A post over at ZBlogs reminded me of the most simple and potent reaction to Reagan's (and now Bush's) claim of a "mandate".
That came from Gil Scott-Heron:
Well the first thing I want to say is 'mandate my ass'
The track is called "B" Movie, and should be played early and often.
Want to stop "terrorism" (the action formerly known as guerilla warfare)? Clearly, the best way to do that is to fire rockets at a mosque during prayer.
To continue the press' gardening metaphors, the US is uprooting terror, while tilling the soil of despair and sowing thousands of seeds of rage. An effective strategy, if the desired outcome is genocide.
From an Indymedia feature:
The US media are groping in the dark for a new narrative. Even for supporters of the occupation, it is no longer believable to suggest that Iraq is on an inevitable path towards democracy; that the Iraqi people are overwhelmingly grateful for the American presence in their country; that attacks against American forces are the work of a few "dead-enders" or Islamic extremists allied with al Qaeda. This is clearly a popular uprising against an illegitimate occupying army.Amazing that it took this long for that to become clear.
Update: David Grenier compiled some views from the ground in Iraq.
According to the Financial Times and the Christian Science Monitor, the US is pulling an old-style intervention in El Salvador's presidential elections, which happen today (Sunday).
And some analysts say that the comments by US officials may be bolstering ARENA's message. Last Sunday, White House Special Assistant Otto Reich gave a phone-in press conference at ARENA headquarters. According to local newspapers, he said he was worried about the impact an FMLN win could have on the country's "economic, commercial, and migratory relations with the United States."
To put it mildly. It may be obscure to the folks in the power centres up north, but I suspect that Salvadoran voters received the message loud and clear: elect Marxist, and we'll fuck you up good. Roger Noriega, who apparently pushed hard for the recent US-sponsored coup d'etat in Haiti, went even farther, and not without consequences:
In February, Assistant Secretary of State Roger Noriega told voters to "consider what kind of a relationship they want a new administration to have with us." He met with all the candidates except Mr. Handal. Last week, 28 US Congress members sent a letter to Secretary of State Colin Powell saying Mr. Noriega "crossed a boundary" and that his remarks were perceived as "interference in Salvadoran electoral affairs." This week two US congressmen blasted Reich's comments as inflammatory.
Of course, the right-wing candidate is playing to the fear of losing ties with the US, as well he might:
More than a quarter of El Salvador's 6.5 million citizens live in the US, and Salvadoran economist Robert Rubio estimates that remittances account for 16 percent of the country's economy. He likens the flow of remittances to a life-support system for the country's poor economy
He can also accurately claim that relations with the US would be way better under his government. The reason this is the case, however, remains obscure. It's not that a lefty government would break off ties with the US. Quite to the contrary, it would not be in their interests to do so. However, what they might do, is begin acting in the interest of the majority of the people of El Salvador, which would guarantee that the US would flip right out, impose sanctions, deny aid, delay or block remittances, and maybe even fund terrorists to knock some sense into the poor of El Salvador.
Indeed, it's no surprise that Otto Reich was involved with funding the contras back in the 1980s.
Dennis Kucinich, who is apparently still a US presidential candidate, showed up on the sane side of the question of El Salvador. That's more than we can say for the NDP about Haiti or Venezuela, for example.
"Unfortunately, what is going on in El Salvador is representative of a Latin American policy that is not about promoting healthy democracies, but instead focused on making Latin American nations bend to U.S. commercial interests."
"The people of El Salvador have a right to free and fair elections without interference from the United States. The U.S. cannot claim to be a leader in promoting democracy worldwide and at the same time hinder democracy by attempting to influence the outcome of elections abroad," Kucinich said.
Tom Tomorrow: "Nader's critique is, essentially, that there is a cancer on the body politic--and he's right about that. The problem in the year 2004 is that the body politic is also suffering from multiple wounds and blunt force trauma, we're in the emergency room and it's a damn mess and there's blood everywhere and the doctors are working furiously but it's anybody's guess how things are gonna turn out. We are in triage, and we have to deal with the immediate problems, or the long-term ones won't matter anyway."
Two questions, which I ask in all seriousness:
Has any mainstream Democratic candidate (i.e. Gore, Kerry, Edwards) ever reached out to potential Nader voters with even a token concession?
Have any of those three encountered any serious mainstream criticism for not doing a better job of keeping those votes from being siphoned off?
I would like to suggest that every Democrat that has whined about Nader without drawing at least some attention to these questions is part of the problem.
due to comments spamming, html will be stripped out of comments
What does that mean - due to comments spamming ... etc?
I take your point about Nader and I think I finally "get" it. I think it's still a paradox in the "regular, practical" world, though, because seeming is believing (in other words, subjective perception is often the greater measure of reality) and there's no way to get around that except for time, maybe a long time. Logic is not necessarily a primary decision maker. What can we do except evolve very slowly? smj
Body and Soul: "It's not like poor people in America are so hard to find that you have to make them up."
Want an exhaustive list of informative articles about pressing issues in American politics? Go read the February 11 entry at thoughts on the eve of the apocalypse. That's a serious overview.
John Perry Barlow: "But, according to the big media, Dean's 'yee-haaa' was the sound of political hara-kari. You would have thought they'd caught Dean in bed with either a live man or a dead woman. They belabored him for his shout as though he'd done something truly heinous, like, say, leading America into a major war under false pretenses, or robbing the poor to feed the rich, or dramatically curtailing civil liberties."
Dave doesn't hold much back in his retrospective on the primaries:
He doesn’t look so electable now, does he you spineless elitist fuckface pussywhimp maggots? Yes, you, the Deaniacs who think the American People are too stupid and backward to support a real progressive or know what is good for them, so you push another DLC-style centrist (and sadly, convince yourself he’s a progressive) because you’ve determined in your infinite wisdom that this is what the American People will accept. I mean, the whole “electability” thing reeks of both elitism and insecurity. Not standing up for what you believe in because you’re not sure if its popular is something I outgrew in the eighth grade… so how come so many Democrats still act like that?
The Body and Soul weblog sums up the Dean fiasco:
It's pretty clear he's responding to the excitement in the crowd, and while it might not be a good idea to respond quite that vociferously when you're running for president, sports wouldn't be very popular if a whole lot of perfectly sane people didn't tend to get a little hyper in crowds. If it had been Bush, we'd be hearing about how much he has in common with football and hockey fans. Isn't he great? Just one of the guys. (emphasis added)
The Nation: "The Republicans have adapted their Southern strategy to the new terms of sexual politics. What they once did with race, they are doing today with gender."
Bush does spent a lot of time talking about the "chainsaw work" (known to laypersons as "clearing brush", though not everyone has Bush's need to emphasize the involvement of a power tool). That, along with gratuitous references to getting to bed early (wink wink), is clearly a central part of Bush's political strategy/image.
The Nation article takes that line of thought quite a bit farther.
"My job, as commander-in-chief, will never be to send our brothers and sisters, our children and grandchildren, to fight in a foreign country without first telling them the truth about why they are fighting." --Howard Dean
Dean, it should be said, is not anti-war. His objection to a particular war in Iraq was specific; he doesn't, for instance, have any problem supporting the occupation of Palestine. It's also important to point out that he's no lefty. He's hardly even a "liberal".. Indeed, he shows every indication of being a standard business Democrat once elected. (He's going to help the rich merely get insanely rich, rather than unbelievably rich. How compelling.)
Hey, what do I expect? Anyone who opposes killing tens of thousands of people for corporate interests in principle is unelectable. And if they're not unelectable, then they will be by the time the pundit army gets through with them.
Despite all this, he apparently is a "really good guy", has a compelling presence, knows how to work a crowd, gives a good speech, has a ridiculous amount of fundraising capacity, and inspires lots of young idealists.
Gee, where do I sign up?
Seriously, though. Gary Wolf and Steven Johnson (and many others) are excited about Dean not because of individual policy positions, but because of the process.
The real action, Wolf says, is at the edges of the network, where people who support Dean even while disagreeing with him on major policies meet together to share ideas, speechify, get riled up, and win people over to Dean's camp.
I don't have any objection to this, save perhaps for my belief that civic participation shouldn't begin and end with a personality cult. Maybe there are people who are meeting and talking to each other about substantial things outside of the guise of fooling themselves into believing that the Democrats stand for something progressive. That's great, but I'm not holding my breath.
On the other hand, I hold out naive hope that the establishment of networks both face-to-face and digital could, at some point, facilitate a sharing of information that is to some degree independent of the corporate media various structures of propaganda-repetition.
For now, though, the vast majority of Americans seem to be impervious to thoughts like "killing 10,000 people is wrong and fundamentally evil in every conceivable scenario. Period."
I heard a funny "definition" of PoMo (Post Modern) from an friend who was lamenting his daughter's recent irreconcilable (to him) actions. It is that people "no longer feel the need to rationalize the contradictions in their delusions."
It seems to apply to many issues at large.
My job, as commander-in-chief, will never be to send our brothers and sisters, our children and grandchildren, to fight in a foreign country without first telling them the truth about why they are fighting." --Howard Dean
Bullsh...When have we ever fought a War that was based on the TRUTH? The Revolutionary War was fought on the premise of "truths that are to be self evident." Defending our unalienable rights -of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That was a war that was meant to be won...But do you think that the people rallied behind the true concept? Yes, but mostly No. Economics was a big influence...taxation was definitely a big factor. Religion, relegation of the sexes, social hiearchey, race and all that truly mattered and recognized by our founding Fathers were not truly appreciated. The Declaration of Independence, is truly an inspired and exquisite description of Humanity...and defines the real protocol of society and Government. Flashing forward, are you angry that we ousted a genocidal maniac? Think about WWll...Churchill was considered an eccentric...Lindbergh evaluated the German Airforce (and approved). We only became involved because of Japan...and FDR (who I LOVE). We were shocked at what happened (what 2 million people or more EXTERMINATED?)And no one really knew...
Geez people wake up. Hussien, well you tell me...what do you think he did? btw - have you thought about North Korea? Perhaps we are lining are ducks up in a row... showing that we mean business. I agree with why we are doing what we are doing... But I say take out the King...covert operations - go right to the source. It amazes me how many people disagree with that. They would rather sacrifice thousands (or more) soldiers and civilians, than just take out the ones that are the true threat... (The misguided belief that only benefits those that - Ignorance is bliss for those in Power - An apathetic society is the perfect "tool" for those who lead with self-serving agendas (mindless sheep). But they are the downfall of those who try to improve the common good of all...and ultimately themselves... FDR where are you???? Anyway, thanks for listening :-))))
As an American citizen, I'll be voting for the Democrats in the next election, based on their record of fiscal responsibility and clear-eyed pragmatism.
When the Democrats decide to kill hundreds of thousands of people, they do it cheaply and efficiently. Using CIA-funded death squads, "smart sanctions", military aid to dictators, and surgical strikes, the Democrats have perfected the delicate art of global terrorism. The Republican emphasis on overblown budgets, deficit spending, troop-intensive campaigns, and fancy logistics is, by contrast, rather distasteful.
When you want to terrorize multiple populations of millions around the world, you can count on Democratic administrations to come in on time and under-budget.
This is deeply preferable to the spending debacles of Bush II and Reagan (not to mention the unnecessary deaths of fine young Americans). Indeed, there's an argument to be made that Clinton suceeded in killing more people and effectively terrorizing much larger populations than Bush has, at a fraction of the budget.
Most importantly, the likes of Clinton, Carter and Kennedy acheived a degree of subtlety in their killing campaigns. Bush's invasion of Iraq provoked worldwide resistance unprecedented in the history of the planet, but Democrats have managed to kill at least as many people, while maintaining solid reputations as moderates, even humanitarians.
As an example, take the differing approaches to Iraq. GW Bush and his father launched expensive and high-profile invasions that proved to be unsuccessful even granting the most charitable standards available. By contrast, Clinton starved over a million Iraqis to death, kept crucial medical supplies from entering the country, and bombed new targets every three days. Despite the awesome cumulative destructive power of this attack, Clinton's campaign was almost never in the news, spread out as it was over both of his terms.
In other cases, Clinton was even more efficient: by levelling a Sudanese factory that supplied most of Africa (as well as Iraq) with cheap pharmaceuticals with one cruise missile, he was able to lower the quality of life for an entire continent a relatively low cost. Meanwhile, the attack was off the news before its true effects could be felt.
The Democrats: more bang for your buck, and less backlash. After all: what are people going to do, vote Republican?
The New Republic: "Fundamentally, the Dean campaign equates Democratic support for the Iraq war with appeasement of President Bush. But the fight against Saddam Hussein falls within a hawkish liberal tradition that stretches through the Balkan wars, the Gulf war, and, indeed, the cold war itself. Lieberman is not the only candidate who stands in that tradition--Wesley Clark promoted it courageously in Kosovo, as did Richard Gephardt when he defied the polls to vote for $87 billion to rebuild Iraq. But Lieberman is its most steadfast advocate, not only in the current field but in the entire Democratic Party."
OK, so I also say that there is broad consensus among the ruling elite in the US that dropping bombs and maintaining global military dominance is A Good Thing. But it's important to note that this isn't a fringe view.
(On a more snipey note, how the hell is advocating dropping bombs and sending other people's kids to die "courageous"?)
On other topics, it's deeply strange to read TNR (and almost everyone else in the US and Canadian mainstream) saying that "average voters" are all for free trade and empire. This kind of imputing of values is as bizarre as it is sick. As if these people hang out with "average voters" and have any sense of how the cherished policies of the elite are affecting them.
If you replace: "average voters" with "my boss, or some other authority I aspire to emulate without understanding", then the analysis starts to be truly insightful.
Ralph Nader's "Presidential Exploratory Comittee" has a survey asking if you would support a Nader campaign in 2004.
I wrote the following in the comments box:
"While I believe that the getting Bush out is a major priority, I don't see that there is the will among democrats to do the right thing. Indeed, there is not the will to think the right thing. They have supported Bush in too many of his shenanigans to be credible. A third party is necessary to restore a modicum of sanity and accountability, however unlikely a win."
Bob Harris: Why I'm voting for Kucinich over Dean. An interesting comparison of the positions of both candidates, which leaves Dean looking much less like the progressive that some people think him to be.
Tom Tommorrow writes:
Is this what it's come to? A non-binding, online referendum, the summer before the primary season really heats up--and you're not willing, even at this early point, to vote for the candidate you actually prefer?The Democrats' weak-kneed, irrational desire to placate everyone to their right has few limits. We knew this, I think.Let me repeat, I'm not endorsing anyone here. And I'm not sayng the electability concern isn't valid.
But if you want any hope of ever having a progressive voice at the table, at some point you've got to show some support for said progressive voice. And this seems about as low-risk a way to do it as is humanly possible. This isn't November 2000 in Florida, and Kucinich ain't Ralph Nader. This is, as I say, a non-binding, nonscientific online referendum. And Kucinich isn't a third-party challenger--he's playing within the rules of the Democratic party's primary process, and in the (probable, I would guess) event that he does not secure the nomination, he's pledged to support the Democrat who does, whoever it may be.
Vote for Dean, vote for Kucinich--just, for god's sake, vote for the candidate who represents what you believe--not the candidate you imagine other people might prefer.
Personally, I would love to see Dennis Kuchinich would do the unprecedented--realize and admit that he is not presidential material, drop out of the race and give his support to Howard Dean. It would only strengthen the Democratic Party and help guarantee a Democratic win in 2004!
The most recent issue of the Onion has the best anti-war coverage I've seen.
According to reports from the front, many of the soldiers were initially suspicious of the president, doubtful that an Ivy Leaguer who once used powerful family connections to avoid service in Vietnam had what it took to face enemy fire head-on. However, Bush—or, as his fellow soldiers nicknamed him in a spirit of battlefield camaraderie, 'Big Tex'—quickly overcame the platoon's reluctance to having a "fancy-pants Yalie" in its ranks.
"Bush is the best soldier I've ever had the honor of fighting alongside," said Pvt. Jon Benjamin, 23. "I'd take a bullet for that man, because I know he'd take one for me if he had to."
I've always wondered what might happen if modern war were fought according to medieval rules, with the head of state expected to lead his troops into battle.
a six board. very.
vulnerability in and traverse.
that A ids wants.
module Now This systems,.
the USB local still.
Cocoa, a menu without.
clamshell-type blocks C, that.
dependencies," Sharp to and.
Astaro, by the I.
and start other 23.6.
that tried software year..
situations, is term. detect,.
and PC reasonably OK;.
you much piece you'll.
running. the minutes. and,.
nearly of in the.
have the from do.
hits are better be.
be scope harness of.
names also access destination.
Rational Enquirer: "If this is a war for the liberation of the Iraqi people, at least a few Iraqis aren't getting the message."
GOP Times: "Everyone wants to go to Baghdad. Real men want to go to Tehran."
Irrational Hope on the Eve of War
I find myself increasingly hopeful that what Bush and the people who didn't give a shit about Saddam's human rights abuses until this year have been telling are true: that thousands will die but that it will be worth it for the bright future of Iraq; that the US actually plans to set up a democracy in Iraq; that the Iraqi people will be liberated by a new regime which will necessarily be compatible with US interests; that Iraq will be rebuilt, and not forgotten about less than a year later as Afghanistan was.
I hope against hope that the unprecedented international attention focused on Iraq in the coming years will make the US occupation less damaging than it might otherwise be. I hope that citizens will continue to be vigilant of the American government's actions; that civil rights activists will succeed in forcing the US to stop torturing suspected terrorists, confining them indefinitely without charges, beathing them to death, and holding their children and families captive for 'questioning'; that more innocent Iraqis will not be imprisoned and tortured; and that the US will choose to stop hosting and training terrorists.
I also hope to erase from my mind what no one is denying: that hundreds of thousands will starve to death; that one million new refugees will have nowhere to go; that the US will bomb the infrastructure that keeps thousands of people from getting sick all over again; that the US and Britain have already been bombing every three days for ten bloody years; that 1.5 million Iraqis have died as a result of sanctions that have kept Saddam in power and weakened all opposition to his rule. I hope and pray that the US refusal to cooperate with aid agencies will not have the preventable effects that are being predicted.
Furthermore, I hope that what appear to be the unavoidable consequences of this aggressive invasion will not come to pass: that in the ensuing chaos, any chemical or biological weapons that Iraq possesses will find their way into the hands of terrorists; that other states threatened by the US will not reach the unavoidable conclusion that a nuclear arsenal is a necessary precondition for statehood and sane diplomatic relations with the United States; that a few dozen people will reach the conclusion that the only thing that will stop the US is exponentially greater terror; that the cooperation of Muslim states in legitimate searches for terrorists will become difficult or impossible to acquire; and that terrorist organizations will find it much easier to find willing sources of funding and support.
I hope that somehow, some way, citizens of the USA and the countries being antagonized can reach out to each other and find ways to understand and help each other in the face of increased polarization at the diplomatic level.
If this war happens, then hope is all we'll have. It's something. It has to be.
First, I hear that George W. cancelled a speech at the European parliament because they wouldn't guarantee a standing ovation and no protesters, and now there is substantial evidence that his recent and rare news conference was scripted. Not that it's any secret that Ari Fleisher's press briefings are a total joke.
It would be funny, except that it's the most powerful office in the world.
As I've said elsewhere, the EU parliament should have agreed to Bush's conditions, and then interpreted "ovation" to mean "throwing eggs."
Washington Post: Iran's Nuclear Program Speeds Ahead
"Our three 'axis of evil' designees seem to have decided to push hard to provide themselves with weapons if they're going to be in the constant attention of the United States," Gottemoeller said. "We need a more proactive, positive way of engaging them first and then trying to shut these things down."
The current US behaviour towards countries that have nuclear weapons and those that don't makes the choice for those countries pretty clear: develop nuclear weapons quickly, or nothing short of a total Wall Street crash will stop a US invasion. In short: nukes and maybe terrorism are the only things that will keep you from getting invaded. This, compounded with Bush's promise to use nuclear weapons against countries that use chemical weapons, or keeping the option to proceed with "legitimate" first use of "tactical nukes" serves only to escalate worldwide nuclear proliferation.
