Arrogance of Power
Today, I Weep for my Country...

by US Senator Robert Byrd
Speech delivered on the floor of the US Senate
March 19, 2003 3:45pm


"I believe in this beautiful country. I have studied its roots and gloried in the wisdom of its magnificent Constitution. I have marveled at the wisdom of its founders and framers. Generation after generation of Americans has understood the lofty ideals that underlie our great Republic. I have been inspired by the story of their sacrifice and their strength.

But, today I weep for my country. I have watched the events of recent months with a heavy, heavy heart. No more is the image of America one of strong, yet benevolent peacekeeper. The image of America has changed. Around the globe, our friends mistrust us, our word is disputed, our intentions are questioned.

Instead of reasoning with those with whom we disagree, we demand obedience or threaten recrimination. Instead of isolating Saddam Hussein, we seem to have isolated ourselves. We proclaim a new doctrine of preemption which is understood by few and feared by many. We say that the United States has the right to turn its firepower on any corner of the globe which might be suspect in the war on terrorism. We assert that right without the sanction of any international body. As a result, the world has become a much more dangerous place.

We flaunt our superpower status with arrogance. We treat UN Security Council members like ingrates who offend our princely dignity by lifting their heads from the carpet. Valuable alliances are split.

After war has ended, the United States will have to rebuild much more than the country of Iraq. We will have to rebuild America's image around the globe.

The case this Administration tries to make to justify its fixation with war is tainted by charges of falsified documents and circumstantial evidence. We cannot convince the world of the necessity of this war for one simple reason. This is a war of choice.

There is no credible information to connect Saddam Hussein to 9/11. The twin towers fell because a world-wide terrorist group, Al Qaeda, with cells in over 60 nations, struck at our wealth and our influence by turning our own planes into missiles, one of which would likely have slammed into the dome of this beautiful Capitol except for the brave sacrifice of the passengers on board.

The brutality seen on September 11th and in other terrorist attacks we have witnessed around the globe are the violent and desperate efforts by extremists to stop the daily encroachment of western values upon their cultures. That is what we fight. It is a force not confined to borders. It is a shadowy entity with many faces, many names, and many addresses.

But, this Administration has directed all of the anger, fear, and grief which emerged from the ashes of the twin towers and the twisted metal of the Pentagon towards a tangible villain, one we can see and hate and attack. And villain he is. But, he is the wrong villain. And this is the wrong war. If we attack Saddam Hussein, we will probably drive him from power. But, the zeal of our friends to assist our global war on terrorism may have already taken flight.

The general unease surrounding this war is not just due to "orange alert." There is a pervasive sense of rush and risk and too many questions unanswered. How long will we be in Iraq? What will be the cost? What is the ultimate mission? How great is the danger at home?

A pall has fallen over the Senate Chamber. We avoid our solemn duty to debate the one topic on the minds of all Americans, even while scores of thousands of our sons and daughters faithfully do their duty in Iraq.

What is happening to this country? When did we become a nation which ignores and berates our friends? When did we decide to risk undermining international order by adopting a radical and doctrinaire approach to using our awesome military might? How can we abandon diplomatic efforts when the turmoil in the world cries out for diplomacy?

Why can this President not seem to see that America's true power lies not in its will to intimidate, but in its ability to inspire?

War appears inevitable. But, I continue to hope that the cloud will lift. Perhaps Saddam will yet turn tail and run. Perhaps reason will somehow still prevail. I along with millions of Americans will pray for the safety of our troops, for the innocent civilians in Iraq, and for the security of our homeland. May God continue to bless the United States of America in the troubled days ahead, and may we somehow recapture the vision which for the present eludes us."

[Go to Top] [LINK TO THIS POST]    [HOME]

 

Robin Cook's resignation speech in the British House of Commons is one for the annals of history. Excerpt:

"Only a couple of weeks ago, Hans Blix told the Security Council that the key remaining disarmament tasks could be completed within months. I have heard it said that Iraq has had not months but 12 years in which to complete disarmament, and that our patience is exhausted. Yet it is more than 30 years since resolution 242 called on Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories. We do not express the same impatience with the persistent refusal of Israel to comply. I welcome the strong personal commitment that the prime minister has given to middle east peace, but Britain's positive role in the middle east does not redress the strong sense of injustice throughout the Muslim world at what it sees as one rule for the allies of the US and another rule for the rest. Nor is our credibility helped by the appearance that our partners in Washington are less interested in disarmament than they are in regime change in Iraq. That explains why any evidence that inspections may be showing progress is greeted in Washington not with satisfaction but with consternation: it reduces the case for war."

Cook also wrote an essay today explaining his reasons for resigning:

"I have resigned from the cabinet because I believe that a fundamental principle of Labour's foreign policy has been violated. If we believe in an international community based on binding rules and institutions, we cannot simply set them aside when they produce results that are inconvenient to us.

I cannot defend a war with neither international agreement nor domestic support. I applaud the determined efforts of the prime minister and foreign secretary to secure a second resolution. Now that those attempts have ended in failure, we cannot pretend that getting a second resolution was of no importance.

In recent days France has been at the receiving end of the most vitriolic criticism. However, it is not France alone that wants more time for inspections. Germany is opposed to us. Russia is opposed to us. Indeed at no time have we signed up even the minimum majority to carry a second resolution. We delude ourselves about the degree of international hostility to military action if we imagine that it is all the fault of President Chirac.

The harsh reality is that Britain is being asked to embark on a war without agreement in any of the international bodies of which we are a leading member. Not Nato. Not the EU. And now not the security council. To end up in such diplomatic isolation is a serious reverse. Only a year ago we and the US were part of a coalition against terrorism which was wider and more diverse than I would previously have thought possible. History will be astonished at the diplomatic miscalculations that led so quickly to the disintegration of that powerful coalition.

Britain is not a superpower. Our interests are best protected, not by unilateral action, but by multilateral agreement and a world order governed by rules. Yet tonight the international partnerships most important to us are weakened. The European Union is divided. The security council is in stalemate. Those are heavy casualties of war without a single shot yet being fired."

Read the entire letter of resignation HERE.

[Go to Top] [LINK TO THIS POST]    [HOME]

---

Bombs = Rebuilding = Business = Jobs = Good for Economy

 

Arianna Huffington EXPLAINS how Bush really does have the best interests of the US economy in mind. Well, at least the interests of major US corporations. OK, at least the interests of major corporations aligned both politically and financially with top administration including Bush and Cheney.

[Go to Top] [LINK TO THIS POST]    [HOME]

---

Blair Speaks

 

To be fair to what has become the wrong side of the war, here is Tony Blair's speech opening the Iraq debate yesterday in Parliament. In a very long-winded, but very eloquent, oration he basically says that, now that the British troops are in Iraq, it would be embarrassing to bring them home.

You know, if Bush had Blair's conviction and speaking skills, he probably could have convinced me and the rest of the world to overthrow Saddam. However, by forcing everything down our respective throats and telling us how he's going to do it his way (the U.N. be damned), in a way the illiterate neighborhood bully would, he's alienated nearly everyone. Too bad for Blair, who's receiving unfathomable flack for being such a great friend and supporter of the US government at the expense of his political career. I wish I had even a fraction of Blair's courage.

[Go to Top] [LINK TO THIS POST]    [HOME]

---

Don't Forget Your Iodine Pills

 

On a lighter note, as you probably know by now, the government has provided you with a web site chock full of information for countering the consequences of a terrorist attack in your neighborhood. The problem is, the images used on the site are, at the least, very confusing. THIS SITE attempts to clear up the confusion.

[Go to Top] [LINK TO THIS POST]    [HOME]

---

The Jungle's Biggest Lion

 

Michael Tomasky's weekly column looks ahead to the beginning of a new global Darwinism. Excerpt:

"It seems likely -- and we should all hope, for humanity's sake and our country's -- that we'll win this war, that Saddam Hussein will be retired from active duty, that hard evidence of the existence of weapons of mass destruction in his Iraq will turn up (and hopefully be destroyed before they find their way to the black market), and that the Iraqi people will probably, to one degree or another, be better off under whatever comes next. Bush will benefit from these developments, a fact that brings me no joy. But we must admit that these are all very good things, and liberal opponents of the war need to acknowledge them -- along with the fact that, let's face it, the United Nations was not enforcing its resolutions against Iraq, and only the pressure applied by this administration made it begin to do so.

