Greetings from Chiapas! Typing on a Spanish keyboard, having had no time to browse, this is about all I have to post. Keep working to stop the war--we see lots of anti-war signs painted on the walls here. "Bush: terrorista borracha, for example."
Sunday, March 30, 2003
Friday, March 28, 2003
Pissing for Peace! A famous Belgian "landmark" is truly pissed off about the war.
Support France! The nice people at NewsMax.com have provided an extensive list of French-owned companies whose products you can purchase! Thanks also to the Washington Times for the banner ad which directed me to the list! Remember, friends try to keep friends from engaging in illegal and immoral wars of aggression. Thank France for their efforts by patronizing their companies.
Better read that fine print! Molly Ivins points out that our real enemies, foreign and especially domestic (Dick Cheney, Antonin Scalia et al) are using war as a cover for all sorts of other bad stuff.
Former weapons inspector Scott Ritter predicts the US will lose the war in Iraq. Definitely worth reading. Excerpt:
And it's the Shia in the south who are fighting us. They're not doing it because Chemical Ali is down there with his death squads threatening to execute 'em. They're doing it because, the American Crusader Infidel has invaded and violated Holy Iraq, and they will resist us, and they will resist us strongly. And no matter how many Iraqi's we kill and slaughter, I predict that America will loose this war and ultimately the American military will leave Iraq with its tail between its legs.
Unfortunately, we're going to inflict a tremenduous amount of death and destruction on the people of Iraq; the American soldiers and Marines will also pay a price. And all those who sit outside of Iraq and courageously encourage Americans to go in and slaughter Iraqi's should be ashamed of themselves."
And it's the Shia in the south who are fighting us. They're not doing it because Chemical Ali is down there with his death squads threatening to execute 'em. They're doing it because, the American Crusader Infidel has invaded and violated Holy Iraq, and they will resist us, and they will resist us strongly. And no matter how many Iraqi's we kill and slaughter, I predict that America will loose this war and ultimately the American military will leave Iraq with its tail between its legs.
Unfortunately, we're going to inflict a tremenduous amount of death and destruction on the people of Iraq; the American soldiers and Marines will also pay a price. And all those who sit outside of Iraq and courageously encourage Americans to go in and slaughter Iraqi's should be ashamed of themselves."
Thursday, March 27, 2003
Perle Resigns!!!
One down, about 50 to go. Special congratulations to Detroit Congressman John Conyers, who has been putting the heat on Perle for profiting from the war he did SO MUCH to cause.
Can you say "quagmire?" I knew that you could. One hundred thousand more troops to go into the war. It's deja nam all over again.
Body Doubles?
It has long been suspected that Mr Bush employs a string of lookalikes for difficult or dangerous speaking engagements, some of whom may have had their ears specially enlarged for the task. -- from a hilarious Tim Dowling article in the Guardian. The fact that this extremely easy target for ridicule was not laughed out of office long before he could do much harm (and boy has he) is the clearest indictment of our state-run media.
It has long been suspected that Mr Bush employs a string of lookalikes for difficult or dangerous speaking engagements, some of whom may have had their ears specially enlarged for the task. -- from a hilarious Tim Dowling article in the Guardian. The fact that this extremely easy target for ridicule was not laughed out of office long before he could do much harm (and boy has he) is the clearest indictment of our state-run media.
Well, I'm here in California, but my niece is at school, and my brother had to go back to work, so I'm left here alone with a computer...The good news is, I guess, that I'm not on any "no-fly" list.
So, for starters, Al Gore spoke out in favor of free speech, saying the corporate media is threatening the first amendment.
So, for starters, Al Gore spoke out in favor of free speech, saying the corporate media is threatening the first amendment.
Wednesday, March 26, 2003
Leavin' on a Jet Plane
I'm leaving on vacation early tomorrow morning. I'll be flying to California (Palo Alto) where my brother lives. Saturday, I'll be flying to Chiapas, Mexico with my niece Beth's middle college class on a Global Exchange trip. We'll be learning about Chiapas and the struggle of the people there against the ravages of "globalization." I'll be back in Ann Arbor late on Monday April 7, and hopefully resume serious blogging then. I'll probably be able to post something occasionally between now and then, but I certainly won't have much time to browse for news and opinions. In the meantime, please browse the blogs listed on the right: there's lots of good material out there. I recommend MouseMusings highly, especially since Cyndy is a fellow Ann Arborite. I've also got a list of books that I highly recommend.
If you'd like an e-mail announcing my return, please send me an e-mail at bob@goodsells.net. Please include a note saying where you live: I'm curious to see how many readers I have and where they are. Keep calling, protesting, writing! I'd be really happy if y'all stopped the war while I'm gone!
A truck driver was arrested near Cincinnati for driving onto the sidewalk and threatening to run over anti-war protesters. It's about time the BAD GUYS started getting arrested! This is one sick country.
You go, girl! Veep from the Deep Cheney's lesbian daughter Mary may be headed to Baghdad to be a human shield! The article from al Bawaba suggests that Useless Dick may fly to Jordan to try to talk Mary out of it. I hope he does so by going to Baghdad in her place as a subhuman shield.
Liberation
The Washington Post has a good slide show which gives at least a hint of how horrible this war is. Bloody soldiers, grieving families, refugees--all because George Warmonger Bush couldn't wait for inspections. Absolute worst excuse for a human being EVER.
Conyers Goes After Perle. Richard Perle has not only convinced our idiot president to start World War III, he has positioned himself to profit from it. Perle is something scum would try to wipe off itself in disgust.
Baghdad market bombed
From BBC. At least 14 were killed and 30 injured when bombs hit a busy market area in Baghdad. While this is major news on BBC, it is nowhere to be seen on the CNN or New York Times web sites, at least right now.
Tuesday, March 25, 2003
The Forged Documents about Iraq's Supposed Nuclear Program:An Article from Seymour Hersh.
Action Alert! Call Congress NOW and tell them to vote against Daddy Warbush's $74.7 BILLION request to fund his illegal and unconstitutional war in Iraq. All members of Congress can be reached through the Capitol switchboard: 800-839-5276. You can also send faxes through True Majority, or e-mails through FCNL.
Frist do some harm: Senate Majority Leader Dr. Bill Frist seems to have taken a Hypocritic oath instead of the Hippocratic oath most doctors take. He's doing everything in his power to immunize giant drug companies like Eli Lilly from having to pay for nasty illnesses like autism that their vaccines may cause to children. See Wampum for details.
Another State Department diplomat resigns: Mary Wright has served a long and distinguished (even decorated) career in the U.S. military and diplomatic corps. She recently resigned because "I disagree with the Administration’s policies on Iraq, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, North Korea and curtailment of civil liberties in the U.S. itself." Read her whole eloquent letter of resignation.
The Moron Majority
Now it's official: most Americans are idiots.
Decades of budget cuts in education are finally yielding results, a fact confirmed by CNN's poll of March 16, which shows that an astonishing 51 percent of the public believe that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was responsible for the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. From Ted Rall. Read the rest!
Now it's official: most Americans are idiots.
Decades of budget cuts in education are finally yielding results, a fact confirmed by CNN's poll of March 16, which shows that an astonishing 51 percent of the public believe that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was responsible for the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. From Ted Rall. Read the rest!
Monday, March 24, 2003
Excellent anti-war video.
How could they possibly hate us? An American missile hit a bus carrying Syrian civilians on a bridge just inside Iraq near the Syrian border, killing five and wounding at least 10. A U.S. spokesman said the U.S. "regretted" the loss of life, but went on:
"The bus stopped on the bridge and was hit by munitions already released prior to the bus approaching the bridge," it said. However blame for the incident was ultimately placed on the Iraqi leader, Saddam Hussein. "We regret the loss of innocent life brought on by this regime's non-compliance of UN resolutions," the statement added.
Okay, try to figure this one out. There's a bridge on the road from Iraq to Syria near the border, used by civilians. Iraq is being invaded from the other side of the country, as well as being mercilessly bombed. There are probably no Iraqi troops or weapons of any significance between the bridge and the border, since most will be in the eastern part of the country fighting against the invading forces, or waiting around Baghdad for the attack there. What would the bridge be used for in the next week or two? My guess is that almost all of the traffic would be refugees or others escaping the war by heading west to Syria, just as the people on the bus were doing. Still, without any warning or doing anything to prevent civilians from being on the bridge, our military launches a missile from far away to blow up the bridge. Unless they figure that Syria intends to join the war in support of Iraq, the bridge offers little to support the Iraqi military effort. Destroying it simply serves to trap refugees inside Iraq.
