March 2003 Archive
Lying Media Bastards
March 30, 2003
Another Open Thread
This entry was made solely so y’all can use the comments section to speak your minds about whatever. Go to it!
Some Definition of “Precision” I’m Not Aware Of
In the 10+ days since the war on Iraq began, U.S. missiles have managed to hit targets (intentional or accidental) in:
- Iraq
- Iran
- Turkey
- Saudi Arabia [new!]
- and possibly Kuwait [new!]
War Crime and Punishment
Not satisified with being the “world’s policeman,” the Unite States has decided to also become its judge, jury and executioner.
“U.S. officials vowed Friday to vigorously prosecute members of the Iraqi military who they charge are committing a wide range of war crimes… the United States intends to conduct the prosecutions for crimes against U.S. combatants, rather than turn the defendants over to an international court or tribunal.”
Yes, why bother with an International Criminal Court to prosecute war criminals when we can just bring them home to the good ol U.S. of A. and prosecute em here? Jesus, what a sham.
March 29, 2003
Gall and Shame
As soon as I flipped the TV on and saw President W about to give a speech while surrounded by veterans, I knew there was gonna be trouble.
He was praising them and thanking them, and the veterans seemed proud and pleased.
I couldn’t believe Bush was doing this, since he cut veterans’ benefits as part of his last budget. Instead of beating his ass for this disrespect, the veterans were helping the man look impressive, allowing the president to wrap himself in their pain and glory.
What balls.
The speech pretty much played out like you’d expect.
Our veterans are good.
Our soldiers are good.
America is good.
The war on Iraq is good.
Congress should pass my $75 billion wartime supplemental appropriations bill
Our veterans are really, really good.
Goodnite.
Wait a minute.
Why exactly is the president simultaneously asking for a $726 billion tax cut and a $75 billion handout? Acting with some fiscal wisdom, Congress decided to lower the tax cut by $100 billion to pay for the war.
Looking at how this $75 billion will be spent is interesting.
- “$63 billion for fighting the war, including replenishing used munitions and other matériel to prewar levels”
- “$8 billion for relief efforts and immediate reconstruction”
- “$4 billion to better protect the United States against what the administration says is the increased likelihood of terrorist attacks.”
That first figure is very shady. Restocking our ammunition should be covered under regular military spending, unless this new ammo is going to be sent right out again to shoot at Iraqis. Sounds like a way to further enrich military contractors while hiding it from the balance sheet.
The second figure is also shady, as $5 billion of the “relief effort” is actually “aid for what the administration official said were ’supportive’ countries in the region affected by the war, like Pakistan, Israel, Jordan and Turkey.” In other words, our bribe money for their support in the war.
And that last number could mean just about anything.
I have no good way to end this entry. Good night.
March 28, 2003
Aaron Brown is a Failure
When interviewing peace activist and Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg, CNN’s Aaron Brown made an obvious play to smear the entire anti-war movement as pawns of Saddam Hussein:
BROWN: The Iraqi political strategy is in large part to use the anti-war demonstrations around the world to create political pressure on the coalition governments to stand down, cease fire and stop the war. In that regard, are you playing into the hands of what I think you would even acknowledge is a very bad regime.
Ellsberg refuses to be drawn into that trap. Brown tries again. Ellsberg sidesteps and defuses the trap, and also manages to imply that Brown is either naive, or an idiot. Brown is then a bit cowed, and lets Ellsberg say whatever he wants.
Go read the transcript, it’s fun.
Posted by Jake at 12:34 PM
| Comments (22)
We Distort. We Deride.
Fox News Channel, the most respected name in objective, unbiased reporting continued its tradition of neutral, unpoliticized behavior at the anti-war protests in New York City yesterday.
Demonstrators outside of Fox News headquarters decried the media’s role on the war in Iraq, and the little electric news ticker sign on the outside of the building switched from displaying headlines to displaying… commentary.
“War protester auditions here today … thanks for coming!”
“Who won your right to show up here today? Protesters or soldiers?”
“How do you keep a war protester in suspense? Ignore them.”
“Attention protesters: the Michael Moore Fan Club meets Thursday at a phone booth at Sixth Avenue and 50th Street”
Mmmm boy, that’s some good objectivity.
“Reached for comment Thursday afternoon, Fox spokeswoman Tracy Spector was unaware of the messages on the news ticker and said she would look into it. Spector said the network ‘didn’t mean to insult anyone.’ Spector did not return calls for further comment by early Thursday evening. “
If the issue is pressed, I imagine Fox News will scapegoat the person who mans the news ticker controls and say that s/he was the “lone gunman” of this incident. And maybe s/he is. But the fact that they felt comfortable enough to go ahead and do something so obviously biased in the name of a news agency, I think that speaks volumes.
Foot in Mouth, Canadian Style
Found this amusing.
On the Common Dreams website, I found this boldly-worded headline from a Toronto Star editorial:
Courageous stance, Canada opposes the war and will not budge from its position.
Then, I went over to the Toronto Star website to look at the original source, and in the process, ran across this frontpage headline:
Canadian troops on the ground in Iraq, officials confirm
Whoops.
But it is a little more complicated (or at least confusing) than that. Canada still opposes the war, but has “Canadian soldiers in the British army as well as the Australian army and they may be in Iraq at this time.” The Canadian soldiers have guns, but are only allowed to fire them in self-defense. They aren’t allowed to attack, but they are taking part in spy and logistical efforts that will allow others to attack. Which isn’t really a much more morally superior position than doing the killing yourself.
March 27, 2003
Coalition of the… Wait, You’re Kidding, Right?
Apparently Morocco has joined the “coalition of the willing.”
Morocco’s contribution to the war effort:
No, really.
Adios, You Fucking Crook
I have referred to Richard Perle on this site many times. He is the head of the Defense Policy Board, which advises the president and Pentagon about all things military. His nickname (not given by me) is the “prince of darkness.” He’s sort of like Henry Kissinger lite, minus the sense of decorum. He is one of the architects of the “let’s overthrow the whole Middle East” policy currently favored by the Bush administration (he also argued back in August that the U.S. could successfully defeat Iraq with only 40,000 troops. Compare that with today’s headlines).
Anyhow, in some excellent news, Perle is resigning from his post as head demon of the DPB, allegedly because he doesn’t want “controversy” about his “business dealings” to affect his furher, Donald Rumsfeld, from his prosecution of the Iraq war. Or, loosely translated into English, “they caught me, I’d better make a run for it.”
What “controversies” are we speaking of?
- He is on the board of venture capital company Trireme Partners LLP, a company that “invest[s] in companies dealing in technology, goods, and services that are of value to homeland security and defense.”
- He is also a paid consultant for Global Crossing, ” the bankrupt telecommunications company” that is trying to “overcome Pentagon resistance to its proposed sale to a joint venture involving a Hong Kong billionaire.”
Some people might see those as, y’know, conflicts of interest. People like The Law.
Upon Perle’s resignation announcement, Donald “Skeletor” Rumsfeld said, “I should add that I have known Richard Perle for many years and know him to be a man of integrity and honor.” And to properly interpret that, we should remember that Henry Kissinger once referred to Rumsfeld as “the most ruthless man I’ve ever met.”
So, dear Richard Perle, you blood-drenched chickenhawk scumfuck, don’t let the door hit your ass on the way out.
[edit]
Sigh. Atrios alleges that Perle resigned as DPB head, but might remain as a DPB member.
[/edit]
The Power of Congress Compells You
Oh for fuck’s sake.
(Man, am I getting tired of having to say that)
House Approves National Day of Prayer- both the House and Senate have passed bills calling on the president to decree a specific date to be a “a national day of humility, prayer and fasting in a time of war and terrorism.”
(obviously residents of Washington DC will be exempt from the “humility” part)
Seems to be a pretty obvious violation of the First Amendment to me. The government passes a law telling us to pray? Next thing you know American women are going to have to don their star-spangled burqas (well, since the U.S. is the opposite of conservative Islam in many ways, American women would probably be forced to wear skimpy outfits, not all-covering ones. Like perhaps the “burkini”)(yes, terrible joke, I apologize).
Says Democratic Rep. Dennis Kucinich, the resolution “may be seen by some as an attempt to inject religion into this war at a time when some of America’s enemies abroad are asserting that this indeed is a war about religion.” But surely it would only appear this way to those enemies who have theyr eyes open.