But the following is true as well, and it is not a very good thing at all. Most Americans aren't thinking this far ahead, and the administration's rah-rah corner is not very interested in the subject, but: History will not end the day the white standard is run up the flag poles of Hussein's palaces. People and societies have memories, and they will remember the staggering number of distortions and pieces of misinformation that helped set this war in motion. They'll remember the administration saying that it would seek the imprimatur of a second UN resolution, and they'll remember the "no lunch, please, we've only got an hour" summit at which that pledge was tossed out the window. They'll remember Colin Powell's "hard evidence" presented at his Security Council briefing in February, and they'll remember just how much of that evidence didn't hold up to tough scrutiny. In France and Mexico and Turkey, they will remember the arm-twisting and bullying and childish caterwauling -- and even if you don't care about those countries, you can bet that Tony Blair will remember just how far he stuck his neck out for an administration that was willing to hang him out to dry, too, and he won't be likely to do it again.

The day this war starts, the world enters a new era of global Darwinism in which a structure of covenants and norms -- admittedly far from perfect, but at least the result of an ongoing dialogue of nations -- that has developed over the last half-century will be pushed aside. It's no contradiction at all to hope for the best for our troops but remain dead set against the rules of world order being rewritten overnight by the jungle's biggest lion."

[Go to Top] [LINK TO THIS POST]    [HOME]

---

Hussein Has Nuclear Weapons. Wait - He May Someday Have Them. But Kill Him Now.

 

This article from the Washington Post details how Bush and Cheney during this past week are still using officially disproven assertions as justification for invasion. If you are still not convinced that Bush is jerking us all, then read it.

[Go to Top] [LINK TO THIS POST]    [HOME]

---

March 18, 2003

---

Lets Unite for the Sake of Unity

 

New Democrats Online posted the following call for support today:

"President Bush announced last night that an American-led coalition would initiate military action to topple Saddam Hussein's regime and disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction unless Saddam steps down and leaves his country within 48 hours. Now is the time for Americans to unite in support of the president and our troops as they finish the job left undone in 1991 as quickly and humanely as possible. The time is over for recriminations about how we reached this point of confrontation with Iraq, and whether we could have reached it with more support. This war, like all war, will horrify many people here and around the world, for good and bad reasons. It will reinforce the hatred of America already felt by those who envy our power or oppose our values. But there can be no real doubt that the world and the Middle East will be safer, more peaceful and stable without Saddam Hussein. We would especially appeal to our fellow Democrats to rise above the partisan fray in Washington, and avoid letting their anger over the mistakes of the Bush Administration at home and abroad distract them from the national interest in winning this war. We hope and pray the disarmament and liberation of Iraq will not take long. But for the moment, it's time for unity and resolve."

I don't agree. Given that the attack is going to occur, we need to increase our efforts to keep Bush in check and to hold him accountable for every decision regarding Iraq made both during and after the war. We can't give him a blank check to show our support... look what happened last time we (Congress) did this last year. Who can say that the Middle East will be more stable and peaceful without Hussein? We are destabilizing the status quo there and the the unpredictability of the consequences far outweight the risks, at this point; thus our resistance to this war. Basically NDOL is saying that we should unite and support for the sake of unity and resolve. Whaaa?

The American public is (hopefully) becoming more politically and educationally sophisticated over the years, and "Rally 'Round the Flag" appeals, which are now flying around like bats out of hell as of last night, are becoming more hollow with age. Since WWII and maybe Korea, the calls for unquestioned patriotism and economic support of our government and troops have subsequently shown to be big mistakes in most cases. Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, etc. all proved to be major errors and Iraq is starting out as an even bigger one. We can't even clean out the drug lords from South Central Los Angeles, but we can clean out a dictator and make his country a nice and spiffy democracy on the other side of the planet with terrorists aiming at us through their gunsights? Come on.

[Go to Top] [LINK TO THIS POST]    [HOME]

---

It's the 21st Century, So Let's Kill Children

 

Magie Dominic writes a moving piece about the most innocent victims of this war:

"If war could bring peace, the definitive battle would have been fought millennia ago, on a wide-open field, with sticks and stones and possibly spit. Instead, today’s armies fight on with hard drives and software, with white noise and satellites, with specks on monitors erupting in flames. And smart weapons create the same images of disfigured women holding expressionless children — head too small for the hospital pillow, body too short for the bed. War has never fit children.

I’ve been reading old newspapers lately, clippings with torn edges, dates marked in ink at the top. In the 1991 Gulf War, more than 59,000 tons of bombs were dropped monthly on Iraq. In Vietnam, 34,000 tons were dropped monthly. Vietnam doesn’t need a date to define it. Vietnam was the sixties. Iraq was the nineties. Everything else fell in between.

During the six-week assault on Iraq, 84,000 tons of bombs were dropped, the equivalent of five Hiroshimas. I need to repeat that: 84,000 tons of bombs rained down, the equivalent of five Hiroshimas — and children were the largest group of casualties. Many died of hunger and cold. At the Cukurca refugee camp, eighty-six died in three days. In Iraq, U.S. forces introduced ammunition made with depleted uranium, a radioactive waste. At least 940,000 of those toxic, armour-piercing rounds were fired. Dr. Eric Hoskins, a medical doctor with fifteen years of experience working in war zones, surveyed Iraq two years after the war as part of a Harvard Study Team. He estimates that 50,000 children died in the first eight months of 1991, many from the effects of spent rounds littering the ground. UN aid workers saw Iraqi children playing with empty radioactive shells. In Basra, a child was seen using them as hand puppets.

The mass destruction of Iraq’s water purification facilities [in the Gulf War] hastened the spread of cholera and typhoid, and hastened the deaths of thousands of children. Protocol I of the Fourth Geneva Convention, Article 54 prohibits the destruction of objects indispensable to the survival of a civilian population, including food and drinking water. Near Baghdad, 12-million gallons of raw sewage spewed into the Tigris River hourly. Without access to television, radio or newspapers, families continued to rely on the Tigris for their drinking water. As many as a quarter of a million Iraqi civilians died as a result of the Gulf War. Dr. Hoskins recently returned to Canada after another assessment mission to Iraq. His team found that 500,000 Iraqi children are malnourished and the country has only three months of medicine left. Now, with war looming once again, the children are more vulnerable than ever:

“While it is impossible to predict both the nature of any war and the number of expected deaths and injuries, casualties among children will be in the thousands, probably in the tens of thousands and possibly in the hundreds of thousands ... Iraq’s 13-million children are at grave risk of starvation, disease, death and psychological trauma.”

In 1991, U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney — then Secretary of Defence — directed one of the largest and deadliest military campaigns in history. The Washington victory parade alone cost more than $12-million. The attack began late on a clear moonless night, while children were sleeping. Laser bombs work best when it’s clear; they become confused in the clouds."

[Go to Top] [LINK TO THIS POST]    [HOME]

---

Bowling for Baghdad

 

Michael Moore writes a letter to Bush. Excerpt:

"If you do go through with this war, more than likely it will be over soon because I'm guessing there aren't a lot of Iraqis willing to lay down their lives to protect Saddam Hussein. After you "win" the war, you will enjoy a huge bump in the popularity polls as everyone loves a winner – and who doesn't like to see a good ass-whoopin' every now and then (especially when it 's some third world ass!). So try your best to ride this victory all the way to next year's election. Of course, that's still a long ways away, so we'll all get to have a good hardy-har-har while we watch the economy sink even further down the toilet!"