Even if there were some legitimate excuse for destroying the bridge (not that there is really any legitimate excuse in this war), given the air superiority that the U.S. and British forces enjoy, it would have been relatively simple to protect civilians who might be crossing the bridge when the missile arrived. A fighter-bomber could have bombed the approaches to the bridge when there was no traffic to prevent vehicles from getting on the bridge. Some sort of barracade could have been dropped or erected to block the approaches, or probably even soldiers parachuted or helicoptered in. This would have prevented anyone from being on the bridge when the missile hit, but apparently there is no real concern for civilian casualties sufficient to take these reasonable measures. And blaming it on Saddam just makes us look all the more pathetic.
"The bus stopped on the bridge and was hit by munitions already released prior to the bus approaching the bridge," it said. However blame for the incident was ultimately placed on the Iraqi leader, Saddam Hussein. "We regret the loss of innocent life brought on by this regime's non-compliance of UN resolutions," the statement added.
Okay, try to figure this one out. There's a bridge on the road from Iraq to Syria near the border, used by civilians. Iraq is being invaded from the other side of the country, as well as being mercilessly bombed. There are probably no Iraqi troops or weapons of any significance between the bridge and the border, since most will be in the eastern part of the country fighting against the invading forces, or waiting around Baghdad for the attack there. What would the bridge be used for in the next week or two? My guess is that almost all of the traffic would be refugees or others escaping the war by heading west to Syria, just as the people on the bus were doing. Still, without any warning or doing anything to prevent civilians from being on the bridge, our military launches a missile from far away to blow up the bridge. Unless they figure that Syria intends to join the war in support of Iraq, the bridge offers little to support the Iraqi military effort. Destroying it simply serves to trap refugees inside Iraq.
Even if there were some legitimate excuse for destroying the bridge (not that there is really any legitimate excuse in this war), given the air superiority that the U.S. and British forces enjoy, it would have been relatively simple to protect civilians who might be crossing the bridge when the missile arrived. A fighter-bomber could have bombed the approaches to the bridge when there was no traffic to prevent vehicles from getting on the bridge. Some sort of barracade could have been dropped or erected to block the approaches, or probably even soldiers parachuted or helicoptered in. This would have prevented anyone from being on the bridge when the missile hit, but apparently there is no real concern for civilian casualties sufficient to take these reasonable measures. And blaming it on Saddam just makes us look all the more pathetic.
Shooting War Reviving Cold War? -- from Financial Times.
Arab League Lines Up Against US. Except for Kuwait, that is, which had "reservations," probably due to having 100,000 U.S. troops in their country.
Whipping Up a Crisis -- from R.C. Longworth in the Chicago Tribune:
National hysterias come and go, leaving a great deal of damage and creating a sense of communal shame when the panic wears off: The McCarthyite era is an example. Invariably, the cause is fear--of foreigners, of nameless threats, of Reds under the bed.
The United States is going through such a hysteria now. We can only pray that not too many lives are sacrificed to it. (Full article.)
National hysterias come and go, leaving a great deal of damage and creating a sense of communal shame when the panic wears off: The McCarthyite era is an example. Invariably, the cause is fear--of foreigners, of nameless threats, of Reds under the bed.
The United States is going through such a hysteria now. We can only pray that not too many lives are sacrificed to it. (Full article.)
POLICE BRUTALITY AGAINST PEACEFUL AUSTIN PROTESTERS
(from our peace group's e-mail list)
just want someone to know what happened here today...seems like there is a media blackout on austin, texas...
today all day nearly 2000 people expressed their opposition to the war on iraq by blocking traffic on the main drag near the university of texas, then
beginning at rush hour, marched very slowly with die-ins in the intersections from the capitol to the main tourist bridge. dozens of riot police with no names, no badge numbers, (unaccountable and anonymous) waited for night to fall and then began "clearing" the street of protesters. about 20 or so people committed to sit in the street in an act of peaceful civil disobedience and be arrested and the rest of us stayed on the sidewalks as witnesses. with absolutely no cause a policeman approached those of us on the sidewalk and sprayed us in the face with pepper spray. when we complained that it was uncalled for and that the sidewalk is public property, we were told that "tonight it's not" and "we're about to spray you again if you don't leave." we began walking with the police walking behind us and they started to walk faster and hitting us in the back with their batons, screaming "move." we screamed that we WERE walking and they had no cause or right to hit us in the back but they kept doing it. as soon we were pushed far enough away so as to block our view of those who were sitting in the street, they began the arrests. the chants of "this is what democracy looks like", quickly turned to "this is what a police state looks like." as we were pushed along off the sidewalk and into an intersection, one of the riot police grabbed a young man (right in front of me) who was chanting peacefully, just like the hundreds of us who remained, and slammed him onto the concrete. at the same time another cop sprayed a woman at close range directly in the eyes with pepper spray. the rest started running toward us to push us far away so as not to see what was happening with the young man who was on the ground. all of this was completely, utterly, unprovoked. it actually seemed as if they were trying to provoke a riot so that they could become even more violent. it was clear that this group of riot police had a sense that it was accountable to no one and/or that they could do absolutely anything and that they would be protected/absolved at a higher (federal?) level.
please let the rest of the world know that austin is overwhelmingly against war and the only reason you don't hear about it is because it is not being
reported.
peace,
annette d'armata
annettedarmata@yahoo.com
(from our peace group's e-mail list)
just want someone to know what happened here today...seems like there is a media blackout on austin, texas...
today all day nearly 2000 people expressed their opposition to the war on iraq by blocking traffic on the main drag near the university of texas, then
beginning at rush hour, marched very slowly with die-ins in the intersections from the capitol to the main tourist bridge. dozens of riot police with no names, no badge numbers, (unaccountable and anonymous) waited for night to fall and then began "clearing" the street of protesters. about 20 or so people committed to sit in the street in an act of peaceful civil disobedience and be arrested and the rest of us stayed on the sidewalks as witnesses. with absolutely no cause a policeman approached those of us on the sidewalk and sprayed us in the face with pepper spray. when we complained that it was uncalled for and that the sidewalk is public property, we were told that "tonight it's not" and "we're about to spray you again if you don't leave." we began walking with the police walking behind us and they started to walk faster and hitting us in the back with their batons, screaming "move." we screamed that we WERE walking and they had no cause or right to hit us in the back but they kept doing it. as soon we were pushed far enough away so as to block our view of those who were sitting in the street, they began the arrests. the chants of "this is what democracy looks like", quickly turned to "this is what a police state looks like." as we were pushed along off the sidewalk and into an intersection, one of the riot police grabbed a young man (right in front of me) who was chanting peacefully, just like the hundreds of us who remained, and slammed him onto the concrete. at the same time another cop sprayed a woman at close range directly in the eyes with pepper spray. the rest started running toward us to push us far away so as not to see what was happening with the young man who was on the ground. all of this was completely, utterly, unprovoked. it actually seemed as if they were trying to provoke a riot so that they could become even more violent. it was clear that this group of riot police had a sense that it was accountable to no one and/or that they could do absolutely anything and that they would be protected/absolved at a higher (federal?) level.
please let the rest of the world know that austin is overwhelmingly against war and the only reason you don't hear about it is because it is not being
reported.
peace,
annette d'armata
annettedarmata@yahoo.com
From a Russian Blogger:
I guess, my point is that what we see today happening in Iraq - all these atrocities that are just starting, is the result of world being dominated by US. This couldn't happen if USSR was around. See? And Iraq is only a beginning, North Korea is next. North Koreans are like zombies, they WILL FIGHT for their lider. Plus they have nukes. Then, we have Iran, Syria and others opposed to US. Will US bomb the hell out of them? It looks like they will. And this will continue forever if there will be no strong enemy of US. I mean, face it - Bush really is Hitler of our days. And btw - I hope Bush will face a war crimes tribunal in Hague as this institution is still around. Milosevich faced that tribunal, why not Bush and his clique? (Misspellings left intentionally; still, the spelling is better than you'll see at FreeRepublic.com.)
I guess, my point is that what we see today happening in Iraq - all these atrocities that are just starting, is the result of world being dominated by US. This couldn't happen if USSR was around. See? And Iraq is only a beginning, North Korea is next. North Koreans are like zombies, they WILL FIGHT for their lider. Plus they have nukes. Then, we have Iran, Syria and others opposed to US. Will US bomb the hell out of them? It looks like they will. And this will continue forever if there will be no strong enemy of US. I mean, face it - Bush really is Hitler of our days. And btw - I hope Bush will face a war crimes tribunal in Hague as this institution is still around. Milosevich faced that tribunal, why not Bush and his clique? (Misspellings left intentionally; still, the spelling is better than you'll see at FreeRepublic.com.)
A black Washington Post reporter gets harrassed for asking questions. Being curious is suspicious, apparently.
Belated all clear: I just got an e-mail saying "I hope your e-mail is working," causing me to realize that I forgot to announce that my e-mail (bob@aapeace.org) is in fact working again. I have been checking my hotmail on occasion for anyone who sent something there.
