(Note to literalists: the Watched column presently contains only a smattering of 'warblogs' because the facilitator of the template-change--Dr. Menlo--is not very familiar with them, and will be adding more as they are sent to him. Also, this blog may contain areas of allusion, satire, subtext, context and possibly even a dash of the surreal: wannabe lit-crits beware.)
Control
[Watch this space for: Pentagon and Petroleum, The Media is only as Liberal as the Corporations Who Own Them, Wash Down With, and Recalcify]
WARBLOGGER WATCH
Friday, May 30, 2003
Sullivan's grip on reality - cakking it tenuous would be complimentary - loosens completely. His interpretation of the posting of a photo of Jonah Goldberg's kid on Jonah's mommy's website? A "loud and clear" declaration by Jonah of his heterosexuality.
Non-war-related, I grant you, but totally symptomatic of Sullivania - an insertion of ones pet issues/grievances/prejudices into unrelated issues. And this dullard is just as off-base on geopolitics as he is on a father passing out the proverbial cigars after the birth of a child. posted by Anonymous8:31 AM
• • • • •
Wednesday, May 28, 2003
"Hi, my name's Andy, and I cover scandals at the Times as comprehensively as I cover myself with testostogrease."
The Weapons of Mass Disappearance which threatened us so imminently that we had to wage a war against Saddam Hussein's Iraq are nowhere to be found. Handily, a chap "clad in nondescript clothes and a baseball cap" is then located by New York Times reporter/Pentagon flak Judith Miller. Cap-clad chap is said, via Army intermediaries, to vouch for everything the Bushites have said re: WMDs. No need to worry ourselves about Administration duplicity and the fraudulent sale of a criminal war to the public. Everything is fine.
More than a month passes. A spat erupts at the Times when a bureau chief charges Miller with poaching stories on his turf, namely a piece on the convicted swindler installed by the Bushites as head of post-war Iraq, Ahmad Chalabi. In accounting for her appropriation of the story, Miller makes a stunning disclosure: Chalabi "has provided most of the front page exclusives on WMD to" the Times. So the only person in the world with more to gain from the alleged existence of Saddam's vast stockpile of WMDs than My So-Called President is in fact the source for the most public affirmations of the actual existence of same.
The usual venues for Times-bashing, jam-packed to capacity with spectators to the Jayson Blair lynching and the Rick Bragg incident, are giving this one a by. It hasn't gotten so much as a mention in Andy Land, where Howie's canonical and Howell's worse than Hitler. posted by Anonymous8:01 AM
• • • • •
Sunday, May 25, 2003
The Absurdity Matrix .1
Americans are so deluged with the ridiculous these days that it is impossible to keep up. We were flabbergasted over 2 years ago when our presidential office was wrestled away in a multi-faceted coup and our open jaws have only gotten dull spasms from being open so damn long since.
As Tom Tomorrow denotes, it's all enough to make your head explode.
We all know that in ten years some cute little coffee table book will be made which sifts out all of the most absurd actions of our day and cuts them up into easily manageable reading-bits. I.e.: President-Select who was AWOL stays an aircraft carrier in the ocean for one extra day after committing them to a war based on a lie when they want nothing more than to get home to their families, at a million dollar taxpayer expense, just to fly in in a fuckin' pilot suit with socks stuffed down your pants to get slaphappy with the cuckholded servicemen and all the American media shouts: TOP GUN!
Kurt Nimmo is right, absurdity must have reached it's peak. If we don't slide back into a more empirical attitude toward dealing with the world then the concept of universal balance must be a crock. You want good, solid evidence? You want good, solid facts? I will sell you their meaning for 10 dollars. Exchange for other words which sound better and quicken the blood. Whatever.
This is the title of the article. Note that the title doesn't say: "Moore accused of thwarting facts," which would be a more balanced approach (assuming this attack on Moore's movie is newsworthy in the first place, such as it is). Apparently, the journalist has already made up his mind. 'Moore bowls over some key facts.' Done deal. The rest of the actual article body is superfluous now--case closed; go home.
But we must persist--what was the evidence that this journalist had that gave him such a damning opinion?