More Anti-War Muzak
Just heard about this one:
Appears to be a site dedicated to distributing free anti-war mp3s (and a few anti-war graffitti stencils), and is allegedly run by members of Sonic Youth.
Haven’t listened to any myself (except the recently-released Beastie Boys track). It also appears to be interactive. If you’re a musician, you can submit your own mp3s. Go save the world, rock star.
Random War Thoughts 2
1) I was completely right about the journalist “embedding” process. The reporters out in the field with their new U.S. military comrades are telling the tale from the point of view of the soldiers, just as the Pentagon surely wants them to. They self-censor, they use goofy military jargon, and in the end, they actually do a pretty good job of telling you what it’s like to be a U.S. soldier fighting this war. What they don’t do is tell you anything resembling NEWS.
2) It seems clear that the Iraq war is being reported on so differently in the U.S. and abroad that each presentation would probably be unrecognizable to the other.
3) Anyone who can’t easily understand that I can oppose the war and not be an evil human hell-bent on the deaths of all Americans, is probably not worth arguing with.
4) My current fear is that Americans have bought into the myth that the U.S. invaded Iraq to liberate the people, and that is going to lead to trouble. As more and more average Iraqis are revealed to be against the U.S. “liberation,” these Americans are going to start being angry at how “ungrateful” the Iraqis are being. “Our troops risked their lives to free you, and this is the thanks they get?!” I can easily see an anti-Iraqi backlash for their ungrateful response. And in the resulting backlash, Americans won’t care so much if the new Iraqi regime is a democracy or a junta.
5) “Support our troops” can mean many different things, and you will generally have no idea which meaning a person is using when they speak the words:
- “I stand strongly in support of this war”
- “my husband is in the Army and I am scared what might happen to him
- “I’m not for the war, but I’m afraid that if I continue to publicly oppose it, America might lose”
- “Whoooooooo!!!! U-S-A!! U-S-A!!!”
- “I like jumping on bandwagons because it makes me feel like a part of something bigger”
- “I just want all the soldiers to come back safely”
- “I don’t want anyone to yell at me for not supporting the troops”
- “I’m going to get on the internet and yell and cuss at anyone who does’t ’support our troops’”
The term has come to mean so many things that it is essentially meaningless. If you want to ask me something about my feelings on the troops, you’ll have to choose different words, because I’m no longer going to respond to the phrase above.
Propagand-O-Rama
Polls Suggest Media Failure in Pre-War Coverage- one of the more disturbing stories of the day, if poll results can be trusted (and, well, they can’t). The stat in this report that most unnerves me:
32% of those supporting an attack cited Saddam’s alleged involvement in supporting terrorists as the “main reason” for endorsing invasion. Another 43% said it was “one reason.”
In other words, 75% of Americans who support the U.S.’ war on Iraq did so based upon information that is totally wrong. There is no public evidence that Saddam Hussein supports “terrorists” in the way that Americans define the term (we think “terrorist” means “Arab who is out to kill Americans”). Thanks to poor journalism and White House sleight of tongue, a large segment of Americans see “terrorists,” Al Qaeda, 9-11, and Saddam Hussein as one big ominous group. And therefore fighting Iraq is obviously protecting ourselves from terrorism. It saddens me that if the American people had been better educated about the Middle East that this war might never have even gotten off the ground.
Television agendas shape images of war- press coverage of the war in the U.S., U.K., Arab world and Iraq compared and contrasted.
Media giant’s rally sponsorship raises questions- I could’ve posted this article days ago, but I was looking for a little more information. Since I haven’t been able to find it, here’s the article anyway. Radio giant Clear Channel is reported to have been “sponsoring” pro-war/pro-troop/”patriotic” rallies across the country. I hestitated to post the article because I couldn’t really discover what was meant by “sponsor.” Does that mean they endorsed it, organized it, paid for it, what? One interviewee in the article speculates that CC’s involvement is simply “manufacturing the news,” while others have argued that this is simply a way for CC to suck up to the Bush administration so that CC is looked upon favorably and allowed to continue its monopolization of the radio industry.
‘It’s more than exciting, Christiane’- “Most TV correspondents reporting from Iraq are attached to combat units and adopt the military viewpoint, so who is giving us the other side of the war?”
White House prepares to feed 24-hour news cycle- the word “feed” should be replaced with “dominate.” Claims that the White House is scheduling several press conferences a day at times that will serve best to distract journalists and keep the government’s message at the top of the heap.
“Precise” and “Surgical”: NBC’s Bombing Claims Lack Verification- FAIR notes that the media are using descriptive terms that the Pentagon would like them too, without knowing whether or not those terms are very fitting.
Got another email from FAIR today about the media setting up a fiction in which “pro-war” and “pro-troops” are the equivalent, and where “anti-war” and “against the troops” mean the same thing. But that article does not appear to be posted on their site yet.
March 26, 2003
Random War Thoughts
1) Of course, the first thought is: what a terrible fucking idea this war was.
2) Many pundits and armchair generals are already saying “there needs to be a change of tactics/this is a quagmire.” But really, this is probably pretty average results for a military invasion. Just because it’s not the cakewalk we were promised doesn’t mean that this is Vietnam II (yet).
3) A local news station began tonight’s broadcast saying “there is now proof that Iraq is hiding chemical weapons.” They then went on to say that the military had taken control of a hospital which had 3000 chemical protection suits. That isn’t proof of anything, you bastards.
4) When Aaron Brown and Wolf Blitzer are on the same CNN news segment, they subtly battle each other for airtime. It’s funny.
5) What’s up with Al Jazeera these days? Pre-Afghanistan, it was lauded for it’s “get in every regime’s face” style. Then it got bashed by the White House for it’s non-pro-U.S. stance. Now it seems to be getting bashed by everyone. I don’t watch AJ. Is this bashing justified, or is it propaganda? Is Al Jazeera a good network, did it used to be, did it change?
6) The Iraqis really don’t seem to be buying into this “America as liberators” thing. Which is quite rational. A country’s been starving and bombing you for ten years, then guys from that country with big guns walk into your village and say “we’re here to rescue you”? I’m thinking that the U.S. will conquer Iraq, and then be attacked by Iraqis guerrilla-style for months and months afterwards, until the U.S. pulls out or until the resistance is massacred.
Quote of the Week
(via Eat the State!):
“Our armies do not come into your cities or lands as conquerors or enemies, but as liberators.”
–British Lt. Gen. Stanley Maude, after his army, advancing from Basra in 1915, conquered and seized the city of Baghdad, inaugurating decades of British rule and plunder
Today’s Assortment of Stolen Links
Lack of Skepticism Leads to Poor Reporting on Iraq Weapons Claims- new report by FAIR which points out how the media is jumping to conclusions and getting the facts wrong in the Iraq war. It’s like I keep saying, don’t trust any heady sounding news report until some time passes, because the facts don’t usually come to light right away.
When are facts facts? Not in a war- God bless the Guardian. Excellent follow-up to the above article, examining the “Claims and counter claims made in the first week of the media war in Iraq.” This is all I’ve ever asked for in the media. Skepticism. Research. Synthesis. Conclusions.
This Is Gulf War 2- awful pictures you won’t want to see (and probably won’t if you only watch American television) of the Iraq war. Not as one-sided as you might guess, images of Iraqi injuries and deaths as well as images of American deaths and POWs.
U.S. Trying to Stop U.N. Session on War- members of the UN General Assembly are trying to arrange a vote to condemn the U.S. attack on Iraq. It seems that there’s a fair chance that they would get enough votes to pass the resolution. And in a diplomatic move that’s become utterly predictable, the US is trying to pressure these countries to vote against the resolution.
U.S. Is Assembling a Civilian Team to Run Iraq- “The United States is preparing to establish immediate sole control of postwar Iraq, initially without recourse to the United Nations, with a civilian administration under the direct command of the military, according to senior administration officials.” Military-controlled occupation by a foreign nation = freedom and democracy.
Bush Drafting New Executive Order on Declassifying Documents- so what stance do you think Bush takes on declassifying government documents? He takes the “don’t declassify” and even the “REclassify” points of view. You just gotta wonder what skeletons this administration has in its closet (I mean apart from the horrific ones that we already know about).