Michael Moore's Acceptance Speech at the Oscars:
Whoa. On behalf of our producers Kathleen Glynn and Michael Donovan from Canada, I'd like to thank the Academy for this. I have invited my fellow documentary nominees on the stage with us, and we would like to — they're here in solidarity with me because we like nonfiction. We like nonfiction and we live in fictitious times. We live in the time where we have fictitious election results that elects a fictitious president. We live in a time where we have a man sending us to war for fictitious reasons. Whether it's the fictition of duct tape or fictition of orange alerts we are against this war, Mr. Bush. Shame on you, Mr. Bush, shame on you. And any time you got the Pope and the Dixie Chicks against you, your time is up. Thank you very much.
Whoa. On behalf of our producers Kathleen Glynn and Michael Donovan from Canada, I'd like to thank the Academy for this. I have invited my fellow documentary nominees on the stage with us, and we would like to — they're here in solidarity with me because we like nonfiction. We like nonfiction and we live in fictitious times. We live in the time where we have fictitious election results that elects a fictitious president. We live in a time where we have a man sending us to war for fictitious reasons. Whether it's the fictition of duct tape or fictition of orange alerts we are against this war, Mr. Bush. Shame on you, Mr. Bush, shame on you. And any time you got the Pope and the Dixie Chicks against you, your time is up. Thank you very much.
Shameless Tugging at the Heart Strings (by me that is):
As he held a picture of his son, Waters-Bey's father, Michael said: "I want President Bush to get a good look at this, really good look here. This is the only son I had, only son." He then walked away in tears, with his family behind him. Kenneth, the Marine's only son, was with the family.
If that's not enough, read the report or watch the video. If you watch the video, note especially the Baltimore anchor woman's excitement, dare I say glee, in describing the "spectacular pictures this afternoon," before introducing the story of Michael Waters-Bey's death.
As he held a picture of his son, Waters-Bey's father, Michael said: "I want President Bush to get a good look at this, really good look here. This is the only son I had, only son." He then walked away in tears, with his family behind him. Kenneth, the Marine's only son, was with the family.
 |  |  |
| Marine Kendall Waters-Bey, killed in a helicopter crash in Kuwait on Thursday. | Kendall's father. | Kendall's ten-year-old son. |
If that's not enough, read the report or watch the video. If you watch the video, note especially the Baltimore anchor woman's excitement, dare I say glee, in describing the "spectacular pictures this afternoon," before introducing the story of Michael Waters-Bey's death.
Sierra Club Update:
Yesterday, I posted a copy of an e-mail that I sent to candidates for the Sierra Club Board of Directors, asking them to state their positions on war on Iraq. I have received six replies, all stating their fervent opposition to the war and vowing to support a much stronger anti-war position for Sierra Club in the future. If you are a member and haven't voted yet, here are the six (update: ten):
Yesterday, I posted a copy of an e-mail that I sent to candidates for the Sierra Club Board of Directors, asking them to state their positions on war on Iraq. I have received six replies, all stating their fervent opposition to the war and vowing to support a much stronger anti-war position for Sierra Club in the future. If you are a member and haven't voted yet, here are the six (update: ten):
- Emma McCauley
- Betsy Gaines
- Patrick Murphy
- Dick Schneider
- Robbie Cox
- Paul Watson
- Update: Lisa Renstrom
- Update: Adam Werbach
- Update: Doug La Follette
- Update: Lisa Force
Please use the FCNL web site to let Congress know that just because people are dying by the thousands now and some morons on TV want you to shut up, you are not going to shut up. The war was a stupid idea last week; it's a stupid idea this week. FCNL has a very fine letter that you can send to Congress, either as is or after your editing.
See, I was right! Atrios agrees with me when I ask how can Rummy complain about Iraq showing pictures of POW's when we're busy showing pictures of POW's. According to Atrios, ABC accomplished that long-desired goal of contemplating two contradictory thoughts at the same time and continuing to function--through the miracle of split screen. Lots of good comments on it at Atrios as well, including this gem: "God, please save us from your followers!!"
Bin Laden's Victory
From Richard Dawkins in the Guardian:
When a company seeks a new chief executive officer, or a university a new vice-chancellor, enormous trouble is taken to find the best person. Professional headhunting firms are engaged, written references are taken up, exhaustive rounds of interviews are conducted, psychological aptitude tests are administered, confidential positive vetting undertaken. Mistakes are still made, but it is not for want of strenuous efforts to avoid them. Maybe such methods would be undemocratic for choosing the most powerful person on earth, but just think about it. Would you do business with a company that devoted an entire year to little else than the process of choosing its new CEO, from the strongest field in the world, and ended up with Bush?
Saddam Hussein has been a catastrophe for Iraq, but he never posed a threat outside his immediate neighbourhood. George Bush is a catastrophe for the world. And a dream for Bin Laden.
From Richard Dawkins in the Guardian:
When a company seeks a new chief executive officer, or a university a new vice-chancellor, enormous trouble is taken to find the best person. Professional headhunting firms are engaged, written references are taken up, exhaustive rounds of interviews are conducted, psychological aptitude tests are administered, confidential positive vetting undertaken. Mistakes are still made, but it is not for want of strenuous efforts to avoid them. Maybe such methods would be undemocratic for choosing the most powerful person on earth, but just think about it. Would you do business with a company that devoted an entire year to little else than the process of choosing its new CEO, from the strongest field in the world, and ended up with Bush?
Saddam Hussein has been a catastrophe for Iraq, but he never posed a threat outside his immediate neighbourhood. George Bush is a catastrophe for the world. And a dream for Bin Laden.
Michael Moore blasts Bush
From Daily Kos:
Michael Moore just won the Oscar for best documentary. The audience gave him a standing ovation, though the speech itself was booed by some. Saying he preferred non-fiction, he said we now live in "fictitous times":
We have fictious election results ... We have a man sending us to war for fictitious reasons. We are against this war, Mr. Bush. Shame on you!
Given the response he received -- wild applause and a standing ovation and heckling and boos, things are truly starting to look more and more like 1968.
There is so much insanity going on, it's hard to know where to start. Here's a question: Can anyone explain how Rumsfeld can complain about Iraq showing American POW's on TV, claiming it violates the Geneva Conventions, when we've been seeing footage of Iraqi POW's captured by Americans on CNN for several days now? Oh right: the rules don't apply to us.
Sunday, March 23, 2003
I was quoted in the Ann Arbor News again. That's at least three times this year: I was interviewed by cell phone both times I went to Washington (Jan. 18 and March 15). For the record, my question to Dingell was less concise and less hysterical-sounding than the quote, but the gist was pretty close. But don't believe every quote you see in a paper; they paraphrase and simplify at will, and you don't have any chance to review what they're going to say you said.
My Letter to candidates for the Sierra Club Board of Directors:
Dear Candidates for the Sierra Club Board of Directors:
I was preparing to vote in the 2003 Sierra Club election, reading your statements. Pardon me if I missed something, but I don't see that any of you has made a clear statement of opposition to the Bush administration's war on Iraq, continued "war on terrorism," and well-documented plans to continue with wars of aggression against other countries. While I strongly support Club efforts to protect our environment here at home, to ignore the horrendous impact of war on the environment is unconscionable.
The current massive bombing campaign against Iraq is causing immense environmental damage to that country through air and water pollution, the use of depleted uranium and other hazardous weaponry, and the enormous use of energy required to get U.S. forces to the Gulf and to keep them fighting. In addition, the "we're at war" excuse is used to run roughshod over the environment here at home, with the Pentagon pushing for the elimination of restictions on their activities that harm the environment. The restrictions on free speech which are already suggested also will make it extremely difficult for the Sierra Club to pursue its agenda.
I was appalled last fall when the national Sierra Club was threatening local leaders or groups with expulsion for taking anti-war stances. I believe that you cannot support these Bush wars and still claim to protect the environment. I was somewhat relieved that the Club finally signed on to the "Win Without War" coalition, although a much stronger position would have been preferable.
I am sending this e-mail to state that I will not vote for any of you who support the war in Iraq. I ask that you reply to me with a statement of your position, knowing that I intend to share it widely among my many friends in the peace movement, many of whom are also Sierra Club members. My feeling is that we can recycle for decades and not protect the environment as effectively as if we stopped just one war. If I don't hear from you, I will not vote for you, and will tell others not to as well. I despise ultimatums, but the Bush wars are the critical issue of our time and are the biggest threat not only to our environment but to our entire society and the world at large.
I look forward to your replies.