Here's one piece of it:
[Moore critic] Hardy strongly disagrees with Moore's assertions about Canada, especially the claim that we can buy as much ammunition as we want at Wal-Mart outlets. He points out something that a Canuck lover like Moore should have known: Canadian law requires all ammo buyers to present proper identification, and non-Canadians must have both picture ID and a gun importation permit.
Now, if we didn't already know anything else about this particular point of dissent, let's look at the two opposing views presented in this paragraph: 1) Moore claims that in Canada, you can buy as much ammo as you want in Wal-Mart. 2) Canadian law requires ammo buyers to present proper ID and a gun importation permit if you're not Canadian.
Now, this is supposed to be evidence refuting a Moore claim? Number 2 doesn't even mention the main point of number one: buying as much ammo as you want. Number 2 just tells you about needing id and maybe a permit--which, at least on the face of this paragraph, is not even linked to the amount of ammo bought. It would seem apparent to a logical reader that as long as you have the right paperwork, you can buy as much ammo as you want in Canada.
Example two:
Hardy makes many other anti-Bowling points, but he misses one that is made elsewhere on the Web: even the title of the movie is inaccurate. According to police, Harris and Klebold didn't go bowling the day of the shootings; they skipped their bowling class because of their rampage. (Moore contests this, saying that at least five witnesses, including their teacher, saw one or both of them at the bowling alley.)
Ok, so let me get this straight: the cops say Harris and Klebold didn't go bowling that day, but Moore says 5 witnesses (including a teacher) say they did. Well, I guess if you've read the headline already you'd know that Moore is already the one with his ethics impugned, so of course the cops are right and Moore is lying--it's not a case of conflicting statements, it's the word of the cops versus an obvious liar, right? Memo to populace: "Cop Word Trumps All. Especially When Dealing With Leftie Freaks."
I mean, this must be the rock solid case positively bursting with deadly and damning evidence for Pete Howell to get up on the roof of his insurpassable moral tower and sadly proclaim:
We do indeed live in "fictitious times," as Moore observed, and it would seem he's part of the problem.
Or perhaps the Toronto Star is going pomo on our ass, deliberately fusing the heretofore uncombinable categories of article and editorial, previously unthinkable to traditional newspapers. Or, perhaps, this whole way of presenting an arguable piece of "news" has something to do with item number two of this newspaper's founding principles:
Social Justice: Atkinson [paper founder] was relentless in pressing for social and economic programs to help those less advantaged and showed particular concern for the least advantaged among us.
Which would explain perfectly why this godawful excuse for a hatchet piece was written in the first place, yes? George Bush stands for helping "those less advantaged among us" and Michael Moore is his diabolical opposite. George W. Bush lies to a nation and the world as an excuse to invade another country already devastated by a decade of sanctions--in the process unhinging the democratic relationship between the US and the majority of the rest of the world (not to mention the thousands of lives lost, sprayed across windshields and dirt)--and yet it's one of Bush's number one critics who is designated to be attacked for his truthfulness on evidence that couldn't convict a common housefly of being low on the evolutionary ladder?
These are absurd times, ladies and gents. And, in the cultural flavor of said times, we suppose that you could even call it this: the Absurdity Matrix.
[next up on the Absurdity Matrix Webwatch: "Hipublicans?"]
Short term: Saddam out of power, but not dead or captured. Casualties over 5,000, with significant tactical victories for Iraqis before their forces are destroyed. Oil fields seriously damaged. Weapons of mass destruction suspected to be smuggled into Western countries for later terrorist use.
Long term: Weakened Ba’athist-style government remains in power, under nominal but ineffectual disarmament agreement (think 1991). Sub rosa support for terrorism. U.S. credibility in region suffers. (Think 1991 again). French troops placed in Iraq to make future military action by the United States difficult.
--Definitions courtesy of Glenn "Instapundit" Reynolds, the only lawyer in the land who just sees one side of the case...
Some months back, Glenn wrote that he would consider casualties over 5000 (scroll down) to be evidence of either a marginal or substantial allied loss in Iraq. I promised that we would hold Glenn to that and over the past several days the Iraq civilian counter's meter went over 5000 dead at the max and 4000 dead at the minimum. I estimated 10000 dead myself and there's a good chance that we'll reach that number within the year. I'm sure it will be helped along by our cluster bomb ordinance, nuclear tipped munitions and our penchant for letting Iraqis loot known sites of nuclear materials. Way to go Glenn. I'm sure your pride in the war could be called, what, "Glowing?"