The Secret Weapon: CIA- the CIA is involved with the war on Iraq? I am shocked and awed.
“ENLARGE YOUR COALITION! GUARANTEED!”- concluding on the lighter side. Yet another clever spam spoof that takes the crap that we all get emailed every day and twists it into a skewering political satire.
Point-Counterpoint: The War On Iraq- from The Onion. “It’s funny cuz it’s true.”
March 24, 2003
03-24-03
Le Tigre- Bang Bang!
Los Desaparecidos- Happiest Place on Earth
Gza- AutoBio
Faith No More- A Small Victory
Mr. Lif & Edan- Get Wise ‘91
Queens of the Stone Age- You Think I Ain’t Worth A Dollar, But I Feel Like A Millionaire
Zack de la Rocha- March of Death
MC5- The American Ruse
DJ Shadow & Cut Chemist- Product Placement (Jake’s Atomic Cafe mix)
Lard- Forkboy
Nerve Agents- The War’s Not Over
Ralph Stanley- O Death
Public Enemy- Shut em Down
The Yeah Yeah Yeahs- Miles Away
The Magnetic Fields- Let’s Pretend We’re Bunny Rabbits
The Vines- Get Free
The Sugarcubes- Motorcrash
Pistol Grip- Running from the Gun
REM- Welcome to the Occupation
2 Many DJs- Salt n Pepa vs the Stooges
Anti-Flag & the DONOTs- Protest Song
Moxy Fruvous- Gulf War Song
System of a Down- War
The Donnas- Police Blitz
Seat Belts- Tank!
March 23, 2003
Blogging’s Answer to CNN
Sean Paul over at The Agonist is doing a really amazing job of sorting through the news of the Iraq war and presenting it as brief summaries, denoting sources and probable authenticity. But it made me think that this is the sort of news source that we really want. News that we might even be willing to pay for.
Go check out Sean Paul’s site. And I say if you find it worthwhile, click on his “donate” button in the upper left and give the man a buck or five. He’s obviously putting a ton of work into this, and we should show him our appreciation.
Tri-State Area
Now U.S. bombs have apparently falled on Iraq, Iran and now Turkey. I haven’t seen any word on damage or casualties.
Oscar Goes to War
Some local anti-war groups called for a protest outside the Academy Awards in Hollywood tonight. Knowing how severely the police lock down events like this, I thought it was pretty much a lame idea, but I went anyway. Figured I’d go see what the post-war peace movement was looking like.
Had to get off the subway one stop early because the stop right near the Kodak Theater was closed down (for security reasons, of course). Began the trek west, keeping an eye out for protesters, cops, and barricades. It’s funny how it’s become commonplace around here to see people walking down the street holding placards denouncing war, the president, the media, and multinational corporations.
As I walked, the numbers of cars on the street dwindled and the number of people on the sidewalks increased. More cops, more traffic cones, more limos. Haven’t seen this large a police presence since the Democratic National Convention in 2000, when the city was an abosolute warzone, no joke.
About three blocks from the Oscar ceremony home, the street was obstructed, so I had to walk down some side streets to get closer to the alleged protest location (one block past the theater). Ended up turning down Highland, and got a good view of some of the Oscar night absurdity.
From the corner of Highland and Hollywood to the corner of Highland and Santa Monica (about four large city blocks), the street was filled with nothing but limousines, taking their passengers to the Oscars.
Apparently dealing with these limos was one protest strategy. A number of demonstrators were on the sidewalks along the street, imploring the cars’ inhabitants to speak out about the war. “You have a platform to speak to millions,” they cried. If begging celebrities to mention your particular issue on television is your best hope of success, you’re in trouble. Or maybe you’re just not very imaginative. As most of the limos kept the tinted windows rolled up, it was hard to tell if these activists were having any luck.
The air above was teeming with motorized life: police helicopters, news helicopters, a Saturn blimp, and two airplanes dragging banners for Commiwood.com (which I presume would bash away at lefty actors, those Red bastards. But I can’t get that url to work, maybe I’m intentionally remembering it wrong).
After much zigging and zagging, I came to the protest site. I honestly found it pretty sad. There was a flatbed truck serving as a stage, giant balloons which read “no war” (or something like that), and lots of booths selling anti-war t-shirts. And as I arrived, the speaker on the stage was imploring us to give donations to “keep the protests alive.” Excuse me, but you know what you need for a protest to happen? People need to show up. That costs about $zero. Yeah yeah, to rent flatbeds and sound systems and file for permits you need money. But really, do any of those things factor in much to changing government policy? Hell, does any rally-style protest where people stand around and listen to speakers reflect that audience’s own views and then tell them that they need to embrace socialism, or become a vegetarian or free Mumia to succeed?
Sorry, the seeming consumerist, monetary bent of the protest irked me.
I now walked past the protest and began circling back on Sunset, towards the limousine gauntlet. After walking several blocks, I was crossing a small side street when a small riot gear-clad policeman stepped into my way. He pulled his baton out of its holster (holster? Sheath? Scabbard?), held it in front of him like a barrier and said “you can’t go this way.”
I was very taken aback. It’s not like it’s common knowledge which streets they’re going to arbitrarily close around the Oscar theater, it wasn’t marked or anything. He would’ve just had to politely tell me to turn around, yet here he was in full defensive mode. Well, I suppose he was polite, except that he was obviously ready to shove me backwards with the broad side of his billy club. I backed away a step, hands in the “I’m unarmed” position, saying “sorry, didn’t know!”
As I turned around, I saw another cop immediately to my left who was re-sheathing his own club. Was this for real? Were two cops seriously preparing to beat my ass with clubs because I didn’t know that I wasn’t allowed to cross the usually anonymous North Mansfield Avenue? I didn’t even look threatening, no signs, no slogans on my t-shirt, no punk rock mohawk, nothing. Just a nerdy looking dude with glasses in a brown shirt and jeans. These dudes were fucking twitchy.
I’d seen about as much as I could, so I retraced my steps. When I got near Sunset and Highland, I saw a burst of movement. A large crowd of protesters was on the southwest corner of the intersection, by the McDonald’s, when a swarm of riot cops sprinted over to the mob. I tried to see what was going on, but couldn’t get close enough. Then the sirens came. About six cop cars, a phlanax of bicycle cops, and no fewer than twenty motorcycle cops appeared on the scene. Cops en masse freak me out. From several eyewitness reports on the LA IndyMedia site, it would appear that the cops beat a bunch of people there. I can’t verify any of the claims made there, of course. But cops beating protesters is a lot more common than most people think.
Also more common than most people think are mass, unjustified arrests at protests. Ever since the WTO protests in Seattle, cops seem to think it’s okay to surround a bunch of people, accuse them of failing to disperse (sometimes they tell them to disperse and won’t let them out, sometimes they don’t even bother doing that) and mass arrest them. When I saw this battallion of cops, that’s what popped into my head.
Since I couldn’t get any closer to the source of the trouble, and I wasn’t in the mood to be arrested, I decided to head on home. On the long walk back, I saw a building with a line of well-dressed folks stretching around the block. I beleive these people were “seat-fillers.” You see, during an awards show, the people in the audience might have to go to the bathroom or do a line of coke or something, and it would be so unseemly if there was an empty seat in the auditorium that the TV audience could see. So many “seat-fillers” are hired to make that nasty emptiness go away. The people in this line were wearing fine suits, fancy dresses with wraps, a few tuxes. Sadly, no one was around to hear my witty remark: “Look, it’s the prom!”
Upon arriving home, I heard about Michael Moore’s Bowling for Columbine movie won for best documentary. As expected, Moore gave a speech which bashed the war and the president. Apparently his win was applauded and his speech was booed. I just hope that some of the hundreds of millions of foreigners who watched the show will see that as proof positive that not all Americans support this president or his policies, and will prevent them from carrying out suicide bombings upon our populace.
A Little Anti-War Music
A number of musicians have released free anti-war songs onto the net.
Beastie Boys- In a World Gone Mad- popular goofy rap group puts out first song in years. Lyrics
Anti-Flag & the DONOTs- Protest Song- a punk band from Pittsburgh and a punk band from Ibbenbueren, Germany join forces for a spirited acoustic song encouraging their fans to make the jump from consumers of rebellious music to involve themselves in rebellious movements.