Daniel Ellsberg writes:
With or without first-use in this conflict, I fear that an attack on Iraq will spur other nations into acquiring nuclear weapons for deterrence in the future. In the guise of averting proliferation in Iraq, this bullying attack by the world's preeminent nuclear power will accelerate proliferation dramatically. (It may already have had that effect in North Korea). The black market price for Russian (or Pakistani, or North Korean) nuclear materials or, better, operational nuclear weapons, will skyrocket. If a market and international trade in such materials and weapons does not develop in response to this, then the assumptions underlying the theory of markets and free trade need radical overhaul.
As Ellsberg points out, the #1 threat to the US right now is the possibility that Al Quaeda or other terrorist groups might acquire nuclear weapons. By invading and occupying Iraq, the US will not only be creating a huge demand for nuclear weapons, but severely increasing the possibility of that such weapons will get into the hands of terrorists. All it takes is one, after all.
On its own, the new nuclear proliferation (which has already begun) will have tremendous unforseen consequences. If Iran gets nukes, how will its neighbors react? In that event, Saddam Hussein will stop at nothing to get nuclear weapons, since he (probably legitimately) fears a reprisal for the war he started with Iran in the 80s. Any US-sponsored regime in Iraq would undoubtedly not feel it was secure until it also had nuclear capabilities to deter Iran. But that's just an obvious example; the point is, we cannot predict these things. No one can.
The obvious and sane alternative is to work for cutting down conventional arms buildup in general and nuclear capability in particular across the board in the Middle East. That means, of course, stopping much of the highly lucrative business that US arms dealers (usually subsidized by US taxpayers) do in many countries in the region. It also means working with Russia to make sure their vast nuclear arsenal is accounted for. This is the only possible way for governments in the region to feel secure without possessing huge arsenals. For obvious reasons, it is very much against the prerogrative of the Bush administration to do this, which is why only popular pressure can make the government responsive to the vast danger it is creating.
I, for one, don't want to see another September 11th, much less one involving nuclear fallout.
Total and utter bullshit(you stupid bleeding heart liberal). Why would the U.S. invade Iraq if they did not have weapons of mass destruction? Unlike Iraq, the U.S. does not invade countries for no reason. We only did so in this case very relucrantly after every effort to solve the problem diplomaticly. We are in iraq because we dont want another 9/11 g-d forbid. We are perfectly aware of what saadam is capable of and heaven help us if he is left to his own devices.
chained duty, is this.
chained duty, is this.
Another report on the human costs of war in Iraq. Excerpts:
The Center for Economic and Social Rights (CESR) sent a team of experts to Iraq from January 17-30, 2003 to establish a baseline of current conditions and assess the probable consequences of war. The Research Team's main finding is that the international community is unprepared for the humanitarian disaster of another war in Iraq.
...
The Office of the Iraq Program has stated that the OFFP would be terminated in the event of war, and that the $10.9 billion worth of supplies already in the pipeline ¨paid for by Iraq but not yet delivered¨ would not be released without a new Security Council resolution. It is safe to predict that the humanitarian crisis resulting from another war in Iraq would far exceed the capacity of U.N. and international relief agencies.
Guardian: Afghan prisoners beaten to death at US military interrogation base
They are in accordance with what is generally accepted as interrogation techniques, and if incidental to the due course of this investigation, we find things that need to be changed, we will certainly change them."
I have an idea. The press should ask Ari Fleisher about his sex life. Since he lies about everything else, it follows that there is a likelihood that he will lie about that, too. Once caught, he'll have to resign.
I'm assuming, of course, that blatant lies about anything other than one's sex life don't count. If they did, Bush would have been impeached long ago.
Ari Fleisher laughed off stage? (via jessamyn)
Middle aged woman harrassed and spit on for carrying an anti-war sign at a Bush speech
Amanda Jernigan is now officially a poet against the war.
If you have a fast connection, the re-mixed State of the Union Speech [14MB, Quicktime] is a must-see.
Sydney Morning Herald: Coalition of the willing? Make that war criminals
A pre-emptive strike on Iraq would constitute a crime against humanity, write 43 experts on international law and human rights.
LRB: The Laws of War, US-Style
Times Online: Spain begs President to restrain Rumsfeld
[I recieved the following on the same day that the letter was sent, via a staff member at FCNL, a lobby group. Since the quotes in news coverage match up with what follows, I'm assuming that it's mostly authentic. Presented as-is, since there is no other copy online that I know of. Also because it's interesting. Update: it is authentic; the NYTimes recently printed it.]
U.S. Diplomat's Letter of Resignation
The following is the text of John Brady Kiesling's letter of resignation to Secretary of State Colin L. Powell. Mr. Kiesling is a career diplomat who has served in United States embassies from Tel Aviv to Casablanca to Yerevan.
The courage as well as the political interpretation of the sinking US international diplomacy are fascinating. It takes guts to give up what he calls his "dream job" because he sees the Adminstration squandering our national ideals at home and abroad. My hat it off to Brady Kiesling.
What a shame to lose a voice of reason within the State Department when all seems headed toward madness. I sincerely hope that Mr Brady goes public with his resignation letter and that people listen to his thoughtful words.
I, for one, applaud his courageous stance against powers seemingly out of control.
eloquetly stated.
we all know that the greatest producer of terror is our own government. with their duct tape and plastic and their orange and red alert, our populace has somehow been brought to a tenuous conclusion that to decrease our own anxiety, we must attack iraq.
we have been encouraged to denegrate france and germany because the bush administration couldn't buy them as it has done with other nations. we have paid a huge price in our investment portfolios because of the anxiety over the economy. we have destroyed the international relationships built for hundreds of years by other presidents.
but why have we done this? the answer is quite simple and obvious. it is because of "texas honor". george bush is going to make up for his daddy's mistake by not driving to baghdad. it cost his daddy the election, and to worsen it, his daddy was targeted by saddam hussein ten years ago.
how long must we put up with having this inept leader? unfortunately, possibly as many as six more years.
Good Riddance to bad rubbish
Another American Hero: Mr. Kiesling.
I wonder if he would consider running for president. After this administration, we will need a President with a strong understanding of foreign diplomacy in order to rebuild trust in the international community.
I am an American citizen and long-term resident of Saudi Arabia. I was in the USA in February and was shocked to see how public opinion is formed and manipulated by the media and the cheap one-liners of our President. The fear- and war-mongering are a disgrace. Mr.Kiesling's courageous letter is a thoughtful counterbalance. Thyank you.
When has "the largest and most effective web of international relationships the world has ever known" ever been good for the USA? It's just a way for other countries to get money, loans and goodies from the US taxpayer. It's about time it was dismantled!
This is a wonderful opportunity to sing Mr. John Brady Kiesling's praises. He stood up for the truth as far back as the Clinton administration Balkans policy. Now when he realized that Washington, D. C. did not care to listen to reason, he did the next thing he could do he resigned. His resignation rings loud and clear! I hope he writes a book.
A similar hero once walked the earth, he was George Horton. Out of horror and frustration he wrote his book, THE BLIGHT OF ASIA in 1926. George Horton had served as U.S. Consul General of the U.S. in the Near East for 30 years. In his book he wrote, "One of the keenest impressions which I brought away with me from Smyrna [which now is Turkish Izmir] was a feeling of shame that I belonged to the human race." Since that time, under threat of death, his daughter has been warned by Turkish authorities to not reprint her father's book.
How refreshing it is to know that yet another outstanding human being such as JOHN BRADY KIESLING still walks this earth.
Sofia Kostos
Greek American
Zoiritsa@aol.com
I am glad he resigned. It eliminates the need for Bush to fire him. I hope all the rest of the dissenting career diplomats follow suit. We need all the unity we can get to fight this war on terrorism. As far as what other governments think - - Bush's job is to protect the citizens of the USA. I am not very concerned if Greeks and French and Russians do not agree with us.
Sincerely, Rodger D. Fetters SFC U.S.Army Retired
He spent 8 years under the most ineffective foriegn policy president since Carter (remember Iran, Guatemala, Soviet Union) and resigns now? The real reason for his resignation was FEAR, the United States is the only country that will actually do something for no other reason than its the RIGHT thing to do, and stopping the oppressive dictatorships that sponsor TERROR real TERROR not the "BOO!" of buy duct tape and plastic. But rather the poison gas and death squads not to mention suicide bombers. Anyone not willing to do what it takes to make a real difference should resign
I am so happy that there are still people in this world and in every country and every race and every creed, who make the pain of living in our times seem a little less painful and a little more bearable.
John Brady Kiesling is such a person. We owe more to him and all these people than we ever are going to imagine.
A career ending act of conscious. I honor him.
Wo do we believe anymore? I voted for Bush because I thought he stood for less government, and would try to undo some of the harm to our country by the last adm.Just the opposite is true! The war on terror should begin at our borders, not in some two bit desert far removed from us. A threat to world peace? It didn't take me long to see through this spin. I would like to know the adm. Mr Kiesling first worked for.Is this just political? It wouldn't mean as much if he is a registered Demo.
If you knew your neighbor was planning to blow up your home and kill all your neighbors, would you just build a stronger fence and wait for the inevitable. Or would you take the initiative and stop it before your home was blown to bits or you were killed by biological means???
If we wait for the EU to get off their thumbs we will have lost the momentum we now have. Most of the governments over there are only friends as long as the money continues to flow.
If we cut off all the treaties that sucked us dry of tax monies and monitored every dollar we would have NO money crunch at home.
Get rid of all career diplomats that have no backbone and are afraid of change for the good of Americans and people of all nations who want to live free of the terrorist threat.
We CANNOT stop the biological fanatics at our boarders who would kill themselves to wipe out millions of Americans.
If a person had proof that his neighbor was planning on harming him and others, they could get the police. The problem is we don't have proof of anything, just conjecture, posturing and old news. The only thing the international community has that resembles a police force is the UN so we should work through them. any wayI hope all the good guys don't leave. If they do who will counterbalance the misadministration we have now?
Hope springs eternal in the human breast; Man never is,but always to be blest...........Euripides,Phoen.396 Humans like Mr Kiesling,give us hope,
allways.......Chios,Hellas
Whether John Brady Kiesling's moving letter of resignation is legit or not, it certainly expresses so much of what seems obvious to me about our present misguided foreign policy.
It took colossal ineptitude and arrogance for this administration to parlay the sympathy and best wishes of the world less than 18 months ago into mistrust and fear of United States.
When much of the world thinks our nation is a greater threat to world peace than documented rogues and thugs, it is a clear message we have squandered both our credibility and the moral high ground.
On the world stage Boy George looks more and more the buffoon I feared he was.
I hope John Brady Kiesling will be able to use his courage, wisdom, and patriotism to continue to serve our nation in ways which will reflect positively upon us.
Warren Carlson
John Brady Kiesling, who just resigned from the Foreign Service after 20 years (NY Times, Feb. 27), deserves the profound gratitude of all his fellow Americans. And if his courageous act, and his astutue letter to Secretary Powell have any effect in changing the ill-conceived, deadly, shameful rush to a genocidal war by this Administration, the whole world will be in his debt.
John Brady Kiesling's open letter of resignation is a voice of a man defending courageously the core values of civilized world: humanity and justice. You feel the warmth and genuine concern in his criticism as well as an uncompromising will to live up to his conscience. His thoughts and words testify his wisdom and intellect. In parlance of G.W.Busch, here is a real good guy worrying about a bad guy. It's a pleasant surprise to see so many Americans still seeing the things as they are despite the government and mainstream media manipulation of opinion. And pity to those singing after the bully gang's song like parrots.
Hera Moon, Berlin
For people who support the war, I'm sending some quotes from a few notable people who don't. A diplomat resigning is one thing, but senior military officials saying that this war will be catastrophically bad is compelling to say the least.
(General Norman Schwartzkopf can be added to this list, although I don't have a quote from him here):
"It's pretty interesting that all the generals see it the same way, and all the others who have never fired a shot, and are hot to go to war, see it another,...We are about to do something that will ignite a fuse in this region that we will rue the day we ever started..”
Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni, former Head of Central Command for U.S.
Forces in the Middle East
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2002/10/17/zinni/
http://www.pilotonline.com/military/ml1017war.html
“Should the president decide to stay the war course, hopefully at least a few of our serving top uniformed leaders – those who are now covertly leaking that war with Iraq will be an unparalleled disaster – will do what many Vietnam-era generals wish they would have done: stand tall and publicly tell the America people the truth about another bad war that could well lead to another died-in-vain black wall. Or even worse.”
Col. David Hackworth (ret), America’s most highly decorated soldier.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29786
“Mr. President, ...The candidate we supported in 2000 promised a more humble nation in our dealings with the world. We gave him our votes and our campaign contributions.
That candidate was you. We feel betrayed. We want our money back. We want our country back....A Billion Bitter enemies will rise out of this war.”
“A Republican Dissent on Iraq”,
Full page ad in Wall Street Journal by major GOP contributors
Wall Street Journal, January 13, 2003
"If we go in (to Iraq) unilaterally, or without the full weight of international organizations behind us, if we go in with a very sparse number of allies, if we go in without an effective information operation...we're liable to supercharge recruiting for al-Qaida"
Gen. Wesley Clark, former NATO Supreme Commander
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2002-09-09-oplede_x.htm
“...a growing number of military officers, intelligence professionals and diplomats ... privately have deep misgivings about the administration's double-time march toward war...”Analysts at the working level in the intelligence community are feeling very strong pressure from the Pentagon to cook the intelligence books," said one official, speaking on condition of anonymity. A dozen other officials echoed his views .... No one who was interviewed disagreed.”
Philadelphia Inquirer, October 28, 2002
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/4234259.htm
"Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or CBW (Chemical and Biological Weapons) against the United States. Should Saddam conclude that a U.S.-led attack could no longer be deterred he probably would become much less constrained in adopting terrorist actions."
Central Intelligence Agency Director George Tenet October 2002
http://www.naplesnews.com/02/10/perspective/d838246a.htm
“..analysts at the Central Intelligence Agency have complained that senior administration officials have exaggerated the significance of some intelligence reports about Iraq, particularly about its possible links to terrorism, in order to strengthen their political argument for war...At the Federal Bureau of Investigation, some investigators said they were baffled by the Bush administration's insistence on a solid link between Iraq and Osama bin Laden's network. "We've been looking at this hard for more than a year and you know what, we just don't think it's there," a government official said.”
The New York Times, Feb. 2, 2003
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/02/international/middleeast/02INTE.html?pagewanted=1
I mean, really, when you have Marine General Anthony Zinni warning against this war, what else is there to say? When you have Bush and Cheney very closely tied to the oil industry, virtually ignoring the threat from North Korea (which happens to not have any oil), what else is there to say? what more evidence do you need?
I hope you all don't feel too discouraged or apprehensive about John Kiesling's letter of resignation or the situation so far in the middle east. I too have grave reservations and doubts about the course that the United States is taking.
But ultimately I think of and remember about Hitler. And how he swept through the European countries while everyone (especially the UN) quibbled, pontificated and stalled until it was way too late. Hitler used the delays to his advantage just as Saddham is doing now. He also lied and hid the development of his Luftwaffe air force just as Saddham is with his Nuclear Weapon program.
The French hate being reminded of this. Since they were a country attempting a policy of appeasement with Hitler. After all the other countries fell, there was no one left to defend France. France paid the price by being demolished with Germany's blitzkrieg attack.
Less we forget; War is ugly, war is death, war contains an unfathomable cost in human lives and moral chaos. Nobody likes war. And somehow I don't believe it is the United State's intent go to war if it can avoid it.
But I do believe that Saddam like any Stalinist is a thug. A man who only respects one thing: Money, Strength, and Force at the point of a gun.
That the United States has built up its forces this much and has not attacked is commendable. Lesser nations would not have hesitated. I do believe the last thing anyone really wants is the blood of innocent Iraqians on our hands or to endanger the lives of our men and woman in the armed forces.
I do believe the course of action that the United States has taken is deadly necessary. I don't believe you can bluff with a man like Saddham. Since the presense of the US forces has been strengthened this region of the world has become considerably quieter, calmer and not surprisingly more respectful.
I actually believe this present course of action can and will actually avert war both now and in the near future. Much in the same way as a mugger will think twice before going after an armed and alert victim.
Regarding the United States interest in oil fields I believe and hope that the US will follow the same policy it did with other nation states it has conquered. Basically once the shooting is over the United States usually assists in rebuilding efforts and vacates the region when it's safe to do so.
So there you go. My fervent wish is that we don't go to war. But be prepared for it and all that goes with it.
Best regards to all,
Ted C.
The world appears to be in the process of some profound diplomatic and political transformation, the shape of which is only dimly perceptible - perhaps even those whose business it is to see to these lines of force cannot fully appreciate the changes apace.
I suggest we focus on the confluence of environmental with technological risks (both wmd and the internet are born of technologies blindingly rapid evolution). The net effect of such forces as unpredictable shifts in global resources of all kinds (from fresh water to ready credit), the empowerment of the global proletariat through trickle-down technology, and finally, the fanatic radicalization of apocolyptic religio-political ideologies, would appear to make the next several decades a rather chancy go.
Mr. Kiesling makes an excellent case for regretting what's inevitably lost. The very real question is how to deal with what's to come. I too am deeply suspicious of the current press-gang drive to militarize this society, but have the vague fear those in power might just know what we may be facing. Look to your own.
First the marching of millions around the globe, now the courageous, conscience-driven. action of John Brady Kiesling. These developments are the first cracks in the armor of the PNAC - Project for a New American Century. This think tank founded in 1997 by Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Jeb Bush, Paul Wolfowitz and others has developed a "grand" scheme the goal of which is world domination. They must be exposed and stopped. A good place to start learning is an article by NY Times best selling author, William Pitt Rivers which can be found at: http://truthout.org/docs_02/022203A.htm. Spread the word.
Thank you, Mr. Kiesling, for your courage, your perspicacity, your eloquence and your forthrightness.
Would that these virtues shone more brightly in the Bush administration, but all I see in there is an enveloping darkness, with scarcely a point of light to relieve it.
I believe that Saddam and George Bush are both thugs. The difference is that George Bush really does have weapons of mass destruction at his disposal. Thank you, Mr. Kiesling, for your courage, but it will not stop the world's greatest bully for destroying Iraq.
Norman Schwartzkopf opposes the war.
http://www.thetimesonline.co.uk/article/0%2C%2C3181-388476%2C00.html
Most of you posting pro-war, have you seen war firsthand? If so, are you going to see it again now if we go to war? If not, why are you so eager to shed other's blood? Do you know over 50% of Iraq's people are children under the age of 15? What is "acceptable collateral damage" to you? Where will it end?
If Afganistan is a template for Iraq, then an invasion is already a disaster: we have practically dropped Afganistan like a hot rock. Kabul is the only secure place and many women now say they prefer the Taliban over their current masters, who have exported the largest heroin crop in that nation's history. So much for freedom and democracy.
Being one of those bloody foreigners who happens to be married to an American and has two wonderful American daughter’s I wish to defend and honor, I was elated to see Mr. Kiesling’s poignant letter of resignation for many reasons, but particularly one.
Indeed, because it has become harder and harder to convince my compatriots that, whatever may be happening lately with the war policy of the United States, this doesn’t mean that everyone here feels everything’s all right. I’ve already sent that letter of resignation to a good number of souls I know, and believe that all who have received it has now a better understanding of what I’ve tried to convey without ever been certain if the points I’d tried to make were fully understood.
Infinite peace = Universal happiness. Therefore, let us please pursue happiness with the same zeal we seem to pursue war, and I firmly believe that the world will be a better place to live. Indeed, for all concerned…
My very best to Mr. Kiesling in whatever path he plans to follow now.
PAZ to all,
John Brady Kiesling for President! What a brave and honorable man! He is just what we need to lead this country out of the chaos that Bush and his war mad adminstration is leading us into. Mr. John Brady Kiesling is the light at the end of the tunnel.
I am a German citizen. I am happy that there are
US-politicians who do not follow the present government. Though they don't see another way than to resign. But maybe they can build a new, better one.
