Three strikes for corporations--I like it! The LA Times reports that the state of California is likely to pass a "three strikes" bill against corporations. Any corporation convicted of three crimes--consumer fraud, environmental, labor, etc.--would not be allowed to continue to do business in California. (Link from Bob Harris subbing for Tom Tomorrow.)
Wednesday, April 30, 2003
Imagine their disappointment. They already had targets picked out and everything.
Okay, I've read the whole Ashleigh Banfield piece, and it is wonderful. I'd say put her in charge of MSNBC right now, although she is already being verbally attacked by her bosses and others.
This TV show that we just gave you was extraordinarily entertaining, and I really hope that the legacy that it leaves behind is not one that shows war as glorious, because there's nothing more dangerous than a democracy that thinks this is a glorious thing to do.
War is ugly and it's dangerous, and in this world the way we are discussed on the Arab street, it feeds and fuels their hatred and their desire to kill themselves to take out Americans. It's a dangerous thing to propagate.
...
I'm hoping that I will have a future in news in cable, but not the way some cable news operators wrap themselves in the American flag and patriotism and go after a certain target demographic, which is very lucrative. You can already see the effects, you can already see the big hires on other networks, right wing hires to chase after this effect, and you can already see that flag waving in the corners of those cable news stations where they have exciting American music to go along with their war coverage.
This TV show that we just gave you was extraordinarily entertaining, and I really hope that the legacy that it leaves behind is not one that shows war as glorious, because there's nothing more dangerous than a democracy that thinks this is a glorious thing to do.
War is ugly and it's dangerous, and in this world the way we are discussed on the Arab street, it feeds and fuels their hatred and their desire to kill themselves to take out Americans. It's a dangerous thing to propagate.
...
I'm hoping that I will have a future in news in cable, but not the way some cable news operators wrap themselves in the American flag and patriotism and go after a certain target demographic, which is very lucrative. You can already see the effects, you can already see the big hires on other networks, right wing hires to chase after this effect, and you can already see that flag waving in the corners of those cable news stations where they have exciting American music to go along with their war coverage.
Ashleigh Banfield on war coverage--appears to be excellent! (I don't have time to finish reading it now, so I'm posting it partially so I'll be able to find it when I get home.)
Public Service Reminder:
The airwaves do not belong to the broadcasters. They do not belong to the advertisers. The owners of the broadcast airwaves, by law, are the people of the United States. -- Nancy Snow.
The airwaves do not belong to the broadcasters. They do not belong to the advertisers. The owners of the broadcast airwaves, by law, are the people of the United States. -- Nancy Snow.
Doesn't this take you back?
The White House made a number of recess appointments last week as Congress fled for spring break. One was April H. Foley, a "homemaker," according to campaign contribution disclosure documents, from South Salem, N.Y. She was named to the board of directors of the Export-Import Bank. The appointment is good until Congress adjourns next year.
So why a homemaker for this job? Well, "early in her career," the White House announcement says, she was director of business planning for corporate strategy with PepsiCo Inc. and director of strategy for Reader's Digest Association. More recently, she was president of the United Way of Northern Westchester County, N.Y. Not all of it, just the northern part.
Still not locked in on the merits? Did we mention she used to date George W. Bush when both were at Harvard Business School and has remained friends with him? -- Washington Post
Of course, if it were four years ago and it was Bill Clinton's former girlfriend who got the cushy job, it would have been in the lead paragraph of the lead article on the front page of the Washington Post--not the last paragraph on page A21.
The White House made a number of recess appointments last week as Congress fled for spring break. One was April H. Foley, a "homemaker," according to campaign contribution disclosure documents, from South Salem, N.Y. She was named to the board of directors of the Export-Import Bank. The appointment is good until Congress adjourns next year.
So why a homemaker for this job? Well, "early in her career," the White House announcement says, she was director of business planning for corporate strategy with PepsiCo Inc. and director of strategy for Reader's Digest Association. More recently, she was president of the United Way of Northern Westchester County, N.Y. Not all of it, just the northern part.
Still not locked in on the merits? Did we mention she used to date George W. Bush when both were at Harvard Business School and has remained friends with him? -- Washington Post
Of course, if it were four years ago and it was Bill Clinton's former girlfriend who got the cushy job, it would have been in the lead paragraph of the lead article on the front page of the Washington Post--not the last paragraph on page A21.
US Trade Rep. Zoellick pushes for more "free trade." This stuff is evil. Zoellick is evil. The WTO talks in Cancun in September may be my excuse to go back to Mexico. Probably a little warmer protesting than it was in Washington in January or Michigan in February! Just as important, though. The WTO is the front for the economic war being waged by the filthy rich on the dirt poor, and people are dying from it just as much as they are from the shooting wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The two are actually closely tied together, and they both need to be stopped.
Gag me with a spoon!
"We ought to be beating our chests every day. We ought to look in a mirror and get proud and stick out our chests and suck in our bellies and say: 'Damn, we're Americans!'," Jay Garner told reporters, saying that Iraq's oil fields and other infrastructure survived the war almost intact. -- from Reuters .
"We ought to be beating our chests every day. We ought to look in a mirror and get proud and stick out our chests and suck in our bellies and say: 'Damn, we're Americans!'," Jay Garner told reporters, saying that Iraq's oil fields and other infrastructure survived the war almost intact. -- from Reuters .
Police raid on Indian restaurant in New York. Scary stuff. Link from Tom Tomorrow.
You can offend some of the people (like me) all of the time, all of the people some of the time, but eventually, if you're George W. Bush, you may just succeed in offending all of the people all of the time. Andrew Sullivan has been one of the most insistent and (unfortunately) popular "warbloggers," that is bloggers who support W's endless war policies. Andrew, however, is gay, and he lives in Senator Santorum's state of Pennsylvania. So he was deeply offended by Santorum's recent gay-bashing, and especially by Bush's expression of support. You might find his agonizing over the issue very interesting, as well as his followup, in which he says:
I've learned a lot this past week - especially about elite conservative indifference to limited government, if it means offending the religious right. One factual note: I don't consider myself a Republican. Never have. Given what some of the party base represent, I'm relieved not to carry that burden. It may be necessary to support Republicans at times - in the war on terror, for example, we have precious little choice right now. But no-one should ignore the dark thread of big-government intolerance that exists in the G.O.P. It's still there; and it threatens you and me.
He also has an interesting rant about free speech and Bush's aversion to hearing it which is worth reading.
So with Gingrich attacking the Bushies for being too liberal, while Gerald Ford, Mary Cheney and Andrew Sullivan attack them for being too intolerant, the whole right-wing house of cards may yet blow over. Let's hope so.
(Chain of evidence: I found out about Sullivan's rants through the Hamster, which was a random link I clicked from MouseMusing's blogroll.)
I've learned a lot this past week - especially about elite conservative indifference to limited government, if it means offending the religious right. One factual note: I don't consider myself a Republican. Never have. Given what some of the party base represent, I'm relieved not to carry that burden. It may be necessary to support Republicans at times - in the war on terror, for example, we have precious little choice right now. But no-one should ignore the dark thread of big-government intolerance that exists in the G.O.P. It's still there; and it threatens you and me.
He also has an interesting rant about free speech and Bush's aversion to hearing it which is worth reading.