Zack de la Rocha- March of Death- first new track from former Rage Against the Machine front man Zack de la Rocha. Interesting rock/funk/industrial beats by DJ Shadow. Lyrics
System of a Down-Boom!- quirky metal band System of a Down recorded this song several years ago, but found it prophetically relevant today. They recorded a music video for this song with director Michael Moore, depicting the massive international peace protests of February 15, 2003. The video has allegedly been banned from MTV because it shows casualty estimates for the Iraq war. Don’t know if your computer can handle video streams, but I’d recommend giving it a try, because I think it is a great video. If you can’t handle streams, you can download an mpeg version of the video here
The Lighter Side
To amuse you:
Movies we would see if the MPAA censored everything down to a G rating- series of hilarious photoshopped images from the weirdos at the Fark community.
Why They Matter- LA Times film critic Kenneth Turan tries to explain why the Academy Awards ceremony is important to America, especially in a time of war. And fails miserably. Really hilariously bad.
RUMSFELD: 900 NATIONS NOW IN COALITION- “Defends Inclusion of Disneyland, Carpet World”
Havok
Stray Missiles Land in Iran- it appears that at least one and possibly as many as three US or UK missiles aimed at Iraq accidentally hit Iran.
RAF Tornado downed by US missile- it appears (I’ll be using that phrase a lot these days) that a US Patriot Missile emplacement accidentally shot down a British fighter plane. The search for survivors has begun.
Soldier detained in fatal grenade attack on Army base- take this with even more skepticism, as it’s a crime taking place in a war setting. One American soldier was killed and twelve wounded when several grenades detonated at an army camp in Kuwait. The current allegations are that the grenades were thrown by a disgruntled American soldier. Other reports I saw claimed that the soldier was a recent convert to Islam. Whether its true or not, if that version of the story spreads it will just add to the anti-Muslim/anti-Arab sentiment many Americans already hold. Speaking of which…
Illinois mosque attacked as Muslims pray inside- someone shot at praying Muslims inside their mosque through the mosque’s large front window. I received an email that recounts this story, as well as two other attacks on Muslims in California and Michigan, although they were of the more threaten-and-discriminate variety. Since I could not find links for those, you only get the first story. Email me if you want the other one and I’ll send it your way.
Now I can’t find the link again, but I also read an article earlier today about a pro-war rally in which a Muslim man got up to speak. The Muslim praised the war for the liberation of Iraq and then read a passage out of the Quran; to which his fellow pro-war folks responded by yelling anti-Arab and anti-Muslim comments at him. That’s something that I hadn’t thought much about. How much of pro-war sentiment can be attributed to just good ol’ racism and hatred?
Lawyers’ hotline set to tell Iraqis: Know your rights- that headline should probably read “Iraqi-Americans.” The FBI is apparently going around and interviewing Americans of Iraqi descent and Iraqi immigrants. This article is specifically about the FBI investigation in the Bay Area, and advises Iraqi-Americans to call the local chapter of the National Lawyers Guild if they think they need help- (415) 285-1055
Turkey denies push into Iraq, but sticks to intervention plans- earlier today the AP and BBC both reported that Turkey had sent thousands of soldiers into northern Iraq, but Turkey claims that their soldiers are only on the border, ready to deploy in case of a mass influx of refugees. In all likelihood, they actually want to enter northern Iraq, fight the Kurds, and retake Kirkuk, which could spark a massive conflict between the Kurds and the Turks. This would be bad.
A few in military refuse to fight ‘wrong war’- America gets its own refuseniks? A small number of U.S. military servicemen are apparently refusing to serve in the war against Iraq.
March 22, 2003
Fair and Balanced and Contextless
I spent two hours in a doctor’s office waiting room yesterday, forced to watch the war coverage on the Fox News Channel. No matter how I turned my seat or tried to distract myself with a magazine, I had to inevitably watch at least some of it (I appreciate your condolences).
Lots of coverage of the aerial bombardment, AKA “shock and awe.” Footage of Baghdad aflame in color, and in grainy green monochrome. But all from a distance, a blazing skyline, people-less, as though the footage was of a model a young boy had set ablaze for his own amusement.
You know what would have made all this coverage worthwhile? One little phrase:
“People live here.”
Thousands of tons of explosives had been dropped on a city of 5 million people, with roughly the same population density of Seattle.
Imagine a natural disaster in any major world city–an earthquake in Mexico City, an inferno in Delhi, a tsunami in Melbourne– and this would be a major catastrophe. The Red Cross would fly in. People around the country would take up donations for the victims. Even if it was the capitol city of a tyrannical, hated governments–floods in Pyongyang, locusts in Riyadh, tornados in … Paris?– and the sympathy would still remain.
But this sort of disaster in Baghdad is okay. Because Saddam Hussein is a bad man, you see.
As I write this, the “official” casualty count is 3 dead and 207 wounded in Baghdad, a figure that I simply cannot believe. Of course, many of the city’s 5 million certainly fled as war approached, and I’m sure that the city does have bomb shelters and the like for people’s protection. I certainly hope its true, that these bombs are miraculously finding targets free of human beings, and that such miracles continue. But I fear that the death toll will rise when and if searches are made, unburying the bodies in the rubble.
I also couldn’t help but notice that the Fox News Channel anchors kept saying things like “the war to liberate Iraq is on” and so forth. I must be getting old, I remember back when this was a war to overthrow Saddam Hussein. Then a war to force Iraq to accept weapons inspectors. Then a war to enforce UN resolutions. Then a war to disarm Iraq. And now, finally, a war of liberation. What a difference six months make.
March 21, 2003
Misdirection
So how much time do you think the media is going to spend asking “when will the military start the ’shock and awe’?” and “is Saddam Hussein really dead?” instead of, y’know, reporting on the war?
Coalition of the War-Liking
I am getting tired of hearing about this “coalition of the willing” of 30+ countries that “supports” the U.S. in its holy crusade against Iraq. And couldn’t they think of a better phrase than that? Couldn’t they have at least been the “coalition of freedom” or “righteousness” or something?
The White House is claiming that they have 30 nations supporting them, and another 15 that support them but won’t go public about it (which is telling in itself, really). By my math that means that 45 countries support the war and 147 countries don’t.
And when we take a look at those 30, a grand total of six are actually sending troops: the U.S., UK, Australia, Romania, Bulgaria, and Albania. And of those six, only the UK, UK and Australia are sending any large numbers of troops. Romania is sending 278. Albania is sending 70. That’s not a hell of a lot of support.
So of this coalition of 45 semi-public supporters, it’s more or less a coalition of three countries. Gotta love that doublespeak.
[edit]
Reuters has a few things to say on the subject, more specifically regarding the recent Rumsfeld comment that “The coalition in this activity is larger than the coalition that existed during the Gulf War in 1991.”
In 1991 at least 33 countries sent forces to the campaign against Iraq and 16 of those provided combat ground forces, including a large number of Arab countries.
In 2003 the only fighting forces are from the United States, Britain and Australia. Ten other countries are known to have offered small numbers of noncombat forces, mostly either medical teams and specialists in decontamination, making a comparable alliance of about 13 countries.
U.S. officials have named 33 countries which support the U.S. invasion of Iraq but this includes countries which are providing overflight and basing rights and which are giving only diplomatic or political support for the invasion.
President Bush said on Wednesday that 35 countries have chosen to “share the honor” of supporting the campaign but U.S. officials could not name more than the 33.
They say some 15 other countries are cooperating with the U.S. war effort behind the scene, mostly by giving access to bases and airspace, but they do not want to be named.
In 1991 the United States and its allies did not count countries which provided overflight rights or political support because the campaign had the overwhelming support of the U.N. Security Council, which had voted 12-2 for the use of force.
Salon also has an article on the topic, but you have to do that “yes, I will watch your four page advertisement before I can read the article” thing, and I’m currently in no mind to do so, so I can’t tell you if the article’s any good.
[/edit]
IMF Says IMF is No Good
In the war furor, this important story got missed (well, by me anyway).