Today was an election day in L.A. My walking buddies and I were all dispairing that most of the votes we make these days are for who is the lesser of the two evils. It is so refreshing to find someone with ethics, a conscience, a willingness to put principle over greed, and a true sense of responsibiity to people. I applaud John Brady Kiesling and would love to vote for him for president as others are suggesting.
There's no doubt that Saddam is an evil man. But clear and present danger to the West? No. Bush is the wrong man at the wrong time for the right job - and his current course will hasten the decline of the prosperity and stability of American and the post-WWII global order. Shame on us all for allowing it.
I have read many many pieces opposed to the policies of George Bush, none as eloquent as this letter by John Brady Kiesling. I keep returning to it, I've posted it on my web site, I've sent it to people, I've printed it. This letter is light compared to the darkness of all the drivel written and spoken by the Bush Administration and those in favour of this rediculous war. Thank you John for your courage and eloquence. Sleep easy knowing that you have done more with this act of defiance to further the true purpose of your nation than any number of functionaries who only espouse the party line. I only hope that there are a lot more like you in the USA and that soon you will all have a chance to put things right again! The pen is indeed mightier than the sword.
John Brady Kiesling's powerful letter lifted my book club of fourteen out of the increasing depression we've shared at gatherings, always ending with the question, "Where are the statesmen/stateswomen speaking out against our imperial role and negative image in the world today?" His eloquent words give hope to us when we most need them. Thank you, Counselor Kiesling.
I see that Mr. Kiesling is getting a lot of attention with his letter of resignation. I am sorry, who is Mr. Kiesling? What great accomplishments, or peace treaty has he ever made or brokered for the US? or for that fact, humanity? Suprise, a liberal makes it in the New York Times spewing his own propoganda. Mr. Kiesling states he hasnt seen such "systematic manipulation of American opinion" since the Vietnam War? Really, how was the Carter and Clinton years? Isnt this what the public wanted? If the governemnt has an idea of a threat of terrorism in our country, isnt it there duty to tell us? Thats what the Democrats and the Media where screaming for after 9/11. That the Bush administration should have known. Well here it is! And, now its propaganda? Please, you cant have it both ways, the rules and the condition have obviously changed since 9/11. Also, Mr Kiesling, I dont know how much courage it takes to quit, but I do know it takes courage to stand up for what is right, and denounce what is wrong. Those who dont believe Iraq is a series threat, are doomed to re-live the horror's of Sept. 11th in there local newspapers and tv staions! Wake up america, there is only one reason the world doesnt go to hell in a handbasket. GOD BLESS THE USA...
Anthony Theodorakis
USA
History is repleat with examples of the logic of empire and the current American example resembles the 19th century colonial British caricature. Though the pith helmut, jodhpurs, and swagger stick have been replaced by current technology-which will likewise fall by the wayside-the notion that unmitigated power can and should be used as a force for civilization seems eternal. It always fails. The dominant power always falls apart from within. America, look at yourself. Who are your leaders? How did they get there? Why are they there? What ideals are you defending, and whose children are you sending to defend them?
Tim Acosta
It is clear to me that our countries leadership has developed a very large opinion of them selves. With this attitude they are creating breading grounds for fascism and poverty amongst the people they supposedly represent. All hiding under the pretence of God and country…. How do they find a following??? Are the Americans that ignorant? I hope not! More need to do what John Brady Kiesling has done!
Dear Mr. Kiesling,
I'm sorry that all your valient efforts and service end on what may taste like a sour note for you. However you resignation and brave words will have historic effect. I applaud you and your integrity. Thank you for taking a stand! I only wish that more of the government officials in this country would be as true to the American spirit and demonstrate such concern for the humanity as you have done today. I
Regarding John Brady Kiesling......I hope someone has an email address for him because I would love to thank him personally for quitting. He did the right thing. We are a stronger nation for his departure. Yes, it was eloquent. He is so eloquent in fact that he needs to be teaching/deceiving young college students of a liberal arts college in the Northeast somewhere instead of representing our interests abroad.
Rebuttal to snippets from his quitting letter:
1- "Domestic politics vs. international politics"- We have "bureaucratic self interests".....you're darn right we do! Wasn't that what led to the Revolutionary War in the late 1770s?? Why can't we look out for ourselves?? We have to have approval of the world community to protect our country and our people??
2- If I hear the correlation to the "war in Vietnam" again, I am going to scream!! This is a desperate analogy by the left! We are in the 21st Century folks! Our air strike capability combined with satellite intelligence will make this such a lopsided victory that "the war" part will basically be over in weeks to maybe 2 months. We've come such a long way from even the Persian Gulf War! The occupation period is the only thing I fear. We need to get to Saddam Hitler quickly, set up the new government, and leave. Hopefully, this doesn't become a multiyear occupation which will lead to some casualties by snipers and bombs tied to whatever a bomb can be tied to!
3- Terrorism and Iraq are unrelated?? Hmmmm....I guess Saddam's comments of "we had it coming" after 9-11 attacks strengthen that comment. So, the Al-Queda are the ONLY terrorist group in the world and the only ones out to get the Imperialistic Evil empire called the United States. I didn't know that Mr. Kiesling!
4- "the misallocation of shrinking public wealth"- So, Mr. Kiesling, how many times a week do you talk to Mr. Gephardt? Last time I checked, our GNP was rising and the average income levels of Americans was rising. I guess we should not do that "tax-cut for the rich" so we can have the 2% of the population that pays 80% of the taxes flip the bill for the war!!
5- "the mercenary US"- Yup, that's us....a bunch of militaristic, hired thugs! What an insult to our brave military to reduce them simply to mercenaries!!
6- "the cherished VALUES! of our partners"- Boy, I need to check with Webster on the definition of values. Then, I need to really study those Socialist governments in Europe. I have to witness their high moral fiber! Maybe a visit to Paris or Amsterdam is in order!
7- "Greece....the "purported" hotbed of Anti-Americanism"- Purported?? Kiesling obviously never got out into Athens much! Every time I've been there, I have witnessed graffiti stating, "Yankee go home!" I used to say I was English instead of American so I wouldn't get a dirty look or sneer from strangers! They simply HATE our government for supporting Israel for so many years. I can't say I totally disagree there.
8- The Greeks want "a strong international system"- Any national government that is in disarray and is weak wants a strong international system because they are failing domestically! They need a shark so they can attach themselves like a remora to swim.
Mr. Kiesling....in spite of your opinions....I have bad news for you....I hope you are sitting down. The USA IS a beacon of liberty, security, and justice for the planet! Thank you again for quitting and God Bless the USA!
You have followed in the great steps of Socrates in the Agra, seeking the meaning of justice and democracy. Your action is not in vain and will inspire countless others to make their personal sacrifices for a better world....
I would like to personally thank John Brady Kiesling.
It's interesting to see how well informed, polite and rational are messages pro-John Brady Kiesling and how the opposite seems to be just copies of the same un-cultivated un-informed cheap- patriotism rubbish. That must say something about the two different ideologies.
This is one of those moments in history that cries out for a leader. We face a time where the people's voices are being ignored. As Ghandi and Martin Luther King, Jr. did years before, we now need a leader to help us be heard. Perhaps John Brady Kiesling is that person for this time.
Mr. Kiesling's resignation may have indeed been an act of conscious, but I can't help but notice that he waited until he could retire with a full pension (20 yeaers of service) and that he had not succeeded in reaching the top levels of the diplomatic corps. Obviously, he was not a roaring success in this field and, if he had stayed in the Foreign Service any longer it would be very hard to start a new carreer, so he has done exactly the right thing financially.
I notice John Brady Kiesling didnt get very specific. He cited mostly philosophical differences except his denial of a link between 'Al Queso' and Baghdad. Under Clinton, he didnt have much to do since we let the world around us milk off our teat and hate us for it. Maybe the current conflict was too much work? Maybe he got soft? Maybe if he believed a word he said he would stay in a position to make a difference? Maybe.
When I read his letter, it drove the nail into the wood for me. This war isn't about disarming saddam. its much more than that. Realistically, who's the bigger threat to the U.S.- Iraq or North Korea- the latter openly admitting to starting a nuclear program. In tonight's speech, President Shrub said that America was 'under attack'.. excues me, but for something to be 'under attack', doesn't it have to be hit more than once? there have been no more terrorist attacks since 2001. now israel is under attack!
but back on topic, this war is about 3 primary things:
1. He's finishing what his father started, its a family ordeal
2. Iraq produces more oil than all of n. america, and its one of our greatest suppliers of oil. With american occupation of Iraq, we get a nice big american hand on middle eastern affairs, and especially oil. I don't think we will have complete control of their oil, but comeon, the US is going to occupy Iraq for at least 10 years after this war. We're going to have a nice big hand in an area where we currently have very little influence
3. I do believe that bush honestly wants to protect people by disarming saddam. but go after that fruitloop korean dude first!
Also in Bush's speech tonight, he said that war was his last option, and he will use it if necessary, and he doesn't need anyone's permission. Well ok, lets see.. saddam publically said he'll fight, and its their jihad (holy war). its not 'if we go to war' its 'when we go to war'. There is no way in hell this is going to end without bloodshed.
About the doesn't need anyone's permission stuff. Is it just me, or is the whole purpose of the U.N. to be UNITED in making their decisions? Its like a child asking his mother if he can have $5, and when she says no asking his father for $5, and when he says no he takes the $5 from them anyways. Ok maybe that analogy wasn't the best... but do you get the point? Who are we to say "if you dont' agree, f#ck you, we're doing it anyways"? Since when did the US become the supreme ruler of the world deciding what should happen in other's people business?
When the war is over, and many lives are lost, the US is going to impose a democratic government, like in afganistan. But the same thing is going to happen in iraq that happened in the Soviet Union. The government is going to collapse. As much as we all wish it could, democracy doesn't work everywhere. you cant' force it onto people, they have to have a want for it.
And lastly, this war isn't going to solve any problems, its going to cause more. Allies will be lost, and millions of people will see the U.S. has a Holy enemy.
This is very not good.
If the US defies the UN how does the world respond?
Last week in John Brady Kiesling's resignation letter, refering to the US betrayal of world stability organizations--the UN, NATO--and its coming consequences:
"Our fervent pursuit of war with Iraq is driving us to squander the international legitimacy that has been America's most potent weapon of both offense and defense since the days of Woodrow Wilson. We have begun to dismantle the largest and most effective web of international relationships the world has ever known. Our current course will bring instability and danger, not security."
Last night in Bush' national press conference address:
[Q: Mr. President, are you worried that the United States might be viewed as defiant of the United Nations if you went ahead with military action without specific and explicit authorization from the U.N.?
THE PRESIDENT: No, I'm not worried about that... when it comes to our security, we really don't need anybody's permission.]
So it is quite clear that the US doesn't give a damn what the world thinks, which has maybe always been the case, but is now unveiled by the current administration and will put the rest of the world on increased alert against American unilateralism.
What if the following scenario unfolds in the coming weeks:
Hans Blix gives a positive report on Iraq's disarmament process; the US rejects it and takes a proposal to the UN for immediate war against Iraq based on a "material breach" of resolution 1441; the proposal is vetoed by permanent members France, Russia, and China and receives few votes from the non-permanent members; the US and Britain (with insignificant support from Italy, Spain, Australia, etc... hopefully not Canada) spit in the eye of the UN and attack Iraq...
What does this mean for the future of the world? This could be the pivotal point of 21st century history, not because of the Iraqi threat or the devastation from an Iraq war, but due to the resultant change in the world's understanding of and response to American global pursuits. Does this wake-up call make you hopeful or fearful?
read John Brady Kiesling's complete letter of resignation above:
read the complete transcript of President Bush' National Press Conference Address here:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030306-8.html
So it comes to this. I'm not afraid of people outside of the US. I'm more afraid of the administration - witness the single name identifying this writer. I doubt that anyone in recent history has so polarized America as our president.
My wife spoke with a retired friend from Argentina last night. He said that he had personally witnessed an administration in Argentina become completely corrupt. He also said that this US administration appears to be a mirror image of that one and that our government is fast sliding into the abyss of a puppet dictatorship.
Thank you John Brady Kiesling. You've got guts!
"While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome."
--Former president George Herbert Walker Bush, TIME, MARCH 2, 1998
I had a pleasure of knowing you well, Brady. Regardless of your political convictions, I admire your personal courage and integrity.
This is the most unselfish and courageous act of humanity I have seen in the last few years. I am glad that people like John Brady Kiesling are speaking out at last. I am confident that if others like hem dared to voice their opinion professionally and with consideration to humanity, things may change from this devastating and drastic path world politics is heading towards. This regains my confidence in people, who have always enjoyed the fruits of this global milking and tyranny we face today. I salute you and hope others will follow you towards regaining their dignity as human being.
I was amused and not surprised by some of the reactions of other readers, who condemned this action. I just cannot believe how childish people can react, when they know that they are fighting a lost battle. Grow up people, wake up and smell the coffee. You are living in a civilized world, were boundaries are fading and people are exchanging a knowledge books could never teach. Stop living in the past and learn from it to build a better future.
I have come to study in the US for few years and give the American people a chance to show me the humanity their administration denies them. Mr. Kiesling and I dare, why don’t you?
A concerned world citizen
Shukri
This Iraq situation is getting very serious - a geopolitical fault line comparable to fall of Berlin wall ? Bush and his group of of simplistic jingoes have made a complete balls of presenting what is a perfectly good case ? and have delayed and wasted time assembling a massive military overkill worthy of the Normandy landings ? against a 9th rate wretched potential enemy who has been under embargo for 11 years -
If we feel it is time to establish a pax Americana in M/E - then lets set forth our objectives and gather a coalition for that ? and we make it clear that such a policy includes a balance between legitimate interests of both Israel and Arabs -
The French are an old, sophisticated, and proud nation ? they have indeed always been individualistic and maddening - in private and public life -
This practice of deflating American egos goes back to the Roosevelt / De Gaulle relationship - when FDR was violently opposed to CDG and French aspirations in general ? if the French owe anybody anything it is rather the brits and Winston -
US intervention in both great European wars came after the turning points in those conflicts - Verdun and Stalingrad - obviously new material and fresh blood shortened both wars - but the Prussians had lost before the doughboys got here -
Like it or not ? De Villepin has demonstrated skills which leave the state dept looking pretty amateurish ? yet when the chickens come home to roost I am afraid it will be Powell who gets the chop ? not Rumsfield -
when a medium size second rank power like France can put together a coalition against usa policy which includes china, germany and russia ? then uncle sam had better start looking at how he could have done a better job selling his case ? Blair has already lost his next election for the privilege of being the cherry on the frosting of the heavy fruit cake -
I don?t see any signs of polish - Spanish or Italian troops in Kuwait -
Oddly enuff ?I know for a fact that American special forces are training with French commandos and the foreign legion in Djibouti right now -
Fear.
No emotion exists that is so counterproductive to a soul, to a village, to a country, to the world.
The odor of fear reduces logic to rubble, makes enemies of friends, rips families apart, tears the fabric of nations.
I have a big, ugly neighbor. He waves his arms at me screaming nasty oaths. He sometimes carries a large stick. I often see him sitting on his porch after midnight. Should I 'get' him before he gets me? Should I do him in because he scares me to death and is threatening?
Is this the message that I'm to teach my children?
I think not, but can't help noticing it IS what Mr. Bush, who says that we need 'character education' in schools, is saying when he wants to start dropping bombs in scary Iraq.
I wonder if hypocrisy would be taught in schools, too. We know what Iraq has because we supplied them in their war against Iran and turned face with the knowledge of chemical weapons.
My children are learning the constitution and the bill of rights and I have to wonder if Mr. Bush's (as well as Ashcroft's) grasp of those are any better than his knowledge of math.
Freedom of speech ends with: "If you're not with us, then you are against us."
Privacy, can fall under liberty or the pursuit of happiness--- down the drain with the information collection being organized by Mr. Poindexter.
True peace will never come when you have fear mongering going on anywhere. The only reason we were 'encouraged' to buy duct tape was to perpetuate the fear and possibly give the economy just a little boost. Those devoted to war making need votes. If they find support waning and the possibility of a 'regime change', then perhaps better reasoning than fear will arrive into the picture.
Americans need to remember the power of the vote. And you might want to remember a familiar war-cry of the 80's. "Kick the bums out!"
Back to that neighbor. I decided to talk to him instead of thinking of doing him in. (Really, what Christian would think of doing that?) It turns out that he has a dog that won't listen, his big stick is a handmade cane and he works third shift.
If this war starts, it will be a clear manifestation of how self-contained and easily manipulated the American society has become (or always were?). And, subsequently,...dangerous in the eyes of the international community. All US int'l preaching about the importance of democratic values will turn into a bad joke. Americans, wake up and open to the world! Do not get so easily manipulated!
Brady, I am very glad I had a chance to know you personally. I hope your move will prompt many to
take a sober look at US foreign policy.
I cannot finds suitable words to express my congratulations to Mr. Kiesling for his courage and wisdom. I do hope that these best wishes somehow reach him.
It saddens me to no end to read the messages of those who do not agree. Time will tell whether or not the unilateralist neo-colonialistic approach now reaching unstoppable proportions will make the world a safer place or in fact one where Americans will not feel safe either at home or abroad.
George V. Kinal
Please excuse my need to reply to a reply, and my rather acerbic tone. But being a "teacher/deceiver" at a northeastern liberal arts university (see below) I felt compelled to reply to the commentary which showed obvious lack of comprehension regarding Kiesling's points.
To M. Welch, a point-by-point commentary on Welch's point-by-point commentary.
>departure. Yes, it was eloquent. He is so
>eloquent in fact that he needs to be
>teaching/deceiving young college students
>of a liberal arts college in the Northeast
>somewhere instead of representing our
>interests abroad.
I am glad to see that you weren't "deceived" by the benefits of a college education. That certainly shows in your reading comprehension skills. If you are college-educated, I suggest you write the university and request a formal apology for letting you graduate without the comprehension ability to read a letter.
>Rebuttal to snippets from his quitting letter:
Let's look, shall we?
>1- "Domestic politics vs. international
>politics"- We have "bureaucratic self
>interests".....you're darn right we do! Wasn't
>that what led to the Revolutionary War in the
>late 1770s?? Why can't we look out for
>ourselves?? We have to have approval of the
>world community to protect our country and our
>people??
I don't think that the revolution was about Washington's need to make more money from his hemp farm after the war was over. You seem to argue against this point by suggesting that our right "to protect our country and our people" is the "bureacratic self-interest" to which Kiesling refers. Protection of the US is _international_ politics. Money from oil for certain corporations that members of the administration have ties to is domestic, even personal, perhaps. As for the "protection" issue, where is the credible threat to "our country and our people"? When did Saddam invade us, bomb us, or anything similar?
>2- If I hear the correlation to the "war in
>Vietnam" again, I am going to scream!! This is a
Ahhhh!
>desperate analogy by the left! We are in the
True, if used in reference to how the battles will be fought. But it is a reasonable analogy in that this war is one in which the media plays a vital role in attempting to assuage the populace, most of whom oppose it.
>21st Century folks! Our air strike capability
>combined with satellite intelligence will make
Such great intelligence as we had regarding the Chinese embassy in Serbia? Impressive.
>this such a lopsided victory that "the war" part
>will basically be over in weeks to maybe 2
>months. We've come such a long way from even the
Yes, we will drop bombs on millions of innocent children 10 times faster than we used to be able to. If Serbia was any indication, our reconaissance skills and targetting systems lead a great deal to be desired.
>Persian Gulf War! The occupation period is the
>only thing I fear. We need to get to Saddam
>Hitler quickly, set up the new government, and
If we wanted him out, we'd simply send the CIA to arm and train resistance fighters. The man is very unpopular in some parts of his own nation. This is how we have traditionally accomplished regime changes of our choosing in the post-WWII period.
>leave. Hopefully, this doesn't become a
>multiyear occupation which will lead to some
>casualties by snipers and bombs tied to whatever
>a bomb can be tied to!
Oh, it will. Why invade if we don't intend to occupy and cash in on the oil supplies?
>3- Terrorism and Iraq are unrelated?? Hmmmm....I
>guess Saddam's comments of "we had it coming"
>after 9-11 attacks strengthen that comment. So,
He can say all he wants, that doesn't mean he was connected. To al-Quaeda, Saddam is a bloody Heathen.
