All Day Working
I literally just got back from a remote site where we did a rather large amount of data migration to a new server. Fortunately, it looks like everything is running as smoothly as possible, under the circumstances. I guess we'll find out for sure Monday morning.
To be honest, I've not been able to read anything today--well, I guess that gives me this evening to catch up. Hopefully I'll manage to post something before too long...it'd be even nicer if it was something positive, although these dark days of Son of Bush, The Coming of the Second Term, make that less than likely.
Back in a bit...
Thursday, December 30, 2004
Wednesday, December 29, 2004
Playing the Ethnic Card
UPI notes something that can't be considered at all positive in Iraq:
"We are starting to play the ethnic card in Iraq, just as the Soviets played it in Afghanistan," said former CIA chief of Afghanistan operation Milt Bearden.
"You only play it when you're losing and by playing it, you simply speed up the process of losing," he said.
Phoebe Marr, an analyst who closely follows events in Iraq, told United Press International that "having the U.S. military unleash different historical enemies on each other has become an unspoken U.S. policy."
Bearden, Marr and others also referred to the Pentagon's tactic of pitting one group of enemies against another in Iraq as being fraught with danger.
For example, during the assault on Fallujah, wary of the reliability of Iraqi forces, the Marines used 2,000 Kurdish Peshmerga militia troops against the Arab Sunnis. The two groups share a long history of mistrust and animosity, according to Marr...
And the future? "All sorts of ugly things could happen -- the Kurds could declare independence or the split between the Shiite and Sunni could deepen. The new Iraqi state could fail," an administration official said.
For Marr the outlook was also grim: "The whole Bush administration policy has been outrageously careless" and because of this, she said, the tenuous unity of Iraq "could break down."
Said former senior CIA Iraqi analyst Judith Yaphe: "Elections will not solve anything -- we are grasping for events that will enable us to get out of Iraq, but there are no such thing. Democracy is not an event but a process."
"Speed up the process of losing." Not exactly encouraging words...
UPI notes something that can't be considered at all positive in Iraq:
"We are starting to play the ethnic card in Iraq, just as the Soviets played it in Afghanistan," said former CIA chief of Afghanistan operation Milt Bearden.
"You only play it when you're losing and by playing it, you simply speed up the process of losing," he said.
Phoebe Marr, an analyst who closely follows events in Iraq, told United Press International that "having the U.S. military unleash different historical enemies on each other has become an unspoken U.S. policy."
Bearden, Marr and others also referred to the Pentagon's tactic of pitting one group of enemies against another in Iraq as being fraught with danger.
For example, during the assault on Fallujah, wary of the reliability of Iraqi forces, the Marines used 2,000 Kurdish Peshmerga militia troops against the Arab Sunnis. The two groups share a long history of mistrust and animosity, according to Marr...
And the future? "All sorts of ugly things could happen -- the Kurds could declare independence or the split between the Shiite and Sunni could deepen. The new Iraqi state could fail," an administration official said.
For Marr the outlook was also grim: "The whole Bush administration policy has been outrageously careless" and because of this, she said, the tenuous unity of Iraq "could break down."
Said former senior CIA Iraqi analyst Judith Yaphe: "Elections will not solve anything -- we are grasping for events that will enable us to get out of Iraq, but there are no such thing. Democracy is not an event but a process."
"Speed up the process of losing." Not exactly encouraging words...
Losing the War on Terror
Militants set off two car bombs and fought police in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
The "war on terror" was supposed to put a stop to stuff like this. Instead, such attacks are increasing.
A small side effect was a bump in the price of crude oil in commodity markets--imagine that.
In May, Saudi militants attacked oil company compounds in Khobar, 250 miles (400 kilometers) northeast of Riyadh, and killed 22 people, 19 of them foreigners. Earlier the same month, attackers stormed the offices of an American company in Yanbu, 350 kilometers (220 miles) north of Jiddah, killing six Westerners and a Saudi. All four attackers died in a shootout after a police chase in which they dragged the body of an American from the bumper of their car.
On April 21, five people, including two senior police officers and an 11-year-old girl, were killed along with the suicide bomber in an attack on a government building in Riyadh.
In November 2003 a suicide bombing at a Riyadh housing compound killed 17 people, most of them Muslims working in Saudi Arabia.
At a certain point, "staying the course" is an exercise in lunacy--like say, if "the course" is headed straight for a cliff. Unfortunately, too many foks apparently lack the ability--or wherewithall--to understand this, hence, Bush's win at the polls last November. I suppose this isn't too surprising: for instance, I doubt seriously a majority of US citizens could accurately point out ANY Middle Eastern country on a map. But, just as ignorance of the law is no excuse, ignorance of the consequences of your country's actions can likewise come back to bite real hard.
A while back I wrote something like "when you hand your car keys to a drunk, don't be surprised if your car gets wrecked." The more I look at the effects of the Bush foreign policy, the more it becomes apparent that we didn't just hand the car keys to a drunk--we made sure the gun rack had loaded weapons, too.
Militants set off two car bombs and fought police in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
The "war on terror" was supposed to put a stop to stuff like this. Instead, such attacks are increasing.
A small side effect was a bump in the price of crude oil in commodity markets--imagine that.
In May, Saudi militants attacked oil company compounds in Khobar, 250 miles (400 kilometers) northeast of Riyadh, and killed 22 people, 19 of them foreigners. Earlier the same month, attackers stormed the offices of an American company in Yanbu, 350 kilometers (220 miles) north of Jiddah, killing six Westerners and a Saudi. All four attackers died in a shootout after a police chase in which they dragged the body of an American from the bumper of their car.
On April 21, five people, including two senior police officers and an 11-year-old girl, were killed along with the suicide bomber in an attack on a government building in Riyadh.
In November 2003 a suicide bombing at a Riyadh housing compound killed 17 people, most of them Muslims working in Saudi Arabia.
At a certain point, "staying the course" is an exercise in lunacy--like say, if "the course" is headed straight for a cliff. Unfortunately, too many foks apparently lack the ability--or wherewithall--to understand this, hence, Bush's win at the polls last November. I suppose this isn't too surprising: for instance, I doubt seriously a majority of US citizens could accurately point out ANY Middle Eastern country on a map. But, just as ignorance of the law is no excuse, ignorance of the consequences of your country's actions can likewise come back to bite real hard.
A while back I wrote something like "when you hand your car keys to a drunk, don't be surprised if your car gets wrecked." The more I look at the effects of the Bush foreign policy, the more it becomes apparent that we didn't just hand the car keys to a drunk--we made sure the gun rack had loaded weapons, too.
Tis the Season
For giving--but also for receiving. I saw the Times article over at Tbogg, and heard a related story on NPR on my lunch break (the discussion on NPR actually focused on why fired CEO's get such generous severance packages, aka 'golden parachutes').
So, while veterans from Iraq are showing up in homeless shelters, the monied classes are making do with high end real estate, fancy cars, mink coats, and ski vacations.
What a country...
For giving--but also for receiving. I saw the Times article over at Tbogg, and heard a related story on NPR on my lunch break (the discussion on NPR actually focused on why fired CEO's get such generous severance packages, aka 'golden parachutes').
So, while veterans from Iraq are showing up in homeless shelters, the monied classes are making do with high end real estate, fancy cars, mink coats, and ski vacations.
What a country...
Penny Wise, Dollar Dumb
Juan Cole makes some interesting observations in the course of linking to several relevant articles covering the earthquake/tsunami disaster in South Asia and Indonesia:
Such catastrophes can have a political impact and can affect security affairs. The failure of the Turkish government to respond in a timely manner to the 1999 earthquake [link] sounded the death knell for the government of then prime minister Bulent Ecevit, and set the stage for the later victory at the polls of the Muslim reform party, Ak.
As John F. Harris and Robin Wright of the Washington Post cannily note [link], US President George W. Bush has missed an important opportunity to reach out to the Muslims of Indonesia. The Bush administration at first pledged a paltry $15 million, a mysteriously chintzy response to what was obviously an enormous calamity. Bush himself remained on vacation, and now has reluctantly agreed to a meeting of the National Security Council by video conference. If Bush were a statesman, he would have flown to Jakarta and announced his solidarity with the Muslims of Indonesia (which has suffered at least 40,000 dead and rising).
Indeed. Any number of blogs have noted a distinct lack of serious reaction on the part of the Bush administration to what is a catastrophe of truly global consequences (for instance, consider: many of the areas affected by this tragedy produce goods and/or services consumed here in the USA). Bush has been tepid in his response--in fact, my own opinion is that he's probably a little pissed that a such an event would ruin his perfectly good vacation--unlike, say, Iraq, which at this point looks more and more like the baby from Eraserhead.
In the aftermath of 9/11, the world showed an incredible degree of solidarity with the United States. In contrast, it speaks volumes that Bush very publicly made it clear that more important things were on his agenda--like clearing brush, working on his inaugural and SOTU addresses. Which makes me wonder what the world reaction will be if, god forbid, another major terrorist attack occurs in the country...
Juan Cole makes some interesting observations in the course of linking to several relevant articles covering the earthquake/tsunami disaster in South Asia and Indonesia:
Such catastrophes can have a political impact and can affect security affairs. The failure of the Turkish government to respond in a timely manner to the 1999 earthquake [link] sounded the death knell for the government of then prime minister Bulent Ecevit, and set the stage for the later victory at the polls of the Muslim reform party, Ak.
As John F. Harris and Robin Wright of the Washington Post cannily note [link], US President George W. Bush has missed an important opportunity to reach out to the Muslims of Indonesia. The Bush administration at first pledged a paltry $15 million, a mysteriously chintzy response to what was obviously an enormous calamity. Bush himself remained on vacation, and now has reluctantly agreed to a meeting of the National Security Council by video conference. If Bush were a statesman, he would have flown to Jakarta and announced his solidarity with the Muslims of Indonesia (which has suffered at least 40,000 dead and rising).
Indeed. Any number of blogs have noted a distinct lack of serious reaction on the part of the Bush administration to what is a catastrophe of truly global consequences (for instance, consider: many of the areas affected by this tragedy produce goods and/or services consumed here in the USA). Bush has been tepid in his response--in fact, my own opinion is that he's probably a little pissed that a such an event would ruin his perfectly good vacation--unlike, say, Iraq, which at this point looks more and more like the baby from Eraserhead.
In the aftermath of 9/11, the world showed an incredible degree of solidarity with the United States. In contrast, it speaks volumes that Bush very publicly made it clear that more important things were on his agenda--like clearing brush, working on his inaugural and SOTU addresses. Which makes me wonder what the world reaction will be if, god forbid, another major terrorist attack occurs in the country...
Good Morning, This is Your Wakeup Explosion
Insurgents set a trap for Iraqi police officers overnight. According to The Guardian, they passed a false tip suggesting that militants were holed up in a house in Baghdad's Ghazaliya district. When the cops arrived, the insurgents detonated about 400 pounds of explosives--blowing up the house in question, and six more nearby.
Twenty eight people are known dead at this point.
And, as the story goes on to note, the Coalition of the Willing is getting so light that it soon will float. Ukraine, which sent over slightly more than one battalion, will withdraw most of its 1,650 troops by April. They will be completely gone by 2005. Their contingent was the fourth largest among countriesbeing bribed sending troops.
Insurgents set a trap for Iraqi police officers overnight. According to The Guardian, they passed a false tip suggesting that militants were holed up in a house in Baghdad's Ghazaliya district. When the cops arrived, the insurgents detonated about 400 pounds of explosives--blowing up the house in question, and six more nearby.
Twenty eight people are known dead at this point.
And, as the story goes on to note, the Coalition of the Willing is getting so light that it soon will float. Ukraine, which sent over slightly more than one battalion, will withdraw most of its 1,650 troops by April. They will be completely gone by 2005. Their contingent was the fourth largest among countries
Tuesday, December 28, 2004
Freudian Slip, or Just Another Dumb Comment by Rummy?
If you hit CNN's international site, you'll find this story, which hasn't appeared on the standard CNN page--at least as of yet:
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A comment Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld made during a Christmas Eve address to U.S. troops in Baghdad has sparked new conspiracy theories about the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.
In the speech, Rumsfeld made a passing reference to United Airlines Flight 93, which crashed in Pennsylvania after passengers attempted to stop al Qaeda hijackers.
But in his remarks, Rumsfeld referred to the "the people who attacked the United States in New York, shot down the plane over Pennsylvania."
A Pentagon spokesman insisted that Rumsfeld simply misspoke, but Internet conspiracy theorists seized on the reference to the plane having been shot down.
The article goes on to note a comment someone posted at World Nut Daily, so take this with a box of salt. Or, maybe, it's a parting shot from short-timer Don...which would be too bad. The other day I posted something to the effect that the war is as much Rumsfeld's mess as anyone's in this sorry administration, and therefore he should be required to stick around to see it through (a "stop-loss" order for SecDef?). Besides, when the neo-cons start barking that Rummy must go--well, that's reason enough for me to want him to stick around...
If you hit CNN's international site, you'll find this story, which hasn't appeared on the standard CNN page--at least as of yet:
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A comment Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld made during a Christmas Eve address to U.S. troops in Baghdad has sparked new conspiracy theories about the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.
In the speech, Rumsfeld made a passing reference to United Airlines Flight 93, which crashed in Pennsylvania after passengers attempted to stop al Qaeda hijackers.
But in his remarks, Rumsfeld referred to the "the people who attacked the United States in New York, shot down the plane over Pennsylvania."
A Pentagon spokesman insisted that Rumsfeld simply misspoke, but Internet conspiracy theorists seized on the reference to the plane having been shot down.
The article goes on to note a comment someone posted at World Nut Daily, so take this with a box of salt. Or, maybe, it's a parting shot from short-timer Don...which would be too bad. The other day I posted something to the effect that the war is as much Rumsfeld's mess as anyone's in this sorry administration, and therefore he should be required to stick around to see it through (a "stop-loss" order for SecDef?). Besides, when the neo-cons start barking that Rummy must go--well, that's reason enough for me to want him to stick around...
Playing the Odds
According to this Slate article--which I initially found by linking to Intel Dump from YRHT--suggests that Iraq 2004 isn't really all that different from Vietnam 1966--if you're looking at the possibility that an individual soldier will be killed or wounded.
To be honest, I find the statistical analysis a little dry--but the conclusion is spot on accurate. That is, regardless of how you parse the numbers, the war is just that--war. As such, there's always the potential for destruction, mayhem--and the grim reaper to come a calling. And, in the case of Iraq, the war has been fought for--what?
Just think: if we hadn't spent almost $150 billion dollars and counting up to this point (with the promise that more is needed just to maintain the level of chaos there), we might be able to come through with quite a bit more for disaster relief in South Asia. By the way--note that the $35 million dollars promised thus far (more than half of it in loans, not grants) is still slightly less than the $40 million budgeted for Bush's inauguration.
After all, one must set priorities...
According to this Slate article--which I initially found by linking to Intel Dump from YRHT--suggests that Iraq 2004 isn't really all that different from Vietnam 1966--if you're looking at the possibility that an individual soldier will be killed or wounded.
To be honest, I find the statistical analysis a little dry--but the conclusion is spot on accurate. That is, regardless of how you parse the numbers, the war is just that--war. As such, there's always the potential for destruction, mayhem--and the grim reaper to come a calling. And, in the case of Iraq, the war has been fought for--what?
Just think: if we hadn't spent almost $150 billion dollars and counting up to this point (with the promise that more is needed just to maintain the level of chaos there), we might be able to come through with quite a bit more for disaster relief in South Asia. By the way--note that the $35 million dollars promised thus far (more than half of it in loans, not grants) is still slightly less than the $40 million budgeted for Bush's inauguration.
After all, one must set priorities...
But Seriously...
Actually I'd been joking when I guessed that Bush would accuse the Social Security Administration of holding "weapons of mass destruction." But according to this Boston Globe article, an Iraq style propaganda offensive IS part of the Bush plan to gut Social Security:
WASHINGTON -- The run-up to President Bush's plan to deal with Social Security is looking a lot like the run-up to his plan to deal with Saddam Hussein...
Much as the Iraq war was preceded by speeches designed to show Hussein in the most threatening light, the Bush economic summit seemed designed to dominate a slow news week with the idea that failing to deal with Social Security now will hurt the national economy.