Sincerely,
Bob Goodsell
If you're a Sierra Club member, please send a similar letter to the candidates. Here's the e-mail list:
numiscribe@aol.com; zaleha@lawyer.com; adam@assetdefense.org; betsy@wildrockies.org; Emma@RedEarthDesign.com; richs59354@aol.com; paulwatson@earthlink.net; LForce@LivingRivers.org; GlaBedz@aol.com; dlafolle@earthlink.net; renstrom@aol.com; nrauch@voicenet.com; antaeus@northwestern.edu; chcccpn@aol.com; Michelle.Perrault@Sierraclub.org; robbiecox@mindspring.com
Dear Candidates for the Sierra Club Board of Directors:
I was preparing to vote in the 2003 Sierra Club election, reading your statements. Pardon me if I missed something, but I don't see that any of you has made a clear statement of opposition to the Bush administration's war on Iraq, continued "war on terrorism," and well-documented plans to continue with wars of aggression against other countries. While I strongly support Club efforts to protect our environment here at home, to ignore the horrendous impact of war on the environment is unconscionable.
The current massive bombing campaign against Iraq is causing immense environmental damage to that country through air and water pollution, the use of depleted uranium and other hazardous weaponry, and the enormous use of energy required to get U.S. forces to the Gulf and to keep them fighting. In addition, the "we're at war" excuse is used to run roughshod over the environment here at home, with the Pentagon pushing for the elimination of restictions on their activities that harm the environment. The restrictions on free speech which are already suggested also will make it extremely difficult for the Sierra Club to pursue its agenda.
I was appalled last fall when the national Sierra Club was threatening local leaders or groups with expulsion for taking anti-war stances. I believe that you cannot support these Bush wars and still claim to protect the environment. I was somewhat relieved that the Club finally signed on to the "Win Without War" coalition, although a much stronger position would have been preferable.
I am sending this e-mail to state that I will not vote for any of you who support the war in Iraq. I ask that you reply to me with a statement of your position, knowing that I intend to share it widely among my many friends in the peace movement, many of whom are also Sierra Club members. My feeling is that we can recycle for decades and not protect the environment as effectively as if we stopped just one war. If I don't hear from you, I will not vote for you, and will tell others not to as well. I despise ultimatums, but the Bush wars are the critical issue of our time and are the biggest threat not only to our environment but to our entire society and the world at large.
I look forward to your replies.
Sincerely,
Bob Goodsell
If you're a Sierra Club member, please send a similar letter to the candidates. Here's the e-mail list:
numiscribe@aol.com; zaleha@lawyer.com; adam@assetdefense.org; betsy@wildrockies.org; Emma@RedEarthDesign.com; richs59354@aol.com; paulwatson@earthlink.net; LForce@LivingRivers.org; GlaBedz@aol.com; dlafolle@earthlink.net; renstrom@aol.com; nrauch@voicenet.com; antaeus@northwestern.edu; chcccpn@aol.com; Michelle.Perrault@Sierraclub.org; robbiecox@mindspring.com
Winston Smith is working overtime: (If you don't know who Winston Smith is, you're not going to understand a lot of my rants: read "1984!") Yesterday morning, CNN reported on their web site a flash bulletin that a U.S. missile had landed in Iran. CNN promised details to come. Shortly thereafter, the bulletin banner disappeared, with no details anywhere to be found. Down the memory hole. Later in the day, a U.S. official issued an apology to Iran, according to a Reuters report. Now, that report has been altered to say that the apology has been retracted, since the U.S. now says it doesn't know whose missile(s) landed in Iran. (I guess I'm going to have to start saving articles as I find them if the news web sites are going to modify them without changing the URL.) Now, Reuters reports that Iran is saying the missile probably was Iraqi. At least, that is what that link says now. Here's a verbatim copy of the link as it exists now (9 am EST Sunday), so when the story changes later today we'll have something for comparison.
IMHO, news web sites should not alter reports under the same URL without specifically noting the change and when it was made. I sometimes add on to my rants with new information, but I try to indicate that this is an update (except for simple spelling or grammar mistakes). Other times, I simply make a newer post which corrects or clarifies the earlier one. Major news stories from CNN, the NY Times, Washington Post, or the wire services are frequently stories in themselves. If it turns out that no missiles at all landed in Iran, the very existence of these stories was still news in that it caused concerns and reactions. For the links to simply disappear down the memory hole, or to say something completely different without explanation, is 1984's "Ministry of Truth" hard at work. And every day there is less doubt that the corporate media is the Ministry of Truth, just as Homeland Security is the Ministry of Love, the Pentagon is the Ministry of Peace, and the tax cuts for the wealthy and elimination of the economic safety net are clearly the work of the Ministry of Plenty. Our government is locking people up indefinitely, it is encouraging people to spy on each other, it is pursuing perpetual war while keeping people terrified on the home front. It may be 19 years behind schedule, but 1984 is here.
IMHO, news web sites should not alter reports under the same URL without specifically noting the change and when it was made. I sometimes add on to my rants with new information, but I try to indicate that this is an update (except for simple spelling or grammar mistakes). Other times, I simply make a newer post which corrects or clarifies the earlier one. Major news stories from CNN, the NY Times, Washington Post, or the wire services are frequently stories in themselves. If it turns out that no missiles at all landed in Iran, the very existence of these stories was still news in that it caused concerns and reactions. For the links to simply disappear down the memory hole, or to say something completely different without explanation, is 1984's "Ministry of Truth" hard at work. And every day there is less doubt that the corporate media is the Ministry of Truth, just as Homeland Security is the Ministry of Love, the Pentagon is the Ministry of Peace, and the tax cuts for the wealthy and elimination of the economic safety net are clearly the work of the Ministry of Plenty. Our government is locking people up indefinitely, it is encouraging people to spy on each other, it is pursuing perpetual war while keeping people terrified on the home front. It may be 19 years behind schedule, but 1984 is here.
Bob's Bon Mots du Jour:
They're calling it Operation Iraqi Freedom: I say it's the "Iraqi Horror Picture Show."
Q: Why didn't all the protests and appeals from around the world have any effect on Bush's decision to blast the crap out of Iraq?
A: Some minds are too small to change.
They're calling it Operation Iraqi Freedom: I say it's the "Iraqi Horror Picture Show."
Q: Why didn't all the protests and appeals from around the world have any effect on Bush's decision to blast the crap out of Iraq?
A: Some minds are too small to change.
Saturday, March 22, 2003
Confirmed: Precision weapons can't even find the right country. U.S. Apologizes to Iran for Errant Missile.
Allan from Ottawa forwarded this "dialogue" between a peacenik (PN) and a warmonger (WM):
PN: Why did you say we are invading Iraq?
WM: We are invading Iraq because it is in violation of Security Council resolution 1441. A country cannot be allowed to violate Security Council
resolutions.
PN: But I thought many of our allies, including Israel, were in violation of more Security Council resolutions than Iraq.
WM: It's not just about UN resolutions. The main point is that Iraq could have weapons of mass destruction, and the first sign of a smoking gun could
well be a mushroom cloud over NY.
PN: Mushroom cloud? But I thought the weapons inspectors said Iraq had no nuclear weapons.
WM: Yes, but biological and chemical weapons are the issue.
PN: But I thought Iraq did not have any long range missiles for attacking us or our allies with such weapons.
WM: The risk is not Iraq directly attacking us, but rather terrorists networks that Iraq could sell the weapons to.
PN: But couldn't virtually any country sell chemical or biological materials? We sold quite a bit to Iraq in the eighties ourselves, didn't we?
WM: That's ancient history. Look, Saddam Hussein is an evil man that has an undeniable track record of repressing his own people since the early
eighties. He gasses his enemies. Everyone agrees that he is a power-hungry lunatic murderer.
PN: We sold chemical and biological materials to a power-hungry lunatic murderer?
WM: The issue is not what we sold, but rather what Saddam did. He is the one that launched a pre-emptive first strike on Kuwait.
PN: A pre-emptive first strike does sound bad. But didn't our ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie, know about and green-light the invasion of Kuwait?
WM: Let's deal with the present, shall we? As of today, Iraq could sell its biological and chemical weapons to Al Qaida. Osama Bin Laden himself
released an audio tape calling on Iraqis to suicide-attack us, proving a partnership between the two.
PN: Osama Bin Laden? Wasn't the point of invading Afghanistan to kill him?
WM: Actually, it's not 100% certain that it's really Osama Bin Laden on the tapes. But the lesson from the tape is the same: there could easily be a
partnership between Al Qaida and Saddam Hussein unless we act.
PN: Is this the same audio tape where Osama Bin Laden labels Saddam a secular infidel?
WM: You're missing the point by just focusing on the tape. Powell presented a strong case against Iraq.
PN: He did?
WM: Yes, he showed satellite pictures of an Al Qaida poison factory in Iraq.
PN: But didn't that turn out to be a harmless shack in the part of Iraq controlled by the Kurdish opposition?