So with Gingrich attacking the Bushies for being too liberal, while Gerald Ford, Mary Cheney and Andrew Sullivan attack them for being too intolerant, the whole right-wing house of cards may yet blow over. Let's hope so.
(Chain of evidence: I found out about Sullivan's rants through the Hamster, which was a random link I clicked from MouseMusing's blogroll.)
So why did Congress authorize Bush to attack Iraq? Let's ask them. From the text of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002, passed (unconstitutionally, IMHO) last October:
Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;
Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;
Whereas Iraq , in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;
Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in `material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations';
Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;
The evidence of the "advanced nuclear weapons" program was shown to be false well before the war started. Neither UN inspectors for four months, nor US troops, in Iraq for over one month now, have found any evidence of chemical or biological weapons. Several Iraqi scientists, supposedly now free from fear of retribution from Saddam's regime, are now in US custody. Still nothing. Congress passed an unconstitutional bill based on lies fed it by the Bush administration, which then used it to violate international law and break treaties (like the UN Charter) which, according to the Constitution, are the highest law of the land. Some 123 US soldiers are dead, some 500 wounded, along with tens of thousands of Iraqi citizens and soldiers (and the killing continues). This is about as "high" as crime gets--IMPEACH BUSH NOW (and Cheney, Rumsfeld and Powell as well).
Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;
Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;
Whereas Iraq , in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;
Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in `material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations';
Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;
The evidence of the "advanced nuclear weapons" program was shown to be false well before the war started. Neither UN inspectors for four months, nor US troops, in Iraq for over one month now, have found any evidence of chemical or biological weapons. Several Iraqi scientists, supposedly now free from fear of retribution from Saddam's regime, are now in US custody. Still nothing. Congress passed an unconstitutional bill based on lies fed it by the Bush administration, which then used it to violate international law and break treaties (like the UN Charter) which, according to the Constitution, are the highest law of the land. Some 123 US soldiers are dead, some 500 wounded, along with tens of thousands of Iraqi citizens and soldiers (and the killing continues). This is about as "high" as crime gets--IMPEACH BUSH NOW (and Cheney, Rumsfeld and Powell as well).
Putin Kicks Bush's Poodle.
From a press conference in Moscow given by Russian President Putin and British PM Tony Blair:
Mr Putin said Russia and its partners "believe until clarity is achieved over whether weapons of mass destruction exist in Iraq, sanctions should be kept in place". Almost mocking Mr Blair, he went on: "Where is Saddam? Where are those arsenals of weapons of mass destruction, if indeed they ever existed? Perhaps Saddam is still hiding somewhere in a bunker underground, sitting on cases of weapons of mass destruction and is preparing to blow the whole thing up and bring down the lives of thousands of Iraqi people."
He added that sanctions could not be lifted since they had been introduced because Iraq had weapons of mass destruction."It is only the security council that is in a position to lift those sanctions, after all they introduced them."
He also derided Mr Blair's talk of a new world order, saying: "If the decision-making process in such a framework is democratic then that is something we could agree with, but if decisions are being made by just one member of the international community and all the others are required to support them that is something we could not find acceptable."
From a press conference in Moscow given by Russian President Putin and British PM Tony Blair:
Mr Putin said Russia and its partners "believe until clarity is achieved over whether weapons of mass destruction exist in Iraq, sanctions should be kept in place". Almost mocking Mr Blair, he went on: "Where is Saddam? Where are those arsenals of weapons of mass destruction, if indeed they ever existed? Perhaps Saddam is still hiding somewhere in a bunker underground, sitting on cases of weapons of mass destruction and is preparing to blow the whole thing up and bring down the lives of thousands of Iraqi people."
He added that sanctions could not be lifted since they had been introduced because Iraq had weapons of mass destruction."It is only the security council that is in a position to lift those sanctions, after all they introduced them."
He also derided Mr Blair's talk of a new world order, saying: "If the decision-making process in such a framework is democratic then that is something we could agree with, but if decisions are being made by just one member of the international community and all the others are required to support them that is something we could not find acceptable."
Tuesday, April 29, 2003
Iraqi Scientist Says U.S. Unlikely to Find Biological Weapons. But of course, he's probably got a Marine Corps "minder," so we have to take what he says with a grain of salt.
Feeling safe yet? Fire shuts down nuclear plant.
U.S. Military Pulls Out of Saudi Arabia -- NY Times
Alternate headlines for this article:
Alternate headlines for this article:
- Not a Minute Longer Than Necessary (based on what then Defense Secretary Dick Cheney told the Saudis in 1990 about how long US troops would be there)
- Shorter Flying Times for US Bombers to Syria and Iran from Iraq than from old Saudi Bases
- The Terrorists Have Won! (US bases in Saudi Arabia were Osama bin Laden's main complaint against the US)
Ad in an e-zine called Escape From America (link thanks to Gloria):
Skiptracing - Ahearn Industries is the world leader in skiptracing and international asset locating. If you are looking to to find some one who escaped, we can find them. If you are looking to escape, we can show you if you did it right. Our service is used by over 3000 investigators world wide. www.ahearn.bz (212) 937-3565 or (416) 352-5503.
Now, if you were looking to escape, would you want help from a company that helps people find someone who has escaped? If so, you probably believe the war in Iraq was about weapons of mass destruction.
Skiptracing - Ahearn Industries is the world leader in skiptracing and international asset locating. If you are looking to to find some one who escaped, we can find them. If you are looking to escape, we can show you if you did it right. Our service is used by over 3000 investigators world wide. www.ahearn.bz (212) 937-3565 or (416) 352-5503.
Now, if you were looking to escape, would you want help from a company that helps people find someone who has escaped? If so, you probably believe the war in Iraq was about weapons of mass destruction.
Sierra Club Election: I tried to exert some influence of the Sierra Club by sending an e-mail to all sixteen candidates for the board of directors last month. I was concerned by the Sierra Club's reluctance last fall to take an anti-war position. I got responses from 12 of the 16 candidates; all 12 said they supported an anti-war position. The Sierra Club has announced the election results. Four of the five winners were among the 12 who said they were anti-war; two of the five were among the five I voted for. Next fight: Let's get some instant runoff voting going in the Sierra Club! With all 16 candidates getting between 10,000 and 28,000 votes, it seems as though some preferential voting would be in order. How are Greens (and greens) going to succeed in getting IRV into our public elections when it isn't being used in supposedly green organizations? I guess it's time for me to write another e-mail!
Lisa English writes a great blog: RuminateThis. She's got plenty of suggestions today for links you should chase down, so I'll just summarize them for you:
- National Call-In Day
- Black-box voting
- Rehumanize--the quilt project
- Reclaim Democracy
- Defeat judicial nominees
Again, see RuminateThis for the details!
There is a school of thought that says that terrorists are insufficiently afraid of the United States, and that they will leave us alone only if we shock and awe them enough. But the terrorists are already terrified. There is no human being on earth who doubts our power. But the more aggressively we use our power to intimidate our foes, the more foes we create and the more we validate terrorism as the only effective weapon of the powerless against the powerful. -- John Brady Kiesling, a career diplomat who quit his job at the US Embassy in Athens because he could not defend the war in Iraq and a foreign policy that he sees as dangerous to America. Read the whole article; it's pretty good.
Hostage Crisis? What hostage crisis?
