and doing the shuffle a la Clinton/Bush Sr. If it hadn't been for his personal charisma, I think Clinton would have gotten skunked in 1996 (though I never underestimate the ability of the GOP to shoot itself in the foot. Both parties seem to be equally adept at this lately, though historically the GOP was the clear winner in the shot-foot department.)

I agree about the cigar issue - frankly think it's no one's business, including the government's, what goes on in a person's bedroom (or Oval Office, as the case may be :-); though Clinton lying about it was pretty rancid.

Al Sharpton - bless his heart - is a pretty funny and self-effacing guy, though a complete lunatic. I'd love to see him get the Dem Prez nomination in 2004. Unless his Generals totally foul up this war, Dubya is a lock for 2004 against anybody the Dems can field. Might as well make the race interesting; Sharpton would do that. :-)

I loved Nader's comment the other day about the fact that given the "official" 600ish vote margin in Florida, the Socialist Worker's Party (or one of the fringe left parties; can't remember which) with a thousand or so votes was just as much a spoiler as he was.

On abortion, I do think it should be illegal, but I get there a very different way than mainstream prolifers, using a liberal (in the classical sense) analysis. That's a discussion for another day.

And gun control is a total non-issue to me; I've never owned a gun, don't care to, and haven't spent enough time thinking about gun control issues to have made my mind up. (My hunting background includes only ants, which I fried with a magnifying glass at age 10, and for which I am truly repentant.)

Glad to know you.

-P----

A Much-Needed Break

Sun, 25 May 2003 00:22:33 GMT

Originally Posted March 26, 2003

"Break"? Am I taking a break from journaling? Not on your terror-filled life.

Later today, I'm going to be getting into some material that's going to take a bit of reading and serious thinking (on your part and mine) to digest -- which is exactly why I need to recharge my batteries for a moment.

So -- before I think any more deep, dark thoughts, or reply to a single comment -- I offer this release... which is a lot healthier than bashing one's head against a wall until the fog clears:

We need a serious laugh, folks. No, no, not the hopeless "We're all going to die!" hysterical wail-of-despair kind of laugh -- I mean the gut-busting-until-you think-you're-about-to-do-a-mischief-in-your-pants kind of laugh.

(Yes, it really, truly is okay to laugh, no matter how horrible and depressing the world gets. In fact, it's an absolute requirement if you expect to retain even a shred of sanity. So, I hereby give you permission to bust a gut.)

Notice at right (scroll down to "Lefty Laughs") is a new menu full of links to sites guaranteed to crack up lefties, liberals, radical faeries, onetime-Yippies, and other demonized minorities. Enjoy. Just remember that all have a severe slant to the left, and most will offend the hell out of anybody whose political leanings are to the right of "moderately centrist." Or "centrist moderate." Or DINOs (Democrats In Name Only). So, if you are Joe Lieberman, do not click these links.

Prerequisite knowledge of the age-old battle between left and right is not required, but makes everything a lot funnier.

A sense of humor (that thing Republicans keep saying the rest of us don't have) is required.

Now, before you get to those links, I've got one for you that nearly made me lose control of several bodily functions at once from laughing too hard. (Lesson: Before viewing, empty your bladder, do not consume liquids or anything else that could spray across the keyboard and onto the screen, and remove the sleeping cat from your lap. Trust me on this. Especially the part about the cat. It's easier to wipe Dr. Pepper off a monitor than it is to get blood out of your 501's.)

First, if you haven't seen it already, you have to go look at the Ready.gov site (link below). Yes, it's a real site, from the real United States government. (The URL has been on all those anti-terrorism public service announcements you've been ignoring on TV.)

Ready.gov is the Department of Homeland Security's official online instruction manual for keeping you, Mr. or Ms. American, safe (or at least alive) in the event of a terrorist attack, nuclear explosion, or other sort of catastrophe we are all quickly learning to expect in the very near future, thanks to the persistent efforts of Tom "I Need to Justify My Job" Ridge to instill the fear-o'-God in all of us (and you thought that was John Ashcroft's job!), as well as the endless glow of today's color-coded alert on CNN (proud sponsor of the Ministry of Truth since 1998).

It appears that Tommy's people aren't exactly earning their paychecks; those of us old enough to remember the early days of the Cold War absorbed most of this "duck and cover"-flavored info while diving under our desks during a good, old-fashioned, mock Russian nuking -- and the site illustrations appear to have been cut out of a 1970s-era airline instruction card. (Notice there isn't a single non-Caucasian represented in the pics.)

About the only new stuff the Civil Defense Depart-- I mean, Homeland Security -- has come up with has to do with asphyxiating yourself inside your home as an answer to the threat of bad airborne things. (Like gnats. I've found the asphyxiation technique works better than Raid® on even the worst gnat problem. And the good news is, you'll probably live long enough to see the little suckers take their last breath before you take yours!)

But you've had it up to here with all that, right? Plastic sheeting and duct tape is, like, so five minutes ago.

So it's your choice if you want to browse the whole site, but nothing is as fun as the section you'll be sent to by this link -- the pictures!

Browse through the sections shown by the icons (Biological, Chemical, Explosions, Nuclear Blast, and Radiation Threat), and make sure to look at the visual guide for each section.

Now, go check it all out, and, when you're good and terrified, come back. I'll still be here.

Done? Good. You're ready for the fun stuff:

Don't be afraid. . .be ready!

And...

Remember, you must reach exactly 88 mph and hit the dangling power line in order for the flux capacitor to operate properly.

There's another good -- and sharp-edged -- Ready.gov parody right here. It was a tough choice, but I had to give this one second place. Quite worth it, however!

This one also deserves a mention, because it mimicks the layout of the Ready.gov site (and may have been the first Ready.gov parody on the Web) -- but it's too short, and only a few of the links actually work. Worth a look if you haven't got enough of this stuff yet.

Finally, thanks to jadedgrrl, who, by posting the link to another good collection of Ready.gov "art," unknowingly inspired me to go surfing and find more.

Comments

From jadedgrrl on 03/26/03

ohhh. whoa. i inspired someone. that makes me feel good :)

How Dare He?

Sun, 25 May 2003 00:19:48 GMT

Originally Posted March 25, 2003

The U.S. ambassador to Canada let fly at the Canadian government Tuesday, complaining about its lack of support for the Iraq war and its failure to discipline Liberals who criticize the U.S.

Paul Cellucci said "a lot of people in Washington are upset" with Canada for not backing the U.S.-led attack on Iraq.

And he said Ottawa "could do a better job" at controlling Liberals...

U.S, ambassador complains about Canadian policy, politicians

CBC

March 25, 2003

Bear in mind, Cellucci is referring to Canada's Liberal Party, not to "liberals" (meaning "progressives").

So why should you care?

Because the notion of "disciplining" and "controlling" the speech of any individual or political party by a federal government is dangerously close to fascism.

Because it sends a signal directly from the Bush administration that silencing dissent is acceptable to this administration.

Because if they think Canada should "control" the expression of its political parties, it must be perfectly acceptable to the United States to control the expression of its own political parties.

