The Cadaver Politik Blog

Deja Vu All Over Again...

2009-01-03T19:31:00.000-06:00

Oh, goody -- more aerial bombardment by Israel. What a surprise.

I know what you're thinking: "Gee whiz, I sure hope they don't run out of bombs!" Don't worry: I'm sure the U.S. will expedite some more shipments of bunker-busters like we did after they started bombing the shit out of Lebanon.

Why turn to Al Jazeera for news about the Middle East, you ask (aside from the obvious)? :

http://www.ifamericansknew.com/media/otcvidyt.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCL6WdnuNp4&fmt=18

—ungeziefer

Russia: THIS AGGRESSION WILL NOT STAND!!

2008-08-13T20:53:00.002-05:00

The natural response to Russia's aggression against Georgia, obvioiusly, would be to declare [with a straight face, mind you] :

"We strongly oppose the unilateral military invasion of another sovereign nation -- particularly when its motives are not benign, but rather have to do with strategic geopolitical positioning, access to natural resources, and as a means to send a message to other nations. Such aggression will not stand. Such action is only permitted with the authorization of the U.N. Security Council."

Huh. Wonder why the U.S. can't really do that right now. Hmmmm....

Maybe the rule now is: "As long as the sovereign nation the you would like to unilaterally invade has never interfered with your nation, does not border your nation, has never been a part of your nation or under your sphere of influence, does not share a language, religion, or culture with your nation, and is at least 3000 miles away from your nation's borders, it is permissible -- indeed, imperative -- that you invade said nation."

And, of course, since this is a clear violation of international law, no doubt the U.S. will immediately deploy troops to the region to control the situation -- we are, after all, the World Police.

I can't think of any reason we would be unable to do so.

Can you?

In all seriousness, this is perhaps the best example imaginable to demonstrate why we desperately need to reform the U.N. -- specifically, the U.N. Security Council -- to make it democratic, rather than set up so that the 5 (?) most powerful nations have veto power, thus rendering any decisions regarding said powers immune to criticism and essentially above the Law.

p.s.: at least we have a Secretary of State with a PHd. in Russian studies and who speaks Russian. (That would help a lot -- if she actually, you know, like, went there and stuff.)

—ungeziefer

Pakistanis Aided Attack in Kabul, U.S. Officials Say - NYTimes.com

2008-07-31T22:22:00.001-05:00

Oh, gosh, golly gee -- Pakistan?! But they're our ALLY! When Obama suggested that they might not be doing much to reign in terrorists inside Pakistan, we rightfully lambasted him! NEXT you're going to tell me most of those carrying out suicide attacks in Iraq (not to mention 9/11) are from Saudi Arabia, likewise a close ally! Absurd!

American officials say they believe that the embassy attack was probably carried out by members of a network led by Maulavi Jalaluddin Haqqani, whose alliance with Al Qaeda and its affiliates has allowed the terrorist network to rebuild in the tribal areas.

........

Pakistan’s new civilian government is wrestling with these very issues, and there is concern in Washington that the civilian leaders will be unable to end a longstanding relationship between members of the ISI and militants associated with Al Qaeda.

........

Jalaluddin Haqqani, the militia commander, battled Soviet troops during the 1980s and has had a long and complicated relationship with the C.I.A. He was among a group of fighters who received arms and millions of dollars from the C.I.A. during that period, but his allegiance with Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda during the following decade led the United States to sever the relationship.

Mr. Haqqani and his sons now run a network that Western intelligence services say they believe is responsible for a campaign of violence throughout Afghanistan, including the Indian Embassy bombing and an attack on the Serena Hotel in Kabul earlier this year.

Pakistanis Aided Attack in Kabul, U.S. Officials Say - NYTimes.com

You mean when all those lunatic fringe crazy leftist conspiracy theorists [who obviously hate America] pointed out the long-standing relationship between the ISI and Al Qaeda coincidant with a similar long-standing relationship between the ISI and the CIA (not to mention direct and often OVERT funding and training to the Mujihideen in Afghanistan in the 80s) they weren't just pulling this out of their arses?

Hmmm... why does the word "blowback" come to mind?........

But, I forgot: this is from the wacky left-wing loons at the New York Times, who ALSO hate America [naturally], so I assume they made it up.