W apparently learned from his father's presidency that when you invade Iraq, you go all the way. Hopefully, history will show him that the true lesson was, if you want to get re-elected and your name is George Bush, you shouldn't invade Iraq at all.
W appears to have learned a lesson from Jimmy Carter's presidency, which is when Americans are taken hostage, you ignore it (if you want to get re-elected). Well, 21 American oil workers, along with 76 of other nationalities, are currently being held hostage in Nigeria, and have been for eleven days, according to FoxNews.
W apparently learned from his father's presidency that when you invade Iraq, you go all the way. Hopefully, history will show him that the true lesson was, if you want to get re-elected and your name is George Bush, you shouldn't invade Iraq at all.
W appears to have learned a lesson from Jimmy Carter's presidency, which is when Americans are taken hostage, you ignore it (if you want to get re-elected). Well, 21 American oil workers, along with 76 of other nationalities, are currently being held hostage in Nigeria, and have been for eleven days, according to FoxNews.
Fifteen dead, 75 wounded: US Troops fire on Iraqi protesters.
French? Italian? Raspberry Vinaigrette? Or perhaps you'd like the house dressing, a bold-yet-subtle perchlorate? Perchlorate, a chemical used in rocket fuel, has been found in substantial quantities on produce in Northern California supermarkets. The water used to irrigate most of the crops comes from the Colorado River, which according to the article is from five to eight parts per billion perchlorate. The source of the perchlorate is the numerous defense contractors and military bases along the Colorado, as well as other industries.
I'm buying Michigan lettuce from now on (Yes, there is Michigan lettuce, and it's very good! Not much available in the winter, however.).
I'm buying Michigan lettuce from now on (Yes, there is Michigan lettuce, and it's very good! Not much available in the winter, however.).
Monday, April 28, 2003
Molly Ivins rants about Republitron plans to further trash labor rights, including the 40-hour week and paid overtime.
This fits right in with what Senator Stevens (R-AK) said back when the war started:
I would only add one comment, I keep hearing people talk about overtime and getting money to pay for people here who are working so long and working overtime in our cities and in various functions. Those men and women over there are not getting paid overtime. I think it's time we started thinking about volunteering in the United States right here at home – volunteers to help this country come through this period when our men and women are over there. They're volunteers. They're not getting any extra pay for what they're doing. I think we should recognize the concept that every one of us should volunteer more of our time to help our country in this period.
So rather than "support our troops" by paying them for overtime worked (and they'll need it, since veterans benefits are being cut), Stevens suggested that cops and firefighters "volunteer" to fight crime and fires after their 40-hour weeks are done. I'd suggest that Republitrons stop working overtime to screw everybody else--and not get paid until they do!
This fits right in with what Senator Stevens (R-AK) said back when the war started:
I would only add one comment, I keep hearing people talk about overtime and getting money to pay for people here who are working so long and working overtime in our cities and in various functions. Those men and women over there are not getting paid overtime. I think it's time we started thinking about volunteering in the United States right here at home – volunteers to help this country come through this period when our men and women are over there. They're volunteers. They're not getting any extra pay for what they're doing. I think we should recognize the concept that every one of us should volunteer more of our time to help our country in this period.
So rather than "support our troops" by paying them for overtime worked (and they'll need it, since veterans benefits are being cut), Stevens suggested that cops and firefighters "volunteer" to fight crime and fires after their 40-hour weeks are done. I'd suggest that Republitrons stop working overtime to screw everybody else--and not get paid until they do!
A blog called Shock and Awe has a great post about a Marine named Jesus Angel Gonzalez, who was born in Mexico but had lived in southern California since he was seven years old. He was not a US citizen. He opposed the war, but did not desert, unlike his commander-in-chief did during Vietnam. Jesus Angel Gonzalez was killed in Iraq. an excerpt:
How ironic, but not unexpected, that this brave young man without even the ability to vote in his adopted homeland showed more patriotism and loyalty to this country than the coward who is supposedly the leader of the free world.
When a man or woman joins the U.S. military, they are making a commitment to the people of this country -- they are willing to put their lives on the line, to kill and be killed, in order to keep us safe.
As American citizens, we have a sacred responsibility which must be our response to the commitment of our soldiers: We must ensure that they do not give their lives in vain.
The decision to engage in military activity, risking the lives of our troops, is one of the gravest choices a democracy can make. For this reason, the Founders granted that ability to Congress alone, as the representatives of the people.
With this war, we have failed our duties to our troops. -- More.
How ironic, but not unexpected, that this brave young man without even the ability to vote in his adopted homeland showed more patriotism and loyalty to this country than the coward who is supposedly the leader of the free world.
When a man or woman joins the U.S. military, they are making a commitment to the people of this country -- they are willing to put their lives on the line, to kill and be killed, in order to keep us safe.
As American citizens, we have a sacred responsibility which must be our response to the commitment of our soldiers: We must ensure that they do not give their lives in vain.
The decision to engage in military activity, risking the lives of our troops, is one of the gravest choices a democracy can make. For this reason, the Founders granted that ability to Congress alone, as the representatives of the people.
With this war, we have failed our duties to our troops. -- More.
I keep thinking I should update my list of activist web sites and my blogroll, but for now I'll take the easy way out: Mousemusings has an excellent blogroll, and LiberalOasis has an excellent list of links to many types of activist sites. Check them out!
Ari the Liar "answering" reporters questions aboard Air Force One this morning en route to W's meeting with Iraqis in Dearborn, MI:
Q Coverage on the meeting with the Iraqi exiles is closed. Will we get any readout, or why no coverage for us?
MR. FLEISCHER: It is closed. I should advise you that there are many reporters from Arab media outlets who are on this trip, who flew out on the press charter. There are some eight who don't typically travel with the White House press corps, who asked to go. They were accommodated. And we are going to accommodate a couple of them into the meeting. So they will be there for their own reporting purposes.
Q Are there going to be American reporters there?
MR. FLEISCHER: No.
Q Why not allow --
MR. FLEISCHER: Because we cannot open up the whole thing up.
Q Are they pooling for us?
MR. FLEISCHER: They're given an exclusive.
Q We have to object to that, we just have to object to that. You're going to allow Arab reporters in because you want to get that message out, but you're afraid of American reporters?
MR. FLEISCHER: The reason I put it on the record here and told you is so you could go to them and talk to them about it afterwards.
Q That's not good enough. That's not good enough.
Q We can't rely on people that we don't know or that are not part of the regular White House pool to report to the American media on something this sensitive. -- Whitehouse.gov.
Q Coverage on the meeting with the Iraqi exiles is closed. Will we get any readout, or why no coverage for us?
MR. FLEISCHER: It is closed. I should advise you that there are many reporters from Arab media outlets who are on this trip, who flew out on the press charter. There are some eight who don't typically travel with the White House press corps, who asked to go. They were accommodated. And we are going to accommodate a couple of them into the meeting. So they will be there for their own reporting purposes.
Q Are there going to be American reporters there?
MR. FLEISCHER: No.
Q Why not allow --
MR. FLEISCHER: Because we cannot open up the whole thing up.
Q Are they pooling for us?
MR. FLEISCHER: They're given an exclusive.
Q We have to object to that, we just have to object to that. You're going to allow Arab reporters in because you want to get that message out, but you're afraid of American reporters?