>the Al-Queda are the ONLY terrorist group in the
>world and the only ones out to get the
>Imperialistic Evil empire called the United
>States. I didn't know that Mr. Kiesling!
Mr. Kiesling never said in the letter that Al-Quaeda was the only terrorist group. We have a number of them who are home-grown, and most of them seem to think that our government is too liberal and too concerned what the UN thinks. Ask the Oklahoma City bomber.
Anyone who is aware of the goals of Al Qaeda and the goals of Saddam Hussein realize that they are fundamentally incompatible.
>4- "the misallocation of shrinking public
>wealth"- So, Mr. Kiesling, how many times a week
>do you talk to Mr. Gephardt? Last time I
>checked, our GNP was rising and the average
>income levels of Americans was rising. I guess
>we should not do that "tax-cut for the rich" so
>we can have the 2% of the population that pays
>80% of the taxes flip the bill for the war!!
Why certainly, it is barely a hardship for them to give up one of their yachts! Besides, they will be the ones profitting for the oil after all. It will be blood from the other 98% that is shed, all to line the 2%'s pockets, they might as well fund it. Most of the prominent members of the administration were too rich to have to go to war when it was their turn, or they enlisted in cushy military service at home.
>5- "the mercenary US"- Yup, that's us....a bunch
>of militaristic, hired thugs! What an insult to
>our brave military to reduce them simply to
>mercenaries!!
Please consult a dictionary before responding to that which you do not understand. If you had, you might have seen:
mer·ce·nar·y
adj.
1. Motivated solely by a desire for monetary or material gain
>6- "the cherished VALUES! of our partners"- Boy,
>I need to check with Webster on the definition
Yes, you really should do that more often.
>of values. Then, I need to really study those
>Socialist governments in Europe. I have to
>witness their high moral fiber! Maybe a visit to
It's certainly no worse than ours. Not even during the Roman Empire, or the British Empire, etc. Yes, their moral fiber is about the same--only we are the ones on the imperialist end this century.
>Paris or Amsterdam is in order!
Yes, broadening your horizons might be a good thing.
>7- "Greece....the "purported" hotbed of Anti-
>Americanism"- Purported?? Kiesling obviously
>never got out into Athens much! Every time I've
>been there, I have witnessed graffiti
>stating, "Yankee go home!" I used to say I was
That's nothing, I lived there for a few years, one of them was 1999. There were Anti-American rallies that turned into riots pretty much daily. But you can't blame them. We supported a coup by military dictators using the CIA because we were afraid that they would turn communist in the 70's. Those dictators destroyed the country, caused Turkey to invade Northern Cyprus, declared that Greece was a country only for Christians, and used the army to subdue student protestors with extreme prejudice and violence. Why should they love us?
>English instead of American so I wouldn't get a
>dirty look or sneer from strangers! They simply
How courageous and patriotic of you!
>HATE our government for supporting Israel for so
>many years. I can't say I totally disagree
>there.
>8- The Greeks want "a strong international
>system"- Any national government that is in
>disarray and is weak wants a strong
>international system because they are failing
>domestically! They need a shark so they can
>attach themselves like a remora to swim.
Perhaps. A "strong international system" is useful to any country that wants imported goods. It is useful to pretty much everyone.
>Mr. Kiesling....in spite of your opinions....I
>have bad news for you....I hope you are sitting
>down. The USA IS a beacon of liberty, security,
Liberty? Have you read the patriot act?
Security? We have none compared to other countries..we foolishly assumed that having an ocean on each side was enough protection. Now that we have security, we are losing liberty.
"The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either."
--Benjamin Franklin
>and justice for the planet! Thank you again for
>quitting and God Bless the USA!
When the war is over, talk to the parents of the children (and there will be lots of them, remember how our pilots tend to "mistake" civilian refugee caravans for military targets because we fly so high that we can't tell) who were blown to smithereens because we wanted oil, or, giving you the benefit of the doubt, even because their leader was evil. Talk to them about justice, about security, and about god blessing the USA.
I'm no peace-loving dove. If Saddam ever acts in a convincingly agressive fashion against another country, as when he invaded Kuwait, I would be the first in line to depose him through forcce. But while he's sitting around, twiddling his thumbs because we put him in his place last time, there is no necessity for that. If we wanted regime change, it should have been accomplished during the Gulf War.
Maybe then we won't make those who are ambivalent about the US right now run out and join terrorist groups, those who like us now indifferent to us, and those who already hate us have an excuse and a rallying cry to use against us. I can hear it now: "Americans are evil. Remember Baghdad."
We couldn't play into Bin Laden's propaganda any better than we are doing right now.
re:neighbor analogy
"If you knew your neighbor was planning to blow up your home and kill all your neighbors, would you just build a stronger fence and wait for the inevitable. Or would you take the initiative and stop it before your home was blown to bits or you were killed by biological means???"
I think it is good to personalize the conflict to concieve the psychology involved. However,
1)what attempts at good neighborliness could be tried before being at odds.
2)this whole bad neighbor idea must have roots in mutual misunderstanding or mistreatment.
3) if the neighbor is sociopathic - in a civilized society, the insane must be dealt with humanely and by the proper parties.
A 'neighborhood' is not the Wild-West these days.
How about this analogy:
If you were a cowboy and you saw a band of rustlers hiding out in a grove of trees in a nearby valley, would you shoot them before they shot you and took your bosses cows?
(w. - please don't use this one)
WILD WEST RULES!
It seems sad that we have fogotten that diplomacy can only go so far. Reality doesn't allow us to wait for others to accept universal peace through diplomacy.
The fact that a diplomat quit when we the American People needed diplomacy the most doesn't strike me a heroic or laudable. When we do exhaust our diplomatic options and send our brothers and sisters to the desert to fight for their lives maybe it will be a little more clear, diplomacy is civilized way to avoid killing each other that has never achieved a lasting peace. His resignation hasn't achieved a consensus or made their terrible jobs easier.
Sad but true, in the real world people will use violence to get their way. Especially when those who have the strength to resist (read the cynical dissenters of the World), lazily stand by waiting for "diplomacy" to take effect on those who have no stake in it.
Did diplomacy work in Kosovo? No NATOs military might did. No amount of conversation would have ever stopped them from killing. Nor stopped the Communists, nor the Nazis, so on and on and on. If you are afraid it is because you don't understand the sacrifice it takes to stand up to the truly barbaric people of the world. Until you are willing to put your life on the line, directly in the way of gun, then you will never understand the true brute nature that you gallantly accuse the US of having. You don't see that someone has to make these sacrifices. You only see you don't want to.
The people that walk the line between chaos and civilisation are often brutal themselves. But if the US weren't "war mongering" with brutal dictators you wouldn't have the option of critisizing anyone.
Some nations are willing to protect the rest of the world at their own expense, others are only willing to talk about it. And when it becomes clear that this diplomat abandoned his country when we needed him, when his reputation was on the line and his work could actually save lives and he walked away, ask how civilised is that and what did his diplomacy accomplish? Is his resignation more valuable than his work would have been?
Heroes don't run away and abandon their post. And I pray that when the time comes we will stand up to the sacrifice for those that come behind us.
Wow. A beautifully written letter that sheds a lot of light on why mildly retarted chimpanzees are usually left in the wild or kept in zoos rather than allowed to sit behind a desk and make important decisions. If Curious George Dubya, the eloquent, suit-wearing, disgrace to all chimps of the world was given one-tenth the moral character of Mr. Kiesling, he would keel over and hit the floor from his body going into shock.Good luck and thanks very much Sir.
Vietnam vet
son of wounded WW II vet, and son of
Holocaust victim WW II
Thank you Mr.Kiesling for your outstanding moral courage, integrity and convictions.
When JOHN and ROBERT KENNEDY, together with their Cabinet Advisors, faced the CUBAN MISSLE CRISES, they did so, astutely, with "PRAGMATIC REALISM".
We were truly on the edge of NUCLEAR WORLD WAR, and they protected us. They took care of their beloved country. They truly protected AMERICANS and our country, the USA, and sustained peace for the ENTIRE WORLD. We need to be forever grateful for their perspicacious wisdom and actions. They will remain renown, historic heros, around the world, for their beliefs, intelligence, sophistication, real courage, diplomacy, patience, and international and cultural wisdom, for their attempts toward peace and unity of nations.
THIS IS NOT THE CASE OF PRESIDENT BUSH AND HIS CABINET, perhaps with the exception of Colin Powell, who understands the devastation of war, first hand.
PRESIDENT BUSH AND CABINET, are "CRUSADERS", comparable to the RELIGIOUS CRUSADERS of MANY CENTURIES PAST, who wanted and needed to be OMNIPOTENT.
Yes, President Bush, Intelligent Maneuvers--- to apply the Massive Pressure of our Troops on the Border of Iraq, demonstrating ULTIMATE FORCE and POWER to the "MADMAN OF IRAQ", that we CAN, WILL and DO, FINALLY, MEAN "BUSINESS"! BUT...,TO ACTUALLY DEPLOY THEM IN DAYS OR WEEKS...? WHY?! WHAT ARE THE REAL MOTIVES to fight, kill, and destroy, during these Delicate, Vulnerable, International Moments in History?
Is it our Stock Market, our Economy, Big Business..... that will BENEFIT from the Immediate, Devastating Strike of War? Who or what will really BENEFIT from such an immediate attack, killing, and devastation, towards another country of human beings, from our high tech weaponry?
AGAIN, WHY SO IMMEDIATE, if there is a Worldwide Coalition of Escalating Pressure and Proactivity, to FORCE SADAM TO BOW DOWN and SWALLOW DIRT, together with his buddies, STALIN AND HITLER?!
How about Mr. Bush's future Presidency?
The actual deployment of our omnipotent, massive troops in war, is an awfully big "bet", for or against, his future Presidency!
What if "war" produces a totality of consequences that are worse?!! That is, not only Iraq in possible anarchy, but heightened terrorism worldwide and inside U.S. borders, further hate towards Americans, and further war in the Middle East, etc etc.
If President Bush's WAR FAILS to accomplish his VISION, not only will his Presidency fall, but our Economy will also fall into recession, and the great Bush name will be forfeited forever in history! If he hasn't already, Mr. Bush better think about that very carefully, instead of "SHOOTING from the HIP" so hastily.
MORE IMPORTANTLY, DO WE AMERICANS want to take Mr. BUSH's HIGH RISK BET, of "spending" our enormous monetary resources and human lives......through war Right Now, Immediately, without giving Peace a Chance? What about our economy, education, health care for the aged, and protection within our own borders, just to name a few of the forgone RIGHTS we treasure, and need to Finance America with IMMEDIATELY?
Watch television! Read the papers! Always the same--FEAR. It is called "capitalizing on fear". Create fear, and sell.... create fear, and sell.... Like they always say, "follow the money trail...." That is where the motives and answers probably lie....
Vietnam vet
son of wounded WW II vet, and son of
Holocaust victim WW II
Thank you Mr.Kiesling for your outstanding moral courage, integrity and convictions.
When JOHN and ROBERT KENNEDY, together with their Cabinet Advisors, faced the CUBAN MISSLE CRISES, they did so, astutely, with "PRAGMATIC REALISM".
We were truly on the edge of NUCLEAR WORLD WAR, and they protected us. They took care of their beloved country. They truly protected AMERICANS and our country, the USA, and sustained peace for the ENTIRE WORLD. We need to be forever grateful for their perspicacious wisdom and actions. They will remain renown, historic heros, around the world, for their beliefs, intelligence, sophistication, real courage, diplomacy, patience, and international and cultural wisdom, for their attempts toward peace and unity of nations.
THIS IS NOT THE CASE OF PRESIDENT BUSH AND HIS CABINET, perhaps with the exception of Colin Powell, who understands the devastation of war, first hand.
PRESIDENT BUSH AND CABINET, are "CRUSADERS", comparable to the RELIGIOUS CRUSADERS of MANY CENTURIES PAST, who wanted and needed to be OMNIPOTENT.
Yes, President Bush, Intelligent Maneuvers--- to apply the Massive Pressure of our Troops on the Border of Iraq, demonstrating ULTIMATE FORCE and POWER to the "MADMAN OF IRAQ", that we CAN, WILL and DO, FINALLY, MEAN "BUSINESS"! BUT...,TO ACTUALLY DEPLOY THEM IN DAYS OR WEEKS...? WHY?! WHAT ARE THE REAL MOTIVES to fight, kill, and destroy, during these Delicate, Vulnerable, International Moments in History?
Is it our Stock Market, our Economy, Big Business..... that will BENEFIT from the Immediate, Devastating Strike of War? Who or what will really BENEFIT from such an immediate attack, killing, and devastation, towards another country of human beings, from our high tech weaponry?
AGAIN, WHY SO IMMEDIATE, if there is a Worldwide Coalition of Escalating Pressure and Proactivity, to FORCE SADAM TO BOW DOWN and SWALLOW DIRT, together with his buddies, STALIN AND HITLER?!
How about Mr. Bush's future Presidency?
The actual deployment of our omnipotent, massive troops in war, is an awfully big "bet", for or against, his future Presidency!
What if "war" produces a totality of consequences that are worse?!! That is, not only Iraq in possible anarchy, but heightened terrorism worldwide and inside U.S. borders, further hate towards Americans, and further war in the Middle East, etc etc.
If President Bush's WAR FAILS to accomplish his VISION, not only will his Presidency fall, but our Economy will also fall into recession, and the great Bush name will be forfeited forever in history! If he hasn't already, Mr. Bush better think about that very carefully, instead of "SHOOTING from the HIP" so hastily.
MORE IMPORTANTLY, DO WE AMERICANS want to take Mr. BUSH's HIGH RISK BET, of "spending" our enormous monetary resources and human lives......through war Right Now, Immediately, without giving Peace a Chance? What about our economy, education, health care for the aged, and protection within our own borders, just to name a few of the forgone RIGHTS we treasure, and need to Finance America with IMMEDIATELY?
Watch television! Read the papers! Always the same--FEAR. It is called "capitalizing on fear". Create fear, and sell.... create fear, and sell.... Like they always say, "follow the money trail...." That is where the motives and answers probably lie....
I've just printed Mr. Kiesling's letter for my daughter to take to school and read to her American History class. It will join, on my office door, Mark Twain's War Prayer, which for the last two months has been posted there, printed in 24-point boldface type. I predict that it will, over time, assume an equally honored place in the literature of TRUE American patriotism.
Thank you, sir. I hope every person of conscience in America finds a way to strike as firm a blow for peace, freedom, and the REAL American way as you have.
Saddam is evil incarnate and must be gotten rid of before he gets the bomb like Iran and North Korea already have.Saddam would not hesitate to drop the big one on Tel Aviv or NYC. Let's reduce the Axis of Evil by one.
By the way, I just heard the latest news from lovely Rhodesia, I mean hideous Zimbabwe. Who is responsible for the nightmare going on in what was once a prosperous former British Colony. Hunt the guilty parties down and kill them too!
Mr. Kiesling, I predict that you will be persona non grata (a little foreign phraseology myself) in post-war Iraq for not having been on the side of the oppressed Iraqi people.
Could Kiesling be the conscience of American foreign policy at the beginning of the 21st Century?
Glad to see him gone. Slowly but surely we will root these cowards out. You people in the rest of the world just keep your heads buried in the sand...we will let you know when its safe to come out. I wonder if Canada was situated in another geograpical location (in between Iraq and Iran) if you people would see things differently.
Response to P. Nulton:
CIA reps DID try to support a coup attempt by an Iraqi general and northern kurds but the Clinton run administration instead said no and prosecuted 4 cia members for conspiring to commit assassination??!?!!! because as u know it is illegal in our country to assassinate foreign leaders. And your comment about the Oklahoma City bombing, keep in mind there is multiple evidence that shows that iraqi intelligence agents and several muslim individuals were involved in that attack. Do the research, there is plenty of info on the web.
True, we know that the net is the place to go if you want credible information from anything from, um, enlarging body parts, to getting millions from the son of a former Ivory Coast official.
We should really lift that ban on assassination, the CIA is how we've always changed governments...look what we did in Greece in the late 60's. There is so much evidence that the State Department doesn't even try to deny that we put the fascists in power there anymore. But we don't need to assassinate anyone, we'l just train/arm the next Contras or the Mujahadeen to fight them, lol. Then we'll fight the ones we trained about 10 years later. It's the "American Way." ;-)
Responce to U.S.Vet
If he's bad rubbish, then you are trash.
Shame on you for being rude, hateful and un-American.
Responce to U.S.Vet
If he's bad rubbish, then you are trash.
Shame on you for being rude, hateful and un-American.
Responce to U.S.Vet
If he's bad rubbish, then you are trash.
Shame on you for being rude, hateful and un-American.
Speak Truth To Power. Keisling for President in 2004!
Finally, someone with a clear head.
Mr. Kiesling had the same concerns I had before, at the beginning and still do now that the fighting part of the war is over. And that is 1. We really don't know what we are doing in the Middle East. 2. The US administration didn't fool anyone in the world except some of the US population about the war aims. How silly trying to link the religious fanatical Al Queida to the secular Sadam Hussien, where are the weapons of mass destruction? etc... 3. Was the two bit dictator worth squandering our credibility all across the globe. Who is going to believe a word we say now? 4. We will now get cooperation by fear rather than mutual held values. Frightened people are usually not at their best and most times they are down right dangerous. We won't be on top forever.
I'm not a bleeding heart liberal. I just believe in doing things smartly and not being a complete idiot. This all seems so stupid I ask myself how could people with enough intelligence to make it the top echelleons of our government manage to make such an incredible mess of it all. There are only two answers I have. The first is they are all idiots which I don't beleive for a moment. The other is the correct one and it is such a cynical one on my part and so obvious and ugly selfishly self-serving to individuals in the administration that I can't bring myself to write it. Pardon me while I go throw up!
"there is multiple evidence that shows that iraqi intelligence agents and several muslim individuals were involved in (the Oklahoma City bombing)"
That's why Curious George and his cronies never mentioned it while whipping up the war fever, right? Wouldn't want any real evidence slipping into the script....
To those of us who laud Mr. Kiesling's act of conscience: let us commit acts of conscience of our own. That's what America is all about, my friends, not being the world's bully, and those who disagree may gnash their snidely teeth in vain.
I've said it elsewhere, and I will say it again:
If ever a sequel to Kennedy's "Profiles in Courage" is written, John Brady Kiesling's story should be chapter one.
Ronald W. Albers
Heard an interview with Mr. Kiesling yesterday, April 24. It prompted me to find his letter of resignation. He has inspired plenty of rhetoric. For the conservatives who believe that our actions in Iraq were correct, and advise silence to those who dissent, be sure to read or the Constitution. Free speech is a guarantee. Mr. Kiesling is a brave man who acted on his convictions. George Bush went after Hussein because he tried to kill Bush Sr. No evidence of weapons of mass destruction has been revealed, as of April 25, 2003. No connection to Al Qeada has been illustrated. Let's hope the military uncovers the evidence. Let us also pray that our actions do not inspire more terrorism. A final question: Could we have avoided the September 11 attacks if we had assisted the Palestinians in the establishment of a homeland? The Bush administration didn't think so. The staff openly laughed at and criticized Clinton's efforts to find a solution.
Caught on Film: a comprehensive (?) list of GW Bush's rhetoric that has directly contradicted his policy, with photos of him at the time he told the lie!
Or: a good indication of just how grim a state American journalism is in these days.
Another one, from The New Forum:
American media kow-towing to Saddam Hussein: The CBC's Patrick Brown is reporting that the major American networks have come together to agree to not report the details -- or even the existence -- of the Iraqi opposition meetings in Salahaddin, Iraq. He says the nets are apparently worried that Saddam Hussein will retaliate for the networks giving his opponents coverage by kicking their talking heads and Scud studs out of Baghdad. But the upshot is the American public are less well-informed about an important meeting, one attended by an American envoy and general.
Immanuel Wallerstein's The Eagle Has Crash Landed (from last summer.. ah, summer) is worth a second look.