"The time to start making sacrifices is now . . . so that the markets can have confidence that we're on a course that is going to avoid a train wreck," Bush said at the summit.
Still, the link between the current economy and a Social Security deficit that will begin to strike benefits in decades is every bit as speculative and theoretical as the link between Hussein and the war on terrorism in late 2002.
Now, the problem here is that you've STILL got people who believe the nonsense about Hussein and WMD (see Safire, Bill, for example--or, better yet, check out The Poorman's "edited" Safire column). Will the media actually study the facts and ask serious, genuine questions--or will Tim Russert turn it into a "Bush said, they said, what does Dr. Phil say?" circle jerk...?
Because, at this point, the spectacular failure--characterized by Bush as a "catastrophic success"--should give anyone pause when anyone in this administration opens their mouth. If they're willing to send mostly young men and women to their deaths for non-existent weapons, does anyone think they WOULDN'T be willing to make old people suffer--and maybe die--to further their domestic neo-con fantasies?
Actually I'd been joking when I guessed that Bush would accuse the Social Security Administration of holding "weapons of mass destruction." But according to this Boston Globe article, an Iraq style propaganda offensive IS part of the Bush plan to gut Social Security:
WASHINGTON -- The run-up to President Bush's plan to deal with Social Security is looking a lot like the run-up to his plan to deal with Saddam Hussein...
Much as the Iraq war was preceded by speeches designed to show Hussein in the most threatening light, the Bush economic summit seemed designed to dominate a slow news week with the idea that failing to deal with Social Security now will hurt the national economy.
"The time to start making sacrifices is now . . . so that the markets can have confidence that we're on a course that is going to avoid a train wreck," Bush said at the summit.
Still, the link between the current economy and a Social Security deficit that will begin to strike benefits in decades is every bit as speculative and theoretical as the link between Hussein and the war on terrorism in late 2002.
Now, the problem here is that you've STILL got people who believe the nonsense about Hussein and WMD (see Safire, Bill, for example--or, better yet, check out The Poorman's "edited" Safire column). Will the media actually study the facts and ask serious, genuine questions--or will Tim Russert turn it into a "Bush said, they said, what does Dr. Phil say?" circle jerk...?
Because, at this point, the spectacular failure--characterized by Bush as a "catastrophic success"--should give anyone pause when anyone in this administration opens their mouth. If they're willing to send mostly young men and women to their deaths for non-existent weapons, does anyone think they WOULDN'T be willing to make old people suffer--and maybe die--to further their domestic neo-con fantasies?
Memo to Bush: Security is More Than Mere Rhetoric
Today's grim news out of Iraq is that at least twenty five individuals were killed by insurgents today. Among the dead were civilians, police, and a government official...
Over at Needlenose, there's an interesting thread which began with a post by Swopa. In it, "guest blogger" J. Thomas (who apparently no longer posts at The Radical Center), makes several significant observations--and yeah, I've said similar stuff here, but Thomas does an excellent job of summing it up:
The rule is, if you occupy a foreign nation it's your responsibility to maintain order. It isn't the responsibility of random foreign nationals not to be disruptive. It's your responsibility to maintain order and protect civilians from each other.
If you have reason to think you can't do that, then don't occupy that foreign nation...
The international law position is, "You break it, you own it." It's your job to make the occupied nation a safe place for its citizens, against whatever criminals happen to arise. It isn't your place to do airstrikes against cities that are temporarily controlled by criminal groups. It isn't your place to do counterbattery artillery fire. It isn't your place to torture civilians who might have information about the criminals. Rape is right out. If you can't run a humane occupation, then you're wrong to run an inhumane one.
It isn't that you're supposed to make an agreement with the criminals. It isn't that it's OK for you to do atrocities if they do. If you want to destroy a regime, and you don't have the resources to actually get a replacement, then don't do it.
Of course Saddam had done atrocities against "his own people." Saddam doing it that doesn't justify us doing it. Terrorists doing it doesn't justify us doing it. If we aren't strong enough to beat the Iraqis without doing war crimes ourselves, then we have made a mistake.
See, it isn't just squeamishness. If we can't win without war crimes, then it's real unlikely that we'll get a result that's worth the cost. . . .
. . . Our violations of international law here are entirely our choice. We didn't have to invade and occupy when we weren't ready to do the job right. Now we're stuck with it and we don't know how to do it, and our atrocities aren't even getting us the results we need.
And, to stay ON topic for once, I'd like to also point out this from Your Right Hand Thief. In it, Oyster cites a couple of pieces from the Center for Strategic and International Studies, one of which asserts that the problem with Iraq at this point is NOT anything that can be fixed, patchwork style. Instead, what we have is a general policy failure, brought about by ongoing neo-con hubris. We will be paying for this policy failure for some time.
So, the next time you hear Bush or one of his proxies mouth off about "the enemies of freedom," or other such drivel, remember that they've done NOTHING to counter the descent into anarchy that is the story of today's Iraq. While they pat themselves on the back for "removing Saddam," they've ignored the very real problems that have resulted from this--problems they'd been warned about but chose to ignore.
Today's grim news out of Iraq is that at least twenty five individuals were killed by insurgents today. Among the dead were civilians, police, and a government official...
Over at Needlenose, there's an interesting thread which began with a post by Swopa. In it, "guest blogger" J. Thomas (who apparently no longer posts at The Radical Center), makes several significant observations--and yeah, I've said similar stuff here, but Thomas does an excellent job of summing it up:
The rule is, if you occupy a foreign nation it's your responsibility to maintain order. It isn't the responsibility of random foreign nationals not to be disruptive. It's your responsibility to maintain order and protect civilians from each other.
If you have reason to think you can't do that, then don't occupy that foreign nation...
The international law position is, "You break it, you own it." It's your job to make the occupied nation a safe place for its citizens, against whatever criminals happen to arise. It isn't your place to do airstrikes against cities that are temporarily controlled by criminal groups. It isn't your place to do counterbattery artillery fire. It isn't your place to torture civilians who might have information about the criminals. Rape is right out. If you can't run a humane occupation, then you're wrong to run an inhumane one.
It isn't that you're supposed to make an agreement with the criminals. It isn't that it's OK for you to do atrocities if they do. If you want to destroy a regime, and you don't have the resources to actually get a replacement, then don't do it.
Of course Saddam had done atrocities against "his own people." Saddam doing it that doesn't justify us doing it. Terrorists doing it doesn't justify us doing it. If we aren't strong enough to beat the Iraqis without doing war crimes ourselves, then we have made a mistake.
See, it isn't just squeamishness. If we can't win without war crimes, then it's real unlikely that we'll get a result that's worth the cost. . . .
. . . Our violations of international law here are entirely our choice. We didn't have to invade and occupy when we weren't ready to do the job right. Now we're stuck with it and we don't know how to do it, and our atrocities aren't even getting us the results we need.
And, to stay ON topic for once, I'd like to also point out this from Your Right Hand Thief. In it, Oyster cites a couple of pieces from the Center for Strategic and International Studies, one of which asserts that the problem with Iraq at this point is NOT anything that can be fixed, patchwork style. Instead, what we have is a general policy failure, brought about by ongoing neo-con hubris. We will be paying for this policy failure for some time.
So, the next time you hear Bush or one of his proxies mouth off about "the enemies of freedom," or other such drivel, remember that they've done NOTHING to counter the descent into anarchy that is the story of today's Iraq. While they pat themselves on the back for "removing Saddam," they've ignored the very real problems that have resulted from this--problems they'd been warned about but chose to ignore.
From the "A-Blind-Pig-Sometimes-Finds-an-Acorn-Department"
I came across this odd little rant from Arnaud de Borchgrave from Cursor. You know, I've been wondering where the co-"mastermind" (with Claire Sterling) of the thesis that "the communists tried to assassinate the pope" theory was skulking about. Incidently, the "commie plot to kill the pope" kind of fell apart when Mehmet Ali Agca, to paraphrase Alexander Cockburn, said the one thing you can't say in the west without everyone thinking you're completely insane--namely, he claimed to be Jesus Christ. "Io sono Jesus Christo," I remember Agca announcing on the first day of his trial.
But I digress: de Borchgrave, showing the kind of insight that only he can muster, has revealed that his keen senses tell him Osama bin Laden will shift his focus from attacking the United States to attacking US interests and allies in the Middle East. Arnaud also has it on good authority that the sky is blue, the grass is green, and the pope is almost certainly Catholic.
Not to be too hard on the man--after all, perhaps the Department of Homeland Security can now move beyond color codes--but I think it's pretty evident to folks with more than four or five functioning brain cells that bin Laden's overall plan involves the Middle East/Central and South Asia and/or Indonesia--the restoration of the Caliphate isn't exactly on the agenda for Taos, New Mexico.
Sadly, indeed, pathetically, de Borchgrave can't let go of the communist menace, asserting that bin Laden is recruiting in "many of the same spawning grounds that provisioned communist parties throughout the Cold War." Well, old habits die hard, I guess. However, he notes, correctly, that Pervez Musharraf is despised in Pakistan, while Osama boasts high approval ratings--which, as far as I can tell, is correct. He further notes that the juhadist strategy will, in his words, seek
to (1) further detach America from its European allies...(2) assist the insurgency in Iraq by encouraging more jihadis to volunteer for suicide duty; (3) stoke public opinion against the royals in Saudi Arabia; (4) stoke public opinion against Musharraf in Pakistan.
This, astonishingly, isn't all that far off the mark (hence, the title of this post). The question will be whether or not bin Laden can accomplish this. And, judging from the events in Iraq, Bush will do everything in his power to assist.
I came across this odd little rant from Arnaud de Borchgrave from Cursor. You know, I've been wondering where the co-"mastermind" (with Claire Sterling) of the thesis that "the communists tried to assassinate the pope" theory was skulking about. Incidently, the "commie plot to kill the pope" kind of fell apart when Mehmet Ali Agca, to paraphrase Alexander Cockburn, said the one thing you can't say in the west without everyone thinking you're completely insane--namely, he claimed to be Jesus Christ. "Io sono Jesus Christo," I remember Agca announcing on the first day of his trial.
But I digress: de Borchgrave, showing the kind of insight that only he can muster, has revealed that his keen senses tell him Osama bin Laden will shift his focus from attacking the United States to attacking US interests and allies in the Middle East. Arnaud also has it on good authority that the sky is blue, the grass is green, and the pope is almost certainly Catholic.
Not to be too hard on the man--after all, perhaps the Department of Homeland Security can now move beyond color codes--but I think it's pretty evident to folks with more than four or five functioning brain cells that bin Laden's overall plan involves the Middle East/Central and South Asia and/or Indonesia--the restoration of the Caliphate isn't exactly on the agenda for Taos, New Mexico.
Sadly, indeed, pathetically, de Borchgrave can't let go of the communist menace, asserting that bin Laden is recruiting in "many of the same spawning grounds that provisioned communist parties throughout the Cold War." Well, old habits die hard, I guess. However, he notes, correctly, that Pervez Musharraf is despised in Pakistan, while Osama boasts high approval ratings--which, as far as I can tell, is correct. He further notes that the juhadist strategy will, in his words, seek
to (1) further detach America from its European allies...(2) assist the insurgency in Iraq by encouraging more jihadis to volunteer for suicide duty; (3) stoke public opinion against the royals in Saudi Arabia; (4) stoke public opinion against Musharraf in Pakistan.
This, astonishingly, isn't all that far off the mark (hence, the title of this post). The question will be whether or not bin Laden can accomplish this. And, judging from the events in Iraq, Bush will do everything in his power to assist.
Post Holiday, um, Post
I actually meant to resume last night, but Cox Cable took care of that with its own holiday break (something tells me that won't be reflected in the bill). Anyway, attention obviously is being focused on South Asia, and rightly so. After seeing some of the tamer tsunami footage on Nightline yesterday, all I could think was "oh my god."
The surge in some areas rivaled anything you'd see in a hurricane--except there was little or no warning.
Others can certainly provide more detail on the science or the tragedy itself, so I'll move on to some other things, even as I look for agencies that could use a few of my dollars.
Moving the focus back to Iraq for a moment, I saw these stories linked to at Juan Cole's website: the first, from CNN's international edition, quotes one of the French journalists held hostage as saying that his captors, as you might expect, were thrilled by Bush's election--it will do wonders for recruitment. The second story, from the BBC cites Georges Malbrunot (one of the journalists), as saying he felt like he was on "planet bin Laden." Great--Iraq under Saddam tolerated such lunatics, but was never a home base for them. Now, thanks to the idiotic occupation, they've got recruits, ridiculous amounts of explosives, targets--and the US Military is powerless to stop them. The captors went on to say that their real goals are destabilizing Saudi Arabia and Egypt--in other words, the richest and the most populous of the Arab nations. If they succeed, what happens in Iraq will matter a LOT less--it will be more gravy than main course.
However, in one hopeful sign, Cole suggests that bin Laden shot "himself in the foot" with his latest audiotape, which calls for a boycott of the upcoming election. According to the professor, Iraqis will see him as meddling in their internal affairs. He further notes that Iraqis, as a group, aren't real comfortable with Wahabbist Islam of the type bin Laden practices. In Cole's mind, this could indicate an erosion of Al Qaeda's power--as he put it, perhaps they're more like the Baader Meinhof Gang or Red Army Faction, albeit with greater reach.
If true, this would be good, because the alternative--a true fundamentalist theocracy taking control of Mesopotamia--would make an absolute mockery of Bush's simplistic "the world is better off without Saddam Hussein" statements he's fond of spitting out like so much tobacco juice. Saddam, for all his viciousness, was not going to embark on jihad. Those who WOULD engage in such insanity are the flip side of a coin that has George W. Bush's ugly mug on the obverse--the bin Ladens of the world NEED George W. Bush and vice versa.
I'd add a few more things, but work calls. Back in a bit.
I actually meant to resume last night, but Cox Cable took care of that with its own holiday break (something tells me that won't be reflected in the bill). Anyway, attention obviously is being focused on South Asia, and rightly so. After seeing some of the tamer tsunami footage on Nightline yesterday, all I could think was "oh my god."
The surge in some areas rivaled anything you'd see in a hurricane--except there was little or no warning.
Others can certainly provide more detail on the science or the tragedy itself, so I'll move on to some other things, even as I look for agencies that could use a few of my dollars.
Moving the focus back to Iraq for a moment, I saw these stories linked to at Juan Cole's website: the first, from CNN's international edition, quotes one of the French journalists held hostage as saying that his captors, as you might expect, were thrilled by Bush's election--it will do wonders for recruitment. The second story, from the BBC cites Georges Malbrunot (one of the journalists), as saying he felt like he was on "planet bin Laden." Great--Iraq under Saddam tolerated such lunatics, but was never a home base for them. Now, thanks to the idiotic occupation, they've got recruits, ridiculous amounts of explosives, targets--and the US Military is powerless to stop them. The captors went on to say that their real goals are destabilizing Saudi Arabia and Egypt--in other words, the richest and the most populous of the Arab nations. If they succeed, what happens in Iraq will matter a LOT less--it will be more gravy than main course.
However, in one hopeful sign, Cole suggests that bin Laden shot "himself in the foot" with his latest audiotape, which calls for a boycott of the upcoming election. According to the professor, Iraqis will see him as meddling in their internal affairs. He further notes that Iraqis, as a group, aren't real comfortable with Wahabbist Islam of the type bin Laden practices. In Cole's mind, this could indicate an erosion of Al Qaeda's power--as he put it, perhaps they're more like the Baader Meinhof Gang or Red Army Faction, albeit with greater reach.
If true, this would be good, because the alternative--a true fundamentalist theocracy taking control of Mesopotamia--would make an absolute mockery of Bush's simplistic "the world is better off without Saddam Hussein" statements he's fond of spitting out like so much tobacco juice. Saddam, for all his viciousness, was not going to embark on jihad. Those who WOULD engage in such insanity are the flip side of a coin that has George W. Bush's ugly mug on the obverse--the bin Ladens of the world NEED George W. Bush and vice versa.
I'd add a few more things, but work calls. Back in a bit.
Thursday, December 23, 2004
The Less Than Sacred Heart of Dubya 
I was hoping this little bit of Photoshopped silliness wouldn't be of much use by now--I did this over the summer, right around the time Bush's Holy Halo was generating notice...