MR. FLEISCHER: The reason I put it on the record here and told you is so you could go to them and talk to them about it afterwards.
Q That's not good enough. That's not good enough.
Q We can't rely on people that we don't know or that are not part of the regular White House pool to report to the American media on something this sensitive. -- Whitehouse.gov.
General Franks said the most well-known Iraqi prisoner, Tariq Aziz, the former deputy prime minister, was answering interrogators' questions, but it was too soon to tell if he was being truthful or helpful. -- NY Times.
<Heavy Cynicism>I assume General "Ballpark" Franks would prefer Aziz being helpful to Aziz being truthful. I'm sure the interrogators will help him out with that.< /Heavy Cynicism>
<
This is sad--and I hope it was just the recession:
Kirk Anderson of the St. Paul Pioneer Press has drawn some great political cartoons. Sadly, it appears he has lost his job.
Kirk Anderson of the St. Paul Pioneer Press has drawn some great political cartoons. Sadly, it appears he has lost his job.
Sunday, April 27, 2003
Dangerous viruses looted in Iraq:
As escaped laboratory animals roamed the compound, a new sign was posted in Arabic reading: "Stay away, extremely dangerous. Lab is polluted with viruses."
There have been no reports of illness yet and the greatest danger may be to the looter who took the viruses. In the wrong hands, however, the viruses could be considered a potent weapon. -- ABC
As escaped laboratory animals roamed the compound, a new sign was posted in Arabic reading: "Stay away, extremely dangerous. Lab is polluted with viruses."
There have been no reports of illness yet and the greatest danger may be to the looter who took the viruses. In the wrong hands, however, the viruses could be considered a potent weapon. -- ABC
Bush may not be on the ballot in several states! Alabama, West Virginia, California and the District of Columbia all have filing deadlines prior to the scheduled end of the Republitron convention (Sept. 2, 2004). The Republitrons moved their New York convention date so late so they could link it to the third anniversary of 9/11, the source of all their power. While this would likely only have an impact on the presidential race in West Virginia, with Alabama likely to change their filing date for Bush and likely to vote for him anyway, and California and DC likely to vote against him anyway, it might have a nice effect on congressional and other races by keeping Republitrons from voting a straight party ticket. Many might just go into the booth and write in Bush's name, ignoring the rest of the ballot. I suspect, however, that Bush may move the convention earlier and then officially change the date of 9/11 to 8/28 or something. (Heck, they changed Lincoln's birthday--they can change 9/11!)
Okay, what happened to DailyKos? One of the most popular blogs, DailyKos focuses on Democratic Party politics. Yesterday, I came across two or three posts on other blogs about the WMD issue which said DailyKos had a great article about it. I was unable to get to it at all yesterday, and I can't today. If anyone does get through (http://www.dailykos.com/) please let me know! I think I'll go check Atrios--he probably knows what's happening!
Saturday, April 26, 2003
Another set of US Most Wanted playing cards from Uggabugga. Also, some "American Crusade 2001+" trading cards:
Cogent Provocateur has a long post where he refers to the whole WMD's in Iraq as a "snipe hunt." With plenty of detail, he shows how the whole WMD argument for the war is now officially defunct, even if a few things turn up here or there in the coming days (weeks? years? millenia?). If Iraq had the weapons and programs on the scale that it was claimed to have as an excuse for the war, those weapons and programs would have been discovered already. Excellent reading if you have the time.
Mary from Fort Worth reports that CNN had a short report yesterday that showed the Democratic candidates' faces on playing cards, a rather obvious attempt to connect viewers' minds with the "most wanted" Iraqis.
SARS: Is it really a serious threat to our health, or another weapon being prepared to separate us from our civil liberties? After reading this, I have to wonder. And, as Bob Harris, filling in for Tom Tomorrow, reports, SARS is already being blamed for the crashing economy. Harris points out that SARS is really scary: Heck, it's both severe and acute. If it somehow manages to become critical, and turns into an epidemic instead of a syndrome, it will then get a truly appropriate name: SCARE (Severe Critical Acute Respiratory Epidemic). The worldwide death toll from SARS currently stands at 274, mostly in China. This is about the number of people killed in car accidents in the US on a typical weekend.
Members of the commission "investigating" 9/11 are being denied access to crucial documents by the commission's leaders: Washington Post.
It's what they DO, not what they SAY. Good rant from Seeing the Forest about the Bush lies. Excerpt:
Under the Soviet system, people came to realize that they could not trust government sources of news. They learned to look for what was being done. Under Saddam Iraqis learned to trust what they saw instead of what they heard.
By now the pattern is clear. By now we should all be learning not to waste our time and energy refuting their arguments. That's just getting yourself bogged down in the fog and smoke. That's just looking "over there" when they point their finger and shout, "Look over there!" Their "facts" and arguments are just trees. See the forest. The forest is this: they lie. They just lie. They say whatever their polls and focus groups tell them to say. Learn to see only what they do.
Under the Soviet system, people came to realize that they could not trust government sources of news. They learned to look for what was being done. Under Saddam Iraqis learned to trust what they saw instead of what they heard.
By now the pattern is clear. By now we should all be learning not to waste our time and energy refuting their arguments. That's just getting yourself bogged down in the fog and smoke. That's just looking "over there" when they point their finger and shout, "Look over there!" Their "facts" and arguments are just trees. See the forest. The forest is this: they lie. They just lie. They say whatever their polls and focus groups tell them to say. Learn to see only what they do.
This is what democracy looks like? US Forces Make Iraqis Strip and Walk Naked in Public. From the Memory Hole. Thanks to Mary in Fort Worth for the link!
Tell Wolf what you think: "Should the United States consider launching a pre-emptive strike against North Korea?"
Former POW chooses football over Bush. From Atrios.
From Slowpoke. I guess this finally answers the question: "Why did the chicken cross the road?" Answer: Because there was finally a break in the traffic.
Cars, cars go away
Park yourselves and rust away
You've killed millions, aim for more
Made our land one big eyesore
People drive to earn their pay
Which they spend on Chevrolet
Bush and pals grab foreign soil
So you'll have your lifeblood oil
Cars, cars go away
Leave the roads for kids to play!
It's outrage day! In addition to the NY Times editorial that I rant about below, Cyndy at MouseMusings rants about an ABC News report which quotes administration officials saying that the war in Iraq was more about a global show of US power. Let's impeach the shrub now, while there's still a world left in which to impeach him.
What? The NY Times lead editorial today has this amazing paragraph:
This page agreed with the president's conviction that there were world-threatening weapons in Iraq, if not the manner in which the United States went to war. We still tend to believe they are there. Iraq certainly had biological and chemical weapons, and a program to create nuclear ones, at one point. If everything were indeed destroyed, Saddam Hussein put his nation through years of crippling economic boycotts and brought on the ruin of his regime for no good reason. On the other hand, it no longer seems totally inconceivable that the government was so corrupt and out of touch with reality that it was not even capable of operating rationally when its survival was at stake.