WM: And a British intelligence report...
PN: Didn't that turn out to be copied from an out-of-date graduate student paper?
WM: And reports of mobile weapons labs...
PN: Weren't those just artistic renderings?
WM: And reports of Iraqis scuttling and hiding evidence from inspectors...
PN: Wasn't that evidence contradicted by the chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix?
WM: Yes, but there is plenty of other hard evidence that cannot be revealed because it would compromise our security.
PN: So there is no publicly available evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?
WM: The inspectors are not detectives; it's not their JOB to find evidence. You're missing the point.
PN: So what is the point?
WM: The main point is that we are invading Iraq because resolution 1441 threatened "severe consequences." If we do not act, the Security Council
will become an irrelevant debating society.
PN: So the main point is to uphold the rulings of the Security Council?
WM: Absolutely. ...unless it rules against us.
PN: And what if it does rule against us?
WM: In that case, we must lead a coalition of the willing to invade Iraq.
PN: Coalition of the willing? Who's that?
WM: Britain, Turkey, Bulgaria, Spain, and Italy, for starters
PN: I thought Turkey refused to help us unless we gave them tens of billions of dollars.
WM: Nevertheless, they may now be willing.
PN: I thought public opinion in all those countries was against war.
WM: Current public opinion is irrelevant. The majority expresses its will by electing leaders to make decisions.
PN: So it's the decisions of leaders elected by the majority that is important?
WM: Yes.
PN: But George Bush wasn't elected by voters. He was selected by the U.S. Supreme Court.
WM: I mean, we must support the decisions of our leaders, however they were elected, because they are acting in our best interest. This is about
being a patriot. That's the bottom line.
PN: So if we do not support the decisions of the president, we are not patriotic?
WM: I never said that.
PN: So what are you saying? Why are we invading Iraq?
WM: As I said, because there is a chance that they have weapons of mass destruction that threaten us and our allies.
PN: But the inspectors have not been able to find any such weapons.
WM: Iraq is obviously hiding them.
PN: You know this? How?
WM: Because we know they had the weapons ten years ago, and they are still unaccounted for.
PN: The weapons we sold them, you mean?
WM: Precisely.
PN: But I thought those biological and chemical weapons would degrade to an unusable state over ten years.
WM: But there is a chance that some have not degraded.
PN: So as long as there is even a small chance that such weapons exist, we must invade?
WM: Exactly.
PN: But North Korea actually has large amounts of usable chemical, biological, AND nuclear weapons, AND long range missiles that can reach
the west coast AND it has expelled nuclear weapons inspectors, AND threatened to turn America into a sea of fire.
WM: That's a diplomatic issue.
PN: So why are we invading Iraq instead of using diplomacy?
WM: Aren't you listening? We are invading Iraq because we cannot allow the inspections to drag on indefinitely. Iraq has been delaying, deceiving,
and denying for over ten years, and inspections cost us tens of millions.
PN: But I thought war would cost us tens of billions.
WM: Yes, but this is not about money. This is about security.
PN: But wouldn't a pre-emptive war against Iraq ignite radical Muslim sentiments against us, and decrease our security?
WM: Possibly, but we must not allow the terrorists to change the way we live. Once we do that, the terrorists have already won.
PN: So what is the purpose of the Department of Homeland Security, color-coded terror alerts, and the Patriot Act? Don't these change the way
we live?
WM: I thought you had questions about Iraq.
PN: I do. Why are we invading Iraq?
WM: For the last time, we are invading Iraq because the world has called on Saddam Hussein to disarm, and he has failed to do so. He must now face the consequences.
PN: So, likewise, if the world called on us to do something, such as find a peaceful solution, we would have an obligation to listen?
WM: By "world", I meant the United Nations.
PN: So, we have an obligation to listen to the United Nations?
WM: By "United Nations" I meant the Security Council.
PN: So, we have an obligation to listen to the Security Council?
WM: I meant the majority of the Security Council.
PN: So, we have an obligation to listen to the majority of the Security Council?
WM: Well... there could be an unreasonable veto.
PN: In which case?
WM: In which case, we have an obligation to ignore the veto.
PN: And if the majority of the Security Council does not support us at all?
WM: Then we have an obligation to ignore the Security Council.
PN: That makes no sense.
WM: If you love Iraq so much, you should move there. Or maybe France, with all the other cheese-eating surrender monkeys. It's time to boycott their wine and cheese, no doubt about that.
PN: I give up.
PN: Why did you say we are invading Iraq?
WM: We are invading Iraq because it is in violation of Security Council resolution 1441. A country cannot be allowed to violate Security Council
resolutions.
PN: But I thought many of our allies, including Israel, were in violation of more Security Council resolutions than Iraq.
WM: It's not just about UN resolutions. The main point is that Iraq could have weapons of mass destruction, and the first sign of a smoking gun could
well be a mushroom cloud over NY.
PN: Mushroom cloud? But I thought the weapons inspectors said Iraq had no nuclear weapons.
WM: Yes, but biological and chemical weapons are the issue.
PN: But I thought Iraq did not have any long range missiles for attacking us or our allies with such weapons.
WM: The risk is not Iraq directly attacking us, but rather terrorists networks that Iraq could sell the weapons to.
PN: But couldn't virtually any country sell chemical or biological materials? We sold quite a bit to Iraq in the eighties ourselves, didn't we?
WM: That's ancient history. Look, Saddam Hussein is an evil man that has an undeniable track record of repressing his own people since the early
eighties. He gasses his enemies. Everyone agrees that he is a power-hungry lunatic murderer.
PN: We sold chemical and biological materials to a power-hungry lunatic murderer?
WM: The issue is not what we sold, but rather what Saddam did. He is the one that launched a pre-emptive first strike on Kuwait.
PN: A pre-emptive first strike does sound bad. But didn't our ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie, know about and green-light the invasion of Kuwait?
WM: Let's deal with the present, shall we? As of today, Iraq could sell its biological and chemical weapons to Al Qaida. Osama Bin Laden himself
released an audio tape calling on Iraqis to suicide-attack us, proving a partnership between the two.
PN: Osama Bin Laden? Wasn't the point of invading Afghanistan to kill him?
WM: Actually, it's not 100% certain that it's really Osama Bin Laden on the tapes. But the lesson from the tape is the same: there could easily be a
partnership between Al Qaida and Saddam Hussein unless we act.
PN: Is this the same audio tape where Osama Bin Laden labels Saddam a secular infidel?
WM: You're missing the point by just focusing on the tape. Powell presented a strong case against Iraq.
PN: He did?
WM: Yes, he showed satellite pictures of an Al Qaida poison factory in Iraq.
PN: But didn't that turn out to be a harmless shack in the part of Iraq controlled by the Kurdish opposition?
WM: And a British intelligence report...
PN: Didn't that turn out to be copied from an out-of-date graduate student paper?
WM: And reports of mobile weapons labs...
PN: Weren't those just artistic renderings?
WM: And reports of Iraqis scuttling and hiding evidence from inspectors...
PN: Wasn't that evidence contradicted by the chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix?
WM: Yes, but there is plenty of other hard evidence that cannot be revealed because it would compromise our security.
PN: So there is no publicly available evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?
WM: The inspectors are not detectives; it's not their JOB to find evidence. You're missing the point.
PN: So what is the point?
WM: The main point is that we are invading Iraq because resolution 1441 threatened "severe consequences." If we do not act, the Security Council
will become an irrelevant debating society.
PN: So the main point is to uphold the rulings of the Security Council?
WM: Absolutely. ...unless it rules against us.
PN: And what if it does rule against us?
WM: In that case, we must lead a coalition of the willing to invade Iraq.
PN: Coalition of the willing? Who's that?
WM: Britain, Turkey, Bulgaria, Spain, and Italy, for starters
PN: I thought Turkey refused to help us unless we gave them tens of billions of dollars.
WM: Nevertheless, they may now be willing.
PN: I thought public opinion in all those countries was against war.
WM: Current public opinion is irrelevant. The majority expresses its will by electing leaders to make decisions.
PN: So it's the decisions of leaders elected by the majority that is important?
WM: Yes.
PN: But George Bush wasn't elected by voters. He was selected by the U.S. Supreme Court.
WM: I mean, we must support the decisions of our leaders, however they were elected, because they are acting in our best interest. This is about
being a patriot. That's the bottom line.
PN: So if we do not support the decisions of the president, we are not patriotic?
WM: I never said that.
PN: So what are you saying? Why are we invading Iraq?
WM: As I said, because there is a chance that they have weapons of mass destruction that threaten us and our allies.
PN: But the inspectors have not been able to find any such weapons.
WM: Iraq is obviously hiding them.
PN: You know this? How?