[Go to Top] [LINK TO THIS POST]    [HOME]

---

The Bush Doctrine is Now Official

 

Eric Alterman succinctly summarizes the current state of affairs:

"We are now about to enter a world in which the values we practice are pre-emptive war, fiscal indiscipline, domestic theocracy and the good opinion of human kind be damned. Since 9/11, Bush and company have done almost everything possible to alienate the world and inspire more terrorists to hate us, despite the initial wellspring of sympathy and solidarity the [9-11] attacks inspired worldwide. Meanwhile, for all its collective bluster, the Bush crowd has done almost nothing to protect the nation from the entirely predictable consequences of their folly and the hatred we have engendered across the Islamic and Arab worlds."

Catch Eric tonight on The Daily Show on Comedy Central (11:00 p.m.)

[Go to Top] [LINK TO THIS POST]    [HOME]

---

March 17, 2003

---

 

Now that Bush has finished with Afghanistan and is starting his invasion of Iraq, it's time to take a look at the new Middle East following the completion of the Bush Presidency:

[Go to Top] [LINK TO THIS POST]    [HOME]

---

From Where did Saddam Come?

 

HERE is a history of Iraq starting back in 1917, for those of you looking for a historical perspective and how it applies to current events.

[Go to Top] [LINK TO THIS POST]    [HOME]

---

It'sThe Economy, stupid, Stupid, STUPID

 

As we spiral into the start of an international travesty, Dan Gillmor reminds us that we're forgetting something closer to home. Bush has redirected our focus to a decimation of Iraq, and by the time we refocus on ourselves months from now we'll find that our economy is in shreds.

[Go to Top] [LINK TO THIS POST]    [HOME]

---

 

If you're frustrated today by what's obviously going to happen, take some of your anger out here:
(Thanks, Diane Z. for the link.)

[Go to Top] [LINK TO THIS POST]    [HOME]

---

The Business Of War... And Beyond

 

After reading this article, you'll have a better idea why Bush is proceeding with the invasion. (The ad lasts only a few seconds.)

[Go to Top] [LINK TO THIS POST]    [HOME]

---

March 16, 2003

---

Live from Baghdad

 

Nothing like hearing it firsthand. This blogger (Raed) is from Baghdad and his posts are chilling reading. You must read it. Excerpt:

"What is bringing on this rant is the question that has been bugging for days now: how could “support democracy in Iraq” become to mean “bomb the hell out of Iraq”? why did it end up that democracy won’t happen unless we go thru war? Nobody minded an un-democratic Iraq for a very long time, now people have decided to bomb us to democracy? Well, thank you! how thoughtful.
The situation in Iraq could have been solved in other ways than what the world will be going thru the next couple of weeks. It can’t have been that impossible. Look at the northern parts of Iraq, that is a model that has worked quite well, why wasn’t anybody interested in doing that in the south. Just like the US/UK UN created a protected area there why couldn’t the model be tried in the south. It would have cut off the regimes arms and legs. And once the people see what they have been deprived off they will not be willing to go back, just ask any Iraqi from the Kurdish areas. Instead the world watched while after the war the Shias were crushed by Saddam’s army in a manner that really didn’t happen before the Gulf War. Does anyone else see the words (Iran/not in the US interest) floating or is it me hallucinating?"

I recommend visiting this site daily once the US begins its illicit invasion.

[Go to Top] [LINK TO THIS POST]    [HOME]

---

What to Do

 

So, I don't know what to do when the war starts. Everything is in standard mode. The usual suspects, Fox, CNN, MSNBC, etc., will give very little useful information, and pretty much everything will be in "Support your country" flag-waving mode, so please, tell me where to turn for real information.

[Go to Top] [LINK TO THIS POST]    [HOME]

---

Invade When?

 

Everyone is saying tomorrow (March 17th), but I'm thinking Friday, the 21st. That way everyone will be home, glued to their TV's all weekend. If it occurs earlier, then everyone (who works) will be getting more than just the conservative-biased view of the Republican-controlled media. Those pesky liberals at the water cooler will make things a bit more challenging for the political lemmings, and we can't have that, so Friday it is. On the other hand, it will be easier for all of us to attend last-minute marches and rallies on the weekend, but I think Bush is willing to roll the dice on that. Go, Lakers!

[Go to Top] [LINK TO THIS POST]    [HOME]

---

Reps to Clinton: Remove Hussein

 

In 1998 Elliott Abrams, Richard L. Armitage, William J. Bennett, Richard Perle and Donald Rumsfeld sent a letter to President Clinton urging the overthrow of Hussein. Excerpt:

"It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat.

Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.

We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.

We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk."

Resolute determination of Republicans to uphold a policy is an admirable trait, unlike the Democrat's marshmallowing pursuit of pleasing all. On the other hand the insensitivity and self-imposed ignorance used to support the former's determination is not.

[Go to Top] [LINK TO THIS POST]    [HOME]

---

Stop Being a Loser Dictator

 

Are you a Loser Dicatator?

[Go to Top] [LINK TO THIS POST]    [HOME]

---

Nader Voters: Your Time Is Here

 

If you are a Salon subscriber then this article is a necessary read.

[Go to Top] [LINK TO THIS POST]    [HOME]

---

March 15, 2003

---

What Goes Up...

 

The latest Ipsos Public Affairs/Cook Political Report Poll on Bush's job ratings:

These are Bush's lowest ratings (by this polling organization) since 9-11. Other polling org.'s show similar results. I sure wish I would get a call from one of these pollsters just once in a while. I've got intelligent, well-informed opinions. My phone number: aww, forget it.

[Go to Top] [LINK TO THIS POST]    [HOME]

---

Stupid vs. Stupider

 

I can't decide who is more blockheaded here, the military policy makers or the potential protestors:

"VANDENBERG AIR FORCE BASE, Calif. (AP) - Security forces at Vandenberg Air Force Base may use ``deadly force'' against protesters if they infiltrate the military complex if a war starts, officials said.

Some anti-war activists plan to trespass onto base grounds in hopes of disturbing Vandenberg's mission and to vandalize sensitive equipment they contend helps guide the war effort.

Vandenberg officials revealed Friday that military security police may shoot to kill, if necessary, to protect base residents and machinery.

The directive has always been in existence, but a base spokeswoman said it is more critical now that people understand its severity.

``This is not fun and games anymore,'' said Maj. Stacee Bako. ``We're living in post 9/11. We don't know what's going to happen with the war effort in Iraq. These folks have got to realize their actions. ... They're illegal intruders.''

Military police will use their ``judgment, experience and training'' to determine if lethal force is necessary, she said.

``Deadly force can be used when lesser means of force aren't feasible or have failed, and to protect (Department of Defense) assets designated as vital to the national security,'' she explained.

The deadly force policy will not deter protesters, said Peter Lumsdaine of the Vandenberg Action Coalition, one of the organizers of the planned trespassing.

``I think it does underline that people in the nonviolent resistance movement are willing to take some risks,'' Lumsdaine said."

[Go to Top] [LINK TO THIS POST]    [HOME]

---

The Bush Program, Part II

 

The New York Observer isn't finished with Bush:

"As a result of Mr. Bush’s clumsy economic stewardship and the potential cost of a war, the country is facing an economic debacle which threatens to flatten us. When Mr. Bush took office, the Congressional Budget Office forecast a 10-year surplus of $5.8 trillion. Now the country may be looking at a 10-year deficit of as much as $3 trillion. If that happens, it will send interest rates to the moon. It almost seems as if this country is being run like a banana republic. Last week, the Committee for Economic Development—a nonpartisan business group—urged the administration to initiate tax increases and spending cuts, warning that if the White House does not do so, "investment, productivity and living standards will suffer." It won’t be long before the return of the "misery index," that unsettling calculation of inflation plus unemployment—note that the U.S. has lost two million jobs since Mr. Bush was elected."

Just how much longer are we all going to remain silent?

[Go to Top] [LINK TO THIS POST]    [HOME]

---

Osama: "Thank You, George"

 

The New York Observer seems to have it exactly right. This editorial is a must-read. Excerpt:

"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.