(Usual caveat that I'm not defending Saddam, blah blah, but) Don't you think that if all of the so-called WMD's had been destroyed, and the regime was concerned with its survival, that it might have claimed that it had no WMD's anymore? Maybe it would have invited the US Congress to come inspect for themselves, bringing as many experts along with them as they wanted. Doesn't it seem likely that, even though previous inspection teams included spies who were more interested in Saddam's whereabouts than they were in WMD's, that Saddam would nevertheless permit UN inspectors to return to his country, with free access to any site they chose? And if the inspectors found things they thought were technically in violation, like El Samoud missiles, that Iraq might agree to destroy them, even if they did not agree that they were in violation?
Well, Iraq did all of those things. What seems totally inconceivable at this point is that there was anything at all that Saddam could have done, even including live self-immolation on CNN, that would have stopped the US-led invasion of Iraq. There were two brutal regimes involved here--Saddam's and Bush's. Of the two, Saddam's acted more rationally. As has been reported, Bush said back in March 2002 "F*** Saddam. We're taking him out." None of the "debates" in Congress or in the UN, nor anything that Saddam did or might have done, was apparently going to affect that in the slightest. And in the finest American tradition of blaming the victim, the Times says that Iraq's "government was so corrupt and out of touch with reality that it was not even capable of operating rationally when its survival was at stake." He "brought on the ruin of his regime for no good reason?" Because he said didn't have WMD's when maybe he really didn't? What has to be clear (and I'm sure it is) to leaders all over the world--from Assad in Syria to Kim in N. Korea to Castro in Cuba to Chirac in France--is that once Bush decides to target a country, there is nothing (like evidence or truth or actions to deal with his alleged reasons) that is going to stop him. Furthermore, it is clear that our embedded media will support him, no matter what.
This page agreed with the president's conviction that there were world-threatening weapons in Iraq, if not the manner in which the United States went to war. We still tend to believe they are there. Iraq certainly had biological and chemical weapons, and a program to create nuclear ones, at one point. If everything were indeed destroyed, Saddam Hussein put his nation through years of crippling economic boycotts and brought on the ruin of his regime for no good reason. On the other hand, it no longer seems totally inconceivable that the government was so corrupt and out of touch with reality that it was not even capable of operating rationally when its survival was at stake.
(Usual caveat that I'm not defending Saddam, blah blah, but) Don't you think that if all of the so-called WMD's had been destroyed, and the regime was concerned with its survival, that it might have claimed that it had no WMD's anymore? Maybe it would have invited the US Congress to come inspect for themselves, bringing as many experts along with them as they wanted. Doesn't it seem likely that, even though previous inspection teams included spies who were more interested in Saddam's whereabouts than they were in WMD's, that Saddam would nevertheless permit UN inspectors to return to his country, with free access to any site they chose? And if the inspectors found things they thought were technically in violation, like El Samoud missiles, that Iraq might agree to destroy them, even if they did not agree that they were in violation?
Well, Iraq did all of those things. What seems totally inconceivable at this point is that there was anything at all that Saddam could have done, even including live self-immolation on CNN, that would have stopped the US-led invasion of Iraq. There were two brutal regimes involved here--Saddam's and Bush's. Of the two, Saddam's acted more rationally. As has been reported, Bush said back in March 2002 "F*** Saddam. We're taking him out." None of the "debates" in Congress or in the UN, nor anything that Saddam did or might have done, was apparently going to affect that in the slightest. And in the finest American tradition of blaming the victim, the Times says that Iraq's "government was so corrupt and out of touch with reality that it was not even capable of operating rationally when its survival was at stake." He "brought on the ruin of his regime for no good reason?" Because he said didn't have WMD's when maybe he really didn't? What has to be clear (and I'm sure it is) to leaders all over the world--from Assad in Syria to Kim in N. Korea to Castro in Cuba to Chirac in France--is that once Bush decides to target a country, there is nothing (like evidence or truth or actions to deal with his alleged reasons) that is going to stop him. Furthermore, it is clear that our embedded media will support him, no matter what.
Friday, April 25, 2003
Update: Cyndy at MouseMusings found that someone HAS already developed US most-wanted playing cards!
Mark that red state blue!
Unless Alabama's election law is changed, President Bush could be left off the state's presidential election ballot in 2004.
The problem is that the Republican National Convention is being held later than usual to avoid conflict with the Olympics and the GOP won't choose a candidate until Sept. 2 - two days after Alabama's Aug. 31 deadline to certify presidential candidates.
Republicans are asking the Democrat-controlled Legislature to change the law and extend the deadline until Sept. 5. That bill is on the work agenda in the House for Thursday, but some Republicans say they are concerned the bill has been placed behind several controversial issues and may not come up for consideration.
"I don't think the people know that if this doesn't pass, they won't get to vote for President Bush," said Rep. Mike Hubbard, R-Auburn. He said if the bill doesn't pass, Bush could be forced to run as a write-in in Alabama. -- from the Northwest Alabama TimesDaily. Thanks to Lean Left for the link. (Actually, the main reason the Republitrons are having their convention so late is to capitalize on the third anniversary of 9/11. Hopefully by then people will start to realize that 9/11 happened on Bush's watch, that he may have been able to prevent it, that he has used it as an excuse for spending billions of dollars to kill thousands of people who had nothing to do with it, and that it was total nonsense to give him any additional mandate or authority based on that tragedy.)
Unless Alabama's election law is changed, President Bush could be left off the state's presidential election ballot in 2004.
The problem is that the Republican National Convention is being held later than usual to avoid conflict with the Olympics and the GOP won't choose a candidate until Sept. 2 - two days after Alabama's Aug. 31 deadline to certify presidential candidates.
Republicans are asking the Democrat-controlled Legislature to change the law and extend the deadline until Sept. 5. That bill is on the work agenda in the House for Thursday, but some Republicans say they are concerned the bill has been placed behind several controversial issues and may not come up for consideration.
"I don't think the people know that if this doesn't pass, they won't get to vote for President Bush," said Rep. Mike Hubbard, R-Auburn. He said if the bill doesn't pass, Bush could be forced to run as a write-in in Alabama. -- from the Northwest Alabama TimesDaily. Thanks to Lean Left for the link. (Actually, the main reason the Republitrons are having their convention so late is to capitalize on the third anniversary of 9/11. Hopefully by then people will start to realize that 9/11 happened on Bush's watch, that he may have been able to prevent it, that he has used it as an excuse for spending billions of dollars to kill thousands of people who had nothing to do with it, and that it was total nonsense to give him any additional mandate or authority based on that tragedy.)
The Right to Travel by Human Power
Cyclists and pedestrians have a legal right to access every destination reachable by public roads. This means that they deserve safe accommodation on every road and across every intersection. Non-motorized travel must not be prohibited except where controlled-access expressways provide service that is completely redundant to safe and efficient routes for non-motorized users. Accommodation of cyclists and pedestrians must be provided via safe, lawful and courteous behavior by other road users and by appropriate engineering of roadways. -- Lead paragraph from an excellent article by Steven G. Goodridge.
Cyclists and pedestrians have a legal right to access every destination reachable by public roads. This means that they deserve safe accommodation on every road and across every intersection. Non-motorized travel must not be prohibited except where controlled-access expressways provide service that is completely redundant to safe and efficient routes for non-motorized users. Accommodation of cyclists and pedestrians must be provided via safe, lawful and courteous behavior by other road users and by appropriate engineering of roadways. -- Lead paragraph from an excellent article by Steven G. Goodridge.