Because our number-one representative to Canada had the temerity to suggest such a thing publicly.

Because our relationship with Canada is becoming more strained by the day.

Because this is the second time a U.S. ambassador has had the audacity to scold a foreign country for its own domestic policies, which are none of his -- or our -- business. (Tom Schieffer, U.S. ambassador to Australia, won no new fans down under when he stuck his nose where it doesn't belong, in February.)

No wonder "arrogance" is becoming a synonym for "Americanism."

Comments

From jadedgrrl on 03/25/03

ohhhhh. whoa. i didn't get a chance to read the journal here. wowsers.

From P---- on 03/25/03

Here's how Iraq "controls the expression" of its citizens: "Outside Basra, British intelligence officers said there had been an uprising against forces loyal to Saddam Hussein - and that members of the Ba'ath party in the city had begun firing into crowds with mortars." Now that's enforcing discipline! http://www.iht.com/articles/91092.html

Anyone have any doubt that more Iraqis will be deliberately killed by their countrymen during this war than by the evil American imperialist invaders?

From LGBTBinat on 03/25/03

Being Australian, I was rather shocked when the US ambassador to Australia, stuck his nose into OUR foreign policy.

He was so lucky Howard is a Coward and didn't boot the bastard out of the country. I think if the ALP was in charge, the US ambassador would have been booted out of the country, on the spot.

This is just not on, and this is WHY the American people are getting a bad wrap overseas.

And please don't come back at me saying I am anti American, because it simply isn't true. The great love of my life, happens to be American.

From doublethink on 03/25/03

Irrelevant, P---- . To use your own words, you are comparing apples to oranges.

Or, to put it more pointedly, you attempting to excuse a breach of conduct by the United States by distraction.

I'll debate with you all you want, if you address the topic directly. Otherwise, I'll start deleting comments.

From P---- on 03/25/03

Here's doublethink blasting the US for wishing the Canadian government could better control Chretien's lickspittleism: "Because the notion of "disciplining" and "controlling" the speech of any individual or political party by a federal government is dangerously close to fascism."

vs.

doublethink blasting P---- for pointing out what he views as doublespeak: "I'll debate with you all you want, if you address the topic directly. Otherwise, I'll start deleting comments.

And all in a single thread! Well done, my friend.

Salaam aleikum. YHL.

-P----

From LGBTBinat on 03/25/03

P---- , you are truly what the world outside of your borders class as an "obnoxious yank!"

It is the far right that gives all Americans a bad wrap, and you are just proving that here, by slamming doublethink for what "HER" beliefs are.

If you can't handle the fact that your government is trying to control every damned country in the world, then might I suggest you hang with your far right buddies, and stay the hell away from leftists whose beliefs are different from yours.

From doublethink on 03/25/03

There's nothing fascist about deleting comments that are off-topic. Ask any discussion-list moderator.

Now, if you want to talk on-topic, I'm all ears.

See, P---- , this is exactly why I am constantly on the defense with you. Just when you enter a long, thoughtful comment that makes me want to reply to you just as thoughtfully and considerately, you turn right around and give me cause to question your motives all over again.

How do you expect me to believe in your sincerity -- and make me want to engage in a genuine two-way discussion with you -- when all I can surmise is that you are waiting for the next opportunity to attack or entrap me?

Do I do this in your journal? No.

Why choose me as the target of your anger with the peace movement? You want somebody who reaches a hell of a lot more minds than I will ever be able to influence? Go talk to Molly Ivins. Or Ted Rall. Or James Carville.

Yes, I'm more than open to reasoned debate. What I am not open to is any attempt to twist my words, or accuse me of hypocrisy, or throw up a smokescreen as a distraction from the topic of hand.

You don't like what I have to say? It irritates you so much that you're compelled to lash out? Simple solution: Don't read it, P---- . It's as simple as that.

From P---- on 03/25/03

That's just wrong, doublethink. I do like what you have to say. I strongly disagree with what you say, but I like how you say it. You're a lot better than most in saying what you believe in. That's why I think a lot of people on your side of this issue like to come here and read your stuff: you say it better than most of them can say it themselves. You get to say for them things that they feel deeply, but don't have your abilities to express. That's a good thing.

The way I see it, we should take this war business very seriously. But we should never take ourselves seriously. Life's too short.

Maybe we just have different ideas about what a blog is supposed to be. If it's just a soapbox, that's one thing. I view it more as a community, with vigorous debate. (I know I can find debate on these issues on the newsgroups or mailing lists, but the quality of debate gets so poor so fast - flamewars - that it's usually a waste of time. On blogs, you can find worthy opponents.)

I'll leave you alone if you like, but I think we'd both be worse off for it. Let me know.

Salaam.

-P----

PS: Loosen up, my friend.
PPS: I would never pick Molly Ivins to debate with. She isn't intellectually honest. I think you are.

From LostDreamer on 03/25/03

wow, you guys are too intellectual for me to understand anything you were arguing over. i think what i understood was that canada is wanting to punish people for free speech. is that right? i never understood politics. i cant even figure out what is happening with the war because i have no idea what anyone is saying on the news.

its like what are they saying and what does it mean?

i am glad you can understand it.

From LGBTBinat on 03/25/03

Basically in short. America is trying to control every other countries government. They stepped in here in Australia recently, and said some nasty remarks about the Canadian government today as well.

From doublethink on 03/25/03

LostDreamer, it's kind of like this:

Let's say there's a Burger King right next-door to a McDonald's. And let's say that, on the other side of the world, there's another burger place called Hungry Jack's.

Burger King and Hungry Jack's are two different branches of a bigger company, but each one runs its own business as it sees fit. They depend on each other to bring money into the parent company, but the way they make money is up to each of them, individually.

One day, the head of Burger King calls up the head of Hungry Jack's and says, "Hey, buddy, I hear that one of your employees is dissing Burger King. I want you to make him stop that. It makes Burger King look bad."

And the head of Hungry Jack's says, "You're telling me how to deal with my employees? What makes you think you have the right to do that? Don't you realize that Burger King and Hungry Jack's are working for the same goal -- to bring more money into the company that owns us both? Well, I'm not going to let you tell me how to run my branch of the operation. I don't have to answer to you. You can kiss my toasted hamburger buns!"

A month later, the head of Burger King calls up the head of McDonald's, and says, "Hey, buddy, I hear that one of your employees is dissing Burger King. I want you to make him stop that. It makes Burger King look bad."

So the head of McDonald's turns around and says, "I don't give a damn what our employees say about Burger King. You're no friend of ours. We've tried to be nice to you, but your employees keep saying nasty things about Big Macs all the time. You mind your own business, and we'll mind ours."

The head of Burger King doesn't like this. The head of Burger King thinks he's got the right to tell both Hungry Jack's (which is owned by the same company) and McDonald's (which is a direct competitor) how to run their businesses, and how their employees should act.

Okay, LostDreamer, you tell me:

Does Burger King have the right to do this?

And should McDonald's and Hungry Jack's be pissed off at Burger King for telling them what to do?