(But, then, I should really just shut my bloody trap. Shouldn't I.)

Lady MacClinton

2008-06-03T23:36:00.006-05:00

O.K. Earlier today I was excited about the Obama rally here in the Twin Cities (though I didn't make it), about the end to this bitter primary race after reading several news reports about how Hillary [ FINALLY ] was going to concede. I even said to my wife eariler this evening, "despite everything, I actually think a Barack/Hillary ticket would be pretty cool..."

And now? Five hours later?...

I'm so pissed off right now that this post will absolutely be nothing but a rant.

So, without further ado, ... /begin rant/........

"I will be making no decisions tonight"?

"Go to my site and share your thoughts with me"???

What a sick joke.

You go to the fucking site and what it says is "BE ONE OF 18 MILLION: STAND WITH HILLARY. JOIN SUPPORTER XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, FROM XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX."

Ah, a lovely form! : "I'm with you Hillary, and I am proud of everything we are fighting for." Put your name in, put in your comments ( "(optional)" ), and click submit. After which ( naturally ), your name will be added to the dynamically displayed list of names of "supporters."

Nice.

Here's what I think, Lady McClinton:

What I think is you should be thinking about the future of the country and of the Democratic Party ( not to mention the world ) -- not just about yourself.

What I think is you should not have merely congratulated Obama for "having run a great campaign." What I think is you should have conceded and congratulated Barack for having WON the Democratic nomination, and pledged your fervent support for his candidacy. What possible reason could you have for not doing so?? ( Or, I should say, what possible reason that is not PURELY selfish, self-serving, arrogant and destructive? )

What I think is that when those rabid dogs in your audience were ranting and raving at you and chanting "Denver, Denver, Denver....," rather than basking in their rabid adoration for you, you should have quieted them and said, "No, now, I appreciate that, but we're not going to take this all the way to the convention..." Etc.

What I think is you should have vehemently denounced any and all of your supporters -- and they appear to be legion -- who have vowed to vote for McCain if Obama is the nominee. And to any of those "white" supporters you're so proud of, you should have announced loudly and in no uncertain terms, "If you're supporting me because you don't want a 'darky' in the White House, I do not want your vote or your support, and I want nothing to do with you."

What I think is that you should have come out and admitted that you and Bill were close with Reverend Jeremiah Wright, and invited him to the White House during your, shall we say, "marital troubles"; and condemned the rabid insanity of the media that made this B.S. into an issue. You should have stood up for Wright and for Obama against the farcical and obscene media onslaught -- but you said nothing, and even encouraged this "story."

What I think is you should have fired Terry McCauliffe for telling FOX News that they were indeed truly "Fair and Balanced" and congratulating them for being the first to call the race for you. (And, of course, for generally being a lunatic who kept insisting that you would win -- no matter what the reality.)

What I think is you should not have lied -- outright lied -- that is when you were not busy merely spinning and twisting the truth beyond all recognition -- over and over and over again -- about being in the lead in this race, and thus brainwashing your supporters into believing this, and believing that somehow this race was being "stolen" from you.

What I think is you should have come out and acknowledged that the rules of the party were rules that YOU FUCKING AGREED UPON before the fact, and that whether or not you cheated by campaigning in Florida, the results had to be thrown out because THOSE WERE THE AGREED-UPON FUCKING RULES.

What I think is that you should have come out and humbly apologized for all the hateful, deceptive, and disgusting attacks against Obama throughout this absurd campaign. For repeatedly implying, and often saying outright, that McCain would be a better president than Obama. For lying about Obama having made secret statements about NAFTA -- a trade agreement that YOUR FUCKING GODDAM HUSBAND pushed through in any case. For dismissing every state that Obama won with utter contempt -- as "latte-drinking liberals," as unimportant because it was just blacks voting for a black guy, etc.....

Rather than uniting the party, she selfishly chose to divide it further.

.......

I really could go on and on and on -- perhaps I should not...

Instead, a couple quotes/comments with which I agree wholeheartedly:

"

Hillary has gone through this campaign with an air of entitlement. Her divisive

politics have pillaged the Democratic party and divided what should be a united

front against the Republicans in November. She has blown millions of dollars

from both of their war chests only to further fracture what should have been a

sure Democratic win in November for her own selfish, power hungry ends. She

should bow out and never show her face in the Democratic Party again for making

McCain's job far easier. If McCain wins, Hillary is to blame 100%.
"

"She wasted the moment." -- Arianna Huffington

"What she's saying is, I've got these 18 million people behind me, and you've

gotta bargain with me if you want their support and if you want to win."