Right now, the U.S. economy seems relatively weak, even more so considering the exorbitant military expenses associated with hawk strategies. Moreover, Washington remains politically isolated; virtually no one (save Israel) thinks the hawk position makes sense or is worth encouraging. Other nations are afraid or unwilling to stand up to Washington directly, but even their foot-dragging is hurting the United States.
Yet the U.S. response amounts to little more than arrogant arm-twisting. Arrogance has its own negatives. Calling in chips means leaving fewer chips for next time, and surly acquiescence breeds increasing resentment. Over the last 200 years, the United States acquired a considerable amount of ideological credit. But these days, the United States is running through this credit even faster than it ran through its gold surplus in the 1960s.
One example of this can be found here: For Bush, support for Iraq war comes with a price tag
Since the Bush administration has committed itself to war before getting the necessary support, it is now in the position of needing to pay for that support, or call off the invasion, risking a singular loss of credibility. So the price to the US government in both cash and influence is much higher. I think that's what Wallerstein means by "calling in chips means leaving fewer chips for next time, and surly acquiescence breeds increasing resentment."
If this is indeed the case, the pricetag for US dominance is going to keep climbing, steadily. But as Wallerstein crucially points out, accepting this is the only way that the US won't cause a lot of damage on the way down.
Cue a few bits from a recent informal report from a journalist who got inside access to the World Economic Forum:
The global economy is in very very very very bad shape. Last year when WEF met here in New York all I heard was, "Yeah, it's bad, but recovery is right around the corner". This year "recovery" was a word never uttered. Fear was palpable -- fear of enormous fiscal hysteria.
...
I learned that the US economy is the primary drag on the global economy, and only a handful of nations have sufficient internal growth to thrive when the US is stagnating.
...
Not surprisingly, the business community was in no mood to hear about a war in Iraq. Except for diehard American Republicans, a few Brit Tories and some Middle East folks the WEF was in a foul, angry anti-American mood. Last year the WEF was a lovefest for America. This year the mood was so ugly that it reminded me of what it felt like to be
an American overseas in the Reagan years. The rich -- whether they are French or Chinese or just about anybody -- are livid about the Iraq crisis primarily because they believe it will sink their financial fortunes.
I added Joy Gordon's Cool War: Economic sanctions as weapons of mass destruction to the Iraq Reading List.
Washington Post: Full U.S. Control Planned for Iraq
The Bush administration plans to take complete, unilateral control of a post-Saddam Hussein Iraq, with an interim administration headed by a yet-to-be named American civilian who would direct the reconstruction of the country and the creation of a "representative" Iraqi government, according to a now-finalized blueprint described by U.S. officials and other sources.
From the Washington Post:
France and Germany lead European opposition to a speedy attack. But Britain, Italy, Spain, Denmark and Portugal, as well as Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic, have firmly backed the U.S. position. On Wednesday, 10 more European governments, in the former communist east, jointly declared support for Washington. They were Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia.
A quick scan of opinion polls reveals that, while governments are supporting the US, the people are solidly opposed to unilateral and even UN action in all but a few countries. This can be explained by diplomatic pressure which has, for now, overcome a distinct lack of popular support in the following countries:
Britain: 86% say give weapons inspectors more time, 34% think that US and Britain have made a convincing case for invasion. »
Spain: 80% opposed to war, 91% against attack without UN resolution »
Italy: 72% opposed to war »
Portugal: 65% say there is no reason to attack now »
Hungary: 82% opposed to invasion under any circumstances »
Czech Republic: 67% opposed to invasion under any circumstances »
Poland: 63% against sending Polish troops, 52% support US "politically" »
Denmark: 79% oppose war without U.N. mandate »
Australia: 56 per cent only backed UN-sanctioned action, 12% support unilateral action. 76% oppose participation in a US-led war on Iraq. Australian Senate voted 33-31 to censure Howard for committing 2,000 soldiers to US action. »
The "Vilnius 10" is a group of 9 countries that are seeking membership in NATO and Croatia. In many cases, their future security depends on NATO membership. In Estonia, for example, there is a tangible fear that Russia will take over again, given a militaristic enough government and the right opportunity (the--thankfully past--popularity of the fascist Vladimir Zhirinovsky was a good indication of this possibility. Zhirinovsky had a map in his office showing the borders of Russia expanded to include the former Soviet Union and Alaska). In any case, it's doubtful that these governments are supporting the US for any other reason than to get diplomatic points (or conversely, not piss away their chances of NATO membership).
Taking Estonia as an example again, we find that the government has supported war without any debate in Parliament, despite 70% of the people and major newspapers opposed to war in Iraq.
Latvia: 74% oppose taking out Hussein with military force »
Romania: 38% opposed, 45% in favour »
Macedonia: 10% support war on Iraq »
Bulgaria: 21% support war »
Estonia: 30% support war »
Slovakia: 60% oppose sending Slovak soldiers »
Information for Albania, Croatia, Slovenia and Lithuania was immediately available via Google news, but according to this report, Romania is the only country in the "Vilnius 10" that has a majority of the population supporting the war.
For comparison purposes:
France: 76% against war without UN support »
Germany: 55% against war with UN support, 90% against war without UN support. 57% hold the opinion that "the United States is a nation of warmongers". »
Remember that war in Afghanistan, and how the future was going to be bright for the impoverished and war-torn country? Well, it still exists, but things aren't getting better yet. Maybe we need to drop more bombs?
In other news, there's a record budget deficit.
Dru, your comments here remind me of an interview I saw on CBC Newsworld the other day. Some dude from the NDP (not an MP, a party activist, I think) was talking about Afghanistan and Iraq and how the US shouldn't (or shouldn't have, as the case may be) use force. Don Martin pressed him, "So, if the Taliban were to regroup and try to wrestle for control of the whole country again, the US should just retreat?" The NDP guy responded, "Well, no. But the use of force is never justified. Not in Iraq, not in Afghanistan, never." (Again, I am paraphrasing.)
Now, I don't know if you hold this position, but it is at least implied in your comments above. Which raises the question: though Kabul has control of only a small part of the country, if that control were threatened by the Taliban once again, what should we do? It's not an easy question, but I (personally) haven't been satisfied with a lot of the answer I've heard. Wondered what you thought ...
Anyway, I like the re-design of your site. Andy
hi Andy,
Thanks for commenting. I tend to be a little bit flip when I post to misnomer, so you're right to take me to task :>
I don't believe that the use of force is never justified. Terrorizing a country until it switches to the government that the US thinks would be better is most certainly not justifiable. That's the demonstrable aim of material like this.
War--especially the kind that is conducted with 500 pound bombs, kills a lot of people, injures more, cuts off essential humanitarian aid, and creates hundreds of thousands of starving refugees--just cannot be said to be good for the people of a country.
As for your question, I don't think that we should have gone in guns blazing in the first place (much less executing and torturing POWs and taking them prisoner illegally). But now that we're in there, commited to a course of action that made no sense in terms of a) helping Afghanistan or b) curbing terrorist activity, you're right, it is a tough question.
In terms of (a), the US spent $300,000,000 on bombs dropped in Afghanistan alone (before December '01). Now, I'm pretty much convinced that the approx. $1 billion that was used to fight that war could have been used in a way that was much, much better for everyone involved. As for getting rid of terrorists, police action would have been much more effective.
The Taliban declared that they would hand over any terrorists that the US would identify, but the US never even tried that course of action, choosing instead to go in bombing. They ignored the saner alternative in favour of a show of force, and a huge profit opportunity for the defense dept. And as one of the news stories linked above notes, bombing a population into submission doesn't win a lot of friends. It creates new populations of desperate, pissed off people who are willing to repay terror with terror, or at least join the Taliban (who are, in some ways, less barbarous than the northern alliance types.)
Minimally, war should be a last resort, or an exercise in level-headed calculation across the board. The reasons for it should be examined, the people who would be affected by it interviewed, the number of civilian casualties estimated and then documented. A full examination should be carried out of who profits from it, and how much. Most importantly, all alternatives should be examined and then exhausted before people are killed.
These seem to me to be the minimal conditions for military action that isn't abhorrent.
I feel morbidly obligated to add that the US's military action in Vietnam, Panama, Grenada, Kosovo, Iraq, and now Afghanistan came nowhere close to meeting any of the conditions I described above.
and and tells techniques..
and and tells techniques..
[Russil Wvong posted a link to the following discussion of foreign policy options regarding Iraq. Since it contains valuable information (despite its imperialist assumptions), I have cleaned up the original crappy USENET formatting and hereby assert my naive understanding of fair use laws by providing it in its entirety. The article originally appeared in the NY Review of Books.]
Iraq: A New Leaf
by William R. Polk, February 18, 1999
A sober reassessment of the American capacity to deal with the Iraqi dilemma is years overdue. Many opportunities have been missed, but it is not too late to avoid the threat of large-scale warfare and the use of weapons of mass destruction that still may lie ahead. Even short of such dreadful events, there is a clear danger of major regional upheavals that could affect the world economy and undermine American leadership. Here I will lay out in summary what I believe our options are, the chances of success of each one, and the cost of trying to implement it.
have exon projected oil exaustion within 20yrs at home, could this be the motive behind the liberation of a defeated, bombed,persecuted race of human beings. g.w.bush I cannot insult enough, but to say his election reflects on the stupidity of the good old usa.
have exon projected oil exaustion within 20yrs at home, could this be the motive behind the liberation of a defeated, bombed,persecuted race of human beings. g.w.bush I cannot insult enough, but to say his election reflects on the stupidity of the good old usa.
CNN.com: Blair risks losing job over Iraq
Blair now risks splitting his own party, alienating his two biggest partners in Europe -- France and Germany -- and perhaps even losing office, so unpopular is his support for war with Iraq in Britain.
Yet with zeal, he presses on.
75 to 80 percent of the British public are against war in Iraq. The line between "zeal" and hyper-explicit, politically suicidal kow-towing becomes a little blurrier.
To review:
What are the chances that Saddam Hussein will attack the UK? Pretty slim.
What are the chances that Saddam Hussein will attack anyone, with the threat of total destruction hanging over him? Also slim.
What are the chances that Saddam Hussein will attack anyone he can, with as much destructive force as he can muster, if he and his country are in the process of being anihilated? Considerably less slim.
Ignoring all the humanitarian concerns (which are, of course, significant), the most pragmatic stance towards Iraq and it's possible use of WMD seems to be the status quo: massive deterance and ongoing inspections.
And then there are the sanctions and the bombing every three days for ten years. Destroying Iraq's economy and civil infrastructure has clearly made the people much more dependent on Hussein, and caused unnecessary, unimaginable, yet widely documented suffering. The possibility of Iraqi people rising up against Hussein is--as a result--as unlikely now as it has ever been. Acknowledging this, and the fact that the US sold him many of the chemical and biological weapons he now has, might be the first step towards a sane policy on Iraq.
Check out the article "Iraq: A New Leaf," New York Review of Books, February 18, 1999, by William Polk. Polk reviews the possible options for US policy toward Iraq.
I base my assessment on over half a century of work and study on the Middle East as a scholar, as a businessman, and as a United States government policy planner. I have lived in Iraq under previous regimes, have closely observed Iraqi society, have visited units of the Iraqi army, have talked with most of the current Iraqi leaders, and have shared observations and insights with British, French, Russian, and fellow American observers and officials.
Note that Polk is also the author of the 1958 article in the Atlantic Monthly on the fall of Nuri al-Said. His book The Arab World Today is a very good introduction to modern Arab history.
Russil,
Thanks for posting that. Though Polk doesn't seem to have any problem with the US asserting ownership or control over an entire region because it can, he nonetheless provides what looks like a very good background on Hussein's motivations, and if followed, his policy would undoubtedly be much better than the current disaster.
I've cleaned up and reposted the article.
Thanks for cleaning up and reposting the Polk article, Dru.
I've put together a long article on September 11 and the Middle East, including a section on the Iraq crisis.
or that a months..
or that a months..
People do realize that Bush tells outright, verifiable lies all the time, right? To think otherwise would be to think that the American press, media, and population (the ones that get polled, anyway) aren't capable of rudimentary critical thought. Or maybe lying isn't a considered bad anymore.
I suppose that lying about important issues is different than lying about one's sex life. Much different.
Accuracy.org has a line by line dismantling of Bush's State of the Union address. I can't say it's really needed, though--at least not to establish that there are major problems with almost everything that was said. Reading a single line of the speech, chosen at random, and thinking about it for more than 10 seconds raises all kinds of contradictions and iss... oops, can't type any more--time for another standing ovation.
I'd be interessted in what you thought of Rex Murphy's recent commentss on Bush'ss state of the union addresss. smj
I generally find Rex Murphy to be pompous and wrong, but I didn't hear his comments. Do you have a pointer or a summary?
This is the text of Rex's commentary after Bush's address last week.
http://cbc.ca/national/rex/rex20030129.html
accounts, standard to the.
or Email your Cinelerra.
gives of is a.
such programs models, IP..
information. clock a with.
source I and handling;.
which on any a.
to in a your.
Pointer, natural Cut at.
its box. function going.
teachers To wvdial, and.
Linux CA. payload. for.
SaveMyModem emphasize or won't.
image or use PowerBook.
and to indicates the.
this, of we'll to.
They can Being look.
Internet Internet. C++, line,.
actually, the Whole external.
destination there Linux is.
destination there Linux is.
IHT: Will invading Iraq make life safer for Americans?
As a CIA assessment said last October: "Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks" in the United States. "Should Saddam conclude that a U.S.-led attack could no longer be deterred, he probably would become much less constrained in adopting terrorist actions." The CIA added that Saddam might order attacks with weapons of mass destruction as "his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him."
Where does the idea that an invasion of Iraq will be bloodless and lead to insta-democracy come from? I've never heard of anyone actually promising that there won't be many casualties. Unless everything is completely different than the public record indicates it is, this "painless regime change" trope is almost complete fantasy, and yet it is repeated constantly.
Atlantic Monthly: Articles on foreign policy and Iraq, 1958 to present. 1958 was the year that Iraqis overthrew Nuri as-Said, the US-supported dictator of the day.
Raven Matrix: Interview with Michael Stutz about copyleft for writing, linux, and washing dishes.
Some interesting speculation on the origins of the myth that the US is supremely and inherently benevolent, a myth which forms the first premise of much of our foreign policy--in a report from Davos.
The United States has a very different experience of nationalism and therefore a very different view of multilateralism. From the U.S. point of view, World Wars I and II were exercises in European savagery; it fell to the United States to save Europe from itself. However, the United States never saw itself as responsible for Europe's disease, nor did it see itself as susceptible to it. Washington was not afraid of its own nationalist tendencies. Americans believed that the Europeans would not behave as civilized human beings unless they were forced into institutions that limited their sovereignty and behavior. In the American view, the lesson of the 20th century was precisely the opposite: The United States could be trusted to behave responsibly without institutional constraints.
Helen Caldicott on Depleted Uranium:
America used over one million pounds of uranium weapons in the Gulf war – 7000 tanks rounds and 940,000 bullets fired from planes. 10,800 shells were fired in Bosnia and 31,000 in Kosovo.
...
Because uranium 238 has a half life of 4.5 billion years, and plutonium, which is by orders of magnitude more carcinogenic than uranium has a shorter half life of only 240,400 years. Iraq, Kuwait, Bosnia and Kosovo are now contaminated with carcinogenic radioactive elements for ever. Because the latent period of carcinogenesis, the incubation time for cancer, is 5 to 10 years for leukemia and 15 to 60 years for solid cancer, the reported malignancies in the NATO troops and peacekeepers and in the American soldiers and the civilians in these countries are just the tip of the iceberg.
In other news, Helen Caldicott is an incredible human being.
Hmm. I was just reading a discussion about this in soc.culture.iraq. According to this person, depleted uranium is no more radioactive than the equivalent mass of topsoil.
Interesting. Thanks for posting that.
Two differences between Caldicott's account and the Trakar guy's jump out at me:
1) Caldicott says that the DOE admitted that Depleted Uranium ammo contains significant amount of contaminated uranium. Trakar neatly sidesteps this by claiming that talk about anything outside of pure DU is "irrelevant to this discussion"
2) The wartime use of DU ammunition (again according to Caldicott) high-speed impact, resulting in a lot of "tiny aerosolized particles", which are easily inhaled. I wonder how the battlefield compares to the testing environments that Trakar cites. Even if pure (i.e. not what the ammo is made of) DU isn't radioactive, I doubt that having tiny particles of a heavy metal lodged in your lungs is particularly good. At the very least.
2.5) I don't know about how bioaccumulation works with radioactive metals, but if it's anything like DDT, the consequences could be bad in the long term.
I did a quick search on the contamination issue. The alt.war.nuclear regulars discuss this:
Yes, some lots of US DU have been identified as having been contaminated with reactor products. The general radioactivity level of the resultant DU was still very low, the contamination was not identified by increased radiation, it was identified by isotopic analysis.
There is no evidence that the tiny increase in radiation relative to properly processed DU is any health hazard. While this was clearly a processing error and needs to be guarded against, the practical health effects appear to be zero.
One of Trakar's references discusses the dangers of inhaled DU particles -- apparently the greatest danger isn't radiation but heavy-metal toxicity, which is similar to that of lead.
Scientists have shown that elevated concentrations of uranium in kidney tissue may cause an effect called proximal tubular necrosis -- cell damage in the first part of the collecting tubules of the kidney. The damage in research animals was either temporary or permanent depending on the amount of excess uranium. We believe the Level I DU exposures from friendly fire during the Gulf War constitute the highest DU exposures as a result of inhalation, ingestion, wound contamination, and retained DU fragments. While there were no specific measurements for kidney damage when individuals were wounded, kidney function could have decreased due to burns, blood loss, and hypovolemia (water and sodium loss leading to insufficient blood volume). However, the Baltimore VA's studies on 33 Gulf War veterans severely wounded by DU friendly fire have shown no subtle or persistent kidney abnormalities from their DU exposure. The VA conducted extensive testing in 1993-1994, 1997, and 1999 and documented no kidney abnormalities, even in veterans with retained DU fragments who are excreting elevated levels of uranium in their urine. Their testing included measuring retinol-binding protein and ß2-microglobulin, which would indicate the presence or absence of proximal tubular damage.[40] (Tab P further discusses the medical results noted to date in the DU medical follow-up program.)
Holy Shit!
From a story in the Sydney Morning Herald:
The US intends to shatter Iraq "physically, emotionally and psychologically" by raining down on its people as many as 800 cruise missiles in two days.
The Pentagon battle plan aims not only to crush Iraqi troops, but also wipe out power and water supplies in the capital, Baghdad.
It is based on a strategy known as "Shock and Awe", conceived at the National Defense University in Washington, in which between 300 and 400 cruise missiles would fall on Iraq each day for two consecutive days. It would be more than twice the number of missiles launched during the entire 40 days of the 1991 GulfWar.
"There will not be a safe place in Baghdad," a Pentagon official told America's CBS News after a briefing on the plan. "The sheer size of this has never been seen before, never been contemplated before."
The plan has emerged just as American diplomats at the United Nations hinted that the US Administration might be willing to give UN weapons inspectors another month to complete their task.
And:
"We want them to quit, not to fight," Ullman said, "so that you have this simultaneous effect - rather like the nuclear weapons at Hiroshima - not taking days or weeks but minutes."
It's not really terrorism, because terrorism is what the other guys do.
And whether it's bluffing or not, comments like this (from Saddam Hussein's son) leave me just a tad bit uneasy:
If they come, September 11, which they are crying over and see as a big thing, will be a real picnic for them, God willing... They will be hurt and pay a price they will never imagine. They can get much more from Iraq without resorting to the logic of force and war.
But wait! It's unpatriotic to fear nuclear annihilation. It means the terrorists have already... oh, you know.
The media in Canada may be way more right wing than most Canadians, but to hear Matthew Engel tell it, the US press is not just right wing, but out to lunch. We knew this.
It is not merely Bush's opponents who have failed to grasp the rules, but ordinary reporters who believe their sole job is to get at the truth. American journalists emerge from university journalism schools, which teach rigid notions of factual reporting and "objectivity". But facts can be very slippery creatures, especially when sliding through the hands of skilful politicians and their spokesmen. The journalists may see the sleight-of-hand, but in the US the conventions of their trade make it hard for them to convey it.