And yes, I do count the murder of unarmed protesters in the mix. Now, dishonorably enough, Glenn, thinking that the military's no count would save his day, has attacked the numbers at the Iraq counter from day one. Figures. But they all come from mostly non New York Times newspapers so they seem fine to me. I'm sure Glenn will offer some counter numbers. Instead of 1200 dead in Baghdad, Glenn will tell me that it was 1 or 2. That's good. Whatever.
About four seconds after our tanks rolled into Baghdad, Glenn had declared our colonialist efforts as as a victory. (scroll up and look for the phrase "This seems about right to me") This is not unlike Germans who thought they ruled the world after they invaded France. I'm sure Glenn would state the same thing if and when the new Allied Forces invade France. What was most humorous though, before all the bodies and radiation poisoning had been accounted for, were his screeds calling for the left to apologize.
Well, what's good for the Goose...
Glenn, it's about time that you admit that the situation in Iraq has evolved into what you yourself have defined as a marginal and/or substantial loss by Allied forces in Iraq. And you should apologize, preferably in public, your head bowed in shame, your face full of wet mucousy tears. It's time for the pro war side, whose hideous jingoism you ably represent, to admit that the rebuilding of Iraq would be a tough job for people who are competent, not bought off or are wholly owned subsidiaries of the fossil fuel industry, and understand the complexities and mechanics of the Iraqi society...let alone the Bush Administration. It's time for the pro war side to admit that the war has done nothing to disable terrorist groups and in fact has strengthened their recruitment and fundraising, just as Osama had wanted. And finally, it's time for the pro war side to admit that stealing a country's oil in broad daylight is a tough, if not impossible job, and that Iraq would be better served by 100,000 United Nation troops (armed with nonlethals) and headed by a multilateral coalition that's actually interested in creating a real democracy in Iraq and not some puppet regime, as the Iraqi people themselves have called for. By the way, if you're looking for a way to do that then please reread the works of Lani Guinier and take a good long look at the South African constitution, which was inspired by her work. (It's why the white minority hasn't been slaughtered.)
Sincerely,
Philip Shropshire
www.threerivertechreview.com
www.majic12.com
PS: On perhaps an unrelated note, I notice that Glenn mentioned that there's a first SARS case in Tennessee. I noticed in horror how right wing bloggers wanted to blame the Canadian health care system for this problem, as opposed to modern air travel. This was rebutted even by Medpundit, who also writes for the right leaning Tech Central Station and can easily be defined as "not a liberal". If SARS ever comes to the United States and explodes--and we can count on the Bush Administration to lie to us initially until all lies are revealed by no doubt private casualty counts--you might want to thank the fact that many of our people don't have adequate health insurance. I don't go to a doctor or emergency services unless I think prized internal and/or external organs are about to fall off. I still owe a hospital in Evansville $600 bucks for a visit back in 1992. You might want to ask yourself when you're reading your daughter to sleep asleep or giving her your unbiased view of the political scene ("Yes, dear, it's quite all right for the United States to kill as many people as we want for admittedly spurious reasons...you see, those evil Iraqi kids don't bleed when blown up by Cluster bomb munitions and won't suffer because of stolen radioactive loot. Besides, they deserve it...now don't let the bed bugs bite...!") whether your family is safer because your neighbors don't have access to health care and subsequently won't be in a hurry to report their flu like symptoms. You see, it does matter if you don't take care of your neighbor, whether it's in Iraq or across the street.
As people know, I was one of the first to call this government "fascist", long before the Germans for example. Now, of course, a person that would call the Bush Administration "fascist" could be accused of being redundant or even obvious. However, there's a nice list of 14 rules that outline the fascist condition. I've linked to some of our favorite war pundits for background illumination. I've picked the first three. Other folks can look at 4 through 14 and link to the usual suspects. I think I just need Pejman and Glenn, and a special appearance by Dr. Weevil...(I'll be adding more links when I have the time. My goal is to put a link on every word...) Actually, Little Green Footballs makes this just way to easy. And you know what's sad? I'm a huge jazz rock fan and I've probably seen and heard Charles play, on "School Days" no less...Sad.
1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.
2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.
3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.