From jadedgrrl on 03/25/03

omg. lmaooooooooooooooo!

From P---- on 03/26/03

Great example, doublethink! LostDreamer, does that help you to understand what's going on?

The only part of the story that doublethink's example leaves out is the part about why Burger King is so doggoned upset!

You see, there's this Taco Bell down the street that is in this big shareholder's dispute- a leveraged buyout is being attempted!

And any Taco Bell employees who support the leveraged buyout are obliterated by Taco Bell's management, using chemical weapons and horizontal artillery fire! And Burger King thinks that's a pretty bad management style! Plus, Burger King would really like to see that leveraged buyout succeed!

But doublethink's point is this: who does Burger King think it is, telling these other burger chains what they should be doing about Taco Bell?! It's up to the other chains to figure this out for themselves!

Did I get it right, doublethink?

Salaam aleikum.

-P----

From BobLoblaw on 03/26/03

I thought I might add a Canadian perspective to this thread.
Prior to the breakdown of diplomacy (although the Americans and the French to some extent never exercised true diplomacy) Canada/US relations were spiralling downward. The US has been seen as increasingly protectionist in its economic and social policies which, generally speaking, has had a negative impact on Canada.
Our Prime Minister (don't worry, we'll have a new one soon) has a knack for mixing occasional eloquence with cyclical gibberish. In his own way though, He has managed to capture the stance of the majority of Canadians. His Liberal Party is a very loyal bunch for a variety of reasons (all of which boil down to keeping their cushy jobs).
We are in a constant debate here as to whether or not we are being anti-American. I for one don't care about how my country is viewed by your current administration. I believe that our economic co-dependence (we buy 25% of your exports, you buy 90% of ours) will over ride the brief period in your history when your country has committed the classic "fools rush in..." error. If our diplomatic position saves us from even a little bit of the wrath your country will have brought upon itself, then I am thankful for it.

From dsdhall on 03/26/03

What a refreshing change. I like this, people able to actually have an intelligent debate! Hooray!

From LostDreamer on 03/26/03

doublethink...wow that cleared it up very nicely...burger king should not do that at all, they have no right. by the way who is burger king representitive of? america? and who is mc donalds? canada? and who is hungry jacks? australia? i wonder if i got it right cause if i did then woohoo i am smart.

P---- !!! you poo head i love taco bell!! i will pretend you used something else as an example of iraq... hmmm...nevermind. it just an example...hahahahaa

thanks doublethink for talking aobut something i can understand, food!! if only politics were as simple as food. and as tastey.

Big Brother Really is Watching You

Sun, 25 May 2003 00:02:28 GMT

Originally Posted March 25, 2003

The thought police catch up with Courtland Milloy.

It's a threatening day in the neighborhood

Sun, 25 May 2003 00:01:35 GMT

Originally Posted March 25, 2003

They hate us -- they really hate us.

On the heels on yesterday's concerns about Russian technicians stationed in Iraq to jam GPS systems and the like (and the question of whether or not we are going to meet Russian soldiers ready to defend the Iraqis), I give you this unsettling series of developments:

Iraqi ex-patriates are returning from Jordan to defend their country.
"Thousands of Arab Mujahedeen" from Afghanistan, 2,500 Lebanese, and 700 Algerians are now in Iraq for the explicit purpose of fighting American troops, and performing "martyrdom operations against the Americans." (The link is down as I write this, but evidence of the article can still be found in Google's cache.)
Russia feels threatened by the prospect of the U.S. declaring war on them. (This comes from Pravda -- hardly the last bastion of truth, but Pravda does tell you what the Russian people are hearing from their own government, and it's an excellent barometer for gauging the national mood.)
China and Pakistan have "agreed to keep close contact on the Iraq crisis with a view to prevent the suffering of the Iraqi people. ... Both sides opposed military action and underlined the need for its immediate end. The war is not the solution of the problem, the two premiers added."

Now you know understand why Junior should have listened to Poppy.

Makes Germany's growing boycott of American products seem like small potatoes (or "freedom fries"), doesn't it?

Read this.

Sun, 25 May 2003 00:00:02 GMT

Originally Posted March 25, 2003

Click.

Comments

From LGBTBinat on 03/25/03

Wow! I really don't know what to say.

I don't support the war, and am having a hard time trying to support the troops as well, but I certainly don't advocate the killing of innocent people.

I feel so sorry for the person who wrote that, as well as the wife and children of the dead soldier.

Thank you for posting this in your blog.

From jadedgrrl on 03/25/03

all i got was this:

Object not found!
The requested URL was not found on this server. If you entered the URL manually please check your spelling and try again.
If you think this is a server error, please contact the webmaster
Error 404
www.democraticunderground.com
Tue Mar 25 13:38:31 2003
Apache

From doublethink on 03/25/03

Hey, jadedgrrl,

It's working for me -- could be DU was acting up under a heavy server load. Give it another try -- and if it still doesn't work for you, I'll excerpt some of the letter for you here. (The reason I haven't excerpted it is that it loses impact unless read in full.)

From jadedgrrl on 03/25/03

i tried both from work and here at home. still not able to access it. checked my browser settings and everything there seems ok. i'm not sure why i can't access it? if you could post it, i would be grateful. thanks.

From doublethink on 03/25/03

Sure thing, jade, here you go. It's edited for length and obvious profanity, but it still packs a hell of a punch.

In short, the writer -- who lost a family member in the Gulf -- received a "joke" e-mail (which is included at the very end) about punching out peace activists, and this is the writer's response to the person who sent it to him:

After losing a member of my family already in this attack on Iraq, the gloves are coming off! I'm still shaking and sobbing. F---!!F---!!F--- THEM!! How f---ing dare they!!!!

To xxxxx,

Man am I disappointed that you of all people would spread this hateful crap around. Just what the world needs, more violence. Yea I'm a god damn Peace Activist who would not only defend myself but would also use the law to it's fullest extent to prosecute anyone that assaulted me. Which BTW, assault is still ILLEGAL. It's probably not a good idea to advocate illegal behavior through the internet as I know it is also illegal to do so.

But since you decided to send this garbage around you should at least get your facts straight. Remember osama bin laden? Other wise known as osama been forgotten? The master mind behind 9-11? When Bush said HE was the one that did it. Then all of the sudden 9 months later obl morphed into saddam h. and Iraq somehow...

BTW Have you seen this: (insert photo of rummy and saddam shaking hands here)

... Remember rumsfeld? He's the one that said "draftees in Vietnam were of no real value." NO VALUE? Somebodys drafted son gets killed in Vietnam and rumsfeld had the f---ing gall to say they were of no real value?

... And again since you brought this up, I DO support the troops! I want them HOME safe and sound. With their families, watching their kids grow up. Going to graduations and walking daughters down the aisle on their wedding days. So before you give people like me a bad rap because we support PEACE, ask yourself-What kind of person supports war? I mean what kind of person supports, advocates and cheers for human beings on both sides to be slaughtered? Haven't we learned yet?