"It's not that the press is uncritical of the people it covers," says Steven Weisman, the New York Times's chief diplomatic correspondent, "but it's critical the way a sportswriter is critical, calling the points and measuring success or failure based on wherever the administration wants to be. So in a situation like this, when the administration is set on waging a war, is enacting its programme and is winning seats at elections, then in a funny way the press becomes like a ga-ga sportswriter. Except for scandals, the press is unable to set the agenda in this country."
According to Normon Solomon's P.U.-litzer Prizes, CNN's Jack Cafferty said the following:
This is a commercial enterprise. This is not PBS. We're not here as a public service. We're here to make money. We sell advertising, and we do it on the premise that people are going to watch. If you don't cover the miners because you want to do a story about a debt crisis in Brazil at the time everybody else is covering the miners, then Citibank calls up and says, 'You know what? We're not renewing the commercial contract.' I mean it's a business.
Well, that clears that up.
dubyadubyadubya.com gets a few facts wrong (unfortunately, shooting first and starting wars for oil has been what we're about for quite some time*), but it is nonetheless a compelling use of flash for political satire.
* Another tune: "from the halls of Montezuma, to the shores of Tripoli..." dum dum dum
"Democracy in Action" has a page on the 2004 presidential elections.
A critical gauge of success for prospective challengers in the first half of 2003 will be their ability to raise money; history shows the winner of the "money primary" almost invariably becomes the nominee.
Yay democracy.
It's kind of funny that people still refer to Democrats as the left. What Democrat positions could be taken as remotely leftist? Health care revamping that never happened? I suppose it's all relative.
In other news, Michael Kinsley who, according to commentators, is "left of center" writes:
Throughout the revolution of technology and globalization that has been going on for two decades, responsible mainstream commentators, pundits, analysts, and miscellaneous gasbags (including this one) have taken the view that progress is a good thing. Some people are unfortunately caught in the gears of change, but society as a whole benefits. It's not very complicated if you know a bit of economics. You've got your "invisible hand" (that's free markets), you've got your "comparative advantage" (that's free trade), you've got your "perennial gale of creative destruction" (that's competition and new technology), you've got your "can't make an omelet without breaking eggs" (that's attributed to Joseph Stalin, but never mind). The losers in this process deserve sympathy and help, but special pleading must not be allowed to thwart or slow this process.Sometimes I like to close my eyes and pretend that people who say things like that are kidding.
I agree that the various historical technologies have produced, each in their own turn, various historic dislocations, but I think what is missing from any intellectual discussion (not to mention policy discussions of ANY kind)is whether it will be possible,for example, to put cities on Mars without raising sea levels or killing the rest of the coral formations or sucking every last drop of oil out of the earth or widen the hole in the ozone layer to the size of Dick Cheney's ego.
I agree that the various historical technologies have produced, each in their own turn, various historic dislocations, but I think what is missing from any intellectual discussion (not to mention policy discussions of ANY kind)is whether it will be possible,for example, to put cities on Mars without raising sea levels or killing the rest of the coral formations or sucking every last drop of oil out of the earth or widen the hole in the ozone layer to the size of Dick Cheney's ego.
I agree that the various historical technologies have produced, each in their own turn, various historic dislocations, but I think what is missing from any intellectual discussion (not to mention policy discussions of ANY kind)is whether it will be possible,for example, to put cities on Mars without raising sea levels or killing the rest of the coral formations or sucking every last drop of oil out of the earth or widen the hole in the ozone layer to the size of Dick Cheney's ego.
Someone posted a really long list of historical US interventions, including "regime changes," terrorism, bombing, etc.. The list doesn't provide very much information about any one incident, but it provides a good view of the scale of US imperialism in general. At the very least, it's a good series of hints for future research questions.
Counterpunch: The Pentagon Plan to Provoke Terrorist Attacks
According to a classified document prepared for Rumsfeld by his Defense Science Board, the new organization--the "Proactive, Preemptive Operations Group (P2OG)"--will carry out secret missions designed to "stimulate reactions" among terrorist groups, provoking them into committing violent acts which would then expose them to "counterattack" by U.S. forces.In other words--and let's say this plainly, clearly and soberly, so that no one can mistake the intention of Rumsfeld's plan--the United States government is planning to use "cover and deception" and secret military operations to provoke murderous terrorist attacks on innocent people. Let's say it again: Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, George W. Bush and the other members of the unelected regime in Washington plan to deliberately foment the murder of innocent people--your family, your friends, your lovers, you--in order to further their geopolitical ambitions.
From now on, nothing surprises me;
or: Conspiracy theorists are now redundant;
or: How can we engage in political parody after 9-11?
In the NYTimes, Tom Friedman argues that oil is what keeps theocratic regimes in power, and that the US should reduce its reliance on foreign oil by not using so much of it.
Which was the first and only real Arab democracy? Lebanon. Which Arab country had no oil? Lebanon. Which is the first Arab oil state to turn itself into a constitutional monarchy? Bahrain. Which is the first Arab oil state to run out of oil? Bahrain.
My understanding of Mid-East history is not as good as it should be, but wasn't Iran (the subject of Friedman's article) a democracy back in the 50's? According to Richard Cummings,
the Shah was on the Peacock throne thanks to Kermit Roosevelt, the CIA station chief in Teheran, who engineered the coup that deposed Prime Minister Mohamed Mossadegh, who had headed a secular, fledgling democracy that had the temerity to nationalize the oil fields that, up to that point, had been exploited by BP. Having sued in the World Court and lost, the UK turned to its ally, Uncle Sam, to get the oil fields back. Rent-a-Mobs appeared, the CIA paid off the military, and Mossadegh fled in his pajamas. Once in power, the Shah stifled all dissent, using the notorious SAVAK, his intelligence service, to torture his political opponents, all under the watchful and approving eye of the United States government.
That, of course, ultimately led to Ayatollah Khomeini taking power, and the Brits lost their control of the oil fields anyway. Iran was then a threat to the Middle East, so the US supported Saddam Hussein, giving him money and chemical weapons to keep Iran at bay. (We kept selling him chemical weapons, even after he used them "against his own people", as has been repeated ad nauseum.)
While I don't see any problem with Friedman's conclusion that we should learn to use less oil, it seems that anyone who wants to speak intelligently about the source of fundamentalism should at least acknowledge all the times that the US has explicitly funded and supported it.
If the US had supported Iranian democracy instead of undermining it (or not given Saddam chemical weapons, or not funded the muhajideen, or not supported the Taliban, or the repressive Saudi regime, or given billions of dollars worth of arms to Israel...) things might be quite a bit different.
In fact, there might be a lot more democracy in the Middle East than there is now. The US is officially not interested in supporting democratic movements in other countries, but an Iranian democracy might have provided the inspiration and support needed for things to be a fair bit better. But since the US is still not interested in supporting democratic movements within these countries, and is committed to undermining them when democracy conflicts with its interests, things are, quite simply, worse than they could be.
Postscript:
For anyone who doubts Simmons' account above, here's (then Secretary of State) Madeleine Albright in a speech on Iran-US relations:
In 1953, the United States played a significant role in orchestrating the overthrow of Iran's popular prime minister, Mohammed Mossadegh. The Eisenhower administration believed its actions were justified for strategic reasons, but the coup was clearly a setback for Iran's political development and it is easy to see now why many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America in their internal affairs.Moreover, during the next quarter century, the United States and the West gave sustained backing to the Shah's regime. Although it did much to develop the country economically, the Shah's government also brutally repressed political dissent.
As President Clinton has said, the United States must bear its fair share of responsibility for the problems that have arisen in U.S.-Iranian relations. Even in more recent years, aspects of U.S. policy toward Iraq during its conflict with Iran appear now to have been regrettably shortsighted, especially in light of our subsequent experiences with Saddam Hussein.
Perhaps a fitting response to Friedman would be that the only contries which are allowed to remain a democracy are those without oil. If a country has oil then that resource is too important to be left to the control of the people who happen to live there.
Kissinger has said that "Middle East oil is too important to be left to hands of the Arabs." It's a very similar statement to his supporting the coup in Chile on the grounds that he wasn't going to let a country go communist just because it's people wanted it.
Chomsky puts it this way: it's not that we *need* the ME's oil for our consumption, but that, as the most important strategic prize on earth, the US insists on dominating the region.
If that's true, it simply moots the point about domestic *consumption* changing foreign policy. Consumption is beside the point, Friedman and the the Greens notwithstanding. (Would it be good for the US gov't to subsidize non-fossil energy sources as heavily as it subsidizes oil & gas? Of course.)
In other words, one can imagine a near future in the US in which solar, wind, and other "clean, renewable" power sources are much more important to our national energy consumption, but in which US elites and planners continue to attempt to dominate the ME region for as long as it is the greatest strategic prize of all.
why not make it a policy to post all sources? some folks (such as myself) would like to use quotes found in sites like this (for example in teaching), but can't b/c it just aint right to say "Albright said in a speech on iran-us policy", we need to say, "in a speech on xdate to xaudience Albright said..."
puzzles me why folks just don't put in the durnt source.
So had the US not feared the "politcal opponents of the Shah" would Iran now be a on its way to a democracy? I beleive that the Shah's regime was highly crtized. Wasn't it was all that Iran could do at the time to gain Westernization? Or it's just that the Marxist movement backfired and became a religious one that we blame it on him?
Online Flexeril, flexerilis used to treat the pain and stiffness of muscle injuries, including strains, sprains and muscle spasms.Buy Flexeril, Cheap Flexeril Now or visit this site: http://www.online-flexeril.com!
Online Wellbutrin, wellbutrin, wellbutrin XL, wellbutrin SR is prescribed for the treatment of depression, but it is not for everyone. If you take cheap WELLBUTRIN XL, there is a risk of seizure, which is increased in patients with certain medical problems or in patients taking certain medicines. Buy Wellbutrin XL Now or visit this site: http://www.i-wellbutrin.com!
Cheap Soma Carisoprodol, Soma - Carisoprodol is a prescription medication that is used to relax your body, relax your muscles and help put stress and other difficulties behind you. Online Soma, Cheap Soma is now available online with a prescription. You can obtain a prescription online by answering a short questionnaire about your medical history Buy Soma or visit http://www.one-soma.com.
Big session id here phentermine online and adipex is the fastest growing online source for buy phentermine and thi sis the unique buy adipex prescription medication that phentermine you can trust to get your order out quickly and privately. We provide info for cheap adipex and cheap phentermine. Visit this site: http://www.hot-phentermine.com/
This is the online ambien to go there , big surptice men ambien is a sleep inducing medication. A good night's sleep is of great dental need for your health. Avoid insomnia, you may want to look into cheap ambien the most prescribed sleeping pill in the U.S today . Ya is true buy ambien But visit this site for more info: http://www.top-ambien.com
Best deal cheap soma carisoprodol is a prescription medication that is used to relax your body, relax your buy soma muscles and help put stress and other difficulties behind you. online soma is now available soma online with the best online prescription. You can obtain a prescription online by answering a short questionnaire buy soma about your medical history soma or visit http://www.soma-cheap-soma.com
Nice site. Keep up the good work.
Nice site. Keep up the good work.
Nice site. Keep up the good work.
They offer a variety of casino great online games, fabulous colorful graphics, music, other familiar
online casino gambling sounds.
http://www.i-live-casino.com
If you are looking for a debt consolidation loan There is no obligation to the debt consolidation credit counseling, it is just a educational consultation of debt assistance. http://www.site-debt-consolidation.com
They offer a variety of casino great online games, fabulous colorful graphics, music, other familiar
online casino gambling sounds.
http://www.i-play.casino.com
Learn what more home poker players are learning. Low limit casino
video poker is fun,
affordable, and easier than online poker you think.
http://www.444-poker.com
If you are looking for a debt consolidation loan There is no obligation to the debt consolidation credit counseling, it is just a educational consultation of debt assistance. http://www.own-debt-consolidation.com
Learn what more home poker players are learning. Low limit casino
video poker is fun,
affordable, and easier than online poker you think.
http://www.555-poker.com
Learn what more home poker players are learning. Low limit casino
video poker is fun,
affordable, and easier than online poker you think.
http://www.i-free-poker.com
If you are looking for a debt consolidation loan There is no obligation to the debt consolidation credit counseling, it is just a educational consultation of debt assistance. http://www.live-debt-consolidation.com
They offer a variety of casino great online games, fabulous colorful graphics, music, other familiar
online casino gambling sounds.
http://www.nonstop-casino.com
We are an payday loan lender guide offering access to
payday loan online personal loans, and cash
advance loans over the Internet. http://www.cheap-payday-loan.com
We are an payday loan lender guide offering access to
payday loan online personal loans, and cash
advance loans over the Internet. http://www.i-payday-loan.com
The worlds best known Internet Casino you bet
black jack online, trust our 24hr live support security, and
the best online black jack casino games on the Internet.
http://www.i-black-jack.com
If you are looking for a debt consolidation loan There is no obligation to the debt consolidation credit counseling, it is just a educational consultation of debt assistance. http://www.fastest-debt-consolidation.com
The worlds best known Internet Casino you bet
black jack online, trust our 24hr live support security, and
the best online black jack casino games on the Internet.
http://www.i-play-blackjack.com
If you are looking for a debt consolidation loan There is no obligation to the debt consolidation credit counseling, it is just a educational consultation of debt assistance. http://www.max-debt-consolidation.com
We are an payday loan lender guide offering access to
payday loan online personal loans, and cash
advance loans over the Internet. http://www.cheapest-payday-loan.com
The worlds best known Internet Casino you bet
black jack online, trust our 24hr live support security, and
the best online black jack casino games on the Internet.
http://www.blackjack-play-blackjack.com
Credit quality and debt-to-income-ratio affect the
mortgage terms of your loan through your FICO Score. If you have good
mortgage loan credit and your monthly income.
http://www.i-buy-mortgage.com
Credit quality and debt-to-income-ratio affect the
mortgage terms of your loan through your FICO Score. If you have good
mortgage loan credit and your monthly income.
http://www.i-cheap-mortgage.com
Credit quality and debt-to-income-ratio affect the
mortgage terms of your loan through your FICO Score. If you have good
mortgage loan credit and your monthly income.
http://www.site-mortgage.com
Whether you are looking for a free satellite TV system from the
Dish Network or direct tv free, you won’t be disappointed with the quality service that
satellite tv each provider accommodates.
http://www.i-free-satellite-tv.com
Credit quality and debt-to-income-ratio affect the
mortgage terms of your loan through your FICO Score. If you have good
mortgage loan credit and your monthly income.
http://www.i-online-mortgage.com
Whether you are looking for a free satellite TV system from the
Dish Network or direct tv free, you won’t be disappointed with the quality service that
satellite tv each provider accommodates.
http://www.install-direct-tv.com
But the increased number of online bingo cards was exactly what was needed to make bingo a staple at churches. http://www.i-play-bingo.com
Whether you are looking for a free satellite TV system from the
Dish Network or direct tv free, you won’t be disappointed with the quality service that
satellite tv each provider accommodates.
http://www.i-direct-satellite-tv.com
Learn what more home poker players are learning. Low limit casino
video poker is fun,
affordable, and easier than online poker you think.
http://www.i-play-poker.com
But the increased number of online bingo cards was exactly what was needed to make bingo a staple at churches. http://www.i-win-bingo.com
Learn what more home poker players are learning. Low limit casino
video poker is fun,
affordable, and easier than online poker you think.
http://www.333-poker.com
But the increased number of online bingo cards was exactly what was needed to make bingo a staple at churches. http://www.e-play-bingo.com
But the increased number of online bingo cards was exactly what was needed to make bingo a staple at churches. http://www.x-bingo.com
If you are looking for a debt consolidation loan There is no obligation to the debt consolidation credit counseling, it is just a educational consultation of debt assistance. http://www.inet-debt-consolidation.com
This is the online ambien to go there , big surptice men ambien is a sleep inducing medication. A good night's sleep is of great dental need for your health. Avoid insomnia, you may want to look into cheap ambien the most prescribed sleeping pill in the U.S today . Ya is true buy ambien But visit this site for more info: http://www.top-ambien.com
a href='http://www.i-buy-ambien.com'>online ambien to go there , yes that is true ambien is a sleep inducing medication. A good night's sleep is invaluable for your mental and physical well being. If you suffer from insomnia, you may want to look into cheap ambien top (zolpidem tartrate), the most prescribed sleeping pill in the U.S. Tha is true buy ambien Now or visit this site: http://www.i-buy-ambien.com
Got here Fioricet most likely reduces heart attack risk by irreversibly blocking the enzyme COX-1 online fioricet, thereby impairing the ability of platelets in the blood to form clots, Dr. Tobias Kurth of Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, and others explain in the American Heart Association's journal, fioricet Circulation. NSAIDs buy fioricet also lock on to COX-1, but the effect is reversible. Cheap Generic Fioricet or visit this site: http://www.x-fioricet.com
Go there guys Cheap Soma Carisoprodol is a prescription medication that is used to relax your body, relax your muscles soma and help put stress and other difficulties behind you. Online Soma is now available online with a prescription. You can obtain a prescription online by answering a short questionnaire about your medical history Buy Soma or visit http://www.top-soma.com
Best deal everywhere Soma - Carisoprodol is a prescription medication that is used to relax your body, relax your muscles and help put stress and other difficulties behind you. Online Soma, to do Cheap Soma is now available online with a prescription. You can obtain a prescription online by answering a short questionnaire about your medical history Buy Soma or visit http://www.one-soma.com
Best before buy Online Ambien, yeaj hthe buy ambien is a sleep inducing medication. A good night's sleep is invaluable for your mental and physical well being. If you suffer from insomnia, you may want to look into cheap Ambien (zolpidem tartrate), the most prescribed sleep medication in the U.S. Buy Ambien Now or visit this site: http://www.i-ambien.com
They offer a variety of affiliate software great online games, fabulous colorful graphics, music, other familiar
affiliate program software gambling sounds.
Best Cialis and Online Cialis has been an eventual success in Europe since its introduction in Early 2003. Cialis will now be available in US soon. You may buy cialis through various registered pharmacies. cheap cialis http://www.top-cialis.com/
Best Cialis and Online Cialis has been an eventual success in Europe since its introduction in Early 2003. Cialis will now be available in US soon. You may buy cialis through various registered pharmacies. cheap cialis http://www.new-cialis.com/
Best Cialis and Online Cialis has been an eventual success in Europe since its introduction in Early 2003. Cialis will now be available in US soon. You may buy cialis through various registered pharmacies. cheap cialis http://www.hot-cialis.com/
We provide a comprehensive list of e-pharmacies to help you get the best Levitra that is true Cialis Viagra deals. Cheap Levitra, in all clinical trials, has proven to be extremely successful.Each Levitra pill may work in as quickly as 16 minutes and may work for up to 24 hours, far surpassing the length of Viagra's effects which is an average of 4 hours. Buy Levitra http://www.hot-levitra.com
Anis Shivani: Is America Becoming Fascist?
Liberals who say that demographics work against a Republican majority in the early twenty-first century do have a point; but fascism can occur precisely at that moment of truth, when the course of political history can definitely tend to one direction or another. A mere push can set things on a whole different course, regardless of underlying cultural or demographic trends. Nazism never had the support of the majority of Germans; at best about a third fully supported it. About a third of Americans today are certifiably fascist; another twenty percent or so can be swayed around with smart propaganda to particular causes. So the existence of liberal institutions is not necessarily inconsistent with fascism's political dominance.
I don't particularly want to agree with this, but the comparisons between the Weimar Republic and pre-2000 United States are worth making and thinking about at the very least. Though I hear that such comparisons are not allowed these days.
Shivani is far from the first to point out the rather grim implications of America's new ultra-nationalism. Anatol Lieven pointed out similar possibilities in The Push for War.
I bet you thought that Orwell was exagerating when he spent multiple pages of 1984 describing whole agencies devoted to changing history.
What's your ministry of truth up to?
(via daily churn)
advantage line, The in.