Rarely in the face of war has the leadership in this country—both the executive and the opposition—served it so badly. The opposition has cynically acquiesced; they have not challenged this intellectually challenged President. There are, as Thomas Friedman has pointed out so eloquently in The New York Times, many merits to the argument for the war; the President has not made them. Mr. Bush, having painted himself into a diplomatic corner unlike any in American history, has created rationales for attack that are less in the tradition of American war Presidents like Lincoln, Wilson, Roosevelt, even Bush Sr., and more in the tradition of William McKinley as he bumbled his way into the Spanish-American war."

Yes, Bush has done more to screw things up worldwide that Osama or any terrorist organization could have dreamed.

[Go to Top] [LINK TO THIS POST]    [HOME]

---

The Bush Program

 

Molly Ivins shows us how Republicans have not yet completed the job. Excerpt:

"One can hardly say enough about the courageous action of the U.S. House Administration Committee in renaming French fries "Freedom Fries" at the House cafeteria. In these critical times, it's good to know we can count on House Republicans. They'll teach those cheese-eating surrender monkeys a thing or two. (Guys, did you really have to just hand the French this one? That has to be the slowest pitch on record.)

This was in addition to Republicans trading tasteless anti-French jokes publicly during a hearing with Colin Powell. Just for the record, there are 6,000 French troops currently serving as peacekeepers in Afghanistan and the Balkans. As they keep watch in places they'd rather not be, I'm sure they all appreciate your gestures. Likewise, the Germans -- described by Rumsfeld as a "pariah state" -- have 10,000 troops in Afghanistan and the Balkans.

Have you ever seen such amazing arrogance wedded to such awesome incompetence?"

[Go to Top] [LINK TO THIS POST]    [HOME]

---

March 14, 2003

---

No to War Isn't Equal to Yes to Saddam

 

No, I'm not pro-Saddam. I'm pro-peace. If Saddam Hussein disappeared from the surface of this planet tomorrow I would feel glee. Being adamantly against Bush's current policies (both foreign and domestic) has nothing to do with approving Hussein's actions, past, present or future. If Iraq/Hussein had initiated war against us or one of our allies, I would not hesitate in supporting any military action against Iraq. As a civilized nation and currently a leader both politically and economically, our only correct course of action is to defend ourselves and our friends, not take unprovoked offensive action. If we take the initiative and invade Iraq shortly, I will not blame Iraq one bit if they retaliate and try to bomb, gas, or bio-violate us. Not once in our nation's history have we not done the same.

The inspections ARE working. Let's continue and expand them for as long as needed. Saddam will not last forever and will probably be assassinated soon for a myriad of reasons.

Even if Bush and cohorts realize they are wrong, do you really think they are mature enough, and compassionate enough, to admit their mistakes and do the right thing? God, no! They're totally out of touch with reality and the value of life and with the understanding of anything not related to power and money. Here's another view on this.

And our soldiers? Many have said that they will feel no remorse if they are killed in Iraq because they volunteered and were aware of the dangers posed by enlisting. Am I wrong to think that a lot of them joined the military because there were no other jobs available as a result of the downward-spiralling economy caused by Bush's obscene policies and direction?

[Go to Top] [LINK TO THIS POST]    [HOME]

---

Mutiny on the Horizon?

 

PAUL KRUGMAN wrote an excellent column today in the NY Times. To whet your palate, here's the beginning:

"Aboard the U.S.S. Caine, it was the business with the strawberries that finally convinced the doubters that something was amiss with the captain. Is foreign policy George W. Bush's quart of strawberries?

Over the past few weeks there has been an epidemic of epiphanies. There's a long list of pundits who previously supported Bush's policy on Iraq but have publicly changed their minds. None of them quarrel with the goal; who wouldn't want to see Saddam Hussein overthrown? But they are finally realizing that Mr. Bush is the wrong man to do the job. And more people than you would think — including a fair number of people in the Treasury Department, the State Department and, yes, the Pentagon — don't just question the competence of Mr. Bush and his inner circle; they believe that America's leadership has lost touch with reality.

If that sounds harsh, consider the debacle of recent diplomacy — a debacle brought on by awesome arrogance and a vastly inflated sense of self-importance.

Mr. Bush's inner circle seems amazed that the tactics that work so well on journalists and Democrats don't work on the rest of the world. They've made promises, oblivious to the fact that most countries don't trust their word. They've made threats. They've done the aura-of-inevitability thing — how many times now have administration officials claimed to have lined up the necessary votes in the Security Council? They've warned other countries that if they oppose America's will they are objectively pro-terrorist. Yet still the world balks."

(You'll need to do a one-time registration to access the N.Y. Times online site - it's worth it.)

[Go to Top] [LINK TO THIS POST]    [HOME]

---

It's the CHILDREN, Damn It.

 

This has been said innumerable times, but it can't be said too often and it must be repeated as long as there is a chance it will make a difference. Excerpt:

"The children in Iraq are already in sorrowful shape. The last thing in the world they need is another war. More than half the population of Iraq is under the age of 18, and those youngsters are living in an environment that has been poisoned by the Iran-Iraq war, the first gulf war and long years of debilitating sanctions.

One out of every eight Iraqi children dies before the age of 5. One-fourth are born underweight. One-fourth of those who should be in school are not. One-fourth do not have access to safe water.

This generational catastrophe is the fault of Saddam Hussein, no question. But those who favor war should at least realize that the terrain to be invaded by the most fearsome military machine in history is populated mostly by children who are already suffering.

The American military has significantly improved the accuracy of its weapons, and the U.S. has gone to great lengths to develop war plans designed to minimize civilian casualties. But war, as anyone who has been in the military knows, is about killing people. Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has already made it clear that the U.S. is planning to deliver what he calls a "shock" to the Iraqi system.

That shock reportedly will be delivered by 3,000 precision-guided bombs and missiles in the first 48 hours. The children of Iraq won't be the targets, but that is what their country will face if America attacks."

(You'll need to do a one-time registration to access the N.Y. Times online site - it's worth it.)

[Go to Top] [LINK TO THIS POST]    [HOME]

---

Edwards on Families

 

Using the Clinton Administration's successful Family Policies as a blueprint, Sen. John Edwards during a speech Wednesday at George Washington University laid out his "Promoting Strong Families". Excerpt:

"Before September 11, this administration's central domestic policy was budget-busting tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. Today, even as the bill for those tax cuts continues to climb, the cost of war is terribly unclear, the litany of unmet domestic security needs remains ignored, and families are struggling to make ends meet, what is the administration's central domestic policy? Budget-busting tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.

Thanks to this administration's economic policies, Americans are working harder, making less, and spending less time with their families. Thanks to its security policies, Americans are more frightened, and less secure, than they should be. Thanks to this administration's fondness for special interests, one of the greatest social challenges of our time, how to help people do right by their families, is getting worse because Washington won't do a thing to help.

This president is out of touch with America's families. If you're a parent who is worried because the crime rate in your town is going up again, this president's message is: Start taking self-defense classes, because we're going to gut the initiative that put 100,000 cops on the beat."

[Go to Top] [LINK TO THIS POST]    [HOME]

---

March 13, 2003

---

 

Here's something YOU can do right now that will boost the anti-war movement. Working Assets is raising donations to place these billboards in high-traffic areas of the U.S. Donate a few $$ now and save some soldiers' lives. Here's what they look like:

[Go to Top] [LINK TO THIS POST]    [HOME]

---

Infiltrated by "The Radical Capitalist"

 

Well now this is interesting. This link appears in the cycling ad that is at the top of all the non-bloggerpro pages. I wonder if anyone has noticed. I signed up with Blogger and paid the $50 + $35 to get all the features, including the removal of the blogger ad, and this blog page is the result. However all my links pages (left column) are published under the free version as they still have the ad at the top. I didn't realize Blogger (i.e. Pyra) advertised political sites. I'm not sure if I should complain to the Blogger staff or look for another service. Suggestions?