... Maybe in ten years you can explain to my nieces and nephews why you were so eager to send their Daddy to attack another country and oops, sorry your Daddy was killed and oh to bad the Bush administration slashed the military benefits to you and your Mommy. Yea Kids, your Daddy gave his life for his country, a brave man, a great honor and sacrafice he made for his country. WHERE THE F--- IS YOUR SUPPORT FOR OUR TROOPS NOW? In wanting them to go attack another country, completely unprovoked, to be captured, tortured, shot, blown up? While at the same time NOT screaming about the Veterans Benefits and Military Benefits being slashed and cut by this administration? How dare you advocate violence unto me?

I have already LOST a family member in this unprovoked attack on Iraq. My sadness for his wife and children I can not express in words. Those kids have LOST their F---ING DADDY! My niece will not get to know her uncle either. She and her cousins will hear stories about him and stories only cause he is F---ING DEAD! DEAD IS FOREVER! My RAGE and ANGER however are another story and it's not geared towards the Iraqi people. It's towards this administration who created this farce in the first place and to those who swallow their bull---- hook, line and sinker, and think that just because people like me advocate PEACE we do not support our troops and then to have anyone advocate and spread the hate and violence onto people like me. That is just disgusting. If you are so wanting violence, go sign up. Go volunteer yourselves to go kill other human beings while at the same time putting yourselves at risk. I'll support you.

... Those of us advocating PEACE are not the ones NOT supporting our fighting men and women. Bush tells you one thing but does the complete opposite.

... Here, You want some violence? Enjoy!
(pictures of halfheaded girl, no feet girl, etc)
Enjoy your f---ing war!

-------Original Message-------

From:xxxxx Date: Monday, March 24, 2003 11:02:55 PM
To: A whole bunch of people)
Subject: (no subject)

With all of this war that is taking place, many of us will encounter "Peace Activists" who will try and convince us that we must refrain from retaliating against the ones who terrorized us all on September 11, 2001, and those who support terror.

These activists may be alone or in a gathering.....most of us don't know how to react to them. When you come upon one of these people, or one of their rallies, here are the proper rules of etiquette:

1. Listen politely while this person explains their views. Strike up a conversation if necessary and look very interested in their ideas. They will tell you how revenge is immoral, and that by attacking the people who did this to us, we will only bring on more violence. They will probably use many arguments, ranging from political to religious to humanitarian.

2. In the middle of their remarks, without any warning, punch them in the nose.

- eom -

From jadedgrrl on 03/25/03

thanks for posting that for me... it's very disturbing that people are sending that crap around. but then again it's disturbing to think that many americans believe that iraqis directly terrorized them.

i was reading an article this evening you may find interesting it's titled the "The Psychology of Terrorism" by Clark R. McCauley, Professor of Psychology, Bryn Mawr College.

you can find it here:

http://www.ssrc.org/sept11/essays/mccauley.htm

From doublethink on 03/25/03

Thanks for the link, jade -- right up my alley. It will be my morning reading. :)

From jadedgrrl on 03/25/03

you're welcome :)

The Russians Are Coming, The Russians-- uh, Have Arrived

Sat, 24 May 2003 23:50:13 GMT

Originally Posted March 24, 2003

It certainly gets tiring waiting for the U.S. media to catch up with the rest of the world.

This hit the U.S. newswires today:

U.S. Believes Russians in Baghdad Are Aiding Iraq

The United States believes Russian private sector technicians are in Baghdad helping train Iraqis to use electronic jamming systems that could endanger U.S. forces fighting Iraq, U.S. officials said on Monday.

Reuters

March 24, 2003

This is news? This is a surprise? Those of us who keep our ears to the rails have known something like this was coming for nearly three weeks:

Thousands of Russians volunteer to defend Iraq

Around ten thousand Russian citizens have applied for entry visas into Iraq to defend this country against the planned aggression by the warmongering USA and UK, according to the Iraqi Embassy in Moscow.

Iraqi Ambassador to Moscow, Abbas Khalaf, declared last week that the Embassy had received around 3,500 requests, a number which has multiplied in the last few days, according to sources in the same Embassy.

The requests come from young males, some with combat experience, who describe themselves as "volunteers" who are willing to defend Iraq against the illegal armed aggression of the USA and the United Kingdom...

Pravda

March 6, 2003

The only surprise is that we've stumbled across Russian "private sector technicians" instead of Russian soldiers.

So far.

Let's see what we find when we get to Baghdad.

On the other hand, are these "private sector technicians"? Or are these Russians military? (Who better to jam electronic military gadgetry than military spooks?)

What I find so eerie is the similarity of this situation to the Russian invasion of Afghanistan in 1979. In a nutshell, we helped the Afghans fight off the Russians (by arming the Taliban, mind you). Many of us were surprised that Russia would retreat -- but they did.

I wonder -- I hope not, but I wonder -- if this is (in addition to Russia's publicly-stated reasons) payback for Russia's humilating retreat from Afghanistan? And (again, I hope I'm wrong) I wonder if history is about to repeat itself, only with the U.S. and Russia trading places in the outcome. (A relative handful of Russians is no match for us, but who says their numbers won't grow?)

I don't have blinders on -- Russia is no fan of Muslim nations. Russia has its own oil interests in Iraq to protect. They're not doing this for any humanitarian reasons.

The point is simply that they're doing it at all.

Incidentally, the Reuters' story also includes one of the biggest "Well, DUH!" remarks I've heard all week:

President Bush telephoned Russian President Vladimir Putin to protest alleged Russian sales of night-vision goggles, antitank missiles and global positioning system (GPS) jamming systems to Iraq, the White House said. U.S. officials said such sales would violate U.N. sanctions.

"It's the kind of equipment that will put our young men and women in harm's way," Secretary of State Colin Powell told Fox News Channel, without identifying the materiel. "It gives an advantage to the enemy, an advantage we don't want them to have."

And what do you expect the Iraqis to do, in the face of coalition forces with state-of-the-art "night-vision goggles, antitank missiles and global positioning system jamming systems" at their disposal? Give them up and promise to fight with rocks and bats?

To my little warmongering friends reading this: You know, we can go back and forth all we want about the legality of this invasion, whether being pro- or anti-war has anything to do with "supporting the troops," or any other thing you like.

But in the end, you need to face up to one cold fact: Right or wrong, the world is pissed off at us, in a big way -- and there are not enough U.S., British, and Australian troops on the entire planet, or enough bombs, guns, or grenades in our entire combined arsenal, to take on every opposing army if they decide to gang up on us and put a stop to our military action right now.

Sure, we can nuke a few cities before somebody else gets off a single missile, but by that time, it's really going to be too late to turn back.

I'm not talking about our "integrity" now. I'm talking about our survival -- as a nation, and as a species.

Melodramatic? I don't think so. And if you stop to consider that the prospect of global annihilation is exactly what kept us all so nervous throughout forty very long years of the Cold War, you'll realize just how close we are to turning that fear into reality.

In the 1980s, someone (I've forgotten who) compared the nuclear threat to two men sitting in a bathtub full of gasoline -- with each storing up a supply of matches.

It only takes one match.