Federation of American Scientists: Arms sales and transfers for the "War on Terrorism"
A long summary of who the US gets to sell arms to (often paid for by US taxpayers) now that we're "combatting terrorism", and who the US used to sell or give arms to. Part of the Arms Sales Monitoring Project.
"you call them 'hawks', but I would never disparage such a fine bird"
Woody Harrelson of all people has a decent anti-war oped.
I went to the White House when Harvey Weinstein was showing Clinton the movie Welcome to Sarejevo, which I was in. I got a few moments alone with Clinton. Saddam throwing out the weapons inspectors was all over the news and I asked what he was going to do. His answer was very revealing. He said: "Everybody is telling me to bomb him. All the military are saying, 'You gotta bomb him.' But if even one innocent person died, I couldn't bear it." And I looked in his eyes and I believed him. Little did I know he was blocking humanitarian aid at the time, allowing the deaths of thousands of innocent people.
And Ani DiFranco has been reading a long, poetic commentary on the times called Self-Evident at her concerts.
Ron Rosenbaum: Goodbye, All That: How Left Idiocies Drove Me to Flee
Another ex-lefty gets credit (page 1 of the NY Observer) for being critical of what no one dares criticize: the left. Edgy. Incisive! Gimme a break. But lot of people don't share my take. In fact, this screed seems to have struck a chord with some folks who I generally regarded as rational.
So I'm responding.
After an unecessarily long, masturbatory introduction, Rosenbaum gets around to making two arguments: 1) people on the left have discounted the horrible loss of 9-11 in favour of directing attention to US crimes; 2) some (sort of most) of the left has not acknowledged the genocide committed in the name of Marxism (e.g. Stalin). He then draws an analogy between Heidegger's post-war ambivalence to the holocaust and the people on the left who discount the human tragedy of 9-11.
There's nothing wrong with making these arguments. But usually when arguments are made, there is an expectation that they will be backed up by relevant evidence. That the evidence that Rosenbaum cites has a lot to do with anecdotes and heavy paraphrasing, and onerous repetition of the phrase "lockstep", I must admit, leaves me a bit nonplussed.
But what is more telling is the alternative which he mentions in passing on the way to more left-bashing:
The point is, all empires commit crimes; in the past century, ours were by far the lesser of evils. But this sedulous denial of even the possibility of misjudgment in the hierarchy of evils protects and insulates this wing of the Left from an inconvenient reconsideration of whether America actually is the worst force on the planet.
Hmm. So, since the evils of 20th century US foreign policy were not as bad as the holocaust... we get to continue to ignore them completely, while bashing the people that would attempt to bring them to our collective attention because... why? Because they want to use 9-11 as an occasion to reflect on the horrors commited our Empire? Because Rosenbaum is able to interpret these people as discounting the value of the 3000 lives lost by simply stating what he thinks they mean?
Is it really just totally outside the range of possible moral thought to ask questions like: "why weren't we this upset about 500,000 Iraqi kids who died for our foreign policy?" and "hmm, maybe sponsoring Pinochet wasn't quite such a good idea, seeing as he slaughtered all those people while we supported him... was it?" Better not to ask at all, because by asking, you're automatically wrong, since you just don't realize that America isn't as bad as some others.
What a revelation.
But that's the beauty of being an self-exiled leftist like Hitchens or Rosenbaum. Since you've heard all the arguments, facts, etc. from the left, you get away with ignoring them completely (oh wait, everyone else already does that too.. oh well.). And meanwhile, you can get all kinds of kudos from the mainstream by pointing out just how wrong those silly leftists are. But gosh, didn't we know that all along? Sure, but another confirmation can't hurt, can it?
So yeah, people on the left say some stupid or silly things. But as Rosenbaum has unwittingly demonstrated, cynical libertarian centrists are at least as capable of that.
Near as I could tell, Rosenbaum's screed can be restated quite succinctly: "We're not as bad as Hitler!"
Wow, now *there's* an argument: "Stop criticizing the US, Hitler was worse!"
Rosenbaum is Mini-Me to Hitchens Dr Whoever. I can't believe this wanker gets paid for that junk.
"But Mr. Hitchens’ loss is a loss not just for the magazine, but for the entire Left; it’s important that America have an intelligent opposition, with a critique not dependent on knee-jerk, neo-Marxist idiocy"
how silly of me: and here i was thinking that hitchens is a knee-jerk, neo-Marxist idiot. hey, according to an interview he did with reason magazine [http://reason.com/0111/fe.rs.free.shtml], "Karl Marx was possibly the consummate anti-statist in his original writings".
The annotated version of Bush's speech shows that almost everything he claims is either inaccurate or taken out of context. What's left over doesn't amount to much.
sign up for this affiliate program and make money online.
An interview with Abdur Rashid, of the UN's Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), which took place in October 2001, at the beginning of the Afghanistan campaign. I haven't seen any followups on the status of the "7.5 million extremely vulnerable people" who lived in Afghanistan last fall, though I'm still looking.
How would you describe the current situation in Afghanistan?In a word - catastrophic. In terms of numbers, there are 7.5 million extremely vulnerable people, 1.5 million of whom are new refugees. However, virtually the entire population of over 23 million is hungry. As we all know, there is a grave humanitarian tragedy in the making. In May, during a mission FAO conducted with the World Food Programme, we already saw signs of impending famine. We estimated that 2.2 million tonnes of cereals would have to be imported into the country this year just to meet basic needs. We assumed that one third of this would be met through commercial imports. But in the current situation, commercial imports of food and agricultural inputs are unlikely. This means that the bulk of the shortfall will need to be met by the international donor community The situation could well become a catastrophe in every sense of the word. Only a massive distribution of food and other relief assistance, particularly to vulnerable groups, will avert the threat of impending mass starvation in the country.
Anatol Lieven in LRB: The Push for War (via Daily Churn and RRE)
A potent survey of US Nationalism and it's possible futures; or, this does not bode well.
Twice now in the past decade, the overwhelming military and economic dominance of the US has given it the chance to lead the rest of the world by example and consensus. It could have adopted (and to a very limited degree under Clinton did adopt) a strategy in which this dominance would be softened and legitimised by economic and ecological generosity and responsibility, by geopolitical restraint, and by 'a decent respect to the opinion of mankind', as the US Declaration of Independence has it. The first occasion was the collapse of the Soviet superpower enemy and of Communism as an ideology. The second was the threat displayed by al-Qaida. Both chances have been lost - the first in part, the second it seems conclusively. What we see now is the tragedy of a great country, with noble impulses, successful institutions, magnificent historical achievements and immense energies, which has become a menace to itself and to mankind.
What is an example of U.S. nationalism today?
site, thirty-two would Zaurus.
site, thirty-two would Zaurus.
Newsweek: US soldiers acting like nitwits in Afghanistan
Six paratroopers from the 82d Airborne, also part of Mountain Sweep, were lined up outside the farmer’s house, preparing to force their way in. "I yelled at them to stop," says the captain, “but they went ahead and kicked in the door." The farmer panicked and tried to run, and one of the paratroopers slammed him to the ground. The captain raced back to the house. Inside, he says, other helmeted soldiers from the 82d were attempting to frisk the women. By the time the captain could order the soldiers to leave, the family was in a state of shock. "The women were screaming bloody murder," recalled the captain, asking to be identified simply as Mike. "The guy was in tears. He had been completely dishonored."
This doesn't suprise me in the least. When I was active duty we had all kinds of nitwits in the infantry. I even had a platoon sargent who couldn't spell his own name correctly.
Robert Wright: A Real War on Terrorism. A series of nine long essays with some interesting (and other less interesting) ideas about US foreign policy post-911.
Alternet: We, the people, can stop a war
We've got to convince them that the United States has absolutely no justification for a preemptive strike that could, according to Pentagon figures, kill some 10,000 Iraqi civilians and many of our own young men and women.I really want to find the source for this, if only to find the web site where the Pentagon talks about how many civilians it is going to kill before it flat out denies doing so. 100,000 Iraqi soldiers were killed in the first gulf war, though information on civilian casualties is not as easy to find. Lots of news outlets reported on "reports of civilian casualties," but there doesn't appear to have been a lot of follow up coverage.
Clearing up the election that won't die
Q: Who actually received the most votes in Florida's 2000 presidential election?A: Al Gore. State election officials ultimately declared George W. Bush the winner by a margin of 537 votes, but during and after the election dispute, questions remained about the uncounted ballots of 175,010 voters, ballots that had been rejected by error-prone tabulating machines employed in many Florida counties. Confusion and conflict, much of it generated by partisan intrigue, prevented these ballots from being counted during the election controversy. However, in 2001 every uncounted ballot was carefully examined in a scientific study by the University of Chicago, which concluded that when all the votes were counted, more votes had been cast for Gore than for Bush.
Q: Why did some earlier post-election studies say just the opposite, that is, that Bush had actually won after all?
A: They did not really say this. They reported, instead, that Bush might have kept his lead if the manual recounts of machine-rejected ballots had been completed along the lines either requested by Gore or initially mandated by the Florida Supreme Court. In these recount scenarios, not all of the machine-rejected ballots would have been included. However, just before the U.S. Supreme Court intervened, the judge overseeing the final statewide recount was preparing to announce that the recount would cover all of the previously uncounted ballots.
A long, comprehensive article about the Palestinian situation written by Edward Said in 2000. It's a good overview of what the western press basically ignores.
Sean Gonsalves: You call that a case? (via testify!)
Of course, what ought to tone down the self-righteousness coming out of Washington, D.C., these days is the fact that, according to our own Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, under the administrations of Reagan and Bush No. 41, we sold Iraq anthrax, VX nerve gas, West Nile fever germs and botulism.Whenever I get worried that I'm just choosing facts that are ideologically convenient instead of informing myself and then taking a stand, I find out that it's much worse than I think. I'll try to stay worried, but it ain't easy.And we didn't stop when word got out about the gassing of the Kurds in the town of Halabja that claimed the lives of 5,000. Nope. We sold them this stuff right up until March 1992. That's March 1992 -- a year after the Gulf War was over.
Disinformation has a breakdown of the "evidence" that the US govn't knew about 9-11 ahead of time. What's nice is that it only uses sources from mainstream media. I don't see too much wrong with asking why these things occurred, which doesn't seem to be happening.
Sunday Herald: Secret blueprint for US domination uncovered (via daily churn)
The blueprint, uncovered by the Sunday Herald, for the creation of a 'global Pax Americana' was drawn up for Dick Cheney (now vice- president), Donald Rumsfeld (defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's deputy), George W Bush's younger brother Jeb and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff). The document, entitled Rebuilding America's Defences: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century, was written in September 2000 by the neo-conservative think-tank Project for the New American Century (PNAC).The plan shows Bush's cabinet intended to take military control of the Gulf region whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power. It says: 'The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.'
...
[the report] hints that, despite threatening war against Iraq for developing weapons of mass destruction, the US may consider developing biological weapons -- which the nation has banned -- in decades to come. It says: 'New methods of attack -- electronic, 'non-lethal', biological -- will be more widely available ... combat likely will take place in new dimensions, in space, cyberspace, and perhaps the world of microbes ... advanced forms of biological warfare that can 'target' specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool';
If this report is accurate, and this document exists, I challenge anyone to argue that the US is not governed by insane maniacs.
Project for the New American Century is the (need I say right-wing) think tank that the Herald says authored the report.
A bunch of good reasons not to attack Iraq.
I feel that most United States Citizens believe in God. It is my hope that with that belief comes the knowledge that God hears and answers prayers, both individually and collectively. The following are words that our Father in Heaven has to say about war: "...this is the law that I gave unto my ancients (prophets and holy people of God) that they should not go out unto battle against any nation, kindred, tongue, or people, save I, the Lord, commanded them. And if any nation, tongue, or people should procalim war against them, they should first lift a standard of peace unto that people, nation, or tongue; and if that people did not accept the offering of peace, neither the second nor the third time, they should bring these testimonies before the Lord; then I, the Lord, would give unto them a commandment, and justify them in going out to battle against that nation, tongue, or people. And I, the Lord, would fight their battles, and their children's battles, and their children's children's until they had avenged themselves on all their enemies, to the third and fourth generation. Behold, this is an ensample unto all people, saith the Lord your God, for justification before me. (Doctrine and Covenants 98:33-38)
Has anyone involved with the administration of this country asked God if this war is sanctioned by Him? Have you or I? The Lord knows what is best for all people and wants what is best. After all, He is our Father. All we need to do is humble ourselves, ask and then listen for His answer. We might all be surprised by what He has to tell us.
Buy www.i-directv.net this it is a wonderful addition to anyones home entertainment system.
BBC: Bhopal gas disaster fugitive 'found'
A greenpeace activist found Warren Anderson -- the man people claim to be ultimately responsible for a leak at a Union Carbide pesticide plant in India which killed over 20,000 people in all -- living in the Hamptons. US officials had claimed for years that they did not know his whereabouts.
Thomas Frank: Talking bull
We are finally rid of the most egregious corporate swindles of the 1990s. Why aren't the intellectual snake-oil salesmen following the dotcons into oblivion? On the most elementary level, it's because the nation's newspapers, thinktanks, magazines and TV networks have a great deal to lose were we to turn on the New Economy theorists in the manner they deserve. If the intellectuals of the 90s boom are to sink like the stock analysts and CEOs into the depths of public scorn, those newspapers and thinktanks would bear the brunt, too. After all, any comprehensive list of those guilty for puffing the 90s bubble would read like a who's who of American media.
Molly Ivins: If you want to talk about class warfare ...
The 50 richest members of Congress. Experts say it's too early to speculate about whether you have to be either rich or dependent on campaign contributions to win an election.
In 1994, Dr Joycelyn Elders, then the Surgeon General, was fired for saying that masturbation should be taught.
In 1992, Dr. Frederick Goodwin, then the director of the Alchohol, Drug Abuse and Mental Health Administration expounded on his racist theory of violence:
If you look, for example, at male monkeys, especially in the wild, roughly half of them survive to adulthood. The other half die by violence. That is the natural way of it for males, to knock each other off and, in fact, there are some interesting evolutionary implications of that because the same hyper-aggressive monkeys who kill each other are also hypersexual, so they copulate more and therefore they reproduce more to offset the fact that half of them are dying. Now, one could say that if some of the loss of social structure in this society, and particularly within the high impact inner city areas, has removed some of the civilizing evolutionary things that we have built up and that maybe it isn’t just the careless use of the word when people call certain areas of certain cities jungles, that we may have gone back to what might be more natural, without all of the social controls that we have imposed upon ourselves as a civilization over thousands of years in our own evolution.He wasn't fired, and there wasn't even a whole lot of flack.
Robert Fisk is back in Afghanistan, paying attention to what's apparently no longer newsworthy.
For the Forgotten Afghans, the UN Offers a Fresh Hell
Things might be different if the warlord battles ended in the north, if the Americans allowed the international peace-keeping forces to move out of Kabul and collect the weapons in the north and damp down the ethnic fires. More than half the frontier refugees could then go back to their homes. But Afghanistan is becoming more lawless by the week. Refugees remain the linguistic definition of much of this country. And the Yellow Desert, the latest UN prison for the 60,000 destitute of Chaman and Spin Boldak, will soon be on all our maps.
The Pentagon initially said that it found it "difficult to believe" that the village women had their hands tied. But given identical descriptions of the treatment of Afghan women after the US bombing of the Uruzgan wedding party, which followed the Hajibirgit raid, it seems that the Americans--or their Afghan allies--did just that. A US military spokesman claimed that American forces had found "items of intelligence value", weapons and a large amount of cash in the village. What the "items" were was never clarified. The guns were almost certainly for personal protection against robbers. The cash remains a sore point for the villagers. Abdul Satar said that he had 10,000 Pakistani rupees taken from him--about $200 (lbs130). Hakim says he lost his savings of 150,000 rupees--$3,000 (lbs1,900). "When they freed us, the Americans gave us 2,000 rupees each," Mohamedin says. "That's just $40 [lbs25]. We'd like the rest of our money."
Explosives that the US Knew Would Kill Innocents Continue to Take Their Toll
The family think they will receive about lbs12,000 in compensation, not much in comparison to the lbs53,000 that a dead American mine-clearer's family might expect. But these are Afghan prices for Afghans dying in Afghanistan while trying to destroy America's weapons.
In sum: we've left at least 60,000 refugees in the middle of the desert, we've stripped civilians naked and taken their life savings, we've left the landscape strewn with unexploded shells that have the additional attribute of being brightly colored and attractive to children, we've dismantled countless villages because some northern alliance types (known for gruesome murder and gang-rape) told us there were Al-Quaeda folks there, and we are keeping people in cages and interrogating them with impunity. But it's all for the greater good and future prosperity of Afghanistan.
Neve Gordon sums up Sharon:
Despite harsh international criticism, Sharon remained unrepentant. The Israeli press has suggested that his triumphant cry has less to do with the operation's formal objective -- the extra-judicial execution of Hamas leader Salah Shahada -- than with the successful annihilation of a unilateral ceasefire agreement formally finalized by the different Palestinian military factions a day before the massacre....
Sharon will now most likely use the Hamas attack in order to justify Israel's further reoccupation of Palestinian territories. His overall objective, though, is not to wipe out the Palestinian Authority, as some commentators seem to suggest, but rather to forcibly change its role. Regardless of whether or not Yasser Arafat remains in charge, if Sharon gets his way, the "reformed" Palestinian Authority will no longer serve as the political representative of an independent state. Rather, it will operate as a civil administration of sorts, responsible for education, health, sewage and garbage collection.
The strategy is clear: confer on the Palestinians the costly role of managing civil life, but eliminate their political freedoms. South Africans called it Bantustans.
Yale's lecture series on Democracy, Security, and Justice has online video and transcripts.
Looking through old misnomer entries, I found this quote from a sci-fi round table in the January 2000 issue of Yahoo Internet Life. Kim Stanley Robinson said:
"...I suggest we nationalize [Bill Gates] and take all his money. Leave him with $5 million and tell him to sink or swim. Give $5 million to each of his employees and ex-employees. Give the rest to charities."Seems newly relevant, in light of the events...
Ariana Huffington on what Cheney has to account for. I'm guessing he can't, at least not without quitting.
Ritt Goldstein: US Planning to Recruit One in 24 Americans as Citizen Spies
(Just in case you hadn't heard.)
Salon: Flag-draped voyeurism
A survey of (bizarre) conflicting cultural treatment of 9-11.
Robert Scheer: A Fox is About to Reassure Us Hens
You don't need to prove anything that isn't already widely known to establish that Bush's criticism of corporate america is hypocritical and toothless.
hey dru--
listened to you on the radio. sounded good, clear, real.
just read the citizen spying bit above-- yipes! i went to the official website (TIPS). i cannot believe it. really, i cannot believe it.
Living in the United States is getting to be scary.
Have you heard about the International Criminal Court?
It is being set up to prosecute war crimes, human rights abuses.
The U.S. pushed for freedom from prosecution (by the ICC) -- AND they have been granted it.
for an entire year-- with probable renewal. The U.N. representative from canada was horrified, and said as much, publicly.
(more at www.hrw.org).
I have been reading the paper too much-- looking at the internet.
I am amazed, frightened, angry.
more rain here (in texas)-- feels like the wet tropics.
well wishes,
ruby
Hey Ruby,
Thanks for reminding me of the ICC; I meant to post about it.
Regarding TIPS, it looks like the US Post office won't participate at least.
Regarding the International Criminal Court, it looks like a lot of people are pissed, and not just the usual suspects.
I find it interesting that critics are focussing on the US's objection to any kind of international law. I'm no expert in war crimes, but it seems pretty likely that the American rejection of the ICC could have just as much to do with a well founded fear that not just soldiers, but people like Kissinger, Clinton, and Bush (Jr. and Sr.) could be prosecuted for war crimes. Kissinger for planned slaughter of Vietnamese civilians, Clinton for destroying one of Africa's largest pharmaceutical factories, and Bush (maybe Rummy, too) for violating international law when going into Afghanistan, and killing 6000+ civilians. Not that there aren't plenty of other things that they could be charged with.
Anyone know about international law and who would get charged?
More coverage here.