She has no right -- ZERO, NONE -- to expect anything from Obama. The fact that -- even now -- she is essentially trying to bully, harass and blackmail him into offering her the VP spot is repugnant.

But HILLARY SUPPORTERS saying they will either NOT VOTE or even VOTE FOR JOHN MCCAIN if Obama is the Democratic nominee???!!!! Fuck these ass holes. A bunch of goddam petulant children.

If ANYONE has a right to be super pissed off and angry and to even SUGGEST that they will either not vote or will vote for the other party in November, it's OBAMA SUPPORTERS if she somehow manages to get the nomination -- and anyone who can't see that fact is a fucking brainwashed idiot who clearly has the mental capacity of a small child and therefore should not be given the right to vote because your behavior and emotional intelligence is not that of an adult.

Sorry, Hillary, but you fucking blew it.

—ungeziefer

ONN: In The Know: How Can We Make The War In Iraq More Eco-Friendly?

2008-04-26T17:20:00.001-05:00

—ungeziefer

Priest Pwns Bill O’Reilly’s Minion On Rev. Wright

2008-04-20T12:14:00.002-05:00

From "Crooks & Liars" via "TheBradBlog" :

All I can say is, "Amen, brother!"

( Did you like the objective, impartial, dare I say "Fair and Balanced" journalist? )

And now, watch the 6 seconds of this interview that Bill O'Reilly chose to use, before launching into a 6-MINUTE discussion of whether or not THIS guy should now be "sanctioned" by the Catholic Church.

( And if Bill O'Reilly is Catholic, I'm the Pope's grandson. )

—ungeziefer

Your Privacy Is Very Important To Us....

2008-04-19T16:41:00.001-05:00

—ungeziefer

Unsustainable Wealth Gap

2008-04-19T16:31:00.002-05:00

Matt Miller on the absurd and unconscionable wealth gap existing in the world today. (.mp3, 24sec, 148k)

The top 50 hedge fund managers made 29 Billion dollars last year. According to one of my colleagues at the Center For American Progress, that means it would take the typical family about 12,000 years to earn what an average top hedge fun manager earns in a little over an hour. Not sustainable.

—ungeziefer

ABC's Stephanopoulos interviews John McCain

2008-04-19T12:55:00.000-05:00

—ungeziefer

Poor Torture Tzar...

2008-04-14T00:22:00.002-05:00

Crooks and Liars — Gonzo Can’t Find A Job:

"Alberto R. Gonzales, like many others recently unemployed, has discovered how difficult it can be to find a new job. Mr. Gonzales, the former attorney general, who was forced to resign last year, has been unable to interest law firms in adding his name to their roster, Washington lawyers and his associates said in recent interviews.

He has, through friends, put out inquiries, they said, and has not found any takers. What makes Mr. Gonzales’s case extraordinary is that former attorneys general, the government’s chief lawyer, are typically highly sought."

—ungeziefer

The Onion: Army Holds Annual Bring Your Daughter To War Day

2008-03-24T10:15:00.001-05:00

—ungeziefer

ANNOUNCEMENT: I'M QUITTING SMOKING

2007-10-07T10:07:00.000-05:00

On this bloody SCHIP socialized medicine business, I gotta say Trent Lott has it right.

If the Communists in Congress manage to push this bill through despite our Dear Leader's wise and compassionate veto, that's it: I'm quitting. It's one thing to give my hard earned money to Big Tobacco. But giving my hard earned money to sick poor children? -- I'm sorry, THAT is where I DRAW THE LINE. It's just outrageous.
—ungeziefer

It's official: I'm done with Hillary

2007-09-30T23:00:00.000-05:00

I used to respect Hillary, and I'm not gung ho for Gravel or anything, but honestly this exchange alone pushed me over the edge: I will NOT support Hillary in any way, shape or form. No f*cking way.

(And, yes, the f*cking LAUGH is what really makes me hate her. I wanted to slap her unconscious.)

—ungeziefer

Crooks and Liars � Sy Hersh