And Donald Rumsfeld admits, albeit cagily, that frying Iraq with nukes is not out of the question.

If you disagree with every other reason I offer for ending this conflict and never pursuing another unprovoked attack, then consider this one: We are talking about your ass here. Your life, and the lives of your loved ones.

Don't tune me out on this. I want you to survive, so that we may both live to argue another day about other issues, which by comparison are laughably inconsequential.

Instead of filling your head with video-game images of tanks trundling across the desert tonight, go out and rent some movies:

Testament

The Day After

On the Beach

(either the original or the remake)

And then give what I've said here some very serious thought.

I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.

-- Albert Einstein

Comments

From LGBTBinat on 03/25/03

As usual, another briliantly written article from my favorite blogger.

Keep up the excellent work. Hopefully it will help in waking some sheeple, and saving the lives of thousands of allied troops, and Iraqi people and kids.

From doublethink on 03/25/03

Ooo, "favorite blogger"! I'm honored. :)

As I've said before, I only wish I had the power to save the world. But if anything I put here nudges just one pro-war American (or Brit, or Aussie) to even consider, even momentarily, the ramifications of what they're supporting, I'll be satisfied.

More for the anti-peace crowd...

Sat, 24 May 2003 23:45:04 GMT

Originally Posted March 24, 2003

...and talking points when they accuse us of un-Americanism. (Do take the time to click the links and read both pieces in full.)

Dear New York Media...

Why are you using language declaring anti-war protestors do not 'support' the Americans forces who are fighting in Iraq? Isn't this an extremely - and deliberately - manipulative attempt to convince the public that anti-war protesters are by definition anti-American? ...

Perhaps it is too embarrassing for NY1 to run a headline that reads "Rallies To Support War Follows Massive Anti-War March," since we Americans like to think of ourselves as peaceful people -- but it would be more accurate than the headline you did use...

Who Really Supports Our Troops
BuzzFlash

Many in the pro-Bush, pro-war crowd feel they are distinguishing themselves apart from the anti-war crowd by assembling under the banner of 'supporting our troops.'

However, it has been my experience that most everyone -- regardless of whether or not they support the war -- supports our men and women in uniform. In fact, I've yet to hear one anti-war activist claim otherwise...

This being so, why does the so-called 'Support Our Troops' movement feel the need to rally under a bogus cause that doesn't adequately set them apart from their opposition? It's simple: because their true passion -- supporting war -- doesn't attract as many people, nor does it cast them in the same moral light as the peace activists...

Worse yet, the 'Support Our Troops' crowd is almost pathologically bent on silencing dissent.

They will actually tell you, with a straight face, that the peace activists are anti-American traitors. Even though the anti-war crowd has repeatedly expressed its support of the troops despite its opposition to war, the pro-war fanatics have repeatedly demonstrated their inability to support speech they don't agree with...

Who Really Supports Our Troops: Part II
BuzzFlash

For the anti-peaceniks

Sat, 24 May 2003 23:43:13 GMT

Originally Posted March 24, 2003

Warmongers, if the spew you keep regurgitating wasn't such a pack of lies, it would almost be amusing. How long are you going to keep parroting Rush "You Too Can Dodge the Draft Because of a Pimple on Your Ass" Limbaugh and his ilk and continue to accuse the rest of us of being anti-military, anti-American, and providing "aid and comfort to the enemy"?

I guess it's nearly impossible for some people to digest the concept that one can be opposed to military action while supporting the troops (in wishing them safe, and wishing them home).

...Or the revelation that we despise Saddam just as much as you do -- but we rail against the wholesale slaughter of both enlisted personnel and innocent bystanders in a misguided holocaust designed to oust the bastard.

...Or the idea that one's love of country can be so deep and unconditional that opposing the illegal actions of an unelected president is in itself proof of one's patriotism -- without said patriotism dissolving into jingoism and Communist-style witch hunts.

...Or the idea that the majority of us agree that war is sometimes necessary -- when we are attacked, or when we are called in to defend a friend who is attacked -- without selling our souls (as did the vast majority of spineless congressional Democrats) and giving a single man the power to wage war on a whim -- for financial gain, for power, or for a personal vendetta.

...Or the idea that we too are deeply concerned about domestic security -- moreso, mind you, since your unelected president has stoked the wrath of not only a host of Islamic nations, but Kim Il Jung, and has so alienated the affections of our allies-in-name-only that there may be no one to help us once the missiles start flying toward our Pacific Coast. But we refuse to live in a permanent state of undeclared martial law -- which is merely an excuse for the federal government to pry into our personal lives, and achieves nothing toward our protection.

To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin, those willing to give up liberty for security deserve neither.

That said, I direct your attention to two short pieces that reiterate the reasons we oppose this attack. I grow weary of trying to make you understand that we, too, love our country. That we are patriots. That if we did not love the United States of America so deeply, so fiercely, so passionately, we would not fight against the forces that threaten the complete destruction of our mutual well-being, of our international relationships, and of American democracy itself.

Perhaps these two short pieces will explain it all to you better than I:

Ingenious posted the words of the eloquent Sen. Robert Byrd. Well worth a read. (And, to all you rightwingers who think you can hold up Sen. Byrd as an example in hypocrisy for his former stand on civil rights, I remind you that Byrd has renounced his previous views... unlike, oh, Trent Lott and Jesse Helms, just for starters.)

Democratic Underground has temporarily replaced its usual busy front page with an equally eloquent treatise. Take a look while it's up.

Modern-day Lazarus?

Sat, 24 May 2003 23:39:43 GMT

Originally Posted March 24, 2003

Good afternoon, George. Well, maybe not it's not a very good afternoon at all. Those nasty Iraqis have had the gall to disobey your orders to disobey their orders, and as a result are gunning down our young men and women, and setting fire to the oil wells. (I'm currently taking bets on which situation causes you more personal grief.)

And that darned Saddam doesn't seem to be exactly... well, dead, does he?

Around 3:42am EST, ABC News reported on Saddam's televised speech to the Iraqi people. Of Saddam's praise for the performance of Iraqi soldiers in the attack on Umm Qasr, ABC News' John Cochran said, "[This looks like] bad news for the president and the coalition forces... This would indicate that [Saddam] has spoken ... within the last 24 hours or so... Could he have guessed this [the outcome of the attack] two weeks ago? ... American officials will be disappointed in this speech."

Of course, Cochran was referring to initial U.S. reports that Saddam had probably been killed in Wednesday night's first barrage of bombs -- and then, subsequent reports that he was "seriously injured" in Thursday night's attacks.

Which sounds awfully familiar. (Osama who?)

That Saddam appeared neither "dead" nor "seriously injured" during his speech was lost on neither Cochran nor yours truly.

In fact, he looked pretty damn hardy and hale. And you said yesterday morning that "Saddam is losing his grip."

I don't think Saddam is the one losing his grip, Dubs.

So, we're "making progress," eh, Georgie?