WM: Because we know they had the weapons ten years ago, and they are still unaccounted for.
PN: The weapons we sold them, you mean?
WM: Precisely.
PN: But I thought those biological and chemical weapons would degrade to an unusable state over ten years.
WM: But there is a chance that some have not degraded.
PN: So as long as there is even a small chance that such weapons exist, we must invade?
WM: Exactly.
PN: But North Korea actually has large amounts of usable chemical, biological, AND nuclear weapons, AND long range missiles that can reach
the west coast AND it has expelled nuclear weapons inspectors, AND threatened to turn America into a sea of fire.
WM: That's a diplomatic issue.
PN: So why are we invading Iraq instead of using diplomacy?
WM: Aren't you listening? We are invading Iraq because we cannot allow the inspections to drag on indefinitely. Iraq has been delaying, deceiving,
and denying for over ten years, and inspections cost us tens of millions.
PN: But I thought war would cost us tens of billions.
WM: Yes, but this is not about money. This is about security.
PN: But wouldn't a pre-emptive war against Iraq ignite radical Muslim sentiments against us, and decrease our security?
WM: Possibly, but we must not allow the terrorists to change the way we live. Once we do that, the terrorists have already won.
PN: So what is the purpose of the Department of Homeland Security, color-coded terror alerts, and the Patriot Act? Don't these change the way
we live?
WM: I thought you had questions about Iraq.
PN: I do. Why are we invading Iraq?
WM: For the last time, we are invading Iraq because the world has called on Saddam Hussein to disarm, and he has failed to do so. He must now face the consequences.
PN: So, likewise, if the world called on us to do something, such as find a peaceful solution, we would have an obligation to listen?
WM: By "world", I meant the United Nations.
PN: So, we have an obligation to listen to the United Nations?
WM: By "United Nations" I meant the Security Council.
PN: So, we have an obligation to listen to the Security Council?
WM: I meant the majority of the Security Council.
PN: So, we have an obligation to listen to the majority of the Security Council?
WM: Well... there could be an unreasonable veto.
PN: In which case?
WM: In which case, we have an obligation to ignore the veto.
PN: And if the majority of the Security Council does not support us at all?
WM: Then we have an obligation to ignore the Security Council.
PN: That makes no sense.
WM: If you love Iraq so much, you should move there. Or maybe France, with all the other cheese-eating surrender monkeys. It's time to boycott their wine and cheese, no doubt about that.
PN: I give up.
Somethin's happening here; what it is ain't exactly clear...
When I first checked the CNN web site this morning about 7:20 EST, they had a "Breaking News" banner across the top saying a U.S. cruise missile had hit something in southern IRAN (no typo). It said "details to come." Well, the banner is gone, but no details have arrived. Perhaps evidence that those beloved "precision" weapons can't even hit the targeted country isn't intended for mass consumption. Unless, of course, Iran WAS the targeted country. I wouldn't put it past the neocon-men.
When I first checked the CNN web site this morning about 7:20 EST, they had a "Breaking News" banner across the top saying a U.S. cruise missile had hit something in southern IRAN (no typo). It said "details to come." Well, the banner is gone, but no details have arrived. Perhaps evidence that those beloved "precision" weapons can't even hit the targeted country isn't intended for mass consumption. Unless, of course, Iran WAS the targeted country. I wouldn't put it past the neocon-men.
Bush whacked from the right:
Right-wing Washington Times columnist Paul Craig Roberts rips Bush in no uncertain terms for starting the war in Iraq:
Mr. Bush has permitted a small cadre of neoconservatives to isolate him from world opinion, putting him at odds with the United Nations and America's allies.
...
The U.S., once a guarantor of peace, is now perceived in the rest of the world as an aggressor. Its victim is a small Muslim nation unable to defend its own air space, much less to project power beyond its borders. If Iraqis attempt to resist invasion, they will be slaughtered.
On the eve of Mr. Bush's ultimatum, it came to light that a key piece of evidence used by the Bush administration to link Iraq to a nuclear weapons program is a forgery. Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, has asked the FBI to investigate the origin of the forged documents that the Bush administration used to make its case that Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction.
Secretary of State Colin Powell denies that the Bush administration created the phony documents. "It came from other sources," Mr. Powell told Congress, but he could not identify the source.
...
Mr. Bush and his advisers have forgotten that the power of an American president is temporary and relative. The U.S. is supposed to be the world's leader. For the Bush administration to pursue a policy that sets the U.S. government at odds with the world is to invite comparisons with recklessness that we have not seen in international politics since Nikita Khrushchev tried to install nuclear missiles in Cuba. Is Saddam Hussein worth this much grief?
They've condemned Bush from both sides now, from left and right, but still somehow, it's Bush's war crimes we recall, we really can't stand Bush......at all. The Washington Times, aka Moonie Times, has been a right-wing propaganda machine from its inception. For it to run a strongly-worded column highlighting the criminality of the war seems quite significant (link from Atrios).
Right-wing Washington Times columnist Paul Craig Roberts rips Bush in no uncertain terms for starting the war in Iraq:
Mr. Bush has permitted a small cadre of neoconservatives to isolate him from world opinion, putting him at odds with the United Nations and America's allies.
...
The U.S., once a guarantor of peace, is now perceived in the rest of the world as an aggressor. Its victim is a small Muslim nation unable to defend its own air space, much less to project power beyond its borders. If Iraqis attempt to resist invasion, they will be slaughtered.
On the eve of Mr. Bush's ultimatum, it came to light that a key piece of evidence used by the Bush administration to link Iraq to a nuclear weapons program is a forgery. Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, has asked the FBI to investigate the origin of the forged documents that the Bush administration used to make its case that Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction.
Secretary of State Colin Powell denies that the Bush administration created the phony documents. "It came from other sources," Mr. Powell told Congress, but he could not identify the source.
...
Mr. Bush and his advisers have forgotten that the power of an American president is temporary and relative. The U.S. is supposed to be the world's leader. For the Bush administration to pursue a policy that sets the U.S. government at odds with the world is to invite comparisons with recklessness that we have not seen in international politics since Nikita Khrushchev tried to install nuclear missiles in Cuba. Is Saddam Hussein worth this much grief?
They've condemned Bush from both sides now, from left and right, but still somehow, it's Bush's war crimes we recall, we really can't stand Bush......at all. The Washington Times, aka Moonie Times, has been a right-wing propaganda machine from its inception. For it to run a strongly-worded column highlighting the criminality of the war seems quite significant (link from Atrios).
Friday, March 21, 2003
The Onion saw this coming.
Bush Didn't Watch the Attack:
Q And can I ask one more question about television, just a very direct question? Did the President not see the pictures on television this morning, the very dramatic pictures of the bombs and the explosions over Baghdad? He did not see those?
MR. FLEISCHER: I was with the President just as the operation was beginning, at about 1:00 p.m., and he was not watching TV at that time. I wasn't with him for the duration of it, so I couldn't answer in all instances about it. I probably shouldn't answer a question like this in this room, but the President does not watch a lot of TV.
Q No, but they were very, very dramatic pictures. It's hard to imagine the President of the United States who had ordered this attack did not see any evidence of it.
MR. FLEISCHER: Elizabeth, I don't know that the President needed to watch TV to understand what it means to authorize military force and to know that the mission has begun and the mission is underway. --from Ari the Liar's daily briefing.
The president is one sick individual.
Q And can I ask one more question about television, just a very direct question? Did the President not see the pictures on television this morning, the very dramatic pictures of the bombs and the explosions over Baghdad? He did not see those?
MR. FLEISCHER: I was with the President just as the operation was beginning, at about 1:00 p.m., and he was not watching TV at that time. I wasn't with him for the duration of it, so I couldn't answer in all instances about it. I probably shouldn't answer a question like this in this room, but the President does not watch a lot of TV.
Q No, but they were very, very dramatic pictures. It's hard to imagine the President of the United States who had ordered this attack did not see any evidence of it.
MR. FLEISCHER: Elizabeth, I don't know that the President needed to watch TV to understand what it means to authorize military force and to know that the mission has begun and the mission is underway. --from Ari the Liar's daily briefing.
The president is one sick individual.
Report from Baghdad:
In an operation officially intended to create "shock and awe'', shock was hardly the word for it. The few Iraqis in the streets around me no friends of Saddam I would suspect cursed under their breath.
From high-rise buildings, shops and homes came the thunder of crashing glass as the shock waves swept across the Tigris river in both directions. Minute after minute the missiles came in. Many Iraqis had watched as I had television film of those ominous B-52 bombers taking off from Britain only six hours earlier. Like me, they had noted the time, added three hours for Iraqi time in front of London and guessed that, at around 9pm, the terror would begin. The B-52s, almost certainly firing from outside Iraqi airspace, were dead on time.