I'm starting a new feature here at Warblogger Watch. I'm calling it Celebrity Warblogger Watch, where we pick the best anti-war criticism from the net and share it with the world. First up, Max Sawicky, who I've found to be must reading these days:
"IMPEACH BUSH. [YAWN] The fraud underlying the war seems to get more obvious every day. This past weekend we had reports in the Post and elsewhere that the WMD search team was being rotated home, finding nothing, and that U.S. troops were ordered to march on to Baghdad, rather than guard a raft of nuclear sites that subsequently were looted. The evidence on Saddamist links to terrorism is equally thin. If Iraq was no threat to the U.S., why the invasion? To liberate their people? O.K. Who are we going to invade this week? There's a lot more work to do. How about Uzbekistan. There's a sucky government for you. I hereby condemn the wimpy, blame-America-First, anti-internationalist soft-on-Uzbekistan party. The people of Uzbekistan cry out for liberation. Where are you, how can you live with yourself. Sheesh.
Then there's the de-Ba'athification campaign. We learn it was completed the other day. Ba'ath Party members were compelled to sign a statement affirming their renunciation of the party. Then they could be put back to staffing the lower administrative echelons of the pre-owned Iraqi state. Once the game of 52-pickup is over, the old gang can get back to work under the American viceroy-du-jour. It's as if George Steinbrunner is in charge.
So all things considered, the case for impeachment against G. Bush seems to have a pile of evidence considerably higher than Clinton's erection. The difference I suppose is that nobody is putting up ten million dollars to pay a bunch of monkeys to push daily demands for Bush's head."
News flash for you Donny: It would have been a lot less untidy if you had put as much effort into planning for the aftermath of the invasion as you did into the invasion itself. You could have sent over enough soldiers to be able to stomp down on the looting as soon as it started. If order had been established initially it would have been much easier to maintain it. Anyone familiar with the "Broken Windows" theory of policing could explain it to you. Go ask James Q. Wilson what you are doing wrong.
The excuse that the war has been over for such a short period of time misses the point: Just as the US is able to prosecute wars much more quickly it also ought to be able to restore order very quickly. But to restore order requires more boots on the ground than a war does and Rumsfeld did not want to send over that many troops. The problem is that the Bush Administration did not want to commit a large ground force for peacekeeping. When Army Chief of Staff Gen. Eric K. Shinseki told Congress a larger peacekeeping force would be needed Rumsfeld slapped down Shinseki for suggesting such an idea.And he adds this:
Had it been done right with a larger ground force then once order had been established and a new police force was developed the larger ground force could have been scaled back. There would not have been this period of such lawlessness. But the Bush Administration chose a force size that is allowing the criminals to prey on the innocent in Iraq.
"Analysis: This has to stop, and fast. Letting the Iraqis loot their National Museum and other buildings was bad; this is much worse. It's a safe bet that nascent pockets of organized crime have begun to form in Iraq, in the absence of any public force to maintain law and order. Organized crime elements will focus first on establishing order themselves -- by means of violence and extortion -- then they will start to fight one another for turf and control over various criminal syndicates. If the United States does not stop this crime with brute force and establish order, we will almost surely have to contend with larger, more complex, more organized crime problems in the future.
This is not the time to redeploy forces from Baghdad (as we're currently doing), nor is it the time to let the Iraqis try to police themselves. We must establish order with a firm hand, first, before disorder and chaos become the norm. Once people feel secure in their homes, and trust the U.S.-Iraqi authority to maintain the peace, then we can cede authority to the newly reconstituted Iraqi police. It's clear that the Iraqi police force is incapable (for now) of doing this job. American soldiers may not be police, and they may not be perfectly trained for this job. But they can certainly establish security by force and stop this criminal activity for as long as it takes to get the Iraqi civilian police up and running.
posted by Phillip at 3:10 PM"
Now, here's something that both Phil Carter and Mr. Parker haven't caught on to yet: The current American government doesn't give a fuck about the Iraqi people. It's all about the oil. In fact, as Ted Rall put it, they would like a number of spread out fiefdoms and Bantustans across Iraq. It makes it easier to control the oil. Remember: the main purpose of the war, hinted at by Glenn and his Four Riders Crew, is that force works and is in fact good. And the ruins of Afghanistan and Iraq will be the stark warning to all those who dare to defy the Empire...