Alas. But, at least I got a Holiday Card out of it (sarcasm).
Anyway, work gave us early parole today--might have the time to post this evening (but I've got some chores first). However, if I DON'T have time to post (I'll be in New Iberia over the weekend), have a happy solstice season, a good yuletide, a Merry Christmas, Happy Kwanzaa, Happy Hanukkah, Saturnalia, or whatever you want to call it...
I was hoping this little bit of Photoshopped silliness wouldn't be of much use by now--I did this over the summer, right around the time Bush's Holy Halo was generating notice...
Alas. But, at least I got a Holiday Card out of it (sarcasm).
Anyway, work gave us early parole today--might have the time to post this evening (but I've got some chores first). However, if I DON'T have time to post (I'll be in New Iberia over the weekend), have a happy solstice season, a good yuletide, a Merry Christmas, Happy Kwanzaa, Happy Hanukkah, Saturnalia, or whatever you want to call it...
Maybe They Meant "Showers"--of Lead
Three Marines were killed today in "liberated" Fallujah. By the way--Today in Iraq has more on the assault--note that this was the "largest concentration of heavy armor amassed since the fall of Berlin." Another perspective on the city comes from Michael Ware, Baghdad bureau chief for Time. Now, Fallujah is a special case, but can anyone possibly imagine an election taking place there? The city is completely devastated. Restrictions on returning residents would be comical if they weren't so serious. And--the "victory" there isn't: I believe the idea was to eradicate the insurgents. Not only has that NOT happened, at today's tragic news demonstrates, but the wake of destruction is as close a guarantee you can get that more will take up arms against the occupation. Speaking of which: you've gotta love Rummy's excuse for STILL refusing to send more soldiers (not that it would really do much good at this point anyway)--when asked at his press conference about sending more troops, the Rumster replied, "...Our task is not to get in there with a persistent presence of Americans over a sustained period of time, because that has the counterproductive aspect of it of creating additional targets and creating a sense of occupation..."
Um, excuse me, but what else IS the presence of 150,000 US soldiers in Iraq if it's NOT an occupation? Jesus H. Christ, it's as if Rumsfeld opted for brain removal surgery sometime between January of 2001 and now. Ungoddamnedbelievable. Between sucking up to Ahmad Chalabi and utter blind refusal to comprehend that invading Iraq wasn't going to be a walk in the park--well, Rumsfeld will now truly find himself remembered in history--as one of the downright DUMBEST individuals ever to occupy the office of Secretary of Defense.
I guess that's fitting, considering who his boss is...
Three Marines were killed today in "liberated" Fallujah. By the way--Today in Iraq has more on the assault--note that this was the "largest concentration of heavy armor amassed since the fall of Berlin." Another perspective on the city comes from Michael Ware, Baghdad bureau chief for Time. Now, Fallujah is a special case, but can anyone possibly imagine an election taking place there? The city is completely devastated. Restrictions on returning residents would be comical if they weren't so serious. And--the "victory" there isn't: I believe the idea was to eradicate the insurgents. Not only has that NOT happened, at today's tragic news demonstrates, but the wake of destruction is as close a guarantee you can get that more will take up arms against the occupation. Speaking of which: you've gotta love Rummy's excuse for STILL refusing to send more soldiers (not that it would really do much good at this point anyway)--when asked at his press conference about sending more troops, the Rumster replied, "...Our task is not to get in there with a persistent presence of Americans over a sustained period of time, because that has the counterproductive aspect of it of creating additional targets and creating a sense of occupation..."
Um, excuse me, but what else IS the presence of 150,000 US soldiers in Iraq if it's NOT an occupation? Jesus H. Christ, it's as if Rumsfeld opted for brain removal surgery sometime between January of 2001 and now. Ungoddamnedbelievable. Between sucking up to Ahmad Chalabi and utter blind refusal to comprehend that invading Iraq wasn't going to be a walk in the park--well, Rumsfeld will now truly find himself remembered in history--as one of the downright DUMBEST individuals ever to occupy the office of Secretary of Defense.
I guess that's fitting, considering who his boss is...
Election "Monitoring"
Here's a first--election monitors for the January 30th Iraqi vote will observe--from Jordan:
Representatives of seven nations met in Ottawa this week to recruit international observers for the Iraqi elections and agreed to watch the vote, but from the safety of Amman, Jordan.
They said it was too dangerous to monitor the voting in Iraq, meaning international observers are unlikely for the elections on Jan. 30 - making them the first significant vote of this sort recently with no foreign presence, United Nations officials say.
Now, given that three Iraqi election workers were murdered in broad daylight recently, you can't really blame them.
Here's a first--election monitors for the January 30th Iraqi vote will observe--from Jordan:
Representatives of seven nations met in Ottawa this week to recruit international observers for the Iraqi elections and agreed to watch the vote, but from the safety of Amman, Jordan.
They said it was too dangerous to monitor the voting in Iraq, meaning international observers are unlikely for the elections on Jan. 30 - making them the first significant vote of this sort recently with no foreign presence, United Nations officials say.
Now, given that three Iraqi election workers were murdered in broad daylight recently, you can't really blame them.
Your Money or Your Life
Contrack International decided that $325 million dollars wasn't enough to risk life and limb for:
A US company has pulled out of a major contract to rebuild Iraq's transport system after attacks on reconstruction efforts, Pentagon officials have said...
US firms and their workers have been targets of attacks, and security concerns are said to be a major reason for the slow pace of reconstruction in Iraq.
Of the $18.4bn in reconstruction funds approved by Congress, less than $2bn has been spent.
Lt Col Eric Schnaible of the PCO told the Associated Press news agency Contrack's withdrawal from the transportation contract was a "mutually agreed-to separation" and did not indicate a movement by US companies to leave Iraq.
"Some parts of the country are a whole lot more permissive than others," he added.
"Where we can get the work done, good things are happening."
Now, I wonder WHERE work can get done? Hmmm. From Matt at Today in Iraq:
...Bush said those pictures do not reflect that 15 of Iraq's 18 provinces are relatively stable and that small businesses are starting up. "Life is better now than it was under Saddam Hussein."
Relative Stability: A Brief Examination
Dahuk Province, Capital Dahuk: On December 5 the governor of Dohuk province escaped a second assassination attempt, in a bomb attack claimed by the Islamist Ansar al-Sunna group. The same group claimed another attempt on Nishervan Ahmed's life on September 14. Doesn’t sound too stable.
Erbil Province, Capital Erbil: A Kurdish province effectively outside of Iraqi governmental control for the last 15 years, it has been relatively stable throughout the war. We’ll give him this one. However, let’s not forget that over 100 people died in Erbil last February in suicide bombings directed at the offices of two main Kurdish factions. Stability is, after all, relative.
Ninevah Province, Capital Mosul: December 19 - One Iraqi eighth-grader was killed and six others wounded Saturday morning in Mosul when insurgents trying to detonate a roadside bomb in the path of a routine American patrol misfired and hit a school bus full of children, the military said. Also see the article on Mosul cited above. Definitely not stable.
Sulaimaniya Province, Capital Sulaimaniya: Another comparatively peaceful Kurdish province. Relatively stable.
Tamim Province, Capital Kirkuk: See ‘Bring ‘em on’ second entry. There are also numerous reports of recent attacks on oil pipelines in the vicinity of Kirkuk. Four Kurds were shot to death in Hiwiya on Sunday. Not very stable, nope.
Salahuddin Province, Capital Samarra: See the first ‘Bring ‘em on’ entry. On Saturday one Iraqi was killed and eight wounded in an attack on an election center. A woman official was kidnapped from here on December 2 and her bullet riddled body was discovered three days later. Oh, yes, the Turkish truck driver killed in Tikrit yesterday goes here too, right? Can’t call this one too stable.
Al Anbar Province, Capital Ramadi: Ramadi? Fallujah? Say no more. Definitely not stable, not even relatively.
Diyala Province, Capital Baquba: Well, an official was just shot dead in Baquba, see ‘Bring ‘em on’ entry three above. Got some dead ING soldiers and police in Baquba last Friday, some US soldiers killed there this month too…nah. Not stable.
Baghdad Province, Capital Baghdad: We don’t really need to discuss this one either, do we? Not stable.
Karbala Province, Capital Karbala: Even if you overlook the dozens of people who got blown up Sunday in Karbala, it would still be a stretch to call this one stable. And we aren’t going to overlook those people.
Babil Province, Capital Al Hillah: Two Marines died December 13 in explosions in Babil Province. Not a sign of stability.
Wasit Province, Capital Al Kut: On December 16, the British Foreign Office issued an advisory against any travel to Baghdad and its five adjacent provinces, including Wasit. They probably wouldn’t do that if they thought it was stable. We’ll defer to their judgment here and call it not stable.
Najaf Province, Capital Najaf: Hmm. Day before yesterday 49 people were killed and 90 wounded in a car bombing here. Let’s call this one unstable too.
Qadisiyah Province, Capital Diwaniyah: Bulgarian troops based in Diwaniyah reported being under mortar fire on December 14. They probably didn’t feel like things were too stable when that happened. But all in all, this province is less unstable than some of its neighbors. Maybe call this one a wash.
Dhi-Qar Province, Capital Nasiriyah: This one looks to be pretty quiet lately. So have Muthana and Maysan Provinces. The Shi’ite south is not as bad as other parts of Iraq, so we can call all three of these provinces relatively stable.
Basra Province, Capital Basra: Last April five suicide bombings near police stations and a police academy in Basra killed 74 people and wounded 160 others but it’s been quiet since then, I think. How long after a major attack until a province is considered relatively stable? Ah, let’s be generous and give it to George.
So, based on a Google search that took maybe two hours and which I know is nothing like comprehensive for any of these provinces, plus the maps I’m using suck and I’m not even sure what towns are in what provinces, not to mention all the different ways you can spell the names of places in Iraq, I can still conclude that out of eighteen provinces only six can be considered even relatively stable and at least a couple of those suffered major violence less than a year ago. Therefore it is Mr. Bush who is hallucinating, not me. But we already knew that. And as to whether the average Iraqi would agree that life is better now than it was under Hussein…let's leave that for another time.
Contrack International decided that $325 million dollars wasn't enough to risk life and limb for:
A US company has pulled out of a major contract to rebuild Iraq's transport system after attacks on reconstruction efforts, Pentagon officials have said...
US firms and their workers have been targets of attacks, and security concerns are said to be a major reason for the slow pace of reconstruction in Iraq.
Of the $18.4bn in reconstruction funds approved by Congress, less than $2bn has been spent.
Lt Col Eric Schnaible of the PCO told the Associated Press news agency Contrack's withdrawal from the transportation contract was a "mutually agreed-to separation" and did not indicate a movement by US companies to leave Iraq.
"Some parts of the country are a whole lot more permissive than others," he added.
"Where we can get the work done, good things are happening."
Now, I wonder WHERE work can get done? Hmmm. From Matt at Today in Iraq:
...Bush said those pictures do not reflect that 15 of Iraq's 18 provinces are relatively stable and that small businesses are starting up. "Life is better now than it was under Saddam Hussein."
Relative Stability: A Brief Examination
Dahuk Province, Capital Dahuk: On December 5 the governor of Dohuk province escaped a second assassination attempt, in a bomb attack claimed by the Islamist Ansar al-Sunna group. The same group claimed another attempt on Nishervan Ahmed's life on September 14. Doesn’t sound too stable.
Erbil Province, Capital Erbil: A Kurdish province effectively outside of Iraqi governmental control for the last 15 years, it has been relatively stable throughout the war. We’ll give him this one. However, let’s not forget that over 100 people died in Erbil last February in suicide bombings directed at the offices of two main Kurdish factions. Stability is, after all, relative.
Ninevah Province, Capital Mosul: December 19 - One Iraqi eighth-grader was killed and six others wounded Saturday morning in Mosul when insurgents trying to detonate a roadside bomb in the path of a routine American patrol misfired and hit a school bus full of children, the military said. Also see the article on Mosul cited above. Definitely not stable.
Sulaimaniya Province, Capital Sulaimaniya: Another comparatively peaceful Kurdish province. Relatively stable.
Tamim Province, Capital Kirkuk: See ‘Bring ‘em on’ second entry. There are also numerous reports of recent attacks on oil pipelines in the vicinity of Kirkuk. Four Kurds were shot to death in Hiwiya on Sunday. Not very stable, nope.
Salahuddin Province, Capital Samarra: See the first ‘Bring ‘em on’ entry. On Saturday one Iraqi was killed and eight wounded in an attack on an election center. A woman official was kidnapped from here on December 2 and her bullet riddled body was discovered three days later. Oh, yes, the Turkish truck driver killed in Tikrit yesterday goes here too, right? Can’t call this one too stable.
Al Anbar Province, Capital Ramadi: Ramadi? Fallujah? Say no more. Definitely not stable, not even relatively.
Diyala Province, Capital Baquba: Well, an official was just shot dead in Baquba, see ‘Bring ‘em on’ entry three above. Got some dead ING soldiers and police in Baquba last Friday, some US soldiers killed there this month too…nah. Not stable.
Baghdad Province, Capital Baghdad: We don’t really need to discuss this one either, do we? Not stable.
Karbala Province, Capital Karbala: Even if you overlook the dozens of people who got blown up Sunday in Karbala, it would still be a stretch to call this one stable. And we aren’t going to overlook those people.
Babil Province, Capital Al Hillah: Two Marines died December 13 in explosions in Babil Province. Not a sign of stability.
Wasit Province, Capital Al Kut: On December 16, the British Foreign Office issued an advisory against any travel to Baghdad and its five adjacent provinces, including Wasit. They probably wouldn’t do that if they thought it was stable. We’ll defer to their judgment here and call it not stable.
Najaf Province, Capital Najaf: Hmm. Day before yesterday 49 people were killed and 90 wounded in a car bombing here. Let’s call this one unstable too.
Qadisiyah Province, Capital Diwaniyah: Bulgarian troops based in Diwaniyah reported being under mortar fire on December 14. They probably didn’t feel like things were too stable when that happened. But all in all, this province is less unstable than some of its neighbors. Maybe call this one a wash.
Dhi-Qar Province, Capital Nasiriyah: This one looks to be pretty quiet lately. So have Muthana and Maysan Provinces. The Shi’ite south is not as bad as other parts of Iraq, so we can call all three of these provinces relatively stable.
Basra Province, Capital Basra: Last April five suicide bombings near police stations and a police academy in Basra killed 74 people and wounded 160 others but it’s been quiet since then, I think. How long after a major attack until a province is considered relatively stable? Ah, let’s be generous and give it to George.
So, based on a Google search that took maybe two hours and which I know is nothing like comprehensive for any of these provinces, plus the maps I’m using suck and I’m not even sure what towns are in what provinces, not to mention all the different ways you can spell the names of places in Iraq, I can still conclude that out of eighteen provinces only six can be considered even relatively stable and at least a couple of those suffered major violence less than a year ago. Therefore it is Mr. Bush who is hallucinating, not me. But we already knew that. And as to whether the average Iraqi would agree that life is better now than it was under Hussein…let's leave that for another time.
Special Victims Unit
From Roger Ailes, here's something you don't see every day:
WASHINGTON - Talk about bad economic indicators: A top congressional economist was nabbed trying to steal a fancy plasma TV from a Capitol Hill committee room.
"I guess he was practicing a new theory called trickle-up economics," cracked Dan McGlinchey, a longtime aide to Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) who helped collar the alleged thief after a chase through the Rayburn House Office Building.
Tom Loo, chief economist for the Small Business Committee, was arrested after running into a gaggle of Capitol Hill police officers, who promptly tackled him.
Actually, I think Loo's biggest mistake was ignoring the dictum--I'll use a Bob Dylan lyric as an example--that only the low-level crooks get caught:
Steal a little and they throw you in jail
Steal a lot and they make you king
Tom, there's a guy in the executive branch that you could learn A LOT from...
From Roger Ailes, here's something you don't see every day:
WASHINGTON - Talk about bad economic indicators: A top congressional economist was nabbed trying to steal a fancy plasma TV from a Capitol Hill committee room.