Police cars drove at speed through the streets, their loudspeakers ordering pedestrians to take shelter or hide under cover of tall buildings. Much good did it do. Crouching next to a block of shops on the opposite side of the river, I narrowly missed the shower of glass that came cascading down from the upper windows as the shock waves slammed into them. -- Robert Fisk from Baghdad.
In an operation officially intended to create "shock and awe'', shock was hardly the word for it. The few Iraqis in the streets around me no friends of Saddam I would suspect cursed under their breath.
From high-rise buildings, shops and homes came the thunder of crashing glass as the shock waves swept across the Tigris river in both directions. Minute after minute the missiles came in. Many Iraqis had watched as I had television film of those ominous B-52 bombers taking off from Britain only six hours earlier. Like me, they had noted the time, added three hours for Iraqi time in front of London and guessed that, at around 9pm, the terror would begin. The B-52s, almost certainly firing from outside Iraqi airspace, were dead on time.
Police cars drove at speed through the streets, their loudspeakers ordering pedestrians to take shelter or hide under cover of tall buildings. Much good did it do. Crouching next to a block of shops on the opposite side of the river, I narrowly missed the shower of glass that came cascading down from the upper windows as the shock waves slammed into them. -- Robert Fisk from Baghdad.
Shockingly Awful
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said there are clear signs that the regime of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein is "starting to lose control of their country." -- from CNN.
Meanwhile, in America, the country has lost control of the regime of President George W. Bush.
The Toronto Globe and Mail asks: Given the way George W. Bush has handled his 'War on Terror,' should he be elected to a second term as U.S. President? Currently it's NO 71%, YES 29%. Go Vote!
The caption says the soldier is flashing a "victory" sign. I think it is something else.
Other photos available here.
Indonesia demands UN Security Council meeting.
Indonesia, the world's largest Muslim nation, denounced Thursday's U.S.-led attack against Iraq (news - web sites), saying it was illegal and demanding that the U.N. Security Council stop the war.
"The government and people of Indonesia strongly deplore the unilateral action taken by ... the United States and its allies," President Megawati Sukarnoputri told reporters at the state palace following an emergency Cabinet meeting.
"Indonesia deeply regrets that the multilateral process through the UN Security Council has been sidelined," she said. "The use of military force against Iraq ... constitutes an act of aggression which is a contravention of international law."
Gee, what food gets renamed over this? Meanwhile, chief architect of the end of the world Richard Perle has written the UN's obituary. There are insane maniacs everywhere; why are they running this country?
Indonesia, the world's largest Muslim nation, denounced Thursday's U.S.-led attack against Iraq (news - web sites), saying it was illegal and demanding that the U.N. Security Council stop the war.
"The government and people of Indonesia strongly deplore the unilateral action taken by ... the United States and its allies," President Megawati Sukarnoputri told reporters at the state palace following an emergency Cabinet meeting.
"Indonesia deeply regrets that the multilateral process through the UN Security Council has been sidelined," she said. "The use of military force against Iraq ... constitutes an act of aggression which is a contravention of international law."
Gee, what food gets renamed over this? Meanwhile, chief architect of the end of the world Richard Perle has written the UN's obituary. There are insane maniacs everywhere; why are they running this country?
Powell complains about Belgium's war crime laws.
Seven Iraqi families filed a lawsuit Tuesday, March 18, in Belgium against former U.S. president George Bush, incumbent Vice President Dick Cheney, Powell and retired U.S. General Norman Schwarzkop for the bombing of a civilian shelter in Baghdad that killed 403 people on the night of February 12-13, 1991.
...
"We have cautioned our Belgian colleagues that they need to be very careful about this kind of effort, this kind of legislation, because it makes it hard for us to go to places, it puts you at such easy risk," Powell said.
Message to Colin, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc.: If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.
Does this mean we'll be seeing "freedom waffles" on the menu at Denny's?
Seven Iraqi families filed a lawsuit Tuesday, March 18, in Belgium against former U.S. president George Bush, incumbent Vice President Dick Cheney, Powell and retired U.S. General Norman Schwarzkop for the bombing of a civilian shelter in Baghdad that killed 403 people on the night of February 12-13, 1991.
...
"We have cautioned our Belgian colleagues that they need to be very careful about this kind of effort, this kind of legislation, because it makes it hard for us to go to places, it puts you at such easy risk," Powell said.
Message to Colin, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc.: If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.
Does this mean we'll be seeing "freedom waffles" on the menu at Denny's?
It looks like "shock and awe" has begun. I keep hoping I'll wake up from this nightmare. Many innocent Iraqis never will.
I Don't Believe the Corporate Media A Washington Post-ABC poll claims to show that 71% of Americans support the war. It just ain't so! Here in Ann Arbor, I'd say 7.1% would be more accurate. The Post and Disney, two key cogs in the Republican propaganda machine, are trying to make those of us who know this genocidal war is illegal, immoral and unconstitutional feel isolated. Blaming this war on Iraq or the French or anybody besides the Bush administration is pure nonsense. Thinking it's a good thing anyway is pure evil.
Thursday, March 20, 2003
Add one to the "Honorable Few:"
Those Americans who opposed our going to war with Iraq, who wanted the United Nations to remove those weapons without war, need not apologize for giving voice to their conscience, last year, this year or next year. In a country devoted to the freedom of debate and dissent, it is every citizen's patriotic duty to speak out, even as we wish our troops well and pray for their safe return. Congressman Abraham Lincoln did this in criticizing the Mexican War of 1846, as did Senator Robert F. Kennedy in calling the war in Vietnam "unsuitable, immoral and intolerable."
This is not Iraq, where doubters and dissenters are punished or silenced --this is the United States of America. We need to support our young people as they are sent to war by the President, and I have no doubt that American military power will prevail. But to ensure that our post-war policies are constructive and humane, based on enduring principles of peace and justice, concerned Americans should continue to speak out; and I intend to do so. -- Vermont Governor and presidential candidate Howard Dean.
Okay, I'm a big Kucinich fan, but Dean is VERY cool. Plus, governors become president all the time, by hook or by crook (Carter, Reagan, Clinton, Dubya). Members of Congress hardly ever do, at least directly (I think JFK was the last one, and I'm not sure there was another one in the 20th century: Eisenhower was a general, Bush Sr., Ford (although never elected as either veep or prez), Nixon (after 8 years off), Johnson, Truman, Coolidge, Teddy Roosevelt were all vice presidents. I think Harding, Taft and McKinley were governors, while Wilson was an academic. (Sorry, too tired to look all this up.) So somehow we need to make sure the Democratic race narrows down to Dean and Kucinich (deep apologies to Sharpton and Moseley Braun--I just haven't heard anyone suggest that either is remotely electable). Warmongers Lieberman, Gephardt, Kerry and Edwards all need to be washed out with the next flush.
I've heard rumors that Representative John Conyers made a fine speech condemning the war yesterday, which would place him solidly among my "honored few," but I can't find it. He has spoken at many anti-war rallies, including both of the ones I went to in Washington this year. He is also taking a count of people who want Bush impeached: Join in!
Those Americans who opposed our going to war with Iraq, who wanted the United Nations to remove those weapons without war, need not apologize for giving voice to their conscience, last year, this year or next year. In a country devoted to the freedom of debate and dissent, it is every citizen's patriotic duty to speak out, even as we wish our troops well and pray for their safe return. Congressman Abraham Lincoln did this in criticizing the Mexican War of 1846, as did Senator Robert F. Kennedy in calling the war in Vietnam "unsuitable, immoral and intolerable."
This is not Iraq, where doubters and dissenters are punished or silenced --this is the United States of America. We need to support our young people as they are sent to war by the President, and I have no doubt that American military power will prevail. But to ensure that our post-war policies are constructive and humane, based on enduring principles of peace and justice, concerned Americans should continue to speak out; and I intend to do so. -- Vermont Governor and presidential candidate Howard Dean.
Okay, I'm a big Kucinich fan, but Dean is VERY cool. Plus, governors become president all the time, by hook or by crook (Carter, Reagan, Clinton, Dubya). Members of Congress hardly ever do, at least directly (I think JFK was the last one, and I'm not sure there was another one in the 20th century: Eisenhower was a general, Bush Sr., Ford (although never elected as either veep or prez), Nixon (after 8 years off), Johnson, Truman, Coolidge, Teddy Roosevelt were all vice presidents. I think Harding, Taft and McKinley were governors, while Wilson was an academic. (Sorry, too tired to look all this up.) So somehow we need to make sure the Democratic race narrows down to Dean and Kucinich (deep apologies to Sharpton and Moseley Braun--I just haven't heard anyone suggest that either is remotely electable). Warmongers Lieberman, Gephardt, Kerry and Edwards all need to be washed out with the next flush.