UPDATE: Examining this ad thing further, I notice now that the ads at the top are somewhat geared to the general subject matter of the blog. The "Computers" links page has mostly computer-related ads, the "War/Iraq" links page has mostly war/anti-war ads, etc. Is this explained anywhere on the Blogger/BloggerPro site?

[Go to Top] [LINK TO THIS POST]    [HOME]

---

March 12, 2003

---

Offshore 1040

 

I'd REALLY like to see an opposing viewpoint on this issue. Excerpt:

"Every populist movement needs a catalytic issue and a crystallizing response that come to symbolize the greater struggle at hand. Think of Rosa Parks refusing to move to the back of the bus or the Greensboro Four taking a seat at that Whites Only Woolworth's lunch counter.

The revolt against antipatriotic tax havens may be the spark that ignites a far-ranging movement for basic fairness and economic justice. What could be more unfair, after all, than asking hard-working Americans to dig deeper into their wallets, retirement funds, and savings accounts so corporate execs rolling in an overflowing wallow of tax-free profits won't have to?

It should be a political no-brainer, an issue that transcends right-left divisions. And, indeed, politicians from both parties -- including Sens. Evan Bayh, Charles Grassley, Max Baucus, Harry Reid, and Carl Levin and Rep. Richard Neal -- have introduced or are preparing to introduce legislation that would crack down on offshore tax evaders. Even President Bush is on record saying: "We ought to look at people who are trying to avoid U.S. taxes as a problem… American companies ought to pay taxes and be good citizens." Yes, gee, they ought to. If only there was some public body that could, say, pass a law and force them to do it.

Yet for all the public posturing, behind closed doors our leaders continue to protect their corporate sponsors, allowing profits to trump patriotism -- even in this time of war."

[Go to Top] [LINK TO THIS POST]    [HOME]

---

Pole Shifts and Blimps

 

Planet X is getting close. If you haven't started preparing for the POLE SHIFT, you'd better get a move-on because it's only 63 days away! If that doesn't make your day, then read this post about a father's experience with something ordered from Sharper Image - I guarantee you'll be shooting coffee out your nose.

[Go to Top] [LINK TO THIS POST]    [HOME]

---

Quit Blaming France

 

The DLC seems to be shifting the blame for the current crisis onto the U.N. as described in today's essay:

"The French-led rebellion against enforcement of U.N. resolutions concerning Iraq has taken on a new and more dangerous nature since President Jacques Chirac's admission that there are no circumstances under which France would allow U.N.-sanctioned military action to occur. "Whatever happens, France will vote no," he told reporters in a domestic television interview. Aside from representing a green light to Saddam Hussein to resume his defiant pursuit of weapons of mass destruction amidst the minor inconvenience of inspectors, this posture belies the claim that France, Germany and Russia are trying to defend the United Nations' multilateral prerogatives against U.S. unilateralism. The United States has asked the United Nations to deal with Saddam Hussein after 12 years of unenforced resolutions, and it looks like the United Nations may simply refuse.

There's already a backlash underway in U.S. public opinion against the previously lofty reputation of the United Nations. And if the United Nations begins to reflect the apparent belief of some in Europe that the United States, not Iraq or North Korea, represents the primary threat to world peace and stability, then domestic support for collective security through multilateral organizations will inevitably drop even further."

The Domocrats seem to be confusing France's defiance with the overall intentions of the majority of the members. They make it appear that France poses more of a threat to security in the region than the growing Bush-led U.S. military presence. The U.N. should call France's bluff and do the reasonable action: acknowledge that Hussein is doing a half-ass job of compliance, increase the presence of the inspection team and support the inspection team with U.N. soldiers. Obviously Hussein reacted to the military threat posed by the U.S. by allowing the inspectors back in and releasing details of weapons stores (however incomplete it may be). Now the U.N. needs to ratchet up the pressure by increasing its presence in Iraq and forgoing any spineless imposition of timelines.

[Go to Top] [LINK TO THIS POST]    [HOME]

---

Warren Langley

 

THIS is what I was talking about HERE. You can get more info on non-violent protesting here, here, here, and here. Looks like I'm going to have to create a new links page for non-violent action resources. Also, if I can figure out how to participate in non-violent demonstrations without losing my job, I'll be jumping right in; with Bush's tightening grip on the economy's throat, I'd probably be unemployed for quite a while if I get arrested and my employer found out. Gotta support the little 'uns so that they can grow up to be strong anti-Republicans.

[Go to Top] [LINK TO THIS POST]    [HOME]

---

March 11, 2003

---

 

Welcome, EMPHASISMINE to my Political Opinions blogroll.

[Go to Top] [LINK TO THIS POST]    [HOME]

---

Mitchell D. Kapor

 

Thank god for ethical people; without them civilization could not advance (much less continue):

"Mitchell D. Kapor, a personal computer industry software pioneer and a civil liberties activist, has resigned from the board of Groove Networks after learning that the company's software was being used by the Pentagon as part of its development of a domestic surveillance system.

"Mr. Kapor resigned from the board to focus 100 percent of his time on nonprofit activities," said a spokesman for Groove Networks, whose software has been used to permit intelligence analysts and law enforcement officials to share data in tests of the surveillance system, Total Information Awareness.

However, a person close to Mr. Kapor said that he was uncomfortable with the fact that Groove Networks' desktop collaboration software was a crucial component of the antiterrorist surveillance software being tested at the Defense Advanced Research Project Agency's Information Awareness Office, an office directed by Vice Adm. John M. Poindexter.

The project has generated controversy since it was started early last year by Admiral Poindexter, the former national security adviser for President Ronald Reagan, whose felony conviction as part of the Iran-contra scandal was reversed because of a Congressional grant of immunity."

[Go to Top] [LINK TO THIS POST]    [HOME]

---

March 10, 2003

---

Two Thoughts

 

So tell me: is how I'm feeling now, as an American, what it felt like to be a German when Hitler was in charge? Well, at least domestically, Hitler brought Germany out of a horrible depression, even if the ends didn't justify the means. We seem to be headed in the opposite direction economy-wise...

[Go to Top] [LINK TO THIS POST]    [HOME]

---

The Next Step?

 

Effern commented on my post regarding the apparent futility of recent marches/rallies:

""I'm ashamed of each and every one of you for not doing more. And I'm ashamed of myself for falling in line with you."

So what would you have us do?

It appears that all legal means have been pursued in the interest of speaking out on Governor Bush's policies and administration. Short of staging a commando raid on the White House not unlike the end of Brazil, what else is there? Kidnapping Nancy Pelosi's family and threatening to kill them unless she assassinates Bush next time he addressed a joint session of Congress?

I agree that naked protesting and other such nonsense accomplishes little, if anything. I'm sure phone numbers are being sought, and possibly traded.

And strong essays, while inspirational, are just that. Essays.

So what would you have us do?"

My response: "Well, the Pelosi thing just might work. Kidding aside, If I knew the answer I wouldn't be doing this. For the first time in my life I'm considering the next step after marches, namely civil disorder. If Bush et al. are ignoring the former, maybe they'll pay some attention to the latter. I'm about as non-violent as one can get, but I just can't see how sitting around typing and ocassionally walking around with a sign is doing any good at this point."

[Go to Top] [LINK TO THIS POST]    [HOME]

---

Finally, a Good Use for Duct Tape

 

HERE is the first good use of duct tape for homeland security. No kidding. Really.

[Go to Top] [LINK TO THIS POST]    [HOME]

---

March 9, 2003

---

Carter on Just War

 

Former President Jimmy Carter (my hero) wrote in the N.Y Times today the criteria of a 'just' war. Read his explanations of how Bush fails to meet each of the following criteria for a 'just' war in Iraq:

"The war can be waged only as a last resort, with all nonviolent options exhausted.
The war's weapons must discriminate between combatants and noncombatants.
Its violence must be proportional to the injury we have suffered.
The attackers must have legitimate authority sanctioned by the society they profess to represent.
The peace it establishes must be a clear improvement over what exists."

(You'll need to do a one-time registration to access the N.Y. Times online site - it's worth it.)

And if you haven't read Carter's essay on this same subject written a few months ago, but still pertinent, check it out.