"I guess he was practicing a new theory called trickle-up economics," cracked Dan McGlinchey, a longtime aide to Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) who helped collar the alleged thief after a chase through the Rayburn House Office Building.
Tom Loo, chief economist for the Small Business Committee, was arrested after running into a gaggle of Capitol Hill police officers, who promptly tackled him.
Actually, I think Loo's biggest mistake was ignoring the dictum--I'll use a Bob Dylan lyric as an example--that only the low-level crooks get caught:
Steal a little and they throw you in jail
Steal a lot and they make you king
Tom, there's a guy in the executive branch that you could learn A LOT from...
Just Awful
Timshel, and YRHT link to this unbelievably sad story from New Orleans. The Big Easy can also be the City that Care Forgot--and nothing demonstrates it more clearly than a totally senseless act of violence. My sincerest condolences to the Donaldson family.
Timshel, and YRHT link to this unbelievably sad story from New Orleans. The Big Easy can also be the City that Care Forgot--and nothing demonstrates it more clearly than a totally senseless act of violence. My sincerest condolences to the Donaldson family.
Wednesday, December 22, 2004
Rewarding Incompetence
Is the title of this page at TomPaine.com. It's an open letter from Cindy Sheehan to the editors of Time magazine. Sheehan's son, Casey, was killed in Iraq on April 4, 2004:
Dear Time Editors:
My son, Spc. Casey Sheehan was killed in Iraq on 04/04/04. This has been an extraordinary couple of weeks of "slaps in the faces" to us families of fallen heroes.
First, the Secretary of Defense—Donald Rumsfeld—admits to the world something that we as military families already know: The United States was not prepared for nor had any plan for the assault on Iraq. Our children were sent to fight an ill-conceived and badly prosecuted war. Our troops were sent with the wrong type of training, bad equipment, inferior protection and thin supply lines. Our children have been killed and we have made the ultimate sacrifice for this fiasco of a war, then we find out this week that Rumsfeld doesn't even have the courtesy or compassion to sign the "death letters"—as they are so callously called. Besides the upcoming holidays and the fact we miss our children desperately, what else can go wrong this holiday season?
Well let's see. Oh yes. George W. Bush awards the Presidential Medal of Freedom to three more architects of the quagmire that is Iraq. Thousands of people are dead and Bremer, Tenet and Franks are given our country's highest civilian award. What's next?
To top everything off—after it has been proven that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, there were no ties between Saddam and 9/11 and over 1,300 brave young people in this country are dead and Iraq lies in ruins— what does Time Magazine do? Names George W. Bush as its "Man of the Year." The person who betrayed this country into a needless war and whom I hold ultimately responsible for my son's death and who was questionably elected, again, to a second term, is honored this way by your magazine.
I hope we finally find peace in our world and that our troops who remain in Iraq are brought home speedily—after all, there was no reason for our troops to be there in the first place. No reason for my son and over 1,300 others to have been taken from their families. No reason for the infrastructure of Iraq to be demolished and thousands of Iraqis being killed. No reason for the notion of a "happy" holiday to be robbed from my family forever. I hope that our "leaders" don't invade any other countries which pose no serious threat to the United States. I hope there is no draft. I hope that the five people mentioned here (and many others) will finally be held responsible for the horrible mistake they got our country into. I hope that competence is finally rewarded and incompetence is appropriately punished. These are my wishes for 2005.
This isn't the first time your magazine has selected a questionable man for this honor—but it's the first time it affected my family so personally and so sorrowfully.
Cindy Sheehan
By the way--Time in Canada chose a different individual for their "Newsmaker of the Year." Check it out.
Is the title of this page at TomPaine.com. It's an open letter from Cindy Sheehan to the editors of Time magazine. Sheehan's son, Casey, was killed in Iraq on April 4, 2004:
Dear Time Editors:
My son, Spc. Casey Sheehan was killed in Iraq on 04/04/04. This has been an extraordinary couple of weeks of "slaps in the faces" to us families of fallen heroes.
First, the Secretary of Defense—Donald Rumsfeld—admits to the world something that we as military families already know: The United States was not prepared for nor had any plan for the assault on Iraq. Our children were sent to fight an ill-conceived and badly prosecuted war. Our troops were sent with the wrong type of training, bad equipment, inferior protection and thin supply lines. Our children have been killed and we have made the ultimate sacrifice for this fiasco of a war, then we find out this week that Rumsfeld doesn't even have the courtesy or compassion to sign the "death letters"—as they are so callously called. Besides the upcoming holidays and the fact we miss our children desperately, what else can go wrong this holiday season?
Well let's see. Oh yes. George W. Bush awards the Presidential Medal of Freedom to three more architects of the quagmire that is Iraq. Thousands of people are dead and Bremer, Tenet and Franks are given our country's highest civilian award. What's next?
To top everything off—after it has been proven that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, there were no ties between Saddam and 9/11 and over 1,300 brave young people in this country are dead and Iraq lies in ruins— what does Time Magazine do? Names George W. Bush as its "Man of the Year." The person who betrayed this country into a needless war and whom I hold ultimately responsible for my son's death and who was questionably elected, again, to a second term, is honored this way by your magazine.
I hope we finally find peace in our world and that our troops who remain in Iraq are brought home speedily—after all, there was no reason for our troops to be there in the first place. No reason for my son and over 1,300 others to have been taken from their families. No reason for the infrastructure of Iraq to be demolished and thousands of Iraqis being killed. No reason for the notion of a "happy" holiday to be robbed from my family forever. I hope that our "leaders" don't invade any other countries which pose no serious threat to the United States. I hope there is no draft. I hope that the five people mentioned here (and many others) will finally be held responsible for the horrible mistake they got our country into. I hope that competence is finally rewarded and incompetence is appropriately punished. These are my wishes for 2005.
This isn't the first time your magazine has selected a questionable man for this honor—but it's the first time it affected my family so personally and so sorrowfully.
Cindy Sheehan
By the way--Time in Canada chose a different individual for their "Newsmaker of the Year." Check it out.
How Did I Miss This?
Michael Berube found this in the transcript of Bush's "press conference":
QUESTION: I’d like to go back to Secretary Rumsfeld. You talked about the big-picture elements of the secretary’s job, but did you find it offensive that he didn’t take the time to personally sign condolence letters to the families of troops killed in Iraq? And if so, why is that an offense that you’re willing to overlook?
BUSH: Listen, I know how– I know Secretary Rumsfeld’s heart. I know how much he cares for the troops. And I also know this. No one knows what it’s like to be to the bad man, to be the sad man, behind blue eyes. No one knows what it’s like to be hated, to be fated to telling only lies. But Secretary Rumsfeld’s dreams– they aren’t as empty as his conscience seems to be. I have heard the anguish in his voice and seen his eyes when we talk about the danger in Iraq and the fact that youngsters are over there in harm’s way. And he’s a good, decent man. He’s a caring fellow.
QUESTION: Exactly how caring can he be, if he’s not even signing condolence letters and he’s never admitted making a single mistake with regard to this fraudulent and obviously worse-than-counterproductive war?
BUSH: Listen– let me finish! and get that wire out of my back, goddammit!– no one knows what it’s like to feel these feelings like Secretary Rumsfeld does. No one bites back as hard on their anger– none of his pain and woe can show through. But, as I said before, the Secretary’s dreams are not as empty as his conscience seems to be. He has hours, only lonely. His love is vengeance that’s never free. And no, I don’t really know what that last sentence means, and as I said before, I’m not going to negotiate with myself about it. Or with you– it wouldn’t be right, it’s not the holiday spirit. Thank you very much.
Michael Berube found this in the transcript of Bush's "press conference":
QUESTION: I’d like to go back to Secretary Rumsfeld. You talked about the big-picture elements of the secretary’s job, but did you find it offensive that he didn’t take the time to personally sign condolence letters to the families of troops killed in Iraq? And if so, why is that an offense that you’re willing to overlook?
BUSH: Listen, I know how– I know Secretary Rumsfeld’s heart. I know how much he cares for the troops. And I also know this. No one knows what it’s like to be to the bad man, to be the sad man, behind blue eyes. No one knows what it’s like to be hated, to be fated to telling only lies. But Secretary Rumsfeld’s dreams– they aren’t as empty as his conscience seems to be. I have heard the anguish in his voice and seen his eyes when we talk about the danger in Iraq and the fact that youngsters are over there in harm’s way. And he’s a good, decent man. He’s a caring fellow.
QUESTION: Exactly how caring can he be, if he’s not even signing condolence letters and he’s never admitted making a single mistake with regard to this fraudulent and obviously worse-than-counterproductive war?
BUSH: Listen– let me finish! and get that wire out of my back, goddammit!– no one knows what it’s like to feel these feelings like Secretary Rumsfeld does. No one bites back as hard on their anger– none of his pain and woe can show through. But, as I said before, the Secretary’s dreams are not as empty as his conscience seems to be. He has hours, only lonely. His love is vengeance that’s never free. And no, I don’t really know what that last sentence means, and as I said before, I’m not going to negotiate with myself about it. Or with you– it wouldn’t be right, it’s not the holiday spirit. Thank you very much.
Righteous Indignation
James Wolcott comes through with a couple of good posts; the first, following up on a DailyKos piece that lays blame for the Iraq debacle where it's due: squarely on Bush.
I had Fox News on earlier today; two Senators, one Democrat and one Repub, were discussing the Mosul massacre as the camera showed the wounded being deplaned in Germany. The Democrat Senator, whose name I didn't catch, was discussing the lack of post-invasion planning and the resultant miseries, but he felt compelled to inject, "I'm not mad at President Bush, but--"
"I'm not mad at President Bush."
Why the f not?
I recognize that most elected Democrats, stunned by the election results and feeling the need to sound responsible on such a tragic occasion, feel compelled to adopt this more-in-sorrow-than-anger tone that was one of Tom Daschle's less attractive traits. But look what good it did Daschle shaking his head with weary regret over the latest Republican outrage--he was still vilified as some sort of rabid obstructionist.
Republicans belch fire all the time without suffering repercussions, yet Democrats behave like some meek choir.
Couldn't we have at least one irresponsible, intemperate off the reservation loose cannon willing to say he is "mad" at Bush, indeed is furious with the whole lying lot of them (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, Rice, Wolfowitz...the list goes on and on)? Because this engulfing fiasco is their fault, and the fault of those unwilling to stand up to them in the first place.
Wolcott's other post cites the latest from William S. Lind--short version: like Stalingrad, Fallujah will be remembered as a tactical victory but strategic defeat for the invaders--Lind goes on to note Patrick Cockburn saw the potential for problems in Mosul right away. Fallujah, in this case, was like the wasp in the car that you swat at, only to find yourself spinning out of control before driving headlong into the alligator pond...
Wolcott concludes by noting (via Steve Gilliard) the same Times article I referenced below:
That was also the message of a front-page piece in the NY Times today, which Steve Gilliard takes apart with his skilled-mechanic hands. One of the advantages of living through enough history is that you hear the same rationalizations and excuses return like a bad melody. During Vietnam a point was reached in which the press and the public, which had supported the war for years during the escalation, recognized it wasn't working, we weren't going to win, and that the light at the end of the tunnel was an oncoming train. And yet--we couldn't "bug out," "cut and run," choose your own vernacular phrase. Why? Because America would lose face and stature in the world. Because our enemies (then, the Communists) would be emboldened. And, this was the clincher moral argument, because it would mean that those who died in Vietnam had died in vain.
We're hearing some of that now, and we'll hear more of it ahead. But face it, those troops in Vietnam did die in vain, as did the Marines who died in the barracks in Beirut, as do most of the men and women who die in war. Most wars are unnecessary, waged on the basis of lies, power, and fear; to justify the unnecessary deaths, the funeral services float the soft consolation that the body lying in the flag-draped coffin died for Peace, or Democracy, or the Good of the Country. When often they died because too many fools wouldn't admit they had made a ghastly mistake and kept perpetuating that mistake even after they and all the world recognized the mission was futile. How many more soldiers and civilians are going to die in vain in Iraq to prove that those who died before them didn't die in vain?
James Wolcott comes through with a couple of good posts; the first, following up on a DailyKos piece that lays blame for the Iraq debacle where it's due: squarely on Bush.
I had Fox News on earlier today; two Senators, one Democrat and one Repub, were discussing the Mosul massacre as the camera showed the wounded being deplaned in Germany. The Democrat Senator, whose name I didn't catch, was discussing the lack of post-invasion planning and the resultant miseries, but he felt compelled to inject, "I'm not mad at President Bush, but--"
"I'm not mad at President Bush."
Why the f not?
I recognize that most elected Democrats, stunned by the election results and feeling the need to sound responsible on such a tragic occasion, feel compelled to adopt this more-in-sorrow-than-anger tone that was one of Tom Daschle's less attractive traits. But look what good it did Daschle shaking his head with weary regret over the latest Republican outrage--he was still vilified as some sort of rabid obstructionist.
Republicans belch fire all the time without suffering repercussions, yet Democrats behave like some meek choir.
Couldn't we have at least one irresponsible, intemperate off the reservation loose cannon willing to say he is "mad" at Bush, indeed is furious with the whole lying lot of them (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, Rice, Wolfowitz...the list goes on and on)? Because this engulfing fiasco is their fault, and the fault of those unwilling to stand up to them in the first place.
Wolcott's other post cites the latest from William S. Lind--short version: like Stalingrad, Fallujah will be remembered as a tactical victory but strategic defeat for the invaders--Lind goes on to note Patrick Cockburn saw the potential for problems in Mosul right away. Fallujah, in this case, was like the wasp in the car that you swat at, only to find yourself spinning out of control before driving headlong into the alligator pond...
Wolcott concludes by noting (via Steve Gilliard) the same Times article I referenced below:
That was also the message of a front-page piece in the NY Times today, which Steve Gilliard takes apart with his skilled-mechanic hands. One of the advantages of living through enough history is that you hear the same rationalizations and excuses return like a bad melody. During Vietnam a point was reached in which the press and the public, which had supported the war for years during the escalation, recognized it wasn't working, we weren't going to win, and that the light at the end of the tunnel was an oncoming train. And yet--we couldn't "bug out," "cut and run," choose your own vernacular phrase. Why? Because America would lose face and stature in the world. Because our enemies (then, the Communists) would be emboldened. And, this was the clincher moral argument, because it would mean that those who died in Vietnam had died in vain.
We're hearing some of that now, and we'll hear more of it ahead. But face it, those troops in Vietnam did die in vain, as did the Marines who died in the barracks in Beirut, as do most of the men and women who die in war. Most wars are unnecessary, waged on the basis of lies, power, and fear; to justify the unnecessary deaths, the funeral services float the soft consolation that the body lying in the flag-draped coffin died for Peace, or Democracy, or the Good of the Country. When often they died because too many fools wouldn't admit they had made a ghastly mistake and kept perpetuating that mistake even after they and all the world recognized the mission was futile. How many more soldiers and civilians are going to die in vain in Iraq to prove that those who died before them didn't die in vain?
Huh?
Furthering its reputation as Pravda on the Hudson, The Times manages to come up with this tripe masquerading as a "slice of life" perspective on the war in Iraq. Despite noting the unease with which the whole sorry mess in Iraq is viewed by the public, the article focuses on the headbanger crowd, who insist upon "staying the course," even as shoals, reefs, eddies, and whirlpools lie dead ahead.
To underscore this, the paper supplied this graphic--note when Bush declared an end to major combat operations...
Furthering its reputation as Pravda on the Hudson, The Times manages to come up with this tripe masquerading as a "slice of life" perspective on the war in Iraq. Despite noting the unease with which the whole sorry mess in Iraq is viewed by the public, the article focuses on the headbanger crowd, who insist upon "staying the course," even as shoals, reefs, eddies, and whirlpools lie dead ahead.
To underscore this, the paper supplied this graphic--note when Bush declared an end to major combat operations...
The Parable of The Cajun Bingo Game
Your Right Hand Thief provides the details, then links to Powerline blog. Hindrocket (I assume the writer of Powerline) takes the sucker's bait--and, for good measure, engages in a little gratuitous sliming:
As we've said before, the Democrats don't fear that we will fail in Iraq; they fear that we will succeed...Nevertheless, the left fears that the President's policy ultimately will succeed. Elections will be held next month; terrorists are steadily being eliminated; Iraqi soldiers and policemen are being trained.