"This region was the first to get schools back up and running, to have guarded fuel stations and about 24 hours from now to stand up an interim government," US military spokeswoman Major Charmaine Means said of Mosul three days back, as the city, Iraq's third largest, was preparing to hold "liberated" Iraq's first election.
Indeed, as they say. By all accounts, Major Means and her colleagues were presiding over an ethnically diverse town mustering heroic feats of reconstruction. Even The Australian, which has run some truly regrettable material in its day, allowed that the "Melting pot city" was "a model of stability."
So how do unelected Resident Bush's feel-good forces further this expanding freedom? By taking it away of course. The Wall Street Journal reports this morning that higher-ups in the Army, steamed that Mosul's only television station continued to show feeds from al-Jazeera, ordered troops on the ground to seize the station. Rightfully objecting that placing armed troops in the station "would intimidate the station's Arab employees into airing only programming produced by, or acceptable to, the American military," something somewhat out of consonance with the Western-style freedom of the press we promised to deliver, the above Major Means refused the order. She was cashiered on the spot.
Another instance of the crushing of dissent? Nah, I'm sure Herr Professor Doktor Reynolds will confect a justification for this disgraceful episode. posted by Anonymous6:12 AM
• • • • •
Wednesday, May 07, 2003
A Tip o' the Hat to noted Ted Rall groupie/fawning sycophant Jim Treacher
This is edition 45 of the very popular WBW series: accidental and/or ironic political commentary from comics.
JLA #83
Written by Joe Kelly; art by ChrisCross and Tom Nguyen; cover by Doug Mahnke and Nguyen
In stores July 30. President Luthor has Qurac on his hit list, and heaven help any hero who stands in the way! Now Superman finds himself in a living nightmare as his fellow Leaguers fall one by one to Lex's executive order: support the war or be "neutralized!"
Hmmm...sounds like an oddly familiar script. Gosh, well let me play the ever so ineffectual pro-war warblogger (Any war apparently. Syria. Iran. Afghanistan...have war, will travel.).
Why do you hate America Dave Appell? Whyyyyyyy moaned the reactionary and dull simulacrum of a drear Pro Bush administration droid with blood...
I'm just kidding of course. I'm actually jealous of a lot of things the Iraqis will get. Sure would like that universal healthcare and a commitment away from fundamentalism in our public sectors. Yep. Sure would be nice.
Philip Shropshire
www.threerivertechreview.com
www.majic12.com
PS: What's your take on the Discover Story about the Miracle Waste converter that can end our energy problems. I think its cool but I'm not a scientist. Steven Den Beste, who is a scientist, thinks its poppycock, but he is an ideologue. What's your take? Remember: there is a working prototype. It's so unlike my cold fusion powered time machine as I mentioned at one of my sites...
Steelydan said @ 04/25/2003 03:24 PM EST
Actually in many cases, the American public does own it. In fact, the government has regular auctions where leases for oil rights are sold. (Do a google for "oil lease auctions.") A minor detail, but mineral rights do not automatically belong to the person who owns the land above it. I don't know the exact percentage, but I believe most people don't own the mineral rights below their land. Which frequently comes as a surprise to the land owners when some company wants drill for the oil beneath the land. The owners have to provide access.
In any case, Bush's statement was more about convincing the world that the US wasn't going to steal Iraqi oil. As I understand it, significant portions of Iraqi oil fields are already under lease to French and Russian oil companies. Since the US claims that these leases were made under ruinous terms for the Iraqi people, I expect that these leases will be cancelled by the new Iraqi government.
Dean said @ 04/25/2003 03:53 PM EST
Welp, when Bush says it--and I'm sure that you're cognizant that Bush is a lying sack of manure, in my oh so humble objective opinion--he makes it sound like more than the Iraqi people own their oil in some theoretical land lease sense, but more in The Iraqi people just went out and bought 22 million time share condos on the Riviera kind of sense. By the way, that's the way I'd like to own my American oil, enough so that my rent is paid for life. That would be different than my current American reality where corporate monopolists pay bribery money to my elected officials so that they can legally rape me. But that's just me. I have been known to hate America, especially when the policies of my country are transparently vile and evil and have that ominous Doc Doom flavor to them.