I am constantly torn between a desire out there on my bike to claim my right to road space (while of course getting where I'm going in a cheap, efficient and healthful way) with a desire to avoid the hassle and take the bus and/or walk. For getting to work, riding the bike is certainly faster and more flexible, competing rather well with driving. But as far as my nerves go, walking to and from bus stops and riding the bus is much more relaxing than either cycling or driving. So many drivers seem completely unaware of the rights of cyclists and are totally unsympathetic to the arguments in that article. My job deals with research on cars and trucks (safety features, mostly), and I own a car and drive it occasionally, but I'm pretty much a car-hater. As I slowly progress toward grumpy-old-manhood I find myself more and more often muttering at the cars going by "Stop Driving!" So many people live and work in places that couldn't possibly survive without automobiles--and that's a crime.
More on WMD's from the Times (UK).
Stacking the deck:
Plenty of places on the web seem to be selling "Official Iraqi" card decks, mostly imitations of the ones issued to US troops for tracking down high-ranking Iraqis. (example) Has anyone come up with a "US Most Wanted" playing card set, or am I going to have to do it myself?
Thursday, April 24, 2003
Some choice excerpts from the Moron-in-Chief's speech in Ohio today:
We've been through some tough times here in America. We've had a recession. And then we had an enemy attack us -- then we attacked back. (Applause.) There's been the uncertainty, uncertainty of war hanging over our heads. Then we had some of our corporate citizens forget what it means to be a responsible citizen. And they didn't tell the truth to employees and shareholders. We had to deal with the corporate scandals that rocked the confidence of America.
...
I want to thank you for bringing your families. I thank you for showing your families what you have done to help make history, to help make the world more peaceful. You tell your children when they see the images of war on their TV sets that we take the action we take, and you build the products you build, because we believe in peace in America. We understand we have an obligation to keep our nation secure. You build the weapons you build here because we love freedom in this country. (Applause.)
...
In Iraq, we are defending this nation's security. After the attacks of September the 11th, 2001, we will not allow grave threats to go unopposed. (Applause.) We are now working to locate and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. (Applause.)
Iraqis with firsthand knowledge of these programs, including several top officials who have come forward recently -- some voluntarily -- (laughter) -- others not -- (laughter) -- are beginning to cooperate, are beginning to let us know what the facts were on the ground. And that's important because the regime of Saddam Hussein spent years hiding and disguising his weapons. He tried to fool the United Nations, and did for 12 years, by hiding these weapons. (Applause.) And so, it's going to take time to find them. But we know he had them. And whether he destroyed them, moved them, or hid them, we're going to find out the truth. And one thing is for certain: Saddam Hussein no longer threatens America with weapons of mass destruction. (Applause.)
We've been through some tough times here in America. We've had a recession. And then we had an enemy attack us -- then we attacked back. (Applause.) There's been the uncertainty, uncertainty of war hanging over our heads. Then we had some of our corporate citizens forget what it means to be a responsible citizen. And they didn't tell the truth to employees and shareholders. We had to deal with the corporate scandals that rocked the confidence of America.
...
I want to thank you for bringing your families. I thank you for showing your families what you have done to help make history, to help make the world more peaceful. You tell your children when they see the images of war on their TV sets that we take the action we take, and you build the products you build, because we believe in peace in America. We understand we have an obligation to keep our nation secure. You build the weapons you build here because we love freedom in this country. (Applause.)
...
In Iraq, we are defending this nation's security. After the attacks of September the 11th, 2001, we will not allow grave threats to go unopposed. (Applause.) We are now working to locate and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. (Applause.)
Iraqis with firsthand knowledge of these programs, including several top officials who have come forward recently -- some voluntarily -- (laughter) -- others not -- (laughter) -- are beginning to cooperate, are beginning to let us know what the facts were on the ground. And that's important because the regime of Saddam Hussein spent years hiding and disguising his weapons. He tried to fool the United Nations, and did for 12 years, by hiding these weapons. (Applause.) And so, it's going to take time to find them. But we know he had them. And whether he destroyed them, moved them, or hid them, we're going to find out the truth. And one thing is for certain: Saddam Hussein no longer threatens America with weapons of mass destruction. (Applause.)
I guess it's up to the bloggers--again! Many reporters attended Strom Thurmond's birthday party where Trent Lott made his infamous gaff, but it was ignored in almost all reports until bloggers made it an issue two days later. Well, I just checked out the Washington Post, NY Times, and CNN articles, and none of them even mention Bush's statement that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction may not exist. They do all indicate that he considers $350 billion to be "little bitty."
I posted my previous rant ("Bush admits..."; read it first if you haven't already) on our local e-mail list. I got a quick response from Eric, who pointed out: Bob ... actually in his state of the union address he said repeatedly things like "he has given no evidence of destroying them" rather than "he has not destroyed them." Wanting, at least usually, to be as accurate as possible, I did a little research and responded to Eric as follows:
You're basically correct about the state of the union address, although he did say that the line that he repeated many times later: "If Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm, we will lead a coalition to disarm him." While from a technically logical point of view this doesn't preclude attacking anyway, it clearly suggests that possession of weapons will be THE reason for attacking. But back in October, Bush gave a speech in Cincinnati where he said that Iraq posesses chemical and biological weapons:
Eleven years ago, as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi regime was required to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, to cease all development of such weapons, and to stop all support for terrorist groups. The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations. It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons.
And in his address the night the war began he said:
The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder.
I'm pretty sure there have been other quotes from Bush, Rumsfeld, Powell, Fleischer and others along the lines of "He's got them. We know he's got them." Hopefully there will be a few in the media ready to quote these if Bush tries to use his qualifiers from the state of the union address to cover his butt. And as far as the supposed lack of documentation regarding the destruction of weapons, I think there are several responses, both flippant and accurate:
"Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence." (What Rummy said about WMD's)
The documents may well have been destroyed in any of the numerous bombings over the past 12 years, or in the recent looting of most government ministries in Baghdad.
If you were destroying something you weren't supposed to have, and had said you didn't have, would you document it?
Finally, I guess I'd say that W's speechwriters clearly made an attempt at a pre-emptive butt-covering. Any attempt to use it now should immediately be jumped on with these question: "Why? Were you not sure of your own information, or did you actually know that it was false? One-hundred twenty-three US soldiers are dead because you took us to war on pretexts that you knew were false?"
So, at least in my liberal, logical mind, we've got him, in his own words. Unfortunately, he's got the media and Tom DeLay and millions of warons, and he's the type of person who always believes he's right, no matter how irrefutable the proof to the contrary may be.
You're basically correct about the state of the union address, although he did say that the line that he repeated many times later: "If Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm, we will lead a coalition to disarm him." While from a technically logical point of view this doesn't preclude attacking anyway, it clearly suggests that possession of weapons will be THE reason for attacking. But back in October, Bush gave a speech in Cincinnati where he said that Iraq posesses chemical and biological weapons:
Eleven years ago, as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi regime was required to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, to cease all development of such weapons, and to stop all support for terrorist groups. The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations. It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons.
And in his address the night the war began he said:
The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder.