Um, no, Pennyrocket. You're wrong--and so off base that a little leaguer could pick you off.
Democrats are NOT hoping the pResident's policies will fail--we are WITNESSING THE FAILURE OF THE POLICY. There is a difference, although it might be hard for someone like you to understand. Daily bombings, beheadings, attacks like the one in Mosul, the ongoing violence in and around Fallujah, etc., are "successes" in the same way that the Titanic's first voyage was a success.
A battalion of soldiers and a few dozen policemen isn't "turning the corner," it's a pathetic attempt to spin a disaster. And now isn't the time to start whining about Democrats. Now is the time to figure out a goddamned policy towards the country and the region that doesn't stink to high heaven--like the present policy does.
At the same time, you know what? It's YOUR war--yours and the other morons who couldn't wait to "prove the libruls wrong." You went so far as to pull a true Banana Republic stunt out of your tired bag of tricks--George the Flightsuited Wonder--and had your hero strut around like a damned peacock while carefully making sure the camera angles didn't give the game away. "Mission Accomplished!" you all exclaimed.
Well, the mission ISN'T accomplished. In fact, thanks to your idiocy, the "mission," whatever the fuck it's supposed to be, is in danger of failing pretty dramatically. But, like all genuine losers, your reaction is to bark louder, hoping no one sees that you're pissing on your own leg.
But hey, you're only a point or two away from a hundred...
Your Right Hand Thief provides the details, then links to Powerline blog. Hindrocket (I assume the writer of Powerline) takes the sucker's bait--and, for good measure, engages in a little gratuitous sliming:
As we've said before, the Democrats don't fear that we will fail in Iraq; they fear that we will succeed...Nevertheless, the left fears that the President's policy ultimately will succeed. Elections will be held next month; terrorists are steadily being eliminated; Iraqi soldiers and policemen are being trained.
Um, no, Pennyrocket. You're wrong--and so off base that a little leaguer could pick you off.
Democrats are NOT hoping the pResident's policies will fail--we are WITNESSING THE FAILURE OF THE POLICY. There is a difference, although it might be hard for someone like you to understand. Daily bombings, beheadings, attacks like the one in Mosul, the ongoing violence in and around Fallujah, etc., are "successes" in the same way that the Titanic's first voyage was a success.
A battalion of soldiers and a few dozen policemen isn't "turning the corner," it's a pathetic attempt to spin a disaster. And now isn't the time to start whining about Democrats. Now is the time to figure out a goddamned policy towards the country and the region that doesn't stink to high heaven--like the present policy does.
At the same time, you know what? It's YOUR war--yours and the other morons who couldn't wait to "prove the libruls wrong." You went so far as to pull a true Banana Republic stunt out of your tired bag of tricks--George the Flightsuited Wonder--and had your hero strut around like a damned peacock while carefully making sure the camera angles didn't give the game away. "Mission Accomplished!" you all exclaimed.
Well, the mission ISN'T accomplished. In fact, thanks to your idiocy, the "mission," whatever the fuck it's supposed to be, is in danger of failing pretty dramatically. But, like all genuine losers, your reaction is to bark louder, hoping no one sees that you're pissing on your own leg.
But hey, you're only a point or two away from a hundred...
Unbelievable
There's just no way to spin this story in a positive way, although it's a lesson in self-censorship when looking at the difference between US and world headlines.
For instance, stories out of Australia and England point out that there is, at the very least, an implication that abuse of prisoners was condoned--even ordered--at the highest levels. The New York Times, on the other hand, practices high level diplomacy, as does the Washington Post.
To be honest, I don't think Bush himself would be SO dumb that he'd sign some sort of paper, although it's certainly possible--nothing surprises me when it comes to the sheer level of venal corruption in Team Bush. However, SOMEONE at a high enough level is likely to have ordered the lunatic tactics used on detainees. The degree to which basic human rights were/are being violated is not something that results from decisions made at low or mid levels. So...who DID sign off?
My guesses are Rummy, Wolfie, and perhaps someone like Feith. My gut instinct tells me that Dubya was likely informed and nodded his assent--Cheney probably told him--but an actual paper trail will be difficult to come by. The fact that the ACLU even HAS a credible email indicating some sort of executive order exists is extraordinary...but I'll bet if there was a written order of some kind, it met the same fate as the Bush cocaine arrest record, etc. etc.
Still, paper trail or not--how DUMB can you be? Abuse of prisoners accomplishes NOTHING that could be considered positive. Nothing. Even if you reduce this to the absolute lowest common denominator--that the abusers get a jolly good kick of revenge/adrenaline out of it--well, then I think it's time to get these folks out of the interrogation/incarceration business. Because that's simply sick.
And anyone who honestly believes that tactical or strategic benefit, i.e, useful intelligence, will come out of abuse and torture of detainees simply doesn't know what they're talking about.
This is bad. And, in light of the latest news coming out of "liberated" Iraq...well, when you hand your car keys to a drunk, don't be surprised if he wrecks it.
There's just no way to spin this story in a positive way, although it's a lesson in self-censorship when looking at the difference between US and world headlines.
For instance, stories out of Australia and England point out that there is, at the very least, an implication that abuse of prisoners was condoned--even ordered--at the highest levels. The New York Times, on the other hand, practices high level diplomacy, as does the Washington Post.
To be honest, I don't think Bush himself would be SO dumb that he'd sign some sort of paper, although it's certainly possible--nothing surprises me when it comes to the sheer level of venal corruption in Team Bush. However, SOMEONE at a high enough level is likely to have ordered the lunatic tactics used on detainees. The degree to which basic human rights were/are being violated is not something that results from decisions made at low or mid levels. So...who DID sign off?
My guesses are Rummy, Wolfie, and perhaps someone like Feith. My gut instinct tells me that Dubya was likely informed and nodded his assent--Cheney probably told him--but an actual paper trail will be difficult to come by. The fact that the ACLU even HAS a credible email indicating some sort of executive order exists is extraordinary...but I'll bet if there was a written order of some kind, it met the same fate as the Bush cocaine arrest record, etc. etc.
Still, paper trail or not--how DUMB can you be? Abuse of prisoners accomplishes NOTHING that could be considered positive. Nothing. Even if you reduce this to the absolute lowest common denominator--that the abusers get a jolly good kick of revenge/adrenaline out of it--well, then I think it's time to get these folks out of the interrogation/incarceration business. Because that's simply sick.
And anyone who honestly believes that tactical or strategic benefit, i.e, useful intelligence, will come out of abuse and torture of detainees simply doesn't know what they're talking about.
This is bad. And, in light of the latest news coming out of "liberated" Iraq...well, when you hand your car keys to a drunk, don't be surprised if he wrecks it.
Tuesday, December 21, 2004
If You Just Can't Take it Anymore
Then Barbara Ehrenreich graciously offers to line you up with the appropriate country:
The good news is that there are a lot more countries out there than the US media are generally aware of. France, for example, with its ample coastline and curiously creamy cuisine. China, with its fascinating blend of runaway capitalism and communist repression. Or if you're looking for something REALLY different: Ecuador, Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, and Venezuela now all have democratically elected leftwing leaders. How exotic is that?
Note: Some of the alternative nations previously offered on this site are no longer available. A year and a half ago, shortly after Colin Powell announced that there would be free health care and education in Iraq, FleeAmerica.com heavily promoted that beautiful, ancient, multicultural site, and thousands of Americans applied for relocation to it. Since then, however, Iraq has experienced a steadily worsening shortage of viable physical structures-apartment buildings, hospitals, schools-and we have been forced to withdraw it from the list.
Also, we have taken the preemptive move of removing Norway from the list of alternative nations, despite the lovely fiords, smoked fish, and free higher education. As a small, oil-rich country, Norway runs too high a risk of being the neocons' next invasion site.
To help us match you to a country, please answer the following questions: The most surprising thing I learned during the recent Presidential election season was:
1. that most Ohioans and Floridians who voted for Bush were so ashamed of their choice that they lied in the exit polls
2. that John Kerry counterfeited his Vietnam war medals out of Teresa's melted-down jewelry
3. that so few of my red-state neighbors routinely sacrifice sheep and goats as required by the Old Testament
My primary reason for re-nationalizing is:
1. eagerness to marry someone of a similar sex
2. desire to escape all references to Sponge Bob
3. need to fill a prescription
4. concern that my children will watch a pornographic film on TV, like Saving Private Ryan
Language capabilities (check all that apply):
1. I can say "where are the restrooms?" and "I didn't vote for Bush" in two or more languages
2. I believe most people can understand English if you speak loudly enough
3. Pouilly fuissé is best served (a) on toast, (b) cold, (c) boiled with mustard
4. Prefer to abstain from communication until I have something nice to say
Tastes and values:
1. I was disgusted by the sight of Nicollette Sheridan's naked back in the NFL promotional video
2. I was sorry not to see Nicollette Sheridan's naked front in the recent NFL promotional video
3. I feel that this scandal, along with Janet Jackson's nipple, has received insufficient media coverage and that, if Scott had known about abortion, Laci would still be alive
4. The food at the Olive Garden is spicy enough for me, thank you
Governmental preferences: I enjoy (check all that apply):
1. leadership from within the reality-based community
2. voting on machines manufactured by a major contributor to the Republican Party (Diebold, for example) after waiting 4 hours in the rain
3. scientific medical care as a supplement to prayer
4. rule of law, any law
GREAT! You're halfway there! We'll e-mail you your country match tomorrow.
Of course, some of your friends and family may choose to remain behind. There are people who take a somewhat inflexible view of "patriotism," just as there are people who never give up on their first, childish, seventh-grade object of infatuation. Perversely, these diehards think it's their RESPONSIBILITY to remain in their country of origin just as it becomes an international source of terror and a mockery of democratic governance. Whether out of masochism or misdirected altruism, they feel OBLIGED to stay and straighten things out.
To them we say: Can't you take a hint? Would you loiter at a party where gross drunken acts are being performed and, on top of that, people are dissing you everywhere you turn?
We also say to them: Bravo and hasta la vista! We'll be back when you've got America, as we knew it, up and running again.
Then Barbara Ehrenreich graciously offers to line you up with the appropriate country:
The good news is that there are a lot more countries out there than the US media are generally aware of. France, for example, with its ample coastline and curiously creamy cuisine. China, with its fascinating blend of runaway capitalism and communist repression. Or if you're looking for something REALLY different: Ecuador, Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, and Venezuela now all have democratically elected leftwing leaders. How exotic is that?
Note: Some of the alternative nations previously offered on this site are no longer available. A year and a half ago, shortly after Colin Powell announced that there would be free health care and education in Iraq, FleeAmerica.com heavily promoted that beautiful, ancient, multicultural site, and thousands of Americans applied for relocation to it. Since then, however, Iraq has experienced a steadily worsening shortage of viable physical structures-apartment buildings, hospitals, schools-and we have been forced to withdraw it from the list.
Also, we have taken the preemptive move of removing Norway from the list of alternative nations, despite the lovely fiords, smoked fish, and free higher education. As a small, oil-rich country, Norway runs too high a risk of being the neocons' next invasion site.
To help us match you to a country, please answer the following questions: The most surprising thing I learned during the recent Presidential election season was:
1. that most Ohioans and Floridians who voted for Bush were so ashamed of their choice that they lied in the exit polls
2. that John Kerry counterfeited his Vietnam war medals out of Teresa's melted-down jewelry
3. that so few of my red-state neighbors routinely sacrifice sheep and goats as required by the Old Testament
My primary reason for re-nationalizing is:
1. eagerness to marry someone of a similar sex
2. desire to escape all references to Sponge Bob
3. need to fill a prescription
4. concern that my children will watch a pornographic film on TV, like Saving Private Ryan
Language capabilities (check all that apply):
1. I can say "where are the restrooms?" and "I didn't vote for Bush" in two or more languages
2. I believe most people can understand English if you speak loudly enough
3. Pouilly fuissé is best served (a) on toast, (b) cold, (c) boiled with mustard
4. Prefer to abstain from communication until I have something nice to say
Tastes and values:
1. I was disgusted by the sight of Nicollette Sheridan's naked back in the NFL promotional video
2. I was sorry not to see Nicollette Sheridan's naked front in the recent NFL promotional video
3. I feel that this scandal, along with Janet Jackson's nipple, has received insufficient media coverage and that, if Scott had known about abortion, Laci would still be alive
4. The food at the Olive Garden is spicy enough for me, thank you
Governmental preferences: I enjoy (check all that apply):
1. leadership from within the reality-based community
2. voting on machines manufactured by a major contributor to the Republican Party (Diebold, for example) after waiting 4 hours in the rain
3. scientific medical care as a supplement to prayer
4. rule of law, any law
GREAT! You're halfway there! We'll e-mail you your country match tomorrow.
Of course, some of your friends and family may choose to remain behind. There are people who take a somewhat inflexible view of "patriotism," just as there are people who never give up on their first, childish, seventh-grade object of infatuation. Perversely, these diehards think it's their RESPONSIBILITY to remain in their country of origin just as it becomes an international source of terror and a mockery of democratic governance. Whether out of masochism or misdirected altruism, they feel OBLIGED to stay and straighten things out.
To them we say: Can't you take a hint? Would you loiter at a party where gross drunken acts are being performed and, on top of that, people are dissing you everywhere you turn?
We also say to them: Bravo and hasta la vista! We'll be back when you've got America, as we knew it, up and running again.
Not for the Squeamish
Caring for the Wounded in Iraq -- A Photo Essay, is the title. The New England Journal of Medicine is the source. Warning: Graphic Content.
Caring for the Wounded in Iraq -- A Photo Essay, is the title. The New England Journal of Medicine is the source. Warning: Graphic Content.
The Fightin' Jesus DIDN'T Get Nailed
Nick Coleman, writing for the Minneapolis Star Tribune, learned in no uncertain terms that REAL Christians don't let silly things like The New Testament get in their way. Nah, the Bible is for wussies. Today's Jesus apparently drives an armor-plated Hummer, and makes sure to soundly splash anyone dumb enough to get close to the curb when He's tear-assing through.
I guess that's what Bill O'Reilly must've had in mind when he was busy "saving" Christmas from the secularists.
Nick Coleman, writing for the Minneapolis Star Tribune, learned in no uncertain terms that REAL Christians don't let silly things like The New Testament get in their way. Nah, the Bible is for wussies. Today's Jesus apparently drives an armor-plated Hummer, and makes sure to soundly splash anyone dumb enough to get close to the curb when He's tear-assing through.
I guess that's what Bill O'Reilly must've had in mind when he was busy "saving" Christmas from the secularists.
From the Front
Richmond Times-Dispatch reporter Jeremy Redmon was at the Mosul mess hall attacked earlier today:
Hundreds of U.S. soldiers had just sat down for lunch about noon when rockets launched by insurgents hit the giant dining tent.
The force of the explosions knocked soldiers off their feet and out of their seats. A fireball enveloped the top of the tent, and pellet-sized shrapnel sprayed into the men.
Amid the screaming and thick smoke that followed, quick-thinking soldiers turned their lunch tables upside down, placed the wounded on them and gently carried them into the parking lot.
"Medic! Medic!" soldiers shouted. Medics rushed into the tent and hustled the rest of the wounded out on stretchers.
There's also a slideshow showing the aftermath of the attack. War is an ugly thing.
Richmond Times-Dispatch reporter Jeremy Redmon was at the Mosul mess hall attacked earlier today:
Hundreds of U.S. soldiers had just sat down for lunch about noon when rockets launched by insurgents hit the giant dining tent.
The force of the explosions knocked soldiers off their feet and out of their seats. A fireball enveloped the top of the tent, and pellet-sized shrapnel sprayed into the men.
Amid the screaming and thick smoke that followed, quick-thinking soldiers turned their lunch tables upside down, placed the wounded on them and gently carried them into the parking lot.
"Medic! Medic!" soldiers shouted. Medics rushed into the tent and hustled the rest of the wounded out on stretchers.
There's also a slideshow showing the aftermath of the attack. War is an ugly thing.