But I like what you're saying as a potential GOP talking point, no doubt to be echoed spontaneously on many a Clear Channel radio station. (See today's Prospect blog.) We tell the world it's their oil and then we procedurely take it away from them so that they don't get a cent, unless it's heavily leveraged by some IMF top down loan sharking like agreement...And after that's done, the Iraqi people will own their own oil, much in the way that I benefit from Texas crude, which is to say very very little at all...
Steelydan said @ 04/25/2003 04:19 PM EST
My, my Steely Dan. I must have hit a sore spot. David, remember how you recently mentioned the outright hostility of the blog world. I think this is a perfect example of the problem. Let's not have rationale discourse, its far better to fling insults.
Steely Dan if you would like to actually discuss the issue. We can try. But before we do (and before you fling insults), maybe you would like to actually learn my opinion of Bush. Did I vote him? No. Do I think he is a good president? No. Do I think his domestic policy sucks? Yes. And the left wonders how they alienate so many people.
Dean said @ 04/25/2003 05:33 PM EST
Did you support the war? I think that's the important question. Do you think that we're going to create anything that looks like democracy in your alleged "iraqi government"? I mean, hey, I'll play along. Feel free to discourse rationally. You haven't done it so far. By the way, I actually like the free for all style of net debate. I feel that I actually learn something when people aren't being nice to each other...But in the spirit of your Oxford debating style lineage, please tell me how the Bush regime is helping the Iraqi people or why it simply isn't, as Kofi Annan accurately called it, an occupation?
Steelydan said @ 04/25/2003 06:50 PM EST
Did I support the war?...
In Iraq, I felt that we had basically three options:
1) Go to war and people die.
2) Continue the sanctions and inspections, and according to the UN and other groups, thousands of children would continue to die from the lack medical supplies and food. Plus those who die from Saddam's torture chambers. So people die.
3) Say we've done all we can, and end the sanctions and inspections. Based on Saddam's history in Kuwait and Iran and against the Kurds and Shiites, people will die.
So anyway you looked at it, people would die. The question was how could we minimize the death and suffering. I voted for war. Based on the reactions of the Iraqis, I voted right.
Yes, I know about the relatively small demostrations against the US. But that is overwhelmed by the support we have received in the North, the cooperation we've received, and the lack suicide bombers or other attacks on our troops.
Dean said @ 04/25/2003 07:25 PM EST
I see that you've answered the pertinent question: do you support the war. And as I've guessed that's really the important one. By the way, I'm glad you weren't around when we were making these same kinds of calculation during the cold war and Stalin. I was under the odd impression that we were able to liberate the Soviet Union and South Africa without having to "liberate" anybody. And frankly, I would've liked us to have tried your option number 3. But as I've argued in my policy (i.e. yelling match) stomping grounds American Samizdat and Warblogger Watch, that would mean nothing without a US that doesn't commit itself to a world community. That means a commitment to the UN, a commitment to the concept that global warming might be real and it would be nice to enthusiastically join the world court, with the possible caveat that American citizens be tried under American judicial rules. Our fuck you attitude about the world is frankly contrary to what I think would be far wiser and far smarter actions than unilateral invasion (plus one). We essentially changed South Africa by way of a massive organized shunning. It was slower. It took longer. It took intelligent leadership. But it's result has and probably will last longer and is seen with more legitimacy than anything that comes out of Iraq under this particular wretched crew. By the way, there is a right wing argument in support of evolution of Saddam's authoritarian regime, and that's Jeanne Kirkpatrick's classic essay comparing Authoritarianism vs. Totalitarianism. I never bought the crux of it, but I think it's right in this case. I think that Iraq would've evolved into something better...just like Cuba would if the sanctions were lifted.