[Go to Top] [LINK TO THIS POST]    [HOME]

---

Hart on Bush

 

Gary Hart wrote an enlightened piece today in the Washington Post. Excerpt:

"What is worse, our president does not trust his own people. He does not trust us enough to tell us which other nations will provide combat forces and in what numbers, how long our military will remain in the volatile Middle East or how much the long-term military enterprise will cost in deficit tax dollars. Most disturbing, our president does not trust us enough to tell us the casualty estimates for our sons and daughters and for Iraqi civilians. The Pentagon has produced low, medium and high risk estimates. The president simply chooses not to disclose them for the justifiable fear that public support for war with Iraq will erode.

Given the pattern of public deception in Vietnam, we should have learned to demand candor and respect for our judgment from our elected officials. Instead, we are now tacitly permitted to believe war in Iraq will resemble Gulf War I and Afghanistan -- quick, relatively bloodless and successful. We must pray that it will be. But prayers are no substitute for a leader who trusts us enough to be honest about the risks of war.

Obsession with Hussein has caused the president to neglect the probable consequences of the Iraqi war -- attacks on the United States. We are not sufficiently prepared for the next terrorist attacks -- attacks very likely to be precipitated by massive U.S. military invasion -- and probable long-term occupation, of an Islamic nation in the most volatile region on Earth. "America Still Unprepared, Still at Risk," reported the Council on Foreign Relations task force I co-chaired with Warren Rudman last fall. To leave one's own camp exposed and vulnerable when an attack is made invites counterattack; it is not the hallmark of prudent leadership."

[Go to Top] [LINK TO THIS POST]    [HOME]

---

March 8, 2003

---

Left is Wrong

 

Let me get this straight. Republicans control the House. Republicans control the Senate. Republicans control the Supreme Court. Republicans control the Executive Branch. Republicans control the media (print, TV, radio). With total legislative control over everything, it should be easy to fix our problems. So, what has been fixed since January, 2001:
--The economy?
--The job market?
--The stock market?
--Public education?
--Racial inequality?
--Healthcare for the poor and elderly?
--Domestic Security?
--State budgets?
--Homelessness?
--American image abroad?

Name ONE THING that has improved since the day Bush was sworn into office. (Okay, besides lower taxes for the rich). Face it America, we are getting screwed up the behind like never before in history, and I guess we're enjoying it because we haven't done a thing to stop it. Sorry, but rallies, marches, strong essays, passionate speeches, signed petitions and dumb mushroom cloud TV commercials just won't cut it. As long as Bush continues steamrolling his way to world oblivion, we are responsible because we didn't stop it. And saying "I told you so," definitely won't either.

I'm ashamed of each and every one of you for not doing more. And I'm ashamed of myself for falling in line with you.

[Go to Top] [LINK TO THIS POST]    [HOME]

---

Dateline: Dover, N.H.

 

After reading this, I've decided to move to New Hampshire. At least they'll have trouble finding me if I really am an accomplice. Excerpt:

"Nearly everyone reading this is about to become an accomplice to murder.

You are on the verge of launching a massive assault on Iraq, which will result in the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians and soldiers duty-bound to defend their land. Your massive aerial slaughter will be the denouement to a decade of silent genocide that, in the name of peace and security, has claimed the lives of hundreds of thousands of children. Your invasion will be swift and brutal. You will rid the world of an ugly tyrant and probably put another in his place. It may lead to unimaginable consequences — revolution, terrorism, and war — across the Middle East and beyond. It will be a staggering blow to the rule of law and justice in international affairs. Your invasion will be illegal and illogical, based on flimsy evidence and supported by childish, Orwellian propaganda. It is happening because untold billions will accrue to those who control the media you watch and the companies which suck your retirement funds dry: it is permitted because those who bear the costs are invisible people in a far-off land of which you know nothing. Iraq will be invaded not because it is a threat but because it is so weak it cannot even defend itself. People will not be liberated, but oil surely will. All this will be done in your name, as you buy canned food and huddle in basements because of a conveniently-timed "terror alert." Done in your name as an anti-war movement, it is studiously ignored by politicians and the media. You have been duped by a gang of seedy, evil men who could not enumerate Wilson’s Fourteen Points without laughing, who plot war while kneeling in church, who can stage a photo op of a chickenhawk general in front of a portrait of Teddy Roosevelt without blushing. Men to whom the stench of corpses and the attendant profit is so much perfume. Men who can’t even be bothered to make their lies remotely credible when they stand in mockery before the world. You will send your sons and daughters to kill and be killed, while they wire profits to their offshore hedge funds. You will believe that it is all right and good and the American Way, and that is a repellent thought." --Colin Shea

[Go to Top] [LINK TO THIS POST]    [HOME]

---

My Thoughts Exactly

 

Why try to write it when it's already been Said so well:

"In all my encounters and travels I have yet to meet a person who is for the war. Even worse, most Americans now feel that this mobilization has already gone too far to stop, and that we are on the verge of a disaster for the country. Consider first of all that the Democratic Party, with few exceptions, has simply gone over to the president's side in a gutless display of false patriotism. Wherever you look in the Congress there are the tell-tale signs either of the Zionist lobby, the right-wing Christians, or the military-industrial complex, three inordinately influential minority groups who share hostility to the Arab world, unbridled support for extremist Zionism, and an insensate conviction that they are on the side of the angels. Every one of the 500 congressional districts in this country has a defense industry in it, so that war has been turned into a matter of jobs, not of security. But, one might well ask, how does running an unbelievably expensive war remedy, for instance, economic recession, the almost certain bankruptcy of the social security system, a mounting national debt, and a massive failure in public education? Demonstrations are looked at simply as a kind of degraded mob action, while the most hypocritical lies pass for absolute truth, without criticism and without objection."

"Democracy traduced and betrayed, democracy celebrated but in fact humiliated and trampled on by a tiny group of men who have simply taken charge of this republic as if it were nothing more than, what, an Arab country? It is right to ask who is in charge since clearly the people of the United States are not properly represented by the war this administration is about to loose on a world already beleaguered by too much misery and poverty to endure more. And Americans have been badly served by a media controlled essentially by a tiny group of men who edit out anything that might cause the government the slightest concern or worry. As for the demagogues and servile intellectuals who talk about war from the privacy of their fantasy worlds, who gave them the right to connive in the immiseration of millions of people whose major crime seems to be that they are Muslims and Arabs? What American, except for this small unrepresentative group, is seriously interested in increasing the world's already ample stores of anti-Americanism? Hardly any I would suppose."

--Edward Said

[Go to Top] [LINK TO THIS POST]    [HOME]

---

March 7, 2003

---

 

Here are a couple of photos I took at the January 18 march/rally in San Francisco:

[Go to Top] [LINK TO THIS POST]    [HOME]

---

March 6, 2003

---

Bush on Saddam

 

Some Bush quotes from today's press conference:

"There's a lot talk about inspectors. It would have taken a handful of inspectors to determine whether he was disarming. They could've showed up at a parking lot and he could've brought his weapons and destroyed them."

"There's a lot of facts which make it clear to me and many others that Saddam is a threat. And we're not going to wait until he does attack. We're not going to hope that he changes his attitude. We're not going to assume that, you know, he is a different kind of person than he has been."

"As a matter of fact, it's hard to say the United States is defiant about the United Nations when I was the person who took the issue to the United Nations September the 12th, 2002. We've been working with the United Nations. We've been working through the United Nations. Secondly, I'm confident the American people understand that when it comes to our security, if we need to act, we will act. And we really don't need United Nations approval to do so."

"For the sake of peace, if we have to use our troops, we will."

"Those are immeasurable costs. And I weigh those very seriously."

"I want to remind you that it is his choice to make as to whether or not we go to war. It's Saddam's choice. He's the person that can make the choice of war and peace. Thus far, he's made the wrong choice."