Well, I Guess Falling Off a Cliff Could be Considered "Progress"
While Bush was making an ass of himself at yesterday's press "conference" (see The Rude Pundit for a poetic interpretation), reality intervened in its usual way: The ACLU, as many of y'all probably know already, released a chilling statement about the "interrogation techniques" employed by the United States at various overseas facilites--not just Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib. Seems that Bush might not be as out of the loop as he'd like to claim:
NEW YORK -- A document released for the first time today by the American Civil Liberties Union suggests that President Bush issued an Executive Order authorizing the use of inhumane interrogation methods against detainees in Iraq.
As of now, the Executive Order itself, if it exists, is still under wraps, although a two page email references it and states that "the President directly authorized interrogation techniques including sleep deprivation, stress positions, the use of military dogs, and 'sensory deprivation through the use of hoods, etc.'"
The press has noted the allegations of abuse, but hasn't focused on the charge that Bush may have signed off on this. If he did, though, it could make future travel plans a bit difficult, as Augusto Pinochet found out a few years back.
Speaking of travel plans: Tony Blair may have been able to skulk around parts of Baghdad and Basra on a surprise visit, but I doubt he'll check out Mosul, where either a mortar or rocket attack at a US mess hall killed over twenty people. A few days ago, Patrick Cockburn noted the instability in this major northern town--a fact lost in the glare of the "great victory" in Fallujah that didn't turn out to be so great after all...
Bush, by the way, finally admitted yesterday that bombs don't equal kisses and flowers, and even went on to note that some of the "Iraqi troops" are, um, about as useful as salt in a fresh wound. Of course, the lapdog press didn't bother to follow up on that, and instead nodded dutifully, in their best impersonation of East Bloc journalism, when the pResident made the bizarre announcement that he "wouldn't negotiate with himself in public" about Social Security. Huh?
Well, at least the public is finally beginning to awaken from whatever sort of narcotic they were on prior to November 4th--support for the war and for the war's chief strategist--Rummy--is fading faster than a cheap tie-dye. Hmmm. What did these folks think? That a vote would scare off the insurgents? Geez. I mean, hell, it's nice to see them shake off the cobwebs, but it'd have been a hell of a lot nice if they'd done so before they handed the keys away for another four years.
And if you liked how much he screwed up Iraq--you'll LOVE what he wants to do to Social Security...
While Bush was making an ass of himself at yesterday's press "conference" (see The Rude Pundit for a poetic interpretation), reality intervened in its usual way: The ACLU, as many of y'all probably know already, released a chilling statement about the "interrogation techniques" employed by the United States at various overseas facilites--not just Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib. Seems that Bush might not be as out of the loop as he'd like to claim:
NEW YORK -- A document released for the first time today by the American Civil Liberties Union suggests that President Bush issued an Executive Order authorizing the use of inhumane interrogation methods against detainees in Iraq.
As of now, the Executive Order itself, if it exists, is still under wraps, although a two page email references it and states that "the President directly authorized interrogation techniques including sleep deprivation, stress positions, the use of military dogs, and 'sensory deprivation through the use of hoods, etc.'"
The press has noted the allegations of abuse, but hasn't focused on the charge that Bush may have signed off on this. If he did, though, it could make future travel plans a bit difficult, as Augusto Pinochet found out a few years back.
Speaking of travel plans: Tony Blair may have been able to skulk around parts of Baghdad and Basra on a surprise visit, but I doubt he'll check out Mosul, where either a mortar or rocket attack at a US mess hall killed over twenty people. A few days ago, Patrick Cockburn noted the instability in this major northern town--a fact lost in the glare of the "great victory" in Fallujah that didn't turn out to be so great after all...
Bush, by the way, finally admitted yesterday that bombs don't equal kisses and flowers, and even went on to note that some of the "Iraqi troops" are, um, about as useful as salt in a fresh wound. Of course, the lapdog press didn't bother to follow up on that, and instead nodded dutifully, in their best impersonation of East Bloc journalism, when the pResident made the bizarre announcement that he "wouldn't negotiate with himself in public" about Social Security. Huh?
Well, at least the public is finally beginning to awaken from whatever sort of narcotic they were on prior to November 4th--support for the war and for the war's chief strategist--Rummy--is fading faster than a cheap tie-dye. Hmmm. What did these folks think? That a vote would scare off the insurgents? Geez. I mean, hell, it's nice to see them shake off the cobwebs, but it'd have been a hell of a lot nice if they'd done so before they handed the keys away for another four years.
And if you liked how much he screwed up Iraq--you'll LOVE what he wants to do to Social Security...
Monday, December 20, 2004
From the Archives
No, not my own, but from the New York Times and Noam Chomsky, respectively. It was on this day back in 1989 that George H.W. Bush decided to "put the Vietnam syndrome behind us" and launched the invasion of Panama. In terms of the fighting, let's just say a mouse has a better chance in a boa's cage than the Panamanians.
After about a week or so, IIRC, the object of our desire--Manuel Noriega--surrendered from the Papal Nuncio, where he'd taken refuge, and was eventually booked into a Florida prison, where he resides to this day. However, the families of the several thousand Panamanians who were killed in the equivalent of an international pro-wrestling match didn't even receive so much as on official apology, much less any compensation. I think they were supposed to take comfort in the fact that it significantly reduced the wimp label affecting Bush, Sr. Such a small price to pay...
No, not my own, but from the New York Times and Noam Chomsky, respectively. It was on this day back in 1989 that George H.W. Bush decided to "put the Vietnam syndrome behind us" and launched the invasion of Panama. In terms of the fighting, let's just say a mouse has a better chance in a boa's cage than the Panamanians.
After about a week or so, IIRC, the object of our desire--Manuel Noriega--surrendered from the Papal Nuncio, where he'd taken refuge, and was eventually booked into a Florida prison, where he resides to this day. However, the families of the several thousand Panamanians who were killed in the equivalent of an international pro-wrestling match didn't even receive so much as on official apology, much less any compensation. I think they were supposed to take comfort in the fact that it significantly reduced the wimp label affecting Bush, Sr. Such a small price to pay...
Laff
GreenBoy at Needlenose has this to say about Rupert Murdoch yanking $44 million dollars out of his wallet to pay for a triplex in Manhattan, along Fifth Avenue, across from the Central Park Zoo:
Well at least evil now has an address.
GreenBoy at Needlenose has this to say about Rupert Murdoch yanking $44 million dollars out of his wallet to pay for a triplex in Manhattan, along Fifth Avenue, across from the Central Park Zoo:
Well at least evil now has an address.
Round Up the Usual Suspects
Freedom on the march:
So, 50 or more have been arrested in connection with the bombings in Najaf, although apparently none of the thirty or so individuals who participated in the event pictured above have been detained.
Consider what that means: in Baghdad, you can literally get away with murder--murder committed in the middle of the day, with witnesses snapping pictures.
Oh, in case you're wondering who is responsible for maintaining civil order: under the Geneva Conventions, the occupying authority is--in this case, the occupying authority is the United States.
Freedom on the march:
So, 50 or more have been arrested in connection with the bombings in Najaf, although apparently none of the thirty or so individuals who participated in the event pictured above have been detained.
Consider what that means: in Baghdad, you can literally get away with murder--murder committed in the middle of the day, with witnesses snapping pictures.
Oh, in case you're wondering who is responsible for maintaining civil order: under the Geneva Conventions, the occupying authority is--in this case, the occupying authority is the United States.
Iraqi Wishlist
Riverbend makes her requests:
Ok- what is the typical Iraqi Christmas wishlist (I won't list 'peace', 'security' and 'freedom' - Christmas miracles are exclusive to Charles Dickens), let's see:
1. 20 liters of gasoline
2. A cylinder of gas for cooking
3. Kerosene for the heaters
4. Those expensive blast-proof windows
5. Landmine detectors
6. Running water
7. Thuraya satellite phones (the mobile phone services are really, really bad of late)
8. Portable diesel generators (for the whole family to enjoy!)
9. Coleman rechargeable flashlight with extra batteries (you can never go wrong with a fancy flashlight)
10. Scented candles (it shows you care- but you're also practical)
When Santa delivers please make sure he is wearing a bullet-proof vest and helmet. He should also politely ring the doorbell or knock, as a more subtle entry might bring him face to face with an AK-47. With the current fuel shortage, reindeer and a sleigh are highly practical- but Rudolph should be left behind as the flashing red nose might create a bomb scare (we're all a little jumpy lately).
As for Christmas in Iraq, well...
Riverbend makes her requests:
Ok- what is the typical Iraqi Christmas wishlist (I won't list 'peace', 'security' and 'freedom' - Christmas miracles are exclusive to Charles Dickens), let's see:
1. 20 liters of gasoline
2. A cylinder of gas for cooking
3. Kerosene for the heaters
4. Those expensive blast-proof windows
5. Landmine detectors
6. Running water
7. Thuraya satellite phones (the mobile phone services are really, really bad of late)
8. Portable diesel generators (for the whole family to enjoy!)
9. Coleman rechargeable flashlight with extra batteries (you can never go wrong with a fancy flashlight)
10. Scented candles (it shows you care- but you're also practical)
When Santa delivers please make sure he is wearing a bullet-proof vest and helmet. He should also politely ring the doorbell or knock, as a more subtle entry might bring him face to face with an AK-47. With the current fuel shortage, reindeer and a sleigh are highly practical- but Rudolph should be left behind as the flashing red nose might create a bomb scare (we're all a little jumpy lately).
As for Christmas in Iraq, well...
Another Modest Proposal
After reading Timshel's post, then the link to Somerby, as well as the general wingnut bloviating about how put upon they are because they can't cram a creche down the throat of every American at this time of year, I thought to myself: hey, wait a second. If the Christian right is so goddamned adament about pushing Jesus, then maybe they should be a little less, um, how say?--"paganistic?"--yes, that's the term, for when they celebrate the birth of their godhead:
The exact date is even more problematic. Some say that the birth could not have happened in deep winter, because the Bible says that shepherds spent the night outdoors with their flocks on the night that Jesus was born (Luke 2:8). But others say that this is speculation. Nonetheless, it is most likely that Jesus was born between October and March.
Originally, Christmas' date was set to correspond with the Roman festival of the birth of the Sun God Mithras, which coincided with the "return of the sun" after the shortest day of the year. As early as A.D. 354, Jesus' birth was celebrated on December 25 in Rome. Other cities had other traditional dates. The history of Christmas is closely associated with that of the Epiphany. If the currently prevailing opinion about the compilation of the gospels is accepted, the earliest body of gospel tradition, represented by Mark no less than by the primitive non-Marcan document (Q document) embodied in the first and third gospels, begins, not with the birth and childhood of Jesus, but with His baptism; and this order of accretion of gospel matter is faithfully reflected in the time order of the invention-of feasts. The church in general adopted Christmas much later than Epiphany, and before the 5th century there was no consensus as to when it should come in the calendar, whether on January 6, or March 25, or December 25.
So, my proposal is simple: reconcile the contradictions, wingers, between your theological texts, the pagan traditions that were usurped, and/or the evidence you've got, and deal with the fact that your "holiday" is celebrated on December 25th as a matter of convenience. In fact, some genuinely religious people recognize this, and don't get worked all into a huff, which is very Christian of them.
And that's the extent to which I'll post about this non-issue.
After reading Timshel's post, then the link to Somerby, as well as the general wingnut bloviating about how put upon they are because they can't cram a creche down the throat of every American at this time of year, I thought to myself: hey, wait a second. If the Christian right is so goddamned adament about pushing Jesus, then maybe they should be a little less, um, how say?--"paganistic?"--yes, that's the term, for when they celebrate the birth of their godhead:
The exact date is even more problematic. Some say that the birth could not have happened in deep winter, because the Bible says that shepherds spent the night outdoors with their flocks on the night that Jesus was born (Luke 2:8). But others say that this is speculation. Nonetheless, it is most likely that Jesus was born between October and March.
Originally, Christmas' date was set to correspond with the Roman festival of the birth of the Sun God Mithras, which coincided with the "return of the sun" after the shortest day of the year. As early as A.D. 354, Jesus' birth was celebrated on December 25 in Rome. Other cities had other traditional dates. The history of Christmas is closely associated with that of the Epiphany. If the currently prevailing opinion about the compilation of the gospels is accepted, the earliest body of gospel tradition, represented by Mark no less than by the primitive non-Marcan document (Q document) embodied in the first and third gospels, begins, not with the birth and childhood of Jesus, but with His baptism; and this order of accretion of gospel matter is faithfully reflected in the time order of the invention-of feasts. The church in general adopted Christmas much later than Epiphany, and before the 5th century there was no consensus as to when it should come in the calendar, whether on January 6, or March 25, or December 25.
So, my proposal is simple: reconcile the contradictions, wingers, between your theological texts, the pagan traditions that were usurped, and/or the evidence you've got, and deal with the fact that your "holiday" is celebrated on December 25th as a matter of convenience. In fact, some genuinely religious people recognize this, and don't get worked all into a huff, which is very Christian of them.
And that's the extent to which I'll post about this non-issue.
Encore
The New York Times reports on multiple tours to Iraq for some soldiers:
Earlier this year, as Sgt. Alexander Garcia's plane took off for home after his tense year of duty in Iraq, he remembered watching the receding desert sand and thinking, I will never see this place again.
Never lasted about 10 months for Sergeant Garcia, a cavalry scout with the First Armored Division who finished his first stint in Iraq in March and is now preparing to return...
No one is feeling normal anymore at Fort Riley and other bases across the country, where military life is undergoing a radical change. They are stoic here, and many point out, as Sergeant Garcia does, that they signed up for this.
Still, in decades past, troops had gotten used to a predictable rhythm to their deployments. Even during Desert Storm and Vietnam, most soldiers could expect to take just one trip into harm's way.
But with the military stretched thin in Iraq and in Afghanistan, some soldiers and marines are being sent to war zones repeatedly, for longer stretches in some cases, and with far less time at home between deployments than they say they have ever experienced before...
This frenzied pace is swiftly becoming the norm. Nearly a third of the 950,000 people from all branches of the armed forces who have been sent to Iraq or Afghanistan since those conflicts began have already been sent a second time. Part-time soldiers - Army national guardsmen and reservists - who often have handled support roles, not frontline combat roles, are slightly more likely to have served more than one deployment to the conflict zones than regular Army members.
And, of the nearly 1,300 troops who have died in Iraq since the war began, more than 100 of them were on second tours...
Among some of the soldiers themselves, the thought of returning to Iraq carries one puzzling quality: Unlike so many parts of life, in which the second try at anything feels easier than the first, these soldiers say that heading to Iraq is actually more overwhelming the second time around.
"The first time, I didn't know anything," Sergeant Garcia said. "But this time I know what I'm getting into, so it's harder. You know what you're going to do. You know how bad you're going to be feeling."
And while these soldiers will experience the closest thing to hell on earth for a second time, Donald Rumsfeld can't be bothered to sign his name to letters of condolence that are sent to the families of soldiers slain in combat. But that's ok--there are some indications that the dauphin himself has let the signature machine take care of that trifling detail.
However, this IS allowing some to suggest a bit more forcefully that Rummy should be pink slipped--as if the whole sorry, piss poor, woefully unplanned exercise in Iraq isn't reason enough to give the whole Bush team their walking papers. As for me, at this point why not let Rummy stick around. I want to watch him squirm when the shit REALLY hits the fan, given how he and his boss did everything in their power to ensure it would.
The New York Times reports on multiple tours to Iraq for some soldiers:
Earlier this year, as Sgt. Alexander Garcia's plane took off for home after his tense year of duty in Iraq, he remembered watching the receding desert sand and thinking, I will never see this place again.
Never lasted about 10 months for Sergeant Garcia, a cavalry scout with the First Armored Division who finished his first stint in Iraq in March and is now preparing to return...
No one is feeling normal anymore at Fort Riley and other bases across the country, where military life is undergoing a radical change. They are stoic here, and many point out, as Sergeant Garcia does, that they signed up for this.
Still, in decades past, troops had gotten used to a predictable rhythm to their deployments. Even during Desert Storm and Vietnam, most soldiers could expect to take just one trip into harm's way.
But with the military stretched thin in Iraq and in Afghanistan, some soldiers and marines are being sent to war zones repeatedly, for longer stretches in some cases, and with far less time at home between deployments than they say they have ever experienced before...