As far as the stuff about our glorious victory in Iraq, I feel like Al Pacino in the Godfather asking Diane Keaton "Are you that naive?" The rallies attended by those against us and who rightly and correctly ask us to leave their country--oddly bereft of weapons of mass destruction and which haven't been found so far unless you're a propagandist and/or Fox News employee--have been massive and in full swing. And they're right. It's not our stuff. Liberation has just become another word for theft...It deeply shames me as an American. Actually, if the Bush administration and if their crony like greed about that Trillion in crude wasn't so overwhelming, and they were smart (ha!), they would leave immediately and let the international teams take over. The war isn't over by the way. In fact, now the Iraqi people, who still have a lot of their arms, will be fighting not for Saddam (an immediately depressing motivation for anybody) but for a free and democratic Iraq or more likely a closed off and theocratic Iraq if they get anything like majority rule...but this time they'll be fighting for themselves. It's a horrifying spector. This is why the reporting about the region has slowed to a crawl from the usual jingoistic Instapundits. This is something we, the anti war side, predicted by the way. The horror of the "peace". Take a very close look at what's happening in the north by the way. Which side do we choose between the Turks and the Kurds? I'm sure you've thought this out. Perhaps we should just kill them and let...well, you know the rest.
Philip Shropshire
www.threerivertechreview.com
www.majic12.com
PS: You do admit this is an occupation right? This is something that civil people don't do, right? If not, then I will be happy to come over to your house, Dean, and "liberate" you. You'll own your own stuff, but won't profit from it in any way. You might live worse than you did under the old ruler, but that's "American Democracy" for you. Fox news and Clear Channel will tell you it's all right as I rape your nubile young wife, all for America of course. I will be shocked, just shocked by your terrorist actions to remove me from your house...
Steelydan said @ 04/25/2003 08:16 PM EST
Steelydan, what I find amazing is how much you think you know everything about me, and at the same time how totally wrong you are. I don't watch Foxnews. Rarely listen to the radio, certainly no Clear Channel stations. The few times I've watch Fox, I've found them to be so over the top, to be ridiculous. My primary news sources are the BBC, The Guardian (England), and NPR, along with reading on a regular basis about twenty to thirty foreign newspapers.
You wrongly assume because I supported one war that I support them all. If Bush tried to start another war now, I would be the first one in the street protesting. I pray for his defeat in the next election. And sincerely hope that the first act of his successor is to "repeal" Bush's preemptive strike doctrine. The stupidest concept in modern American history.
The biggest problem with someone like you is that you are a bigot but won't admit it. You fit everyone into a stereotype, and refuse to acknowledge any other possibility. But with that I will end my last conversation with you. I'll wait to debate someone who is actually mentally-equipped for it.
Dean said @ 04/25/2003 09:04 PM EST
Quite frankly, if you supported this war you're not much of a leftist to begin with. And if you've been reading John Pilger or Robert Fisk and the BBC I have a hard time imagining that you think that we've won this war. Either that, or you simply can't read. And you have the gall to question my admittedly modest intellectual capacities.
And could you cease with the name calling stuff and address a point? Or are you conceding that this administration has failed to learn the lessons of the cold war and our involvement in South Africa? Are you conceding that you don't understand the Kirkpatrick argument? Are you conceding that the situation in the North is unstable and nightmarish? Are you conceding that the Iraqi people, theocratic zealots that they may be, have a right to ask the US to leave their country? Are you conceding that I can "liberate" the Dean household and put your wife in a benevolent trust fund where I frell her repeatedly? (Please email me your address so that I can begin my liberation...I find you vaguely threatening and your wife to be very hot...)And finally, and this is the weakest point on your behalf, why are you not willing to admit that this is an occupation and just plain wrong...you've failed to answer this point in two consecutive posts. It's kinda glaring out here...
Dack Ragus, thankfully, continues to follow Raines Times (Thanks, Andy; oh, and Happy May Day!) reporter Judith Miller's so-called "bombshell" piece on the man "clad in nondescript clothes and a baseball cap" to whom the American military attributed a brace of smoking guns. The piece looks even schlockier today than when it first broke, and Miller's own subsequent articles bring that earlier piece into disrepute.
For what it's worth, I was most startled that by way of verification of the Army's claims, Miller offered only that she was "permitted to examine a letter written in Arabic that [the cap-clad fellow] slipped to American soldiers offering them information about the [chemical weapons] program and seeking their protection." Presumably it was this examination that allowed the dubious piece to pass as anything but a Pentagon PR Newswire. Curious as to how well Miller reads Arabic (she makes no mention of having a translator), I wrote both her and managing editors of the Times asking, but have yet to receive a response. posted by Anonymous5:59 AM
• • • • •
The Watchers
WBW: Keeping track of the war exhortations of the warbloggers.