[Go to Top] [LINK TO THIS POST]    [HOME]

---

Israel Is Part of This, Too

 

Yet another good essay questioning Bush's reasons for destroying Iraq. Excerpt:

"The international community, including the American people, has expressed poignantly its opposition to a war. I would like to pay tribute in particular to the relatives of the victims of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks who came all the way to Baghdad to express their rejection of the war option. One of them said, "I lost my brother in the attacks of Sept. 11, and I do not want any human being to suffer such a loss."

This is what our humanity represents at its best. If only the American government could rise up to the example of the citizens it is supposed to represent and save Iraq, the region and the entire humanity the devastating consequences of unnecessary aggression.

Most people of the region feel that the Bush administration behaves as if the Middle East is a region without people, or as if its people are without human rights and as if their lives, security and sovereign rights are worth nothing but to satisfy certain ideological designs that are in the minds of some leaders in Washington.

The statements of President George W. Bush and some of his senior officials in this regard have invited both amazement and anger. It was baffling to watch Bush threaten the United Nations that it will become insignificant if it doesn't support his war against Iraq - as if he had forgotten that the United Nations is an expression of international will.

UN inspectors are still doing positive work and their statements indicate that Iraq is cooperating. The Bush administration has called for a diplomatic solution to the crisis over North Korea's withdrawal from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, so what is the rationale behind its rush to disarm Iraq by carrying out a military attack?"

[Go to Top] [LINK TO THIS POST]    [HOME]

---

The U.S.: A Leader in Human Rights?

 

Jonathan Turley writes a revealing article in today's L.A. Times about our latest pasttime: torturing prisoners. Excerpt:

"Credible reports now indicate that the [US] government, with the approval of high-ranking officials, is engaging in systematic techniques considered by many to be torture.

U.S. officials have admitted using techniques that this nation previously denounced as violations of international law. One official involved in the "interrogation center" in Afghanistan said "if you don't violate someone's human rights, you probably aren't doing your job."

For months, international human rights groups have been protesting activities at the Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan. In a closed-off part of the base, the CIA has constructed an "interrogation center" out of metal shipping containers. Last year, reports began to surface that the CIA was getting information the old-fashioned way -- by breaking suspects physically, except when they inconveniently die.

There is a striking consistency to these accounts, including those from unnamed U.S. officials. Following the arrest of terrorist suspect Abu Zubeida last year after he was shot in the chest, groin and thigh, U.S. officials admitted withholding painkillers as an inducement to force information from him. For part of his interrogation, John Walker Lindh was held naked in an unheated metal container in the dead of winter and duct-taped to a stretcher with a bullet in his leg.

The latest allegation concerns two men who died while guests of the CIA. According to the military coroner, both men show "blunt force trauma" that contributed to their deaths. They died within a week of each other at the base, one of a pulmonary embolism and one of a heart attack. Both cases are now officially listed as homicides."

[Go to Top] [LINK TO THIS POST]    [HOME]

---

Be Prepared With Answers

 

Anti-war protestors: You should view this video before heading off to a march or rally.

[Go to Top] [LINK TO THIS POST]    [HOME]

---

March 4, 2003

---

But What Have You Done For Me Lately?

 

Michael Parenti gives a quick and dirty history of the Bush II Administration. Excerpt:

"Since George II took office, the stock market has dropped 34 percent, unemployment has climbed 35 percent, the federal surplus of $281 billion is now a deficit of $157 billion, and an additional 1.5 million people are without health insurance, bringing the total to 41 million. War has been good for the conservative agenda in general, providing record military spending, greater profits for the defense industry, and a deficit spending spree that further enriches the creditor class at the taxpayer's expense, and is used to justify more cuts in domestic human services."

[Go to Top] [LINK TO THIS POST]    [HOME]

---

Winning the Battle, Losing the War

 

The Democratic Leadership Council shows how Bush's successive blunders are steadily eroding international support for action against Iraq. Here's a sample:

"To a remarkable extent, the President and his advisors have made American dominance, not Iraqi defiance, of the world community the key concern for many people who would never defend Saddam Hussein. This devolution has taken awhile, but the steady undermining of U.S. credibility began practically the moment George W. Bush took office, with the unilateral decisions to reject the Kyoto Protocol, the Comprehensive Test Treaty, and international criminal court jurisdiction over American citizens. It continued with the Administration's announcement of steel import quotas, which abandoned American leadership of trade liberalization efforts for transparently crass domestic political reasons.

After 9/11, the United States was the object of an enormous and almost universal wave of sympathy and solidarity from around the world. The President quickly dissipated this mood with his "Axis of Evil" speech, soon buttressed by official announcement of a new foreign policy doctrine that claims for the United States a historically unique right to choose and preemptively defuse threats to national, regional or global security.

Under pressure from Congressional Democrats and his own Secretary of State, the President changed course last fall and went to Congress for a use-of-force resolution, and to the United Nations for a resolution demanding Iraqi compliance with earlier U.N. calls for its disarmament. He got both, the former with considerable Democratic support, and the latter on a unanimous Security Council vote.

As though it regretted this multilateral step, the Administration then spent several months preparing for a military campaign and issuing belligerent statements that made it clear any U.N. authority for action against Iraq was strictly optional. Until Secretary Powell's powerful testimony to the Security Council last month, the Administration consistently made U.S. security concerns about Iraq, not Saddam's defiance of the international community, the crux of its case for war."

[Go to Top] [LINK TO THIS POST]    [HOME]

---

Another Inflammatory Remark by Ari

 

White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer continued with Bush's misinformation and fabrications by lying about the missiles that Hussein is currently dismantling. From a Washington Post article:

Administration officials have dismissed the missile destruction, which continued with another half-dozen yesterday, bringing the total to 16 destroyed out of an estimated 100 in Iraq's possession. One called it a "distraction" designed to deflect attention from Baghdad's failure to disarm fully. Fleischer insisted, erroneously, that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein "denied he had these weapons," and cited the deception as one of the many reasons why Hussein could not be trusted. In fact, the Al Samoud-2s were among the few new items listed in an Iraqi weapons declaration submitted to the Security Council in December, and their destruction Saturday began on schedule in accordance with Blix's demands.

[Go to Top] [LINK TO THIS POST]    [HOME]

---

Petition

 

Make your voice heard by signing this petition to the United Nations Security Council. It will take only a moment of your time. Here's the letter that will be delivered to the UNSC March 5th:

Dear Member of the U.N. Security Council,

We are citizens from countries all over the world. We are speaking together because we will all be affected by a decision in which your country has a major part -- the decision of how to disarm Iraq.

The first reason for its existence listed in the Preamble to the Charter of the United Nations is "to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind." If your country supports a Security Council resolution that would authorize a war on Iraq, you will directly contradict that charter. You will be supporting an unnecessary war -- a war which immediately, and in its unknown consequences, could bring "untold sorrow to mankind" once again.

The U.N. was created to enable peaceful alternatives to conflict. The weapons inspections under way are a perfect example of just such an alternative, and their growing success is a testament to the potential power the U.N. holds. By supporting tough inspections instead of war, you can show the world a real way to resolve conflict without bloodshed. But if you back a war, it will undermine the very premise upon which the U.N. was built.

President Bush argues that only by endorsing a war on Iraq can the United Nations prove its relevance. We argue the opposite. If the Security Council allows itself to be completely swayed by one member nation, in the face of viable alternatives, common sense and world public opinion, then it will be diminished in its role, effectiveness, and in the opinion of humankind.

We do not support this war. For billions of citizens in hundreds of countries, and for the future generations whose lives will be shaped by the choice you make, we ask that you stand firm against the pressuring of the Bush Administration, and support tough inspections for Iraq. The eyes of the world are on you.

Sincerely,
[Number] citizens of the world.

[Go to Top] [LINK TO THIS POST]    [HOME]

---

March 3, 2003

---

Breaking Ranks?

 

Oh gosh, now Administration Republicans are starting to complain about Bush's "behavior". (You'll need to do a one-time registration to access the L.A. Times online site - it's worth it.)