IMF-no clear proof globalization helps the poor
The IMF is the International Monetary Fund, an institution that lends money to countries in desperate need. In return, they demand that the countries follow “structural adjustment programs,” which call on the countries to make themselves more friendly to foreign investors. Which means cutting social services spending, privatize national industries, charge money for public services, etc. In other words, fuck the nation’s poor hard, because then wealthy foreign investors will want to swoop in, buy up the industries and resources, and maybe plunk down some factories to exploit the desperation of some of the world’s poorest people.
Yeah, it’s a bit more complicated than that (isn’t it always), but that’s the jist of it. The IMF and its sister organization the World Bank have done massive damage to many a Third World country, and that damage doesn’t ever seem to heal.
And now, a new IMF study finds that the “trade liberalization” policies that the organization espouses don’t actually help the countries like they’re supposed to.
So what’s next, IMF? Ball’s in your court.
March 20, 2003
That Number Has Been Disconnected
One of the primo websites for Perpetual War News has been Dack.com. But Dack has now shifted the warlog portion of his site to a new domain, RationalEnquirer.org.
Please make a note of it.
Jake On Air, You Speak Out
Hey folks,
Going to be on the air at Kill Radio again today, spreading the anti-war, anti-lies, anti-stupid gospel the way that I do. Click here to tune in to Kill Radio, I’ll only be on from 4-6pm PST.
It’ll mostly be about Iraq and war. Our own Greg the DJ says he might stop in with some “audio clips that provide a sound bite historical perspective of the complicity of the u.s. in creating this situation” (if he can get out of work in time).
We’ll also be taking calls from folks protesting here and Los Angeles. And if you want to give a call, no matter where you are or what you’re doing, feel free, I’ll put you on the air live.
The number’s 213.252.0998
More War Sources
Found another website of news and perspective inside Iraq.
Kevin Sites Blog- “First-person account of a solo journalist’s life on the front lines of war… Kevin Sites is a CNN correspondent, but this is a personal website not affiliated with, endorsed by, or funded by CNN. “
Kevin is currently in northern Iraq. His blog has photos and audio reports as well. Only downside is that he seems to be kinda… I dunno. In his own words, speaking about reporting, “it seems somewhat cyncial, unforgivingly opportunistic to feed a career on carnage of war. But we do… It’s both an avocation and an addiction. A search for moral absolutes in uncompromising violence. War corrspondent Chris Hedges explains beautifully in his book, WAR IS A FORCE THAT GIVES US MEANING.”
He sounds like kind of a journalistic fanatic. But he’s there and we’re not, so his stuff might be worth a read.
We’ve also got the BBC’s “Reporters’ Log: At war in Iraq, a cooperative weblog with reporters submitting entries from Baghdad, Kuwait, Amman, northern Iraq, Washington DC (?), Jerusalem, Cairo, etc. So it’s not strictly an “inside Iraq” source, but that material is there.
Also, if you’re looking for up-to-the-minute news coverage of the war, it looks like The Agonist weblog is doing a good job of summarizing reports from the major mainstream media as they come.
I’ll go ahead and start adding these Iraq news sites into a section of the menu bar on the right.
Laugh, Clown, Laugh
Heh. Fanatical Apathy is the only weblog I know that is made up primarily of hilarious political skits in script form. It’s also got other satire and photo cartoons, but the skits are what impress me most.
The latest skit:
From “Rough Justice IV” (The Movie Inside President Bush’s Head)
March 19, 2003
Open Thread for You. Because I Love You
Saw this idea over at the Daily Kos blog.
Every day, Kos posts an entry for the sole purpose of the readers having a chance to write about whatever, converse, bitch, etc.
Seemed like an interesting idea, so I’m experimenting with it.
Use the “comments” section of this post to write about whatever, the war, Bush, the media, your cat’s sex life, whatever.
Enjoy.
Jake.
The Aftermath
The part of the war that the Bushies haven’t talked much about, what comes next The general story is that after expelling Saddam, then comes the rebuilding, then comes the new government, then the Americans leave. Details? There aren’t many. On one hand, that’s smart; why make plans before you’ve had a chance to assess the situation. On the other hand, it’s a catastrophe; after the country has been invaded, damaged, and its government nullified, basic problems like food, water, medicine, transportation, electricity, refugees and possible retaliation will become vital concerns within hours of victory.
Is the U.S. military and Bush administration up to this task? The following articles argue, “no.”
A bringer of liberty can soon become an occupier- history professor Eric Rauchway draws a parallel between President Bush’s war to liberate Iraq in 2000s with President McKinley’s war to liberate the Philippines in 1900s.
As Senator Henry Cabot Lodge mildly noted: “Those people whom we liberated down there have turned against us.” An army of 75,000 Filipinos began to fight a guerrilla war against their benevolent occupiers. The Americans had the advantage of superior firepower; the rebels enjoyed the privilege of camouflage that accrues to an occupied people. The well-armed Americans hunkered in groups while stealthy guerrillas sowed terror among the coloniser troops - who then retaliated against the populace at large. This pattern culminated in an ambush on the American garrison at Balangiga - the worst massacre of US troops since Custer. In reply, US forces laid waste to the surrounding country.
News of such terrorism and indiscriminate response brought the war to a sputtering halt - although US troops stayed in the islands and rebels remained in the wilderness, as they do today. The Philippines did not attain independence, let alone democracy, until 1946.
I believe the U.S. repression in the Philippines resulted in the deaths of about a million Filipinos.
The War After the War- lengthy (but pretty much mandatory if you want to be informed about this) article about the troubles the U.S. will face in the rebuilding/transformation of Iraq. Largely based upon “The Day After: The Army in a Post-Conflict Iraq, ” an “unpublicized U.S. Army War College studies being read with increasing interest by some Pentagon planners” back in December, the article paints a very grim picture due to the amazing complexity of the situation, coupled with the U.S. military’s general ignorance of Iraqi society, culture, politics, and needs. The report argues that the U.S. would need 65,000-80,000 troops stationed in Iraq for 5-10 years (even with UN support) to stabilize the country. Stop reading my summary and go read the article.
All of this has got me worried. A violent and unstable post-war Iraq would make the U.S. look bad, because it would reinforce the world opinion that the war was a bad idea.
Which got me thinking that maybe the U.S. won’t be as concerned with Iraqi democracy–even a facade of it–as they will be with a U.S.-friendly leader who will “keep the peace,” even if that “peace” means violent repression by the new leader.
But won’t a new dictator in Iraq make the U.S. look bad too? Well, you probably won’t hear about it. When was the last time the mainstream press covered oppression in allied countries like Saudi Arabia, or Turkey, or Pakistan?
Posted by Jake at 05:59 PM
| Comments (2)
The Supreme Court Hates You
Justice Bans Media From Free Speech Event- “Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia banned broadcast media from an appearance Wednesday where he will receive an award for supporting free speech.”
War Means Rights May Be Scaled Back- “The government has room to scale back individual rights during wartime without violating the Constitution, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said Tuesday. ‘The Constitution just sets minimums,’ Scalia said after a speech at John Carroll University in suburban Cleveland. “Most of the rights that you enjoy go way beyond what the Constitution requires.’” In other words, shut your cry-hole and be thankful that you have any rights at all.
Supreme Court Justice Scalia Is Sleeping With Your Mother- nah, I’m just kiddin.
Crank Up Your Bullshit Detectors
As I write this, the “time to make the war” deadline has passed, and already today there have been two major news rumors that appear to have been untrue:
- This morning, rumors swirled that Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister (and frequent spokesperson) Tariq Aziz had either defected to the Kurdish forces in northern Iraq, or had been killed. Aziz appeared in a live press conference to argue that he was not dead.
- And geopolitical analysts Stratfor apparently reported earlier that American B-52 bombers were airborne and heading towards Iraq, and are now claiming that those bombers actually are still at the airfield. Now I don’t know which is true.
First off, with any breaking news, the first reports are frequently wrong. One on of the first days of the O.J. Simpson media circus, on the day that OJ was driving down the freeway in the famous white Bronco, an acquaintance of mine ran up and told me that he’d just heard on the radio that OJ had stopped the car, confronted the police, and been shot and killed by them. Needless to say, that was untrue. It usually takes some time for all the facts to be properly sorted and the “truth” (or as close as we can get to that) to be revealed.