I'm pretty sure there have been other quotes from Bush, Rumsfeld, Powell, Fleischer and others along the lines of "He's got them. We know he's got them." Hopefully there will be a few in the media ready to quote these if Bush tries to use his qualifiers from the state of the union address to cover his butt. And as far as the supposed lack of documentation regarding the destruction of weapons, I think there are several responses, both flippant and accurate:
"Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence." (What Rummy said about WMD's)
The documents may well have been destroyed in any of the numerous bombings over the past 12 years, or in the recent looting of most government ministries in Baghdad.
If you were destroying something you weren't supposed to have, and had said you didn't have, would you document it?
Finally, I guess I'd say that W's speechwriters clearly made an attempt at a pre-emptive butt-covering. Any attempt to use it now should immediately be jumped on with these question: "Why? Were you not sure of your own information, or did you actually know that it was false? One-hundred twenty-three US soldiers are dead because you took us to war on pretexts that you knew were false?"
So, at least in my liberal, logical mind, we've got him, in his own words. Unfortunately, he's got the media and Tom DeLay and millions of warons, and he's the type of person who always believes he's right, no matter how irrefutable the proof to the contrary may be.
Bush admits there may not have been any WMD's!
So what was the war about, George? Are you going to say that inspections weren't going to work because, well, there was nothing to find?
"It's going to take time to find them," Bush said of Iraq's alleged chemical and biological weapons as well as a nuclear weapons program Washington insisted Saddam Hussein was pursuing.
"But we know he had them, and whether he destroyed them, moved them or hid them, we're going to find out the truth. And one thing is for certain, Saddam Hussein no longer threatens America with weapons of mass destruction."
It was the first time Bush has raised the possibility that the alleged weapons were destroyed before the war and might not be found. -- from Reuters.
This should be THE biggest story of the year--Bush undercuts his own excuse for the war.
Thousands of Iraqis have been reduced to poverty, raped and murdered by rampaging goons as U.S. Marines stood around and watched. Wanna guess how long it will take them to "get over it"? We watched the plunder of museums in Mosul and Baghdad safe at home with our tisk-tisk dismay, but Iraqis will remain outraged by the wanton devastation we wrought through war, permitted through negligence and shrugged off through arrogance. ("We didn't allow it," Rumsfeld shrugged. "It happened.") Imagine foreign troops sitting idly, laughing as hooligans trashed the Smithsonian, stole the gold from Fort Knox and burned down the Department of the Interior.
That was us in Iraq. -- Ted Rall
That was us in Iraq. -- Ted Rall
Très idiot
A Bush advisor said that Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry "looks French." Touché! Can we please give the country back to the grownups now?
A Bush advisor said that Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry "looks French." Touché! Can we please give the country back to the grownups now?
"There is no supremacy of life or physical integrity over economic interests," according to a court order in Argentina. Apparently, factory owners had shut down factories. Workers reopened them and ran the factories themselves, doing better than under the previous management. The former owners decide they want to take the factories back, so they get the court order and heavily-armed cops to do it for them. (From the WSWS)
At this point, though, we can only hope it will all turn out for the best, and that a retired U.S. general will figure out how to use the country's natural resources to end poverty, build excellent schools and provide crime-free streets and an electoral system where positions of power don't go to the highest bidder. Then he can come back and apply this genius at home, where we've got plenty of unwelcome violence, poverty and on-the-take politicians.
However, in the unlikely case this fantasy comes true, albeit at an untold price in money, lives and human suffering, it should be remembered that this was not the justification for war given to the American people.
And, in a more sober mood, one must still ask the embarrassing yet essential question: Did our president knowingly deceive us in his rush to war?
If he did, and we are truly concerned about our own democracy, we would have to acknowledge that such an egregious abuse of power rises to the status of an impeachable offense. -- Robert Scheer.
However, in the unlikely case this fantasy comes true, albeit at an untold price in money, lives and human suffering, it should be remembered that this was not the justification for war given to the American people.
And, in a more sober mood, one must still ask the embarrassing yet essential question: Did our president knowingly deceive us in his rush to war?
If he did, and we are truly concerned about our own democracy, we would have to acknowledge that such an egregious abuse of power rises to the status of an impeachable offense. -- Robert Scheer.
Let's you and him fight:
A senior White House official, asserted today that Mr. Gingrich's criticism "was seen at the White House as an attack on the president, not an attack on Powell." There was widespread anger at the White House, the official said, but he declined to characterize the reaction of Mr. Bush himself. -- NY Times. Maybe he'll declare Gingrich an "enemy combatant" and send him off to Guantanamo Bay. Certainly no 15-year-old or 85-year-old "Taliban" ever did as much damage to this country as Gingrich. Let's hope that this is the start of lots of infighting among the neo-conmen which ultimately leads to their demise.
A senior White House official, asserted today that Mr. Gingrich's criticism "was seen at the White House as an attack on the president, not an attack on Powell." There was widespread anger at the White House, the official said, but he declined to characterize the reaction of Mr. Bush himself. -- NY Times. Maybe he'll declare Gingrich an "enemy combatant" and send him off to Guantanamo Bay. Certainly no 15-year-old or 85-year-old "Taliban" ever did as much damage to this country as Gingrich. Let's hope that this is the start of lots of infighting among the neo-conmen which ultimately leads to their demise.
Flag-o-Rama! Patriotic items for fanatical flagwavers.
(Hint: From what I can tell, the tire is satire, while the B-52 bombing Iraqi Freedom with America is an item actually for sale out there.)
Wednesday, April 23, 2003
Pretty good article on Dennis Kucinch in the NY Times today. That's Kucinich, Democratic Congressman from Ohio, running for president! Click on the banner at the top of the right frame to learn more about Kucinich and to contribute to or volunteer for his campaign.
Free Air Time Campaign: One of the things we need to support to get our country back.
Powell says there will be consequences for France's opposition to the war on Iraq. I'd suggest a huge "Merci" along with a "Nous sommes désolés." (We're sorry.) The administration seems to think that it is time to end the sanctions against Iraq. The sanctions were supposedly in place because the people ruling Iraq had used (apparently true, even supposedly on "their own people") and were thought to still possess (apparently false) so-called weapons of mass destruction. The current de facto rulers of Iraq are from a country which not only undoubtedly possesses huge quantities of WMD's, but has expressed a willingness to use nuclear weapons, by far the worst of the WMD's, against countries that don't have them. That country is the only one ever to have used nuclear weapons against people. That country has used chemical weapons, even "against its own people" (ask the thousands of Vietnam vets sickened by Agent Orange), and continues to use chemical weapons in the "war on drugs" in Colombia and "dirty bombs" made of depleted uranium in Afghanistan and Iraq. As US military bases are established in Iraq, it seems quite possible that there will be far more WMD's in Iraq in six months than there are now. It seems that if sanctions really worked against the proliferation of WMD's, now would be the time to tighten them, not remove them. (I'm not advocating continuing sanctions, just saying that there may be more justification for them now than there was three months ago.)
Edward Said on the war:
Adding to the fraudulence of the weapons that weren't there, the Stalingrads that didn't occur, the formidable artillery defenses that never happened, I wouldn't be surprised if Saddam disappeared suddenly because a deal was made in Moscow to let him out with his family and money in return for the country. The war had gone badly for the US in the south, and Bush couldn't risk more of the same in Baghdad. US National Security adviser Condoleeza Rice appeared in Russia on April 7. Two days later, Baghdad fell on April 9. Draw your own conclusions, but isn't it possible that as a result of discussions with the Republican Guard mentioned by Rumsfeld, Saddam bought himself out in return for abandoning the whole thing to the Americans and their British allies, who could then proclaim a brilliant victory.