I've heard rumors that Representative John Conyers made a fine speech condemning the war yesterday, which would place him solidly among my "honored few," but I can't find it. He has spoken at many anti-war rallies, including both of the ones I went to in Washington this year. He is also taking a count of people who want Bush impeached: Join in!
Ann Arbor's the best!
Downtown was rocking from before 3 pm until well after 7 with protests. High school students gathered at their schools at 2 and then proceeded downtown for a mass rally at 3: I saw both the beginning and the end (though not the middle) of their rally; I'd guess there were 300 or so students. About six girls stood across the street holding puny pro-war signs; while I question their sanity and humanity, I have to admire that they stood there for a long time in the face of scorn from their classmates who outnumbered them 50 to 1. Must have watched LOTS of FoxNews to be that brainwashed. One girl from Pioneer High School, my alma mater, told me that they weren't allowed to leave the building for the rally until the school day was over. Minus 1000 points for Pioneer. Community High probably had the best representation, being both the most liberal of the high schools and the closest to downtown.
After the high school rally died out around 4:30, I headed for the Diag at the University of Michigan, where maybe 500 students were gathered to protest the war, countered by maybe 20 warons. Campus cops wouldn't let me sell my T-shirts there; minus 200 points for UM. I then headed back to the Federal Building, where the main protest of the day was scheduled to start at 6 pm. I would guess there were at least 1000 people there by the time the marching part started around 6:20. I sold about 18 shirts by wandering through the crowd, seeing many friends that I have made in just the past few months from my anti-war activities. The march was great; the crowd went down Fourth Street to Washington, Washington to Main, Main to Liberty, and back to the Federal Building. We moved very slowly and chanted very loudly. Pro-warons were almost non-existent. When we arrived back at the Federal Building, candles were distributed and the vigil began, with singing and speeches. Thunder, lightning and rain broke the vigil up about 10 minutes early, but I think everyone was energized and reassured by our community in the face of the horror going on in Iraq.
I think it has given me some direction for what to do next. While I would love for the bombing and invading to stop right now, I'm fairly resigned to the fact that that's not going to happen now. While disgusted by seeing imperial terrorism succeed, it seems as though a quick capitulation by the Iraqi regime at this point may spare the people from the full brunt of "shock and awe," and save U.S. forces from casualties as well. We should still protest the war because it is illegal, immoral and unconstitutional, and Bush should be held to account no matter what the outcome. But I think the place where we can contribute most right now is on the home front. The articles I posted yesterday, one by William Rivers Pitt and the other about red alert in New Jersey depressed me a lot, making me question whether I could continue living in this country. (The drivers who are so rude to me when I ride my bike don't help, either--must be from out of town.) But after the rallies here in Ann Arbor, and seeing how many "Peace" yard signs there are all over town, AND not seeing a single stupid car flag ALL DAY, I'm encouraged that I'm living in a pocket of sanity. Compared to many states, Michigan is relatively sane as well, with two Democratic senators and a Democratic governor, and numerous cities besides Ann Arbor which passed anti-war resolutions and/or civil liberties resolutions. So I'm thinking that my efforts should be focused on local and state government and peace communities working together to guarantee our liberties in the face of Patriot Acts, Homeland Security gestapos, and other unconstitutional goings on at the Federal level. With no intent to sound racist, quite the opposite actually, I suggest that states' rights and local rights be stressed: the Feds will not come into Michigan or Ann Arbor and arrest our immigrants, harrass our protesters, or investigate what we're reading. New Mexico recently passed strong civil liberties legislation along these lines. Ann Arbor has something like it; I think pressing for it on a state level is a doable goal, given that there are large numbers of liberals and libertarians in the state. With a strong commitment from the state in place, we could work more confidently in bringing about the many other political changes necessary in the state and especially the country.
So, thanks, Ann Arbor, for giving me hope!
Rep. John Conyers (D-Detroit) is tallying support for impeachment of Bush & Co. Please send him an e-mail: john.conyers@mail.house.gov.
NSC Terror Chief Resigns. Rand Beers didn't explain why he quit, but the Washington Times had this quote:
"Hardly a surprise," said one former intelligence official. "We have sacrificed a war on terror for a war with Iraq. I don't blame Randy at all. This just reflects the widespread thought that the war on terror is being set aside for the war with Iraq at the expense of our military and intel resources and the relationships with our allies."
Remember, the Washington Times is an extreme right-wing newspaper started by Rev. Sun Yung Moon and has been an ardent supporter of the Reagan and both Bush administrations.
"Hardly a surprise," said one former intelligence official. "We have sacrificed a war on terror for a war with Iraq. I don't blame Randy at all. This just reflects the widespread thought that the war on terror is being set aside for the war with Iraq at the expense of our military and intel resources and the relationships with our allies."
Remember, the Washington Times is an extreme right-wing newspaper started by Rev. Sun Yung Moon and has been an ardent supporter of the Reagan and both Bush administrations.
Oh Canada! Natural Resources Minister Herb Dhaliwal on Bush:
I think it's really regrettable and unfortunate that he's made this decision when the whole world is crying out for peace. The world expects someone who's the president of a superpower to be a statesman. I think he's let not only Americans, but the world, down by not being a statesman.
Thanks to Allan in Ottawa for this link and the one below. Allan suggests the FoxNews set will soon be boycotting Canadian bacon and Canada Dry ginger ale. Soon the right-wingers' diets will be restricted to British beef, American cheese, and freedom fries. This should have them all dead within about five years; then we can get our country back.
I think it's really regrettable and unfortunate that he's made this decision when the whole world is crying out for peace. The world expects someone who's the president of a superpower to be a statesman. I think he's let not only Americans, but the world, down by not being a statesman.
Thanks to Allan in Ottawa for this link and the one below. Allan suggests the FoxNews set will soon be boycotting Canadian bacon and Canada Dry ginger ale. Soon the right-wingers' diets will be restricted to British beef, American cheese, and freedom fries. This should have them all dead within about five years; then we can get our country back.
Florida radio station drops Canadian broadcasts. The article features this stupid quote from Jack Spencer, a senior policy analyst at the right-wing Heritage Foundation in Washington:
If Canada doesn't want to support the U.S., that's up to Canada. I would bet anything that most people aren't even aware of Canada's position on this and they would assume that Canada is behind us on this. But at the end of the day, if Canada wants to put its national security in the hands of Guinea, that's up to them.
Frankly, I think Canada would be wise to trust Guinea for its national security, if the only alternative is the U.S. Canada still has lots of natural resources that the U.S. is running out of, especially water, and many Republican senators from bone-dry western states would like nothing better than to steal that water, one way or another. I have to agree with Spencer on one thing: Most Americans aren't aware of Canada's position, probably even on a map. And how are they ever going to find out if Canadian shows get cancelled?
If Canada doesn't want to support the U.S., that's up to Canada. I would bet anything that most people aren't even aware of Canada's position on this and they would assume that Canada is behind us on this. But at the end of the day, if Canada wants to put its national security in the hands of Guinea, that's up to them.
Frankly, I think Canada would be wise to trust Guinea for its national security, if the only alternative is the U.S. Canada still has lots of natural resources that the U.S. is running out of, especially water, and many Republican senators from bone-dry western states would like nothing better than to steal that water, one way or another. I have to agree with Spencer on one thing: Most Americans aren't aware of Canada's position, probably even on a map. And how are they ever going to find out if Canadian shows get cancelled?
Meanwhile, U.S. troops continue to torment another Muslim nation 17 months after a "quick and decisive" victory.
The Honorable Few
This is a sad day for America, the world community, and the people of Iraq. Tonight, I hope and pray for the safe return of our troops and the end to this unjustified war.
President Bush has launched an unprovoked attack against another country. Iraq does not pose an imminent threat to the United States or any of its neighboring nations. Iraq was not responsible for the terrorist attacks of September 11. Tonight, President Bush has commanded U.S. forces to go to war in violation of American traditions of defensive war that have lasted since George Washington. This war is wrong; it violates the Constitution and international law. -- Rep. Dennis Kucinich
This is a needless war. Inspections and engagement were working; they were successfully addressing the question of the potential threat presented by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. The United States is not in imminent danger from Iraq. -- Rep. Barbara Lee
The case this Administration tries to make to justify its fixation with war is tainted by charges of falsified documents and circumstantial evidence. We cannot convince the world of the necessity of this war for one simple reason. This is a war of choice.
...
This Administration has directed all of the anger, fear, and grief which emerged from the ashes of the twin towers and the twisted metal of the Pentagon towards a tangible villain, one we can see and hate and attack. And villain he is. But, he is the wrong villain. And this is the wrong war. -- Sen. Robert Byrd
Wednesday, March 19, 2003
Into the Darkness: William Rivers Pitt. (Warning: seriously depressing.)