Add to that the confusion of military conflict, language barriers, military censorship, and the powerful propaganda machines that will be in full force by the U.S., U.K. and Iraqi governments, and you’ve got a whole lot of work ahead of you if you want to know what’s actually going on. Hell, maybe you won’t be able to know what’s going on ever.
I’m just saying remain skeptical, remain vigilant, and wait a while before you start thinking that any news story you hear is true. And make sure to be skeptical of me too. I try my best to be accurate, and to let you know when I’m unsure, but good intentions won’t always save me.
Looks Like We’ve Started
According to London’s “The Evening Standard,” US and UK soldiers are fighting Iraqi soldiers near Basra in southern Iraq.
I don’t know if that’s considered “the start of the war” per se, but….
I’m really hoping that all the “shock and awe” stuff we heard about was just a scare tactic and not a real military plan.
New News from the White House
Wow a couple of things from Bush that I hadn’t previously heard.
“War against Iraq will be as short as possible but Americans must be prepared for loss of life.”
That’s the first I can remember him mentioning casualties, ours or theirs. Now that the war is metaphysically certain, I guess he can start saying that sort of thing.
“Bush met with his war council and the White House sent Congress formal notification of justification for war. In two separate documents, Bush said diplomacy has failed to protect America’s security, linked Saddam’s regime with the al-Qaida network and — laying out a new rationale for war — said captured Iraqi officials could identify terrorists living in the United States.”
Oh, that’s right. It’s not a war for weapons of mass destruction, or the sanctity of the UN or liberation of the Iraqi people or oil or revenge, it’s because captured Iraqis might have info about terrorists in America. It’s all so simple now! Why didn’t I realize that earlier?
March 18, 2003
Bush and the Truth
A few comments about George W. Bush and truthfulness.
Lies, Damned Lies, and Ultimatums- The Weekly Lowdown dissects Bush’s recent ultimatum to Saddam Hussein, verifying the truth or falsity of each segment. They find 20 lies.
Bush Clings To Dubious Allegations About Iraq - “As the Bush administration prepares to attack Iraq this week, it is doing so on the basis of a number of allegations against Iraqi President Saddam Hussein that have been challenged — and in some cases disproved — by the United Nations, European governments and even U.S. intelligence reports.”
PUSHED INTO WAR BY LIARS AND CHEATS- editorial from The Mirror which, well, you can probably guess. Also, check out this spiffy Mirror front page from this past Monday.
And looking over Bush’s speech, you have to give him some credit. How many times can you say “we need war for peace” without vomitting?
Congressional Asylum
The Republican speaker of the House of Representatives accused Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle on Tuesday of coming “mighty close” to giving comfort to U.S. foes and undermining President Bush’s march toward war with Iraq.
Rep. Dennis Hastert of Illinois ripped into Daschle for saying on Monday: “I’m saddened, saddened that this president failed so miserably at diplomacy that we’re now forced to war.”
“Giving comfort to U.S. foes” is part of the legal definition of TREASON!
So let’s understand. According to Dennis Hastert, saying that the president failed at something is “mighty close” to treason, the betrayal of the United States of America and its people.
Um, no. No it isn’t.
I hope Daschle sues Hastert for slander.
Dixie Chicanery
Sigh, I hate having to correct hysteria. Also not real thrilled with discussing popular country music, but here goes.
A member of the band “The Dixie Chicks” recently made a comment at one of their shows in London, said to the audience, “Just so you know, we’re ashamed that the president of the United States is from Texas.” As you can imagine, stupid symbolic patriotic outrage ensued, with all kinds of talk about boycotting the DCs, pulling their songs from the radio, etc.
There is one happy story out of this. Country station KFKF had an online poll in which site visitors (many of whom didn’t listen to the station, just wanted to bash the “traitors), voted 4 to 1 to ban DC songs. But the station manager decided to ignore the poll results, arguing that America is a land of free speech, even when unpopular. He urged them to boycott the DCs or even KFKF if they disagreed, but that everyone should be able to make their voices heard. Big thumbs up to KFKF station manager Dale Carter for that decision.
But now to the debunking. A mistitled news story is panicking the left with regards to this issue, “Dixie Chicks axed by Clear Channel.” Clear Channel owns a gajillion U.S. radio stations (and billboards and concert venues and a few television stations), and if they decided to ban a song, that would be a massive act of censorship. Bloggers are already decrying the act, and denouncing the corporate media that wants to silence all dissent and eat our children.
But….
If you read the article, it actually says, “The group’s records have been pulled by dozens of country-music stations across the country, including two Clear Channel-owned stations in Jacksonville, WQIK 99.1-FM and WROO 107.3-FM.” So of the 1200 Clear Channel-owned stations, the song has been pulled by two of them.
Obviously, none of that’s a good thing, banning songs because they express unpopular opinion, but we’re not at Farenheit 78RPM just yet.
You’ve always gotta read the articles folks. The headlines are often contradicted by the information within.
How Bad Could It Be?
On Sunday, when it looked certain that war would be upon us before the next weekend, without even trying, I ran across a horrifying list of news articles (mostly from Antiwar.com) that make the Iraq war look scarier and scarier. And the unexpected discovery of those headlines has continued through today.
War Fears Bring Fundamentalism to Secular Iraq- as war approaches, more and more Iraqis turn to religion for comfort, some to fundamentalist Islam. Meanwhile, Saddam Hussein increasingly uses religious language and metaphor in his speeches, which could help his inevitable downfall into a martyr’s tale.
Iraq War Will Be Great al-Qaeda Recruiting Tool- kinda goes without saying. “The American infidels will kill all of us Arabs, just look at Iraq! You must join al-Qaeda and blow things up!”
Kurds Prepare for War with an Old Enemy- one of the hugest possible catastrophes of this war would be potential conflict between the Kurds and the Turks. There is an unofficial region of the Middle East known as Kurdistan, an area populated primarily by Kurds that stretches from southeastern Turkey, through northern Iraq, and even into parts of Iran and Syria. The Kurds would love for this region to become its own state, or at least an area with its own autonomy. The Turks would fight this outcome, and has been fighting its own Kurdish population on it for a long time. There is fear that if the Turks enter northern Iraq, it will lead to a civil war.
Shiite Opposition Vows to Act Independently of US- just another example of how things could take unexpected turns. Not only are members of Iraqi Shiites planning to do their own thing during this war, but they are being blostered by aid and volunteers from Iran. Another wild card.
War Party Getting Ready for New Targets- the same warhawk “neocons” who through their support into the Iraq war in the name of U.S. geopolitical domination are already looking for the next coutnry to invade. Iran? Syria? North Korea? Lybia?
Bush Has Audacious Plan to Rebuild Iraq in a Year- “audacious” is the journalistic word du jour, apparently. This article is disturbing for two reasons: 1) the idea that Iraq could be rebuilt in a year shows me that either Bush does not understand the situation in Iraq, or that he has no real intention of rebuilding Iraq. The country was bombed to fuck 12 years ago, and due to the sanctions, not too much was rebuilt. Add to that the additional damage caused by a decade of sanctions, and the upcoming assault, and I cannot imagine how this rebuilding could be done in a year. 2) the rebuilding plan seems to consist of giving money to American corporations to go do the work, with a tiny portion going to non-profit humanitarian organizations. Of course, the goals of the two parties differ–profit vs. helping people– which could lead to work done at cross purposes. In addition, I worry about how much input the Iraqi people will have into the rebuilding. Iraqi man: “We need to rebuild the water purification center.” American businessman: “Hogwash! What you need is a couple of Taco Bells!”
History’s deadliest night of airstrikes will start the war- stop me if you’ve heard this one… and if you’ve ever read this site before, you have.
Baghdad Ready to Take Up Arms- “‘Only for Americans are they buying the weapons,’ insisted Nadhir Qahtan, 35, the owner of a gun shop in Mansour who said business, especially for ammunition, has doubled in the past few days. But privately, customers and gun store owners hint at the anarchy they believe is likely if government authority collapses. That anarchy, perhaps more than the government itself, may pose the most serious challenge to U.S. forces that attempt to enter Baghdad, where residents boast that every family has at least one assault rifle and one pistol. Many Iraqis expect bloodletting, score-settling and lawlessness in the weeks ahead.”