Sat, 24 May 2003 23:36:40 GMT

Originally Posted March 24, 2003

Face it, Georgie Boy, things are not boding well for coalition forces. Your "strategery" is killing our youngest and bravest. Everything we peaceniks feared is happening, right now, and you're either in total denial, or you think the American people really are stupid enough to buy your Stepford-like repetition that "we are making progress":

One [U.S. Marine] officer said: "The fighting has got worse with each day. So much for the walkover we were told to expect."

What started as a skirmish with a few armed Iraqis near a port in the south turned into the Battle of Umm Qasr, a full-blown pyrotechnic display of mainly American military muscle. In spite of 150 US Marines, four main battle tanks, an FA18 warplane and an RAF Harrier jump-jet, the Iraqis stood firm...

On the outskirts of the port, which British troops need to open swiftly to get the humanitarian operation under way, US Marines swung a line of Bradley fighting vehicles towards a rusting warehouse where they believed that a group of officers was holed up...

By late last night the US Marines were thinking of calling in yet more weaponry, this time Cobra attack helicopters, but they had too little time to organise the mission. Instead, three ½in-calibre sniper rifles were used and they were banging away by nightfall, but still not neutralising the target. "Fire! Fire!" a soldier screamed. "They are using binos to spot against us. Fire! Fire!"

If the display of firepower had not been so devastating, the whole operation might have been comical.

"If the Americans are like this when they have one building to deal with, what are they going to be like when they get to Baghdad?" a British officer asked.

How a walkover turned into a three-day battle
The Times Online

March 24, 2003

Doesn't sound like we're going to wrap things up quite as quickly and cleanly as you expected, does it, Georgie?

Tell me, Tex, what's going to happen when sympathy for the Iraqis and global Muslim outrage runs so high that Muslims outside Iraq decide to take us on?

Oh, I forgot! Some of them are already planning to do just that:

About 400 members of the hard-line Islamic Defenders’ Front gathered outside the [U.S. embassy in Indonesia], held up signs, listened to speeches, and signed up volunteers to go help defend Iraq.

MSNBC

March 23, 2003

Georgie, Georgie, Georgie. No matter how many times you insist this is not a "war on Islam" -- whether you really believe that or not -- the hard truth is that millions, perhaps billions, of Muslims around the world see it very much as a war on Islam. Holy war, Georgie. Jihad. Intifada.

And whatever happened to all those visions your spin doctors planted in our heads, about scenes of the Iraqi people greeting coalition forces with open arms, and dancing in the streets at their "liberation"?

All I've seen is a single video clip of a single Iraqi mugging for the camera as he bangs a shoe on the face of a giant Saddam poster being torn from a wall by a U.S. Marine.

Jeezuspleezus, Georgie -- if storm troopers invaded your town with AK-47's and camera crews, it would be in your best interest to diss Big Brother, too.

In any case, I'm hardly the only one to notice that the Iraqi people (whom we seem to be "liberating" from nothing other than their own lives and limbs) aren't exactly running to meet the troops with bouquets and chocolates:

Safwan, Iraq -- They were unforgettable images: Residents of this southern Iraqi town openly welcoming coalition forces. They danced in the streets as a picture of Saddam Hussein was torn down.

That was yesterday.

Traveling unescorted into Safwan today, I got a far different picture. Rather than affection and appreciation, I saw a lot of hostility toward the coalition forces, the United States and President Bush.

John Donvan
Slow Aid and Other Concerns Fuel Iraqi Discontent Toward United States
ABC News

March 22, 2003

Is it so inconceivable to you that the Iraqis are going to fight back? And that their sympathizers are going to help them?

After all, if, say, Palestine suddenly had the firepower to launch a successful invasion (and I mean invasion, not suicide-bombing) of Israel -- and did -- wouldn't we be the first ones into the fray to protect the Israelis?

You protect your friends.

But maybe you're just incapable of understanding what it means to be a true friend. Just as a true friend won't let you drink and drive, a true friend will tell you the truth, even when it's painful to hear. And if you're a true friend in return, you won't end the friendship just because you don't like what you hear. You appreciate that your friend is trying to keep your ass out of trouble.

That's what France tried to do, Georgie. France was being a true friend. But you are not a grown-up.

Speaking of friends, have you talked to the Saudis lately? You remember them -- the ones who keep raping and torturing their own people in ways that would impress even Saddam (who had nothing to do with 9-11, remember)... you know, Osama's family... the ones who bankrolled the 9-11 hijackers (which makes sense, since most them were Saudis -- not Iraqis)... the ones you let slip out of the country on 9-11 when all commercial flights were shut down... the country your Homeland Security Department did not initially include on the list of 18 nationalities whose male visitors to the U.S. were required to register with the INS... You remember them?

I hope so, because your old friends the Saudis have something to say to you:

Saudi Arabia's Foreign Minister, Prince Saud al Faisal, has urged the United States to "have a breather" in its invasion of Iraq and give the United Nations another chance to disarm the country peacefully...

Prince Saud condemned the invasion's aim of destroying the Iraqi Government as "outside of the framework of international legality", and warned that rebuilding what has been destroyed will be a dangerous, difficult task.

Saudis tell Bush: take a breather, give UN another try
Sydney Morning Herald

March 24, 2003

Really, Georgie, when the Saudis are telling you to back off, even you have got to realize what a lousy idea this whole "war" thing is.

But I think you already know that, Dubs. It doesn't take a shrink who specializes in body language to see that you were pretty shocked and awed at your press conference Sunday morning. Not by the bombings, of course -- that sort of thing probably does for you what Viagra does for Bob Dole -- but by the realization that the Iraq situation is pretty mucked up from every angle.

"Progress"? "Progress"? Just what do you consider "progress," Junior? The surrender of 8,000 Iraqi troops? I guess it's all in how you value it. To me, the surrender of 80,000 troops wouldn't make up for a single shard of shrapnel in the belly of even one U.S. Marine, or the internal bleeding of a single two-year-old in Basra.

But then, I remember one of the fundamental differences between you and me, Georgie. Your values are solely quantitative, and mine are solely qualitative. And ne'er the twain shall meet.

If it were any other way, I wouldn't be near vomiting every time I hear the phrase "collateral damage."

See, Georgie, this is what I don't understand: How is it that every one of those 2,800 people in the World Trade Center are heroes because they died in a terrorist attack, while helpless schoolboys and girls in Iraq are "collateral damage" just because they're blown to shreds by U.S. bombs?

Does the allegiance of the attacker change the value of the victim?

But then, despite your astonishingly hypocritical brand of Christianity, value judgments are based on a set of highly selective and subjective criteria -- of your own choosing, not of God's.

It's all double standards with you, Junior. But we'll get into that (and your Messiah complex) some other day. Just trying to talk sense to you in a way that even you might understand is quite taxing.

I'm not a religious person (which, by your daddy's estimation, means I don't deserve my own native-born citizenship), but I am a spiritual one.

And in that spirit, and in all sincerity, I say:

May God have mercy on your soul.

Comments

From LGBTBinat on 03/24/03

Very well written.

I must say that everytime I come here to read your latest entry, I get "shock and awed".

You really do your digging to bring light to end of the tunnel, for those thousands who are truly "Blinded by the Right."