This frenzied pace is swiftly becoming the norm. Nearly a third of the 950,000 people from all branches of the armed forces who have been sent to Iraq or Afghanistan since those conflicts began have already been sent a second time. Part-time soldiers - Army national guardsmen and reservists - who often have handled support roles, not frontline combat roles, are slightly more likely to have served more than one deployment to the conflict zones than regular Army members.
And, of the nearly 1,300 troops who have died in Iraq since the war began, more than 100 of them were on second tours...
Among some of the soldiers themselves, the thought of returning to Iraq carries one puzzling quality: Unlike so many parts of life, in which the second try at anything feels easier than the first, these soldiers say that heading to Iraq is actually more overwhelming the second time around.
"The first time, I didn't know anything," Sergeant Garcia said. "But this time I know what I'm getting into, so it's harder. You know what you're going to do. You know how bad you're going to be feeling."
And while these soldiers will experience the closest thing to hell on earth for a second time, Donald Rumsfeld can't be bothered to sign his name to letters of condolence that are sent to the families of soldiers slain in combat. But that's ok--there are some indications that the dauphin himself has let the signature machine take care of that trifling detail.
However, this IS allowing some to suggest a bit more forcefully that Rummy should be pink slipped--as if the whole sorry, piss poor, woefully unplanned exercise in Iraq isn't reason enough to give the whole Bush team their walking papers. As for me, at this point why not let Rummy stick around. I want to watch him squirm when the shit REALLY hits the fan, given how he and his boss did everything in their power to ensure it would.
Friday, December 17, 2004
"You Militarize Space with the Unworkable Weapons You Have, not the Ones You Want"
That's the winning response at one of Bob Harris's recent polls, beating out "The laws of physics are just a few bad apples, and they'll be brought to justice," "But before it blew up, the interceptor was greeted as a liberator," and "Don't screw with us -- we've got unknown anomalies, and we're not afraid to use them."
The question, of course, was, "How will the Bush team spin the latest failed Missile Defense test?"
Speaking of unworkable--or, maybe, unworking weapons, check out this article Mr. Harris linked to--fair warning: the page took some time to load and my pop up blocker sounded like a pack of cheap firecrackers at one point.
Hmmm...ok, how about if I just cite a choice passage:
New spy satellite enjoys evenings off
By Douglas Jehl, New York Times
WASHINGTON -- A highly classified intelligence program that the Senate intelligence committee has tried unsuccessfully to kill is a new $9.5 billion spy satellite system that could take photographs only in daylight hours and in clear weather, current and former government officials say.
Works only in clear weather and daylight hours...exactly what you'd expect coming from the Bush administration...
That's the winning response at one of Bob Harris's recent polls, beating out "The laws of physics are just a few bad apples, and they'll be brought to justice," "But before it blew up, the interceptor was greeted as a liberator," and "Don't screw with us -- we've got unknown anomalies, and we're not afraid to use them."
The question, of course, was, "How will the Bush team spin the latest failed Missile Defense test?"
Speaking of unworkable--or, maybe, unworking weapons, check out this article Mr. Harris linked to--fair warning: the page took some time to load and my pop up blocker sounded like a pack of cheap firecrackers at one point.
Hmmm...ok, how about if I just cite a choice passage:
New spy satellite enjoys evenings off
By Douglas Jehl, New York Times
WASHINGTON -- A highly classified intelligence program that the Senate intelligence committee has tried unsuccessfully to kill is a new $9.5 billion spy satellite system that could take photographs only in daylight hours and in clear weather, current and former government officials say.
Works only in clear weather and daylight hours...exactly what you'd expect coming from the Bush administration...
Log Cabin Republican
Tom Burka imagines the fallout if what the late C.A. Tripp alleges in his new book is true:
The Republican-controlled Congress has drafted legislation that it intends to pass in an emergency session that will make it a Federal crime to refer to the Republican Party as the "party of Lincoln."...
Dennis Hastert, Republican representative from Illinois, was worried. "That's not what they mean by 'the Land of Lincoln.'"
Conservatives called for the Lincoln Memorial to be immediately removed to Greenwich Village in New York City.
Senator Frist agreed with the President's decision to withdraw the penny. "This news about Lincoln really brings new meaning to the phrase 'heads or tails.'"
No word on whether or not Ford plans to change the name of their Lincoln Mercury division, although the odds must be less than absolute zero that Lincoln will come out (no pun intended) with a vehicle named either "Hummer" or "Cruiser."
Tom Burka imagines the fallout if what the late C.A. Tripp alleges in his new book is true:
The Republican-controlled Congress has drafted legislation that it intends to pass in an emergency session that will make it a Federal crime to refer to the Republican Party as the "party of Lincoln."...
Dennis Hastert, Republican representative from Illinois, was worried. "That's not what they mean by 'the Land of Lincoln.'"
Conservatives called for the Lincoln Memorial to be immediately removed to Greenwich Village in New York City.
Senator Frist agreed with the President's decision to withdraw the penny. "This news about Lincoln really brings new meaning to the phrase 'heads or tails.'"
No word on whether or not Ford plans to change the name of their Lincoln Mercury division, although the odds must be less than absolute zero that Lincoln will come out (no pun intended) with a vehicle named either "Hummer" or "Cruiser."
White House Praises Rumsfeld
Rummy is "Doubleplusgood," McClellan says.
Link.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House gave a new vote of confidence on Friday to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld amid growing criticism of him from members of President Bush's own Republican Party.
"Secretary Rumsfeld is doing a great job leading our efforts at the Department of Defense to win the war on terrorism and to help bring about a free and peaceful Iraq, and the president is focused on working closely with him on those matters," said White House spokesman Scott McClellan...
Rumsfeld got himself into trouble last week by appearing to brush off a soldier headed to Iraq who complained that military vehicles did not have sufficient armor and troops were having to piece together scraps of metal for extra protection.
"As you know, you go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time," Rumsfeld had told the soldier in Kuwait.
Little more than two weeks ago, Bush told Rumsfeld that he could stay on as defense secretary in the president's second term.
The thinking behind the decision was not to change leaders while the United States is at war, even though many in Washington blame Rumsfeld for failing to recognize and prepare for a determined Iraqi insurgency. More than 1,000 Americans have died in combat in Iraq.
McClellan said Rumsfeld was responding to troop concerns.
"Secretary Rumsfeld cares deeply about our men and women in uniform, and I think that is reflected by the way he goes and visits directly with those who serve, particularly those in combat zones, and he listens to those concerns, and that's what the president expects," McClellan said.
Scottie went on to say that "Eurasia was our friend, Eastasia was our enemy, that we'd ALWAYS been at war with Eurasia, and that Eastasia was assisting in a significant way as a valued member of the "Coalition of the Willing," although McClellan didn't specify how...um...Eurasia was contributing. In addition, he revealed that "possibly credible evidence existed, proving that" Saddam Hussein transported a large number of unknown commodities, possibly "weapons of mass destruction," to the Social Security Administration in the months and days leading up to the invasion.
McClellan ended his statement by noting that the sugar ration had been increased by a half kilo a month--then he concluded with an odd non-sequitur: "Now watch this drive."
We're still trying to determine the significance that...
Rummy is "Doubleplusgood," McClellan says.
Link.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House gave a new vote of confidence on Friday to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld amid growing criticism of him from members of President Bush's own Republican Party.
"Secretary Rumsfeld is doing a great job leading our efforts at the Department of Defense to win the war on terrorism and to help bring about a free and peaceful Iraq, and the president is focused on working closely with him on those matters," said White House spokesman Scott McClellan...
Rumsfeld got himself into trouble last week by appearing to brush off a soldier headed to Iraq who complained that military vehicles did not have sufficient armor and troops were having to piece together scraps of metal for extra protection.
"As you know, you go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time," Rumsfeld had told the soldier in Kuwait.
Little more than two weeks ago, Bush told Rumsfeld that he could stay on as defense secretary in the president's second term.
The thinking behind the decision was not to change leaders while the United States is at war, even though many in Washington blame Rumsfeld for failing to recognize and prepare for a determined Iraqi insurgency. More than 1,000 Americans have died in combat in Iraq.
McClellan said Rumsfeld was responding to troop concerns.
"Secretary Rumsfeld cares deeply about our men and women in uniform, and I think that is reflected by the way he goes and visits directly with those who serve, particularly those in combat zones, and he listens to those concerns, and that's what the president expects," McClellan said.
Scottie went on to say that "Eurasia was our friend, Eastasia was our enemy, that we'd ALWAYS been at war with Eurasia, and that Eastasia was assisting in a significant way as a valued member of the "Coalition of the Willing," although McClellan didn't specify how...um...Eurasia was contributing. In addition, he revealed that "possibly credible evidence existed, proving that" Saddam Hussein transported a large number of unknown commodities, possibly "weapons of mass destruction," to the Social Security Administration in the months and days leading up to the invasion.
McClellan ended his statement by noting that the sugar ration had been increased by a half kilo a month--then he concluded with an odd non-sequitur: "Now watch this drive."
We're still trying to determine the significance that...
I Was Hoping for the Second Circle
But I was banished to the eighth instead--typical of my luck:
The Dante's Inferno Test has banished you to the Eigth Level of Hell - the Malebolge!
Here is how you matched up against all the levels:
Take the Dante's Divine Comedy Inferno Test
Link via The Platonic Cave of Phizz.
But I was banished to the eighth instead--typical of my luck:
The Dante's Inferno Test has banished you to the Eigth Level of Hell - the Malebolge!
Here is how you matched up against all the levels:
| Level | Score |
|---|---|
| Purgatory (Repenting Believers) | Very Low |
| Level 1 - Limbo (Virtuous Non-Believers) | Moderate |
| Level 2 (Lustful) | Very High |
| Level 3 (Gluttonous) | Low |
| Level 4 (Prodigal and Avaricious) | Low |
| Level 5 (Wrathful and Gloomy) | High |
| Level 6 - The City of Dis (Heretics) | High |
| Level 7 (Violent) | High |
| Level 8- the Malebolge (Fraudulent, Malicious, Panderers) | Very High |
| Level 9 - Cocytus (Treacherous) | Low |
Take the Dante's Divine Comedy Inferno Test
Link via The Platonic Cave of Phizz.
Worth Quoting in its Entirety
Roger Ailes writes the following about Bernard Kerik, George W. Bush, and Homeland Security in general:
Feeling Safer?
The reason every crime, failure, sleazy connection and indiscretion of Bernie Kerik is so important is that it illustrates just how little Bush cares about homeland security. Bush sees Director of Homeland Security as a patronage job to give to a patently incompetent political crony for campaign services rendered rather than a position which requires a competent and ethical professional. Even if Bush could justify his ignorance of all Kerik's other corruption (which he can't), he can't claim ignorance of Kerik's utter failure in Baghdad. And, with all the resources at his disposal, Bush's background check of Kerik was less thorough than would be any sane person's background check when hiring a (non-fictitious) nanny. By nominating Kerik, Bush proved that his rhetoric about being the better choice to protect America from those nasty wolves was nothing but hot, malodorous air.
Hear, hear.
Roger Ailes writes the following about Bernard Kerik, George W. Bush, and Homeland Security in general:
Feeling Safer?
The reason every crime, failure, sleazy connection and indiscretion of Bernie Kerik is so important is that it illustrates just how little Bush cares about homeland security. Bush sees Director of Homeland Security as a patronage job to give to a patently incompetent political crony for campaign services rendered rather than a position which requires a competent and ethical professional. Even if Bush could justify his ignorance of all Kerik's other corruption (which he can't), he can't claim ignorance of Kerik's utter failure in Baghdad. And, with all the resources at his disposal, Bush's background check of Kerik was less thorough than would be any sane person's background check when hiring a (non-fictitious) nanny. By nominating Kerik, Bush proved that his rhetoric about being the better choice to protect America from those nasty wolves was nothing but hot, malodorous air.
Hear, hear.
Open Mouth, Insert Falafel
Apologies for the late start today--work stuff. Anyway, Atrios has it, so I'm sure most of you've seen it...
Text here. Quicktime here.
Apologies for the late start today--work stuff. Anyway, Atrios has it, so I'm sure most of you've seen it...
Text here. Quicktime here.
Stop Me Before I Go to War Again
The Guardian reports on a soldier who had a relative shoot him in the leg in order to avoid another tour of duty:
PHILADELPHIA (AP) - A soldier who allegedly had a relative shoot him so he wouldn't have to return to Iraq could face military discipline.
Army Spc. Marquise J. Roberts, of Hinesville, Ga., suffered a minor wound Tuesday to his left leg from a .22-caliber pistol, police said. He was treated at a hospital, then arrested after he and a relative allegedly admitted making up a story about the shooting...
Roberts, 23, was on a two-week leave from the 3rd Infantry Division, which led the assault on Baghdad in 2003. He had been scheduled to return this week to Fort Stewart, Ga., and to return to Iraq within the next few months. The division has been home since the summer of 2003.
Police said Roberts, a supply specialist who had spent seven months in Iraq, was distraught about having to return to combat duty and wanted to stay with his family.
I'm sure the army would love an infusion of fresh, new soldiers--any takers among the point-and-click war supporters? I'll admit the pay isn't all that good, the benefits can be lousy, the stress is high, and occupational hazards are extreme. On the other hand, it's a great chance to put words into action...
The Guardian reports on a soldier who had a relative shoot him in the leg in order to avoid another tour of duty:
PHILADELPHIA (AP) - A soldier who allegedly had a relative shoot him so he wouldn't have to return to Iraq could face military discipline.
Army Spc. Marquise J. Roberts, of Hinesville, Ga., suffered a minor wound Tuesday to his left leg from a .22-caliber pistol, police said. He was treated at a hospital, then arrested after he and a relative allegedly admitted making up a story about the shooting...
Roberts, 23, was on a two-week leave from the 3rd Infantry Division, which led the assault on Baghdad in 2003. He had been scheduled to return this week to Fort Stewart, Ga., and to return to Iraq within the next few months. The division has been home since the summer of 2003.
Police said Roberts, a supply specialist who had spent seven months in Iraq, was distraught about having to return to combat duty and wanted to stay with his family.
I'm sure the army would love an infusion of fresh, new soldiers--any takers among the point-and-click war supporters? I'll admit the pay isn't all that good, the benefits can be lousy, the stress is high, and occupational hazards are extreme. On the other hand, it's a great chance to put words into action...
Thursday, December 16, 2004
Fool Me...Um...Won't Get Fooled Again
Side note: Here's how Team Bush spelled "Challenges" on a backdrop for the dauphin's latest attempt at public elocution:
Financial Challanges for Today and Tomorrow.
Great...of course, those who like their Kool Aid with a red state flavor will wail about how hard it is to spell "big wurds and stuff." After all, it's pretty easy to humiliate yourself in all sorts of ways--besides not bothering to proofread.
So, the man who brought us 25,000 liters of anthrax now says there's a crisis in Social Security. Henchmen like Grover Norquist want to do some strangling, well, for the fun of it, I guess. Cooler heads might argue that you don't burn the house down when all that needs fixing is a broken window, but c'mon, it's not like Bush et al ever REALLY had to do some "hard work." Besides, I'm sure they think "fire is cool." Look what they did to Iraq...
Which makes me think--how long before we see Bush accusing the Social Security Administration of "seeking to purchase uranium...from Africa." Maybe Colin Powell can reprise his UNdisgrace speech and show us some neato satellite pics of SSA "chemical weapons factories." Dick Cheney can show up on Rush Limpball's show to make gutteral references to "500 tons of nerve agent"...and the lapdog press can embed themselves with cellphone cameras, then, in hushed tones with low-res video, tell us how they're "just outside of a Social Security office...but I can't tell you exactly where..."
OK, so it won't be quite that ridiculous...I hope. But if the debate becomes "do we kill it now or do we kill it later," well, let's just say that that'll be as sure a sign as any that this country is doing it's best to become king of the third world nations. I mean, jeez--old age pensions are a basic component of modern society, and Social Security is about as good as you can get--there's remarkably little overhead in administration, it's investment strategy is completely sound, if a little boring, and it's not such a bad idea to, in a sense, socialize part of the federal deficit via SSA's purchase of US debt. It sure beats the hell out of China holding it. The "crisis" Bush talks about is nonsense. The adjustments needed to ensure stability to Social Security are the financial equivalent of a tune up or mid-course correction.