Sectarian tensions rise in Iraq as US attack looms- “A war to topple Hussein could unleash a revolt of Iraq’s long-repressed Shiites.”
Iraq Arming Troops With Chemical Weapons- well, I wouldn’t be surprised if this one was untrue, but it is a scary scenario.
So it goes.
And let’s finish with two longer, multi-faceted predictions for the outcome of the Iraq war and beyond, starting with Robert Fisk:
American and British forces use thousands of depleted uranium (DU) shells – widely regarded by 1991 veterans as the cause of Gulf War syndrome as well as thousands of child cancers in present day Iraq – to batter their way across the Kuwaiti-Iraqi frontier. Within hours, they will enter the city of Basra, to be greeted by its Shia Muslim inhabitants as liberators. US and British troops will be given roses and pelted with rice – a traditional Arab greeting – as they drive “victoriously” through the streets. The first news pictures of the war will warm the hearts of Messrs Bush and Blair. There will be virtually no mention by reporters of the use of DU munitions.
But in Baghdad, reporters will be covering the bombing raids that are killing civilians by the score and then by the hundred… By now, in Basra and other “liberated” cities south of the capital, Iraqis are taking their fearful revenge on Saddam Hussein’s Baath party officials. Men are hanged from lamp-posts. Much television footage of these scenes will have to be cut to sanitise the extent of the violence.
Far better for the US and British governments will be the macabre discovery of torture chambers and “rape-rooms” and prisoners with personal accounts of the most terrible suffering at the hands of Saddam’s secret police. This will “prove” how right “we” are to liberate these poor people. Then the US will have to find the “weapons of mass destruction” that supposedly provoked this bloody war. In the journalistic hunt for these weapons, any old rocket will do for the moment…
Baghdad is surrounded and its defenders ordered to surrender. There will be fighting between Shias and Sunnis around the slums of the city, the beginning of a ferocious civil conflict for which the invading armies are totally unprepared. US forces will sweep past Baghdad to his home city of Tikrit in their hunt for Saddam Hussein. Bush and Blair will appear on television to speak of their great “victories”. But as they are boasting, the real story will begin to be told: the break-up of Iraqi society, the return of thousands of Basra refugees from Iran, many of them with guns, all refusing to live under western occupation.
In the north, Kurdish guerrillas will try to enter Kirkuk, where they will kill or “ethnically cleanse” many of the city’s Arab inhabitants. Across Iraq, the invading armies will witness terrible scenes of revenge which can no longer be kept off television screens. The collapse of the Iraqi nation is now under way …
And finally, a long essay on the subject by “retired U.S. Army Special Forces Master Sergeant Stan Goff”, which is too long for me to excerpt here, but is worth a look.
My own prediction is that the war itself will be fairly quick and painless (for the Americans), while the deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqis will be swept under the rug as best as possible. As Fisk describes, I imagine there will be a speedy capture of a city so that the U.S. can declare victory and begin a propaganda assault which comforts Americans by showing how we liberated these people. Then caches of weapons of mass destruction, both genuine and fabricated, will be discovered, showing Americans the wisdom of our attack and “prove” that the anti-war protesters were wrong all along. Many will surely recant.
I really don’t know how the fighting in northern Iraq will play out between Turkey and the Kurds. I’m going to guess that U.S. forces will try to separate the two, and then bribe Turkey into withdrawing… for now.
I am curious as to what will happen to Saddam Hussein. Will he be killed in the attacks? Will he flee? Will he commit suicide rather than be captured?
Then we enter the post-Afghanistan phase. The U.S. military will occupy Iraq and oversee the “rebuilding,” in whatever form that might take (I’m fairly certain it will include the construction of several military bases for U.S. use, or the refurbishing of existing bases for U.S. use). The various rivalries and divisions within the country will start to intensify into outright violence. I can’t say for certain, but it seems that al Qaeda might begin to enter Iraq to strike at U.S. targets in Iraq. The U.S. will try to cobble together a coalition of pro-American Iraqis to rule the “transitional government,” most likely individuals that don’t really represent the Iraqi people. Over time, the Iraqi people will begin rebelling against the occupation, and against the American puppet government.
But then, I am a very cynical and depressed person. I can’t rule out the possibility that the war will be a quick win, and that contrary to all I’ve heard, the Iraqi people will be ecstatic, and that the rebuilding will be a success, and that the new government will be a beacon of democracy. That’s the best we can hope for. But I don’t think we can honestly expect something so rosy.
March 17, 2003
Jake on the Air in an Hour
Today’s LMB Radio show is going to be a rantfest. Tune in, 2pm PST (so long as you can tolerate/enjoy a little punk & hiphop with your political commentary).
Perpetual War
Sigh.
Hawks circling for new targets
Even as President Bush struggles against robust international opposition to launch a regime-toppling invasion of Iraq, some of the strongest and earliest supporters of military action against Saddam Hussein are already looking ahead to the next target.
Some hawks outside the government are beginning to turn up the rhetorical heat against Iran and Syria, both of whom are Iraq’s neighbors, and both known to be funneling aid to Middle East terrorist groups. Others are focusing on North Korea and its rapidly mobilized nuclear weapons program, or the North African country of Libya.
I’ve also heard chatter about attacking Yemen and, if things got out of hand, Venezuela. And we’ve already got troops in Djibouti and the Philippines.
To quote the great GYWO:
“Can’t we just build a fucking bomb the size of the earth and cut a hole out of the middle of it in the shape of the United States?”
March 16, 2003
Inside
A few info/opinion sources inside Iraq that will surely give us some alternative points of view in the weeks to come.
Back to Iraq 2.0- former AP and NY Daily News reporter Christopher Allbritton is working as an independent reporter in Iraq, and has created his own blog with which to report. Pretty good stuff.
[edit]
Actually, it looks like I was mistaken about that. Allbritton made a trip to northern Iraq this past summer (click here for some of his photos), but is currently in New York, trying to raise money for another trip to Iraq in early April. So technically, his site does not belong on this list because he is not in Iraq at this moment. But since he will be in a few weeks, I’ll leave it up with this caveat.
[/edit]
IraqJournal.org- a team of media and peace activists prepare regular text, audio and video reports from inside Iraq. Started in October 2002, seems affilated with lefty radio program Democracy Now!
Iraq Peace Team Diaries- the Iraq Peace Team is a group of activists who are working to nonviolently oppose the U.S. invasion of Iraq. A member of the team seems to update their “diary” section every 7-10 days. They’ve been there since September 2002.
Where is Raed?- Raed is just another blogger, who happens to be an Iraqi living in Iraq. Don’t know much else about the guy. As you might guess, he’s a little pissed off about being bombed, about sanctions, about Western “human shields,” Islamic fundamentalists, incompetent British reporters, etc. It’s largely political, but it’s got some photos, poems and personal stuff too. Of course the opinions of one dude from Iraq can’t be seen as representative of those of the entire country, but his opinions are more representative of the country than, I don’t know, ANYTHING THAT YOU WILL SEE IN THE AMERICAN PRESS.
[another edit]
I misunderstood the blog. The author is not named Raed, but Salam Pax (obviously a psuedonym, which if I’m not mistaken means “peace peace”). I’m not sure who Raed is or how they fit into this. Anyway.
[/edit]
If you know of any other first-hand sources inside Iraq, please comment or email me and I’ll add them in. Thanks.
Tick Tick Tick…
3…
“Tony Blair has told his Cabinet to brace itself for war on Iraq as early as Wednesday“
2…
“President Bush said Sunday the opportunity for a diplomatic solution to the confrontation with Iraq would end Monday“
1…
“Assuming that no peaceful resolution is found to the confrontation with Iraq, the concept of the rolling start gives the coalition’s commanders the option of starting at any time“
0……
New Watchdog Weblog
When I first started this weblog, I had every intention of making it solely about the news media– its failures, biases, effects and so on. However it became my main outlet for discussion of all things political. Sure, it has a lot of content about the media, but it really is quite the grab bag. I am completely comfortable with that, but sometimes I find that blogs that are more focused, that confine themselves to a single subject, can be very informative and effective.
Today, I discovered a brand new blog dedicated to the subject of war profiteering. It’s called Arms And The Man. It’s off to a good start, doggedly researching the seemingly unethical alliance of Dick Cheney and Halliburton. The most recent article links Halliburton, an oilfield firefighting company, a failed amusement park in New Mexico, and Scientology. While that sounds like a lunatic conpsiracy theory, it seems to be backed up by official business documents sent to the SEC.