Thank you!

From doublethink on 03/24/03

You're very kind, thank you. It's the words of support that keep me going! :)

And the nominees for Special Peace Oscar are...

Sat, 24 May 2003 23:24:01 GMT

Originally Posted March 23, 2003

Well, I'm glad they cut back on the glitz. You probably noticed there was no fancy red carpet tonight. That'll send them a message!

Steve Martin
Host, 75th Annual Academy Awards

In light of all the troubles in this world, I wish us all peace.

Chris Cooper
Best Supporting Actor, Adaptation

The necessity for peace in the world is not a dream, it is a reality. If Frida was alive, she would be with us -- against the war.

Gael Garcia Bernal
Introducing the song "Burning Blue" from Frida

I've invited my fellow documentary nominees on the stage with us. They are here in solidarity with me because we like non-fiction. We like non-fiction and we live in fictitious times.

We live in a time where we have fictitious election results that elect a fictitious president. We live in a time where we have a man sending us to war for fictitious reasons.

Whether it's the fiction of duct tape or the fiction of orange alerts, we are against this war, Mr. Bush. Shame on you! Shame on you! And any time you've got the Pope and the Dixie Chicks against you, your time is up!

Michael Moore
Best Documentary, Bowling for Columbine

[This Oscar is for] all the people that are raising their voices in favor of peace, respect of human rights, democracy and international legality, all of which are essential qualities to live.

Pedro Almodovar
Best Original Screenplay, Talk to Her

My experience making this film made me very aware of the sadness and the dehumanization of people in times of war, and the repercussions of war. And whatever you believe in, whether it's God or Allah, may he watch over you, and let's pray for a peaceful and swift resolution.

Adrien Brody
Best Actor, The Pianist

Bin Laden's Victory

Sat, 24 May 2003 23:19:33 GMT

Originally Posted March 23, 2003

I've been saying this since 9-11 -- but The Guardian's writers often express my thoughts better than I do:

Osama bin Laden, in his wildest dreams, could hardly have hoped for this. A mere 18 months after he boosted the US to a peak of worldwide sympathy unprecedented since Pearl Harbor, that international goodwill has been squandered to near zero. Bin Laden must be beside himself with glee. And the infidels are now walking right into the Iraq trap.

There was always a risk for Bin Laden that worldwide sympathy for the US might thwart his long-term aim of holy war against the Great Satan. He needn't have worried. With the Bush junta at the helm, a camel could have foreseen the outcome...

Whatever anyone may say about weapons of mass destruction, or about Saddam's savage brutality to his own people, the reason Bush can now get away with his war is that a sufficient number of Americans, including, apparently, Bush himself, see it as revenge for 9/11. This is worse than bizarre. It is pure racism and/or religious prejudice. ... Minds doped up on this kind of cod theology have a hard time distinguishing between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. ...

Saddam Hussein has been a catastrophe for Iraq, but he never posed a threat outside his immediate neighbourhood. George Bush is a catastrophe for the world. And a dream for Bin Laden.

-- Richard Dawkins
Bin Laden's victory
The Guardian

March 22, 2003

Well worth clicking the link for the entire piece!

Comments

From GrammarGirl on 03/23/03

Interesting that the "terrorist" who threw grenades into the tent of a couple of US military bigwigs over in Iraq today was actually an American Muslim pretty pissed about the whole situation. (I seriously saw this in passing, so don't hold me to it, but would be an interesting follow up to your entry.)

Finished suggesting what others should write about,
GG

From doublethink on 03/23/03

Oh, I always appreciate suggestions. And I do intend to write about that ugly little incident, as soon as I have time to research the guy, and his story.

It wasn't lost on me that the first reports identified him as a "black Muslim." Wonder what the press reaction would be if it had been a "white Christian"?

It will make an interesting follow-up indeed. Thanks. :)

From Tiroteo on 03/23/03

In this case, "black muslim" didn't mean "a muslim who is of African descent," but a specific muslim sect. I didn't see the news report of which you speak, but I don't think it would be much different than identifying somebody as an "orthodox jew" or a "roman catholic" or even a "Jehovah's witness."

The Black Muslim movement was founded in 1930 in Detroit. In the 70's it split up into the American Muslim Mission and the Nation of Islam.

From doublethink on 03/23/03

Blame it on the pervasive memory hole again. The original CBS News link (which has since switched to a newer story) said on March 22:

"[CBS News Correspondent Mark] Strassman said three suspects were being held for questioning, two Kuwaitis who served as translators and an American soldier described as a black Muslim."

On the same day the story was printed, the passage was re-edited to:

"Three suspects were being held for questioning: two Kuwaitis who served as translators and an American soldier described as an engineering sergeant."

And I am now kicking myself for not capturing a snapshot of the page while the story was still new.

In addition, all the other news articles I found that mentioned the phrase "...CBS reported that one of three suspects being questioned
about the attack was an American soldier described as a black Muslim..." have since been cleaned up, too. (But you can find them if you hurry, before Google News replaces its cache at http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&;scoring=d&q=%22black+muslim%22+iraq.)

(The story as it was originally reported is also raising a major stink on various right-wing, pro-war, and anti-Muslim message boards.)

Also, Fox News' March 23 broadcast made a point that the soldier is Muslim, and posed the question of whether of not "religious resentment" could have been a motive.

Re the origin of the phrase "black Muslim" -- you're one up on most Yanks, who equate it solely with N.O.I., for whom (to whites, anyway) it has become a trigger phrase.

What bothers me about the media using the phrase as a qualifier is that its usage implied there was some significance to it. There may very well be (the soldier could have snapped after hearing one too many racist and/or anti-Islamic slurs) -- but we don't know that either his race or his religion was a factor. And until it's clear either was relevant to his actions, I'd rather they had just referred to him as they do now (i.e., "engineering sergeant").

Otherwise, the media is playing on Americans' fears of Muslims in general, which I find heartbreaking. (I'm glad the Crusades were so long ago that people have forgotten the perpetrators were committing atrocities in the name of the Church, or I would have had a hell of a rough time growing up Catholic!)

A similar example would be "The Jewish woman doctor performed the surgery." What's "Jewish woman" doing in that sentence? Is it relevant to the story? Or does it attempt to stimulate the reader's personal feelings (whatever they may be) about women and/or Jews, and their competence as doctors?

Anyway, the fact that every news source quickly deleted the phrase "black Muslim" from its original reports shows they knew they erred in labeling him.

Hey, Pro-Warmongers! Happy Now?

Sat, 24 May 2003 23:15:07 GMT

Originally Posted March 23, 2003

Donald Rumsfeld says the American attack on Baghdad is "as targeted an air campaign as has ever existed" but he should not try telling that to five-year-old Doha Suheil. She looked at me yesterday morning, drip feed attached to her nose, a deep frown over her small face as she tried vainly to move the left side of her body. The cruise missile that exploded close to her home in the Radwaniyeh suburb of Baghdad blasted shrapnel into her tiny legs they were bound up with gauze and, far more seriously, into her spine. Now she has lost all movement in her left leg...