Bush's "plan," on the other hand, is more grounded in fantasy than his Kumbaya vision for democracy in the Middle East (and is it just me, or have others noticed that quite often Bush, when doing "the vision thing," sounds like nothing else so much as an aging hippie who combined a little too much Old Crow with his acid?).
This country might be just crazy enough to purchase the rusting hulk of a jalopy that Bush calls his plan, but if I have any say, I'd demand some real answers. Like: can Bush's plan GUARANTEE the same level of benefits that Social Security can EVEN IF THE WORST SSA scenario plays out? Can Bush guarantee that he won't pull money from the existing program to pay for the plan (well, actually he can, sort of: right now Bush is proposing to BORROW the money--just like how he's paying for the Iraq war, although China might not be able to loan us a trillion and a half dollars)?
Bush's plan requires a level of market growth far above and beyond that required by the existing system, and the investment instruments are a hell of a lot riskier. And, as for how the plan might work out, well, there's already a pretty good example of what Bush considers successful and/or acceptable:
Enron.
Say no more.
Side note: Here's how Team Bush spelled "Challenges" on a backdrop for the dauphin's latest attempt at public elocution:
Financial Challanges for Today and Tomorrow.
Great...of course, those who like their Kool Aid with a red state flavor will wail about how hard it is to spell "big wurds and stuff." After all, it's pretty easy to humiliate yourself in all sorts of ways--besides not bothering to proofread.
So, the man who brought us 25,000 liters of anthrax now says there's a crisis in Social Security. Henchmen like Grover Norquist want to do some strangling, well, for the fun of it, I guess. Cooler heads might argue that you don't burn the house down when all that needs fixing is a broken window, but c'mon, it's not like Bush et al ever REALLY had to do some "hard work." Besides, I'm sure they think "fire is cool." Look what they did to Iraq...
Which makes me think--how long before we see Bush accusing the Social Security Administration of "seeking to purchase uranium...from Africa." Maybe Colin Powell can reprise his UN
OK, so it won't be quite that ridiculous...I hope. But if the debate becomes "do we kill it now or do we kill it later," well, let's just say that that'll be as sure a sign as any that this country is doing it's best to become king of the third world nations. I mean, jeez--old age pensions are a basic component of modern society, and Social Security is about as good as you can get--there's remarkably little overhead in administration, it's investment strategy is completely sound, if a little boring, and it's not such a bad idea to, in a sense, socialize part of the federal deficit via SSA's purchase of US debt. It sure beats the hell out of China holding it. The "crisis" Bush talks about is nonsense. The adjustments needed to ensure stability to Social Security are the financial equivalent of a tune up or mid-course correction.
Bush's "plan," on the other hand, is more grounded in fantasy than his Kumbaya vision for democracy in the Middle East (and is it just me, or have others noticed that quite often Bush, when doing "the vision thing," sounds like nothing else so much as an aging hippie who combined a little too much Old Crow with his acid?).
This country might be just crazy enough to purchase the rusting hulk of a jalopy that Bush calls his plan, but if I have any say, I'd demand some real answers. Like: can Bush's plan GUARANTEE the same level of benefits that Social Security can EVEN IF THE WORST SSA scenario plays out? Can Bush guarantee that he won't pull money from the existing program to pay for the plan (well, actually he can, sort of: right now Bush is proposing to BORROW the money--just like how he's paying for the Iraq war, although China might not be able to loan us a trillion and a half dollars)?
Bush's plan requires a level of market growth far above and beyond that required by the existing system, and the investment instruments are a hell of a lot riskier. And, as for how the plan might work out, well, there's already a pretty good example of what Bush considers successful and/or acceptable:
Enron.
Say no more.
Fun With Numbers
Found this at Bad Attitudes: NationMaster--you can generate all sorts of charts & graphs based on data they've complied from public sources.
Between this and Wikipedia, I'll be able to kill lots of time...
Found this at Bad Attitudes: NationMaster--you can generate all sorts of charts & graphs based on data they've complied from public sources.
Between this and Wikipedia, I'll be able to kill lots of time...
Hidden Casualties
Daily Kos links to this article about children who've lost parents in the wars:
Sad to the depths of his 4-year-old soul, Jack Shanaberger knew what he didn't want to be when he grows up: a father.
"I don't want to be a daddy because daddies die," the child solemnly told his mother after his father, Staff Sgt. Wentz "Baron" Shanaberger, a military policeman from Fort Pierce, Fla., was killed March 23 in an ambush in Iraq...
from Defense Department casualty reports, obituaries and accounts in hometown newspapers, and family interviews, Scripps Howard News Service has identified nearly 900 U.S. children who have lost a parent in the war, from the start of the conflict in March 2003 through November, when a total of 1,256 troops had died.
This one I can relate to from personal experience: my own father was a career military officer. Several times when I was young, he was assigned to lengthy tours overseas. He always came back, but I assure you it wasn't fun when he was gone. I can only imagine what it's like for children whose parents will NEVER come back.
I doubt seriously that Bush, Cheney, the rest of the chickenhawks, and even those in the administration who served (e.g., Rumsfeld), give this so much as a thought.
Daily Kos links to this article about children who've lost parents in the wars:
Sad to the depths of his 4-year-old soul, Jack Shanaberger knew what he didn't want to be when he grows up: a father.
"I don't want to be a daddy because daddies die," the child solemnly told his mother after his father, Staff Sgt. Wentz "Baron" Shanaberger, a military policeman from Fort Pierce, Fla., was killed March 23 in an ambush in Iraq...
from Defense Department casualty reports, obituaries and accounts in hometown newspapers, and family interviews, Scripps Howard News Service has identified nearly 900 U.S. children who have lost a parent in the war, from the start of the conflict in March 2003 through November, when a total of 1,256 troops had died.
This one I can relate to from personal experience: my own father was a career military officer. Several times when I was young, he was assigned to lengthy tours overseas. He always came back, but I assure you it wasn't fun when he was gone. I can only imagine what it's like for children whose parents will NEVER come back.
I doubt seriously that Bush, Cheney, the rest of the chickenhawks, and even those in the administration who served (e.g., Rumsfeld), give this so much as a thought.
Like a Bad Cold
Cases of abuse by US personnel in Iraq continue to surface:
The documents the ACLU released today...describe substantiated incidents of torture and abuse by U.S. Marines, including:
Holding a pistol to the back of a detainee’s head while another Marine took a picture (Karbala, May 2003)
Ordering four Iraqi juveniles to kneel while a pistol was "discharged to conduct a mock execution" (Adiwaniyah, June 2003)
Severely burning a detainee’s hands by covering them in alcohol and igniting them (Al Mumudiyah, August 2003), and
Shocking a detainee with an electric transformer, causing the detainee to "dance" as he was shocked (Al Mumudiyah, April 2004).
Something tells me that these aren't the only instances where, to put it in the most diplomatic of terms, questionable things were done. This could explain another Times article focusing on mental health issues either already affecting some combat veterans or expected to affect them, according to a number of experts in the field:
What was planned as a short and decisive intervention in Iraq has become a grueling counterinsurgency that has put American troops into sustained close-quarters combat on a scale not seen since the Vietnam War. Psychiatrists say the kind of fighting seen in the recent retaking of Falluja - spooky urban settings with unlimited hiding places; the impossibility of telling Iraqi friend from Iraqi foe; the knowledge that every stretch of road may conceal an explosive device - is tailored to produce the adrenaline-gone-haywire reactions that leave lasting emotional scars.
And in no recent conflict have so many soldiers faced such uncertainty about how long they will be deployed. Veterans say the repeated extensions of duty in Iraq are emotionally battering, even for the most stoical of warriors...
"In the urban terrain, the enemy is everywhere, across the street, in that window, up that alley," said Paul Rieckhoff, who served as a platoon leader with the Florida Army National Guard for 10 months, going on hundreds of combat patrols around Baghdad. "It's a fishbowl. You never feel safe. You never relax."
In his platoon of 38 people, 8 were divorced while in Iraq or since they returned in February, Mr. Rieckhoff said. One man in his 120-person company killed himself after coming home.
"Too many guys are drinking," said Mr. Rieckhoff, who started the group Operation Truth to support the troops. "A lot have a hard time finding a job. I think the system is vastly under-prepared for the flood of mental health problems."
War, contrary to what many people think, is ALWAYS an ugly exercise. I seriously doubt anyone pushing for war in Iraq EVER considered the degree of suffering they were endorsing as a consequence of combat. Heads and limbs blasted from bodies, internal organs ripped to shreds and/or exposed to open air, bones and teeth splintered, skin burned completely off--and mixed in with all this is the pervasive stench of death, day after bloody day.
Without condoning WHAT they did for a second, I can certainly understand WHY soldiers engaged in what Limbaugh and other chickenhawk punks like himself call "fraternity pranks" (and I happen to think that Rush should be subjected to the same if he thinks it's so goddamned innocent). It's because, as I've posted before, they're both witnessing and precipitating the complete breakdown of the civil society and social order. That's what war IS. And civil society and social order are a LOT more fragile and prone to breakdown than most people expect. When it breaks down, it's not very easy to restore (e.g., Lebanon in the 1970's).
People exposed to a complete breakdown in the social order often show a remarkable resiliancy in returning to "normal" life--either that or they manage to deal with their issues without becoming a danger to the community...however, some folks react differently. Many of THESE people become only a danger to themselves, which is tragic enough--but some truly step over the line.
Even scarier is the prospect that many of the troubles affecting the minds of our soldiers will likewise affect Iraqis. And who knows what that portends.
Cases of abuse by US personnel in Iraq continue to surface:
The documents the ACLU released today...describe substantiated incidents of torture and abuse by U.S. Marines, including:
Holding a pistol to the back of a detainee’s head while another Marine took a picture (Karbala, May 2003)
Ordering four Iraqi juveniles to kneel while a pistol was "discharged to conduct a mock execution" (Adiwaniyah, June 2003)
Severely burning a detainee’s hands by covering them in alcohol and igniting them (Al Mumudiyah, August 2003), and
Shocking a detainee with an electric transformer, causing the detainee to "dance" as he was shocked (Al Mumudiyah, April 2004).
Something tells me that these aren't the only instances where, to put it in the most diplomatic of terms, questionable things were done. This could explain another Times article focusing on mental health issues either already affecting some combat veterans or expected to affect them, according to a number of experts in the field:
What was planned as a short and decisive intervention in Iraq has become a grueling counterinsurgency that has put American troops into sustained close-quarters combat on a scale not seen since the Vietnam War. Psychiatrists say the kind of fighting seen in the recent retaking of Falluja - spooky urban settings with unlimited hiding places; the impossibility of telling Iraqi friend from Iraqi foe; the knowledge that every stretch of road may conceal an explosive device - is tailored to produce the adrenaline-gone-haywire reactions that leave lasting emotional scars.
And in no recent conflict have so many soldiers faced such uncertainty about how long they will be deployed. Veterans say the repeated extensions of duty in Iraq are emotionally battering, even for the most stoical of warriors...
"In the urban terrain, the enemy is everywhere, across the street, in that window, up that alley," said Paul Rieckhoff, who served as a platoon leader with the Florida Army National Guard for 10 months, going on hundreds of combat patrols around Baghdad. "It's a fishbowl. You never feel safe. You never relax."
In his platoon of 38 people, 8 were divorced while in Iraq or since they returned in February, Mr. Rieckhoff said. One man in his 120-person company killed himself after coming home.
"Too many guys are drinking," said Mr. Rieckhoff, who started the group Operation Truth to support the troops. "A lot have a hard time finding a job. I think the system is vastly under-prepared for the flood of mental health problems."
War, contrary to what many people think, is ALWAYS an ugly exercise. I seriously doubt anyone pushing for war in Iraq EVER considered the degree of suffering they were endorsing as a consequence of combat. Heads and limbs blasted from bodies, internal organs ripped to shreds and/or exposed to open air, bones and teeth splintered, skin burned completely off--and mixed in with all this is the pervasive stench of death, day after bloody day.
Without condoning WHAT they did for a second, I can certainly understand WHY soldiers engaged in what Limbaugh and other chickenhawk punks like himself call "fraternity pranks" (and I happen to think that Rush should be subjected to the same if he thinks it's so goddamned innocent). It's because, as I've posted before, they're both witnessing and precipitating the complete breakdown of the civil society and social order. That's what war IS. And civil society and social order are a LOT more fragile and prone to breakdown than most people expect. When it breaks down, it's not very easy to restore (e.g., Lebanon in the 1970's).
People exposed to a complete breakdown in the social order often show a remarkable resiliancy in returning to "normal" life--either that or they manage to deal with their issues without becoming a danger to the community...however, some folks react differently. Many of THESE people become only a danger to themselves, which is tragic enough--but some truly step over the line.
Even scarier is the prospect that many of the troubles affecting the minds of our soldiers will likewise affect Iraqis. And who knows what that portends.
A Modest Proposal
World O'Crap suggests warning stickers on BIBLES in light of this tragedy (Link via Tbogg). This is the suggested warning:
"This book contains religious material. Religious teachings are matters of faith, not facts, and some of this material is metaphorical and otherwise not to be taken literally. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered. If you are mentally ill, please do not do anything to your children after reading this material without first consulting a doctor or mental health professional."
Count me as a yes vote.
World O'Crap suggests warning stickers on BIBLES in light of this tragedy (Link via Tbogg). This is the suggested warning:
"This book contains religious material. Religious teachings are matters of faith, not facts, and some of this material is metaphorical and otherwise not to be taken literally. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered. If you are mentally ill, please do not do anything to your children after reading this material without first consulting a doctor or mental health professional."
Count me as a yes vote.
Wednesday, December 15, 2004
Interested in Seeing Timshel's Opinion
The dean of Louisiana's blog contingent noted a lack of state news earlier today....
This could reverse that assessment:
U.S. drug lobby group taps Tauzin for top job.
Big Billy goes for the dough after all...
The dean of Louisiana's blog contingent noted a lack of state news earlier today....
This could reverse that assessment:
U.S. drug lobby group taps Tauzin for top job.
Big Billy goes for the dough after all...
One if by Land...
The New York Times reports on supplies being moved into Iraq by air. Steve Gilliard, where I found the link, notes this doesn't bode all that well, as it means the road network isn't safe, i.e., the insurgents have it either under their control or can make overland resupply a VERY costly affair.
The article goes on to note that costs are running about "$4.4 billion monthly" for the war, although subsequent paragraphs make it evident that they don't really know the cost, given that they cite figures of first $70 billion, then "somewhat lower than $100 billion."
If air resupply becomes the norm, look for the monetary costs to rise, although a beneficial effect would be reduced US casualties. However, I can't imagine airlift to become the main method of providing parts, equipment, sustenance, etc., to soldiers stationed in barracks throughout the country. The Berlin airlift succeeded only with a great deal of luck--and the planes back then weren't dodging SAM's.
I wonder if KBR is still hauling sailboat fuel back and forth across the desert?
Oh--and as an aside, once again the name of notorious merchant of death Victor Bout is being linked to the Pentagon and to Iraq. Geez...the whole sorry situation there would make the Fulton Street Fish Market smell like a pine forest in comparison...
The New York Times reports on supplies being moved into Iraq by air. Steve Gilliard, where I found the link, notes this doesn't bode all that well, as it means the road network isn't safe, i.e., the insurgents have it either under their control or can make overland resupply a VERY costly affair.
The article goes on to note that costs are running about "$4.4 billion monthly" for the war, although subsequent paragraphs make it evident that they don't really know the cost, given that they cite figures of first $70 billion, then "somewhat lower than $100 billion."
If air resupply becomes the norm, look for the monetary costs to rise, although a beneficial effect would be reduced US casualties. However, I can't imagine airlift to become the main method of providing parts, equipment, sustenance, etc., to soldiers stationed in barracks throughout the country. The Berlin airlift succeeded only with a great deal of luck--and the planes back then weren't dodging SAM's.
I wonder if KBR is still hauling sailboat fuel back and forth across the desert?
Oh--and as an aside, once again the name of notorious merchant of death Victor Bout is being linked to the Pentagon and to Iraq. Geez...the whole sorry situation there would make the Fulton Street Fish Market smell like a pine forest in comparison...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)