[Go to Top] [LINK TO THIS POST]    [HOME]

---

Another Good One Bites the Dust

 

John Brady Kiesling, a career diplomat who has served in United States embassies from Tel Aviv to Casablanca to Yerevanletter, has submitted a letter of resignation to Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, effective March 7. It's a must read. Here's an excerpt:

"Dear Mr. Secretary:

I am writing you to submit my resignation from the Foreign Service of the United States and from my position as Political Counselor in U.S. Embassy Athens, effective March 7. I do so with a heavy heart. The baggage of my upbringing included a felt obligation to give something back to my country. Service as a U.S. diplomat was a dream job. I was paid to understand foreign languages and cultures, to seek out diplomats, politicians, scholars and journalists, and to persuade them that U.S. interests and theirs fundamentally coincided. My faith in my country and its values was the most powerful weapon in my diplomatic arsenal.

It is inevitable that during twenty years with the State Department I would become more sophisticated and cynical about the narrow and selfish bureaucratic motives that sometimes shaped our policies. Human nature is what it is, and I was rewarded and promoted for understanding human nature. But until this Administration it had been possible to believe that by upholding the policies of my president I was also upholding the interests of the American people and the world. I believe it no longer.

The policies we are now asked to advance are incompatible not only with American values but also with American interests. 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."

(You'll need to do a one-time registration to access the N.Y. Times online site - it's worth it.)

[Go to Top] [LINK TO THIS POST]    [HOME]

---

Call Webster: We Have a New Definition

 

In response to a recent statement by 450 economists (including Nobel Prize laureates) denouncing the Bush tax plan, the White House released a letter, signed by 250 economists, supporting the plan. However, TAP has researched the background of many of these and found that Bush's definition for "economist" is quite nebulous. Excerpt:

"...we checked up on some of the people not listed with a university affiliation, and found out that the White House is using the term "economist" rather loosely. Among those listed are Grover Norquist, of Americans for Tax Reform, and Jackson Brown, of the American Dental Association -- neither of whom is an economist. Nor, as far as we can tell, is "Leonard Bower, consultant." Emile J. Brinkmann of the Mortgage Bankers Association of America has a Ph.D. -- in finance, not economics. Horace Brock of Strategic Economic Decisions, Inc., has a ton of degrees, but unfortunately, a doctorate in economics is not among them."

[Go to Top] [LINK TO THIS POST]    [HOME]

---

March 2, 2003

---

 

No one has said it any better than THIS. Excerpt from a Howard Zinn Essay:

"The absurdity of this war is so starkly clear that people who have never been involved in an anti-war demonstration have been showing up in huge numbers at recent rallies. Anyone who has been to one of them can testify to the numbers of young people present, obviously doing this for the first time.

Arguments for the war are paper thin and fall apart at first touch. Weapons of mass destruction? Iraq may develop one nuclear bomb (though the UN inspectors find no sign of development) - but Israel has 200 nuclear weapons and the US has 20,000 and six other countries have undisclosed numbers. Saddam Hussein a tyrant? Undoubtedly, like many others in the world? A threat to the world? Then how come the rest of the world, much closer to Iraq, does not want war? Defending ourselves? The most incredible statement of all. Fighting terrorism? No connection found between Sept. 11 and Iraq.

I believe it is the obvious emptiness of the administration position that is responsible for the unprecedentedly quick growth of the anti-war movement. And for the emergence of new voices, unheard before, speaking "inappropriately" outside their professional boundaries. 1500 historians have signed an anti-war petition. Businessmen, clergy, have put full page ads in newspapers. All refusing to stick to their "profession" and instead professing that they are human beings first."

[Go to Top] [LINK TO THIS POST]    [HOME]

---

Nixon Would be Proud

 

The Observer International acquired a memo from the NSA showing how they intend to BUG THE PHONES AND E-MAILS of certain key delegations of the U.N. Security Council. Here's the entire memo:

"Sunday March 2, 2003

To: [Recipients withheld]
From: FRANK KOZA, DEF Chief of Staff (Regional Targets)
CIV/NSA
Sent on Jan 31 2003 0:16
Subject: Reflections of Iraq Debate/Votes at UN-RT Actions + Potential for Related Contributions
Importance: HIGH
Top Secret//COMINT//XI

All,

As you've likely heard by now, the Agency is mounting a surge particularly directed at the UN Security Council (UNSC) members (minus US and GBR of course) for insights as to how to membership is reacting to the on-going debate RE: Iraq, plans to vote on any related resolutions, what related policies/ negotiating positions they may be considering, alliances/ dependencies, etc - the whole gamut of information that could give US policymakers an edge in obtaining results favorable to US goals or to head off surprises. In RT, that means a QRC surge effort to revive/ create efforts against UNSC members Angola, Cameroon, Chile, Bulgaria and Guinea, as well as extra focus on Pakistan UN matters.

We've also asked ALL RT topi's to emphasize and make sure they pay attention to existing non-UNSC member UN-related and domestic comms for anything useful related to the UNSC deliberations/ debates/ votes. We have a lot of special UN-related diplomatic coverage (various UN delegations) from countries not sitting on the UNSC right now that could contribute related perspectives/ insights/ whatever. We recognize that we can't afford to ignore this possible source.

We'd appreciate your support in getting the word to your analysts who might have similar, more in-direct access to valuable information from accesses in your product lines. I suspect that you'll be hearing more along these lines in formal channels - especially as this effort will probably peak (at least for this specific focus) in the middle of next week, following the SecState's presentation to the UNSC.

Thanks for your help"

[Go to Top] [LINK TO THIS POST]    [HOME]

---

Another Link

 

Thanks to THE LEFTY DIRECTORY for listing this blog (see left column under "Newest Additions").

[Go to Top] [LINK TO THIS POST]    [HOME]

---

Well, Nothing Else Has Worked

 

Fidel Castro has offered to mediate with North Korea over its nuclear program.

[Go to Top] [LINK TO THIS POST]    [HOME]

---

Control of the Media

 

LA WEEKLY reminds us how tough it is for the public to obtain unbiased information during times of government-controlled lockdown of the media. Sample:

"Naturally, the vast, wired American landscape does boast some prominent dissenting voices, including Harper's, Salon, The American Conservative and the eloquent Grammy-night philosopher Fred Durst. But given that the vast majority of the world's people oppose the war, it's startling how few of their voices have a regular platform in major outlets, especially television, where Hardball's suddenly watchable Chris Matthews is the only talk-show host who consistently asks aggressive questions about invading Iraq. Traditional liberal redoubts such as the Washington Post and The New Republic have been riding gleeful shotgun for the joy ride to Baghdad — though TNR's editor is now getting cold feet. And even the supposedly leftish New York Times ran George Packer's seminal article on "liberal hawks," which began by scoffing at peace marchers for being dopes and ended with an Iraqi émigré silencing a peacenik with pleas for his country's liberation.

The other night, CNN's agonized liberal Aaron Brown grew defensive over claims that the network had been ignoring the peace movement. "For a variety of reasons, it seems to us, the anti-war movement has been slow to organize and slow to build. It hardly existed in the U.S. Congress." While this is certainly true of our spineless Democrats (Robert Byrd's jeremiads notwithstanding), it's flat-out wrong about popular resistance to the war, which is years ahead of the Vietnam timetable. Despite September 11, millions of ordinary Americans are shocked and awed by the president's brazenness in passing Saddam off as worthy of a war."

[Go to Top] [LINK TO THIS POST]    [HOME]

---

Well the weight of the world is FALLING And on my back I've been CRAWLING The state of affairs is APPALLING And the 6 o'clock news keeps CALLING Well I've been trying to see the world through their eyes Where black is white and day is night Left is Right Left is Right Left is Right, For me Well negotiations keep STALLING The United Nations keeps CALLING The Skeletons you're HAULING Won't hold when you're FALLING Put your head in the sand and you'll never know What's waiting for you in the depths below (below) Don't believe everything that you read Take what you want and keep what you need TWISTED NIXON

---

CHICK HEARN, THANKS SO MUCH FOR ALL THE MEMORIES.

---