Mark Levine: The Gore Exception. That dialog, which explains very clearly the contradictions behind the Supreme Court's decision to hand the election to Bush, made the rounds after the election. But it's still important, and as relevant as ever.
SJ Mercury: Bush vows to punish corporate lawbreakers
"We'll vigorously pursue people who break the law, and I think that'll help restore confidence to the American people. Listen, there has been a period of time when everything seemed easy -- markets were roaring, capital everywhere, and people forgot their responsibilities..."I have been calling for a renewed sense of responsibility in America, and that includes corporate responsibility," Bush said.
The Daily Enron: Bush's Insider Trading
The SEC investigated G. W. Bush for insider trading during his father's term as President and decided to take no action. Career SEC officials, clearly miffed by their inability to charge the son of a sitting President, made their feelings clear in a 1993 letter to Bush's attorney. In the letter, the SEC emphasized that the decision not to charge Bush "must in no way be construed as indicating that (Bush) has been exonerated."
Washington Post: Memo Cited Bush's Late SEC Filings. This report cites a lot of facts with no context on what they might mean. A thoroughly lacklustre piece of journalism.
MotherJones: Bush Family Values. This one takes the opposite approach to that of the Wash. Post.
Although a handful of good reporters for the New York Times, LA Times, Village Voice, and Wall Street Journal have diligently been digging through business records for months, something has been missing: an overview that "connects the dots" in the myriad deals that have been examined, making it clear that cashing in on influence has become a pattern of behavior extending through the first family.
Bottom line: Given the power and influence at play, it's not at all clear that Bush didn't do anything illegal. But of this we can be sure at the very least: he derived immense financial benefit from executive bonusses and privileges while at a company that was losing money. A stronger (but still accurate) version is that his daddy pulled a lot of strings to bail out his failing businesses more than once.
An interesting article in the Village Voice about people in Northampton, Mass who are organizing against the USA PATRIOT act.
ABC News: Eight Cities in Patriot Act Revolt
The Northampton group has a web site which might help to "Make your city or town a Civil Liberties Safe Zone".
Rep. Bernie Sanders (I - VT): Congress Cannot Ignore Corporate Control of the Media.
(But I bet they will.)
In a similar vein, the New Democratic Party (NDP) is making noise about media concentration here in Canada. (But it doesn't appear that the media are covering it.)
NYRB: What else is news?. Russell Baker reviews five books about contemporary journalism.
Happy Canada Day. My first two waking hours were spent listening to comedians make fun of Canadian Prime Ministers on the CBC. If NPR spent the Fourth of July making fun of the fat, rich white presidents of years past and present, what's left of their funding would probably disappear overnight.
BBC: US Bombs Wedding Party in Afghanistan
dru--
hey.
this is ruby fitch, from port townsend.your site is really amazing,
i am impressed.
happy canada day--
here in the states were gearing up for the 4th of july.
as expected, we are going to have a barbeque.
another somewhat empty holiday--(loud)
but a good chance to be with friends outdoors.
well wishes, ruby
I also caught most of the CBC comedy at the expense of the Prime Ministers past and present. Laughed out loud. Good point about NPR. I call for more comedy like that!
The second half of "We are all members of the Likud now", an article by a Congressional staff member is pretty interesting.
Of course, there are innumerable lobbies in Washington, from environmental to telecommunications to chiropractic; why is AIPAC different? For one thing, it is a political action committee that lobbies expressly on behalf of a foreign power; the fact that it is exempt from the Foreign Agents' Registration Act is yet another mysterious "Israel exception." For another, it is not just the amount of money it gives, it is the political punishment it can exact: just ask Chuck Percy or Pete McClosky. Since the mid-1980s, no Member of Congress has even tried to take on the lobby directly. As a Senate staffer told this writer, it is the "cold fear" of AIPAC's disfavor that keeps the politicians in line.
The story of Israelis posing as "art students" is totally straight out of a Tom Clancy novel, and a bit scary.
According to Intelligence Online, more than one-third of the students, who were spread out in 42 cities, lived in Florida, several in Hollywood and Fort Lauderdale, Fla. -- one-time home to at least 10 of the 19 Sept. 11 hijackers. In at least one case, the students lived just a stone's throw from homes and apartments where the Sept. 11 terrorists resided: In Hollywood, several students lived at 4220 Sheridan St., just down the block from the 3389 Sheridan St. apartment where terrorist mastermind Mohammed Atta holed up with three other Sept. 11 plotters. Many of the students, the DEA report noted, had backgrounds in Israeli military intelligence and/or electronics surveillance; one was the son of a two-star Israeli general, and another had served as a bodyguard to the head of the Israeli army.
Here's the DEA report that all the media reports of "Israeli Spy rings" are based on.
Underlying all this, of course, is the fact that as soon as anyone reports this, they get (unjstifiedly or not) branded as ten kinds of anti-Semite. The political reality of accusing the media of racism, though, is that those with the power to smear (i.e. Israel) have the power to require that the media has a huge pile of absoutely indisputable evidence for any criticism they might deign to make of Israel. Even then, the media outlet in question is still "anti-Semitic". Palestinians and Arabs in general, on the other hand, are regularly portrayed (or alternately, ignored) with broad generalizations by scholars and journalists alike. Violence commited by members of a group with less media clout is subject to the closest scrutiny, and the most implausible of claims are bandied around with impunity. Israel's own war crimes, on the other hand, are glossed over as "retaliation" or "self-defense" and the religious motivations for expelling the few million Palestinians who haven't been driven out yet are scarcely mentioned. From the Salon article:
Some of the same pressures that keep government officials from criticizing Israel may also explain why the media has failed to pursue the art student enigma. Media outlets that run stories even mildly critical of Israel often find themselves targeted by organized campaigns, including form-letter e-mails, the cancellation of subscriptions, and denunciations of the organization and its reporters and editors as anti-Semites. Cameron, for example, was excoriated by various pro-Israel lobbying groups for his expose. Representatives of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), and the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA) argued that the Fox report cited only unnamed sources, provided no direct evidence, and moreover had been publicly denied by spokesmen for the FBI and others (the last, of course, is not really an argument).
GWBush lies outright about the budget.
Now the president tells audiences he has always said that in a time of recession, war, or national emergency, he could not only borrow from Social Security's surplus but could run overall budget deficits. In other words, the administration now justifies not only dipping into the Social Security surplus, but actually borrowing the whole thing and still running red ink.
Your strong language of "lying outright" is such a misrepresentation of the efforts this President is taking on behalf of the American people. Why do you not understand the crisis we are in? Why do we have to have full out war in our streets and blood being spilt before you realize the effort needed to build up our military and our ready response ability. Do you need to use this cliche about the Social Security aspect of our economy to undermine the efforts that are going on to secure this country? You are doing all of us a diservice by not looking at the positive qualities of our President's responses that have arisen from this countries crisis!
Perhaps there are "positive qualities", as you put it, but raising defense spending by hundreds of millions without accounting for the hundreds of millions currently going missing looks a lot more like corporate welfare than a legitimate effort to respond to terrorism.
From Chomsky's Deterring Democracy:
Suppose that the USSR were to follow the U.S. model as the Baltic states declare independence, organizing a proxy army to attack them from foreign bases, training its terrorist forces to hit "soft targets" (health centers, schools, etc.) so that the governments cannot provide social services, reducing the economies to ruin through embargo and other sanctions, and so on, in the familiar routine. Suppose further that when elections come, the Kremlin informs the population, loud and clear, that they can vote for the CP or starve. Perhaps some unreconstructed Stalinist might call this a "free and fair election." Surely no one else would.Or suppose that the Arab states were to reduce Israel to the level of Ethiopia, then issuing a credible threat that they would drive it the rest of the way unless it "cried uncle" and voted for their candidate. Someone who called this a "democratic election," "free and fair," would rightly be condemned as an outright Nazi.
Guardian: US sends suspects to face torture
The US has been secretly sending prisoners suspected of al-Qaida connections to countries where torture during interrogation is legal, according to US diplomatic and intelligence sources. Prisoners moved to such countries as Egypt and Jordan can be subjected to torture and threats to their families to extract information sought by the US in the wake of the September 11 attacks.It's getting harder and harder to laugh at how fucked things are.The normal extradition procedures have been bypassed in the transportation of dozens of prisoners suspected of terrorist connections, according to a report in the Washington Post. The suspects have been taken to countries where the CIA has close ties with the local intelligence services and where torture is permitted.
Counterpunch: Argentina: Confusing Tales From Progressive Economists
Zip zip zip! I've missed something again. First Weisbrot says the IMF made an 'error', then he says that this 'error' was made for the sake of 'imperial interests'. So what is the error? Isn't it the precise job of the IMF to implement 'Washington's imperial interests'? Again, who appoints them and pays their salary? The $40 billion apparently went to pay foreign bondholders, right? And the $40 billion came originally from US taxpayers, right? (Isn't that where IMF money comes from?) So apparently, last year the IMF transferred $40 billion from US taxpayers to private US investors, via Argentina....it seems that IMF is doing exactly what they are paid to do. Why does Weisbrot call this an error? Has he not read what he has just written?
Ftrain: The Sight of Your Voice, wherein Scott and Paul discuss the orange squiggles.
If those 80% approval ratings were starting to get to you, too, Michael Moore has some encouraging words:
I want all of you to share this success with me and feel heartened and reassured by the response to this book. It is an overwhelming rebuke, first to those who sought to censor or ban it, and now to the oft-repeated conventional wisdom that the whole country is whistling the same tune and marching in lockstep to the vision of Cheney/Ashcroft/Bush. It's a bunch of hooey, folks, and I have seen it first hand -- and not in the usual centers of leftist discontent.This tour has taken me to Ridgewood, New Jersey (area that always returns its Republican congressman), Arlington, Virginia (a town filled with military people), Grass Valley, California (in the middle of nowhere in a congressional district represented by a right-wing Republican). In each of these towns it's been a literal mob scene.
Our president speaks to the Diet (Japanese Parliament):
My trip to Asia begins here in Japan for an important reason. (Applause.) It begins here because for a century and a half now, America and Japan have formed one of the great and enduring alliances of modern times. From that alliance has come an era of peace in the Pacific. And in that peace, the world has witnessed the broad advance of prosperity and democracy throughout East Asia.Emphasis mine. [link and quote from killyourtv.com]
The century and a half bit could have been a slip, but the rest is unforgiveable.
Vietnam, East Timor, Cambodia, China, and Myanmar were never there. Creepy.
But the speech just gets better after that. It's this whole other reality. It's almost too much to handle. It must be some new strategy for pre-empting criticism: mystify everyone until they float around in the same haze that Bush's speechwriters do.
Bizarre. Surreal. Depressing. Extremely dangerous.
CBS: The Pentagon has up to 2.3 Trillion unaccounted for. Go team USA!
I have decided that karma votes will only be positive from now on. The reason is that if you like something, you seldom have anything to say but just that: that you like it. Karma communicates this well. If you don't like something, however, there is almost always a specific reason, and a negative karma vote doesn't communicate this. As a result, when I see things rated negatively I just wonder why the voter didn't like that post. Additionally, the volume of karma votes that I get leads the positive and negative votes to negate each other. So, in the interests of karma being useful: if you like a post, give it a positive vote; if you don't like it, kindly tell me why. Here at misnomer, we value our customers, and appreciate your feedback.
Heather Meek's End Days of Analog is back this week.
I never used to get riled up about Canadian sports teams, but I surprised myself by feeling quite satisfied that the Canadian Women's Hockey team beat the US on their own ice, with biased reffing.
"Everyone was expecting us to win. We expected to win,'' U.S. defenseman Angela Ruggiero said. "That's why it's so disappointing.''
Guardian: Can the US lose?
A report for the US Space Command last year, overseen by US defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld, rhapsodised about the "synergy of space superiority with land, sea, and air superiority" that would come with missile defence and other projects to militarise space. This would "protect US interests and investment" in an era when globalisation was likely to produce a further "widening between haves and have-nots". It would give the US an "extraordinary military advantage".
Dack.com has transformed tself into the "Warlog", including "You Dropped a Bomb on Me, a breakdown of how many bombs were dropped, and how much it cost taxpayers. I can't help but imagine that there is something more productive that could be done with $285 million.
Michael Moore lays out the implications of the whole Enron mess in an open letter to George W.
Shakir Boloch, the guy who is being held without charge (one of hundreds, actually), has been moved, and not allowed to see his lawyer.
Shakir Baloch is one of hundreds of folks who are being detained by the US without charges. The Canadian government has complained, but the US hasn't responded yet. I heard reports on CBC radio this evening that he was being held in a maximum security prison in unbearable conditions. According to his lawyer, who has only been able to visit him once, he is constantly under bright lights, and made to wear an orange suit. update: here's a report that mentions the maximum security prison.
Apple sure is revving up the hype on whatever it is they're going to announce. Flat screen iMac is what folks are saying, but maybe it's truly revolutionary... though as long as Apple is responsible to its shareholders, I kind of doubt it. update: here's some speculation.
Speaking of hype, I'm having a lot of trouble feeling any kind of excitement for Episode II after the total shite that was Episode I. When I first saw "The Phantom Menace", I thought maybe it was impossible for it to live up to expectations, and I was too hard on it. I saw it again recently (don't ask), and it turns out I was fooling myself to think that it ever had more than any passing redeeming qualities. Anyway, the Lucas marketing machine is treating this one like people are still excited about seeing another way to ruin the original series (the digital "enhancements" in the rereleased trilogy are totally gratuitous and distracting). People probably are, but I'm annoyed, because I'm not. (Do I need to mention that all the people that are excited about it have no taste or artistic sense, and that I know this because I, by virtue of pure arrogance, have direct access to the objective aesthetic? I thought not.)
(offensive and annoying post deleted)
Here's why I question whether or not to add a comment feature to my website.
Heh. Fair enough. I don't get offensive crap often enough for it to be an inconvenience to delete it, but it all becomes worthwhile when dot com pseudo-celebs use your site to bicker.
Though more of the hoi polloi must be using google, as monkeyfist has been getting a whole lot of juvenile hate mail lately.
In any case, I don't blame you.
Get www.all-debt-consolidation.org help with your credit problems here!
fellow limit, my writer.
fellow limit, my writer.
typewriter, the the it.
typewriter, the the it.
Michel Foucault: What is Enlightenment?
NYTimes: Afghan Journalism's Postwar Mission (login/pass: cypherpunk40)
Noam Chomsky: The World After Sept. 11
Washington contemptuously dismissed the tentative offers to consider extradition of bin Laden and his associates; how real such possibilities were we cannot know, because of the righteous refusal even to consider them. This stand adheres to a leading principle of statecraft, called "establishing credibility" in the rhetoric of statecraft and scholarship. And it is understandable. If a Mafia Don plans to collect protection money, he does not first ask for a Court order, even if he could obtain it. Much the same is true of international affairs. Subjects must understand their place, and must recognize that the powerful need no higher authority.
The best free reference websites, according to the American Library Association.
The US is still throwing $2.5 billion in foreign aid to Israel annually, most of which is used to buy arms from the US.
Google's end-of-year Zeitgeist
Big domains are getting bought by companies who put their own system behind the old interface.
So KB Toys, for example, now operates an online store that has the name and colors of the defunct but popular eToys and that mirrors its own Web site. Amazon.com (news/quote) is similarly presenting the face of Egghead.com, which is no more.What I find interesting is that internet retailers haven't had the same idea, except the other way around. What if Amazon (for example) let folks set up a virtual bookstore, providing the same information as amazon, but putting a different "skin" on it. All the shipping, warehousing, and ordering would be handled by Amazon, but there would be a commission in it for the person running the site in question. There would probably be a lot of crappy knock-offs, but maybe there would be some good ones too - in any case, all the money would go to the same source, and the time and effort wouldn't be wasted on trying to promote the front end. If it worked, the physical goods and front end would be effectively split off from each other, and each part would be slightly more commoditized. A lot of folks would probably be layed off or paid less, but the resulting proliferation of online "storefronts" would be interesting. It's not much different than amazon's affiliate program, except that the "branding" and access to features and information would be closer to complete.
Chomsky on Israel vs. Palestine:
The purpose of the terror, economic strangulation and daily humiliation is not obscure. It was articulated in the early years of the occupation by Moshe Dayan, one of the Israeli leaders most sympathetic to the Palestinian plight, who advised his Labor Party associates to tell the Palestinians that "you shall continue to live like dogs, and whoever wishes may leave."
Is Linux ready for the corporate desktop?, By Miguel De Icaza.
I JUST WANNA DO MY DAMN HW AND I CANT DO SHIT CAUSE THIS WEB SITE SUCKS ASS GOSH CNT U DO NE THNG OVER THERE JEZZ GET IT OVER WITH SO I DONT HAVE TO STUDY THIS DAMN STUFF GOSH
developed the you to.
developed the you to.
Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) looks at how the Media is essentially ignoring some really evil comments made by Bush's Treasury Secretary.
"The secretary didn't really mean to say that no matter how old, no person who has paid into the Social Security system all his or her life would be entitled to benefits until he or she is physically no longer able to work? He didn't really mean to say that ExxonMobil and Time Warner should be treated as we treat the church-- as tax exempt?"'Yes,' said the spokesman, 'that is our position. The quotes were all accurate.'"
Every blog I read and list I subscribe to seems to be full of people who spend so much time in front of a computer that they've learned to see the world in binary. Good and evil, with "good" generally being determined by CNN and other media outlets. McVeigh kills Iraqi children, he's a hero. McVeigh kills American children, he's a villain. The government kills McVeigh, they are heroes. McVeigh expresses no remorse, the nation is pissed off they couldn't make him beg and cry before killing him.
David has a longer rant about McVeigh and the history of human sacrifice that is well worth reading.
Journalists have latched on to the fact that McVeigh described the death of children in the Oklahoma City Bombing as "collateral damage." This, they say, proves that he is an inhuman monster. Did these same journalists not use that phrase to describe the deaths of Iraqis in the Gulf War?
The first link to me above should be http://davidgrenier.weblogger.com/2001/06/12
I want to build a better journaling system than Manila, but I really don't want to waste this beautiful summer in Seattle sitting in front of my computer (of course, what am I doing right now?) When I do the confusing "link to the front page" problem will need to be solved.
I knew it was bad, but I didn't know it was this bad: "A black teenager is 48 times (yes, you read that right, 48) more likely to do time for a drug offense than a white kid."
also, black kids are also more likely to do drugs than white kids. the judicial system is biased, but also we cant overlook the fact that blacks in america are more troubled because of all the past crap.
Mike: not sure if that's relevant to the stat I posted, seeing as it referred to drug offenses, i.e. the 'crime' had already been committed. Besides that, I'm not sure if that's necessarily true; it's certainly a strong stereotype, but white kids do a whole lotta drugs too.
But white kids tend to not get caught or have their sentences knocked down to possession or some other misdemeanor, where black kids are smacked with harsher crimes, or the sentence is given to the maximum extent of the law. For example, if a white kid and a black kid are both caught with an oz of pot, the white kid is likely to get possession where the black kid is probably going to get possession with intent to sell or trafficking. Substitute crack for pot and now the white guy is doing 6 months and the black kid is doing 5 years. Prosecutors tend to ask for the most punishment possible, as opposed to white kids where prosecutors ask for very little punishment. These are gross generalizations, but I think statistics indicate this is the case, from the judicial standpoint. At the enforcement level, police just tend to use racial profiling for identifying potential criminals. It's just how they do it. It's stupid, it doesn't really work, but it's how they do it.
"You have no idea what it's like to be black and enfranchised," said Marlon Hastings, one of thousands of Miami-Dade County residents whose votes were not counted in the 2000 presidential election. "George W. Bush understands the pain of enfranchisement, and ever since Election Day, he has fought tirelessly to make sure it never happens to my people again."
due to comments spamming, html will be stripped out of comments
What does that mean - due to comments spamming ... etc?
I take your point about Nader and I think I finally "get" it. I think it's still a paradox in the "regular, practical" world, though, because seeming is believing (in other words, subjective perception is often the greater measure of reality) and there's no way to get around that except for time, maybe a long time. Logic is not necessarily a primary decision maker. What can we do except evolve very slowly? smj