Americans have been cheated, Iraqis have suffered impossibly, and Bush looks like the moral equivalent of a cowboy sheriff who has just led his righteous posse to a victorious showdown against an evil enemy. On matters of the gravest importance to millions of people constitutional principles have been violated and the electorate lied to unconscionably. We are the ones who must have our democracy back. Enough of smoke and mirrors and smooth talking hustlers.
(Entire article)
Adding to the fraudulence of the weapons that weren't there, the Stalingrads that didn't occur, the formidable artillery defenses that never happened, I wouldn't be surprised if Saddam disappeared suddenly because a deal was made in Moscow to let him out with his family and money in return for the country. The war had gone badly for the US in the south, and Bush couldn't risk more of the same in Baghdad. US National Security adviser Condoleeza Rice appeared in Russia on April 7. Two days later, Baghdad fell on April 9. Draw your own conclusions, but isn't it possible that as a result of discussions with the Republican Guard mentioned by Rumsfeld, Saddam bought himself out in return for abandoning the whole thing to the Americans and their British allies, who could then proclaim a brilliant victory.
Americans have been cheated, Iraqis have suffered impossibly, and Bush looks like the moral equivalent of a cowboy sheriff who has just led his righteous posse to a victorious showdown against an evil enemy. On matters of the gravest importance to millions of people constitutional principles have been violated and the electorate lied to unconscionably. We are the ones who must have our democracy back. Enough of smoke and mirrors and smooth talking hustlers.
(Entire article)
Kucinich! Kucinich! Kucinich!
Good article on Dennis Kucinich from the Progressive. That's presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich, US Congressman from Cleveland, former mayor of Cleveland, head of the progressive caucus. Kucinich! Kucinich! Kucinich! (Repetitition worked for the bad guys--let's put it to work for a good guy!)
Good article on Dennis Kucinich from the Progressive. That's presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich, US Congressman from Cleveland, former mayor of Cleveland, head of the progressive caucus. Kucinich! Kucinich! Kucinich! (Repetitition worked for the bad guys--let's put it to work for a good guy!)
Proud: Why? A veteran who's a member of our local peace group posted this response to hate mail received by the Vietnam Veterans Against the War:
It really amazes me how tough guys like you can brag about what just happened in Iraq. The US military against Iraq is the equivalent of a High School Senior class beating up a Kindergarten Class. You might call that heroic but I call it cowardice. What we have done and allowed to be done to the people and country of Iraq makes me sick. Anybody that is proud of what we did there has no right to call themselves Christian or even Human. The amount of war crimes committed by the US military has not been seen on this earth since the glory days of the Third Reich. Sayings like "Live Free or Die" and "Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death" may be noble self mantras but to enforce or inflict them on unwilling people is a crime against Humanity of the highest order.
Bill Leary
USAF
Bao Loc, Vn.
1969-1971
It really amazes me how tough guys like you can brag about what just happened in Iraq. The US military against Iraq is the equivalent of a High School Senior class beating up a Kindergarten Class. You might call that heroic but I call it cowardice. What we have done and allowed to be done to the people and country of Iraq makes me sick. Anybody that is proud of what we did there has no right to call themselves Christian or even Human. The amount of war crimes committed by the US military has not been seen on this earth since the glory days of the Third Reich. Sayings like "Live Free or Die" and "Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death" may be noble self mantras but to enforce or inflict them on unwilling people is a crime against Humanity of the highest order.
Bill Leary
USAF
Bao Loc, Vn.
1969-1971
Okay, so they did have WMD's:
While this reporter could not interview the scientist, she was permitted to see him from a distance at the sites where he said that material from the arms program was buried.
Clad in nondescript clothes and a baseball cap, he pointed to several spots in the sand where he said chemical precursors and other weapons material were buried. This reporter also accompanied MET Alpha on the search for him and was permitted to examine a letter written in Arabic that he slipped to American soldiers offering them information about the program and seeking their protection. -- from Judith Miller's "Illicit Arms Kept Till Eve of War, an Iraqi Scientist Is Said to Assert" article in the NY Times on Monday. I basically rejected the article out of hand as nonsense based on the headline, but I didn't realize how ridiculous it was until I read this article from Counterpunch and went back to the Times online and read Miller's article in full. Watching a guy "in nondescript clothes and a baseball cap" point at the sand was her only contact with the so-called scientist.
More from Miller's article:
Under the terms of her accreditation to report on the activities of MET Alpha, this reporter was not permitted to interview the scientist or visit his home. Nor was she permitted to write about the discovery of the scientist for three days, and the copy was then submitted for a check by military officials.
Those officials asked that details of what chemicals were uncovered be deleted. They said they feared that such information could jeopardize the scientist's safety by identifying the part of the weapons program where he worked.
I'd say that Miller, and the Times in general, are so embedded at this point that they will be giving birth to numerous military-fathered offspring next January. That they would run the article at all based on such non-information is appalling. It must recall the "good old days" for Russian veterans of Tass and Pravda.
While this reporter could not interview the scientist, she was permitted to see him from a distance at the sites where he said that material from the arms program was buried.
Clad in nondescript clothes and a baseball cap, he pointed to several spots in the sand where he said chemical precursors and other weapons material were buried. This reporter also accompanied MET Alpha on the search for him and was permitted to examine a letter written in Arabic that he slipped to American soldiers offering them information about the program and seeking their protection. -- from Judith Miller's "Illicit Arms Kept Till Eve of War, an Iraqi Scientist Is Said to Assert" article in the NY Times on Monday. I basically rejected the article out of hand as nonsense based on the headline, but I didn't realize how ridiculous it was until I read this article from Counterpunch and went back to the Times online and read Miller's article in full. Watching a guy "in nondescript clothes and a baseball cap" point at the sand was her only contact with the so-called scientist.
More from Miller's article:
Under the terms of her accreditation to report on the activities of MET Alpha, this reporter was not permitted to interview the scientist or visit his home. Nor was she permitted to write about the discovery of the scientist for three days, and the copy was then submitted for a check by military officials.
Those officials asked that details of what chemicals were uncovered be deleted. They said they feared that such information could jeopardize the scientist's safety by identifying the part of the weapons program where he worked.
I'd say that Miller, and the Times in general, are so embedded at this point that they will be giving birth to numerous military-fathered offspring next January. That they would run the article at all based on such non-information is appalling. It must recall the "good old days" for Russian veterans of Tass and Pravda.
Tuesday, April 22, 2003
I haven't read it yet, but this sounds like a book you and I might want to read: Safe Food: Bacteria, Biotechnology and Bioterrorism, by Marion Nestle. From the review:
"For reasons of history, inertia, turf disputes and just plain greed," she writes, "government oversight of food safety has long tended to provide far more protection to food producers than to the public."
"For reasons of history, inertia, turf disputes and just plain greed," she writes, "government oversight of food safety has long tended to provide far more protection to food producers than to the public."
Israel's WMD facilities, courtesy of MSNBC. A Common Dreams article explores what it might mean that MSNBC, the Microsoft-General Electric network, has the graphic on their web site at all: anti-semitism, intimidation, or (least likely) good journalism?