Granted, most major corporations are probably so huge and multi-tentacled that they have links to all kinds of craziness. I’d say that these current AATM topics show a bit of profiteering, but speak a lot more to the issue of shady business dealings that are probably quite common.
March 15, 2003
Don’t Support Our Troops
Don’t Support Our Troops is the title of a new article by columnist and cartoonist Ted Rall. It is good stuff, and I recommend that you go read it.
His point is summed up, appropriately, in the concluding paragraph:
“I want our troops to return home safely. I want them to live. Like a good German watching my countrymen march into Poland and Belgium and Luxembourg and France, I don’t want them to win and I don’t want them to lose.”
I think that’s how a lot of us feel. The U.S. is committing good, brave men and women (and assholes too. Let’s not forget that all kinds of people join the military, and putting on a uniform doesn’t magically dissolve any of your negative qualities) to the vulgar goal of forcefully expanding American dominance over a sizable region of the globe.
We don’t want these soldiers to die or suffer. Many of us know soldiers, they are our friends and neighbors and family, and we want our friends and family to come back alive. And we fear what the consequences of losing a war might be for our country and ourselves personally.
But at the same time, we don’t want innocent people in another land to die or suffer. And we fear what the consequences of winning a war might be for ourselves and the world.
But that’s kind of the point, I suppose. The “Support our troops” slogan was an absolutely brilliant PR move by the U.S. government during the first Gulf War, which left the public with only two possible stances: supporting the war, or wanting your countrymen to die.
We’re human beings with brains, and can have all sorts of multi-faceted and nuanced opinions. You can support, oppose, or be confused about any aspect of any issue. Support the troops and hate the war. Support the war but oppose individual tactics. Oppose the war because you disagree with the concept of countries and want a borderless, peaceful utopia. It’s okay. You can do that.
Don’t let anyone box you in.
Two-Fisted Ink Assault
Editorial from the New York Observer, Smug President Has Painted U.S. Into a Corner
Choice bits:
The callow, smug, inarticulate man [George W. Bush] who was the lead player in a farce called “White House News Conference” gave us no new reasons to go to war, no sense of the dangers involved and no confidence in his leadership. The television appearance itself—more a blustering tape loop than exchange with the press—could only be called a national disgrace; President George W. Bush’s performance in front of a docile collection of game-show hosts posing as reporters ought to frighten all of us. We live in terrible times, dangerous times, and all this man can do is mouth platitudes and assertions put on his podium cards by his war-crazed handlers…
Amazingly, in the immediate aftermath of the President’s disgraceful performance, news outlets described him as “solemn” and “determined.” These pieces must have been put together before the President actually spoke, because there was nothing solemn or determined about him; “clueless” and “lost” would have been closer…
Somehow, the Bush administration’s cowboys have done the unthinkable. They have alienated friends, ruined international relationships, squandered the good will and sympathy that the Sept. 11 atrocities inspired, and turned America into a global villain. All of this, while Saddam Hussein smiles and watches the world turn in his favor, inheriting the gusts of international opinion that Mr. Bush has mind-bogglingly forfeited. Rarely in modern times has such a blundering swap taken place…
With its Reagan-era bluster and frat-house machismo, the Bush administration has played into the hands of terrorists, breaking apart NATO and fracturing half-century-old relations with Europe that have persevered through all the roilings of post–World War II history. And the administration did it at just the very moment when the West has been targeted—not by that wretched despot Saddam, but by the murderous followers of Osama bin Laden. Thanks to the President and his hubristic crew of ideologues, America and Europe are not united, as they should be, in the face of global Islamic militancy. Instead, many people talk about the end of America’s strategic alliance with Western Europe. Instead of France and Germany, some say, we will simply align ourselves with the post-Communist states of Eastern Europe—like, say, Bulgaria.
Osama bin Laden did not create this sad state of affairs. George W. Bush did…
These are hyperbolic and misinformed times. So it was hardly surprising to hear a television commentator report, just before the President’s press conference, that Mr. Bush was not expected to use the opportunity to declare war on Iraq. It did not occur to the reporter—any more than it has to Mr. Bush and his bunch of crusaders—that no President has ever declared war, because no President has ever had that power. Congress declares war; it’s in the Constitution.
March 14, 2003
Things Fall Apart
So even the U.S. State Department doesn’t buy into the “war for democracy in Iraq” argument.
A classified State Department report expresses doubt that installing a new regime in Iraq will foster the spread of democracy in the Middle East, a claim President Bush has made in trying to build support for a war, according to intelligence officials familiar with the document.
The report exposes significant divisions within the Bush administration over the so-called democratic domino theory, one of the arguments that underpins the case for invading Iraq.
The report, which has been distributed to a small group of top government officials but not publicly disclosed, says that daunting economic and social problems are likely to undermine basic stability in the region for years, let alone prospects for democratic reform.
The other thing to note is that this report is “classified.” How is it that so many classified documents and secret reports are being leaked these days? I think Bush has rubbed too many people the wrong way, and they’re looking to covertly oppose his stupid plans.
March 13, 2003
Think Globally, Read Globally
I’m a little pissed about this.
BP faces record fine for spoiling Los Angeles air
Y’know where I live? Los Angeles.
Where did I have to go to read this story about Los Angeles? London.
CNN Must Be Destroyed
Grrrrr…..
Check this story from CNN:
Selling an Iraq-al Qaeda connection: Some critics blame TV news for making Baghdad new enemy
Man, do I hate this bullshit. Happens on an irregular basis, the press does something colosally bad (usually in post-media circus situations like O.J.), and then as a tiny foil, they’ll run a story something like “Does the media go too far?”
“The media”? You’re the media! Say “we”, asshole! Is it that hard? “Did we, the media, including myself standing right here before you, go too far?”
Some critics blame “TV news” for making the American people think Saddam and Osama are pals, eh? YOU! WE BLAME YOU, CNN!!!
Dammit, now I’m using exclamation points again. I hate those things.
The article is pitiful. The article basically admits that there is no connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda. But this fact that is rarely mentioned doesn’t get its own article, it gets relegated to a meta-topic in an article about media performance.
New York Times columnist Paul Krugman said he thinks the TV networks’ news coverage has helped sell the Saddam-al Qaeda connection. “Suddenly, it was Osama, Osama, Osama … Saddam, Saddam, Saddam … and the networks — the broadcast media — simply picked that up [and] transferred our feelings of alarm and anger from one villain to another…”
Some critics blame the cable news networks for helping make Iraq the new enemy. “They use essentially the kind of logos, martial music, and so on that we saw after Gulf War One had started,” Krugman said. “So, from the point of view of the American public, Iraq is already the enemy; we’re already at war.”
Obviously, Krugman’s got a point. The media have helped pave the way for this war, making it easier to swallow, helping divert our anger, and making the invasion seem inevitable. And they don’t own up to it, they don’t admit that the criticism is aimed at them, they don’t try to defend their actions, and they sure as hell don’t try to take responsibility for them.
Blind eye-turning motherfuckers.
La Haine
My mind boggles at the level of anti-French sentiment in the U.S. right now. While the press might like to make sweeping generalizations that “Americans hate the French,” I think it’s a safe bet that most Americans don’t give a fuck about the French one way or the other. Americans who intensely desire the Iraq war probably do, as do rather dumb people who like jumping on angry bandwagons, but I don’t think that many other people put much thought or energy into the issue. The anti-French people just happen to be exceptionally loud.
Part of this is arrogance. We Americans are told from the day that we’re born that America is the greatest country on Earth, and since we live here, we must be the greatest too. And we’ve got all kinds of evidence for that: American military power, technological advances, economic success, and popularity of our entertainment products. Add to that the country’s immense size (many Americans will live their lives without ever leaving the country’s borders), few neighbors (just Canada and Mexico), and huge distance to other nations, and you get a “we are the best” myth with little counter-evidence.
So when an “inferior” country starts “telling us what to do,” some folks will get angry. It’s the anger of the powerful who faces opposition. It’s like in Bush’s recent press conference when he said that the U.S. was “at the mercy o