She was the first of 101 patients brought to the Al-Mustansaniya College Hospital after America's blitz on the city began on Friday night. Seven other members of her family were wounded in the same cruise missile bombardment; the youngest, a one-year-old baby, was being breastfed by her mother at the time...

[Five-year-old] Wahed lies in the next bed, whimpering with pain. She had climbed out of [a taxi] and was almost at her aunt's front door when the explosion cut her down. Her feet are still bleeding although the blood has clotted around her toes and is staunched by the bandages on her ankles and lower legs. Two little boys are in the next room. Sade Selim is 11; his brother Omar is 14. Both have shrapnel wounds to their legs and chest... Imam Ali is 23 and has multiple shrapnel wounds in her abdomen and lower bowel...

And all this, I asked myself yesterday, was all this for 11 September 2001? All this was to "strike back" at our attackers, albeit that Doha Suheil, Wahed Hassan and Imam Ali have nothing absolutely nothing to do with those crimes against humanity, any more than has the awful Saddam? Who decided, I wonder, that these children, these young women, should suffer for 11 September?

Robert Fisk
This is the reality of war. We bomb. They suffer
The Independent

March 22, 2003

Who's Losing Control?

Sat, 24 May 2003 23:10:26 GMT

Originally Posted March 23, 2003

Hey there, Georgie Boy, swingin' down the West Wing so fancy-free...

Saw your press conference this morning, Dubs, and I must say, your constant repetition of the word "control" is getting awfully old, awfully fast -- even for you. Saddam is losing control of his country. We're in control of Iraq. Iraq is out of control. We're gaining control. Everything's under control.

I can't understand why you're so fond of that word -- unless it has something to do with Andrew O'Conner's arrest after he opined in an Internet chat room that you were "out of control."

In any case, it looks like things are spiraling very much out of control in your ill-considered little "war."

Sorry, Georgie, but I can't type that word -- "war" -- in reference to Iraq without using quotation marks. It's not a "war." It's an unprovoked attack in violation of more international and global humanitarian conventions than I even care to start quoting. It's an invasion, one of such scale as to humble Attila the Hun, Genghis Khan, Napoleon, and all the Mongols combined. And, judging from the completely inappropriate behavior of the Marine who raised the American flag in place of an Iraqi flag, it is apparently also a conquest.

And we already know it's a crusade. You said so yourself -- even if it was an unfortunate slip of your infamous tongue. (That word -- "crusade" -- makes me the most uncomfortable, as it should any American with even the vaguest grasp of what The Crusades were really all about.)

But it is not, and never will be, a war. Sans quotes.

Now, about being "in control." Sorry, Georgie, but my suspension of disbelief doesn't stretch that far. Just a glance at this morning's headlines tells me that things are quite out of control. We shot down an RAF bomber last night. More "friendly fire" took out ITV reporter Terry Lloyd, his cameraman, and a translator. (But then, the Pentagon apparently reserved the right to knock out not only media satellite equipment, but the journalists themselves as well.) You've got one dead soldier and nine more injured after one of our own grunts snapped and starting tossing grenades into his comrades' tents. And we shot not one but three cruise missiles into Iran. (Georgie, your wife was a teacher -- ask her to run Tommy Franks through those alphabet drills, so he can tell the difference between the letter Q and the letter N.)

For the love of God, Georgie, we're killing more of our own soldiers and allies than the Iraqis are!

Okay, I could be wrong about that -- but you've left us on our own to figure out the running tally. As Tommy Franks said, you guys "don't do body counts." (You don't keep track of unemployment numbers anymore either -- and for the same basic reason.)

I'm not even going to comment here about the capture of U.S. soldiers (and the rumored execution of one), because I want to direct my remarks to your pal Rummy. Nor will I touch upon into the business of slaughtering Iraqi civilians right now, because I need a break before I launch into graphic descriptions of children with their heads split open.

Suffice to say, things are not going either quickly or easily, are they, Georgie? In fact, they're a goddamned mess, aren't they?

War is supposed to be hell -- not chaos.

Georgie, Georgie... I never thought I'd say this, but:

Why didn't you listen to your daddy?

When a White Flag Means Nothing

Sat, 24 May 2003 22:05:28 GMT

Originally Posted March 22, 2003

Warning: not too graphic, but disturbing. (If you really want to drive home to horrors of this attack to warmongers who don't seem to understand the concept of blowing innocents to bits, there are extremely graphic photos of dead Iraqi civilians -- including children -- on the Al-Jazeera site.)

Description from Reuters -- you can decide whether you really want to see the photo or not:

British soldiers assess damage caused on Iraqi trench positions as the bodies of two Iraqi soldiers remain in their trench with a white flag, following the British assault on the Al-Faw peninsula in southern Iraq March 22, 2003...

Here's the photo

Comments

From LostDreamer on 03/23/03

ok i havent looked at the photo yet but i am eating a po-tart right now..i dont want to puke it up..hold on.

From LostDreamer on 03/23/03

and that was POP-TART!! not po-tart..lol..anywhoo good thing i didnt see anything too gruesome. i did see dead bodies that made my stomach protest and my heart weep. War is never good. unless you are a war lover, then war would be good to make you happy. but war has always been around ever since the beggining of time. the dinasours were at constant war, herbivores against carnivores. granted it was just survival, but still a war of survival. i have been trying to close my mind to this whole war issue until it passes.

From doublethink on 03/23/03

Okay, my friend, if you really want the worst of the worst, here it is (and I mean, these are seriously gruesome and disturbing):

Bad (scroll down the page):
http://www.aljazeera.net/news/arabic/2003/3/3-23-10.htm

The worst so far:
http://www.aljazeera.net/news/arabic/2003/3/3-23-5.htm

From LostDreamer on 03/23/03

:( one word.....gross

When "Precision" Missiles Aren't, Part II

Sat, 24 May 2003 21:59:52 GMT

Originally Posted March 22, 2003

It's bad enough to plow a missile into a residential neighborhood, and another thing altogether to hit the wrong bloody country.

Or was it an accident? After all, Iran is number two on Dubbie's "Axil of Evil." (Originally, I was betting the U.S. would go after Syria as soon as they were finished conquering Iraq -- but when you consider the fact that with troops in Iraq and Afghanistan right now, an attack on Iran would be very convenient, since the U.S. already has Iran boxed in on two sides.)

Pentagon Confirms Missiles May Have Struck Iran

Iranian Lawmaker Says Missile Fell In Western Iran

TEHRAN, Iran -- Two Pentagon officials now confirm that three U.S. cruise missiles may have gone astray in Iran...

There are unconfirmed reports of casualties.

Iran also said coalition aircraft have been violating its airspace near the southern Iraqi port of Basra. Iran has closed its airspace to coalition and Iraqi warplanes.

[An Iranian lawmaker said one missile] landed on the Oil Ministry building in the city of Abadan -- about 30 miles east of Basra, Iraq's second largest city. Basra, in southern Iraq, has been under attack by U.S.-led forces.

Pentagon Confirms Missiles May Have Struck Iran
Associated Press

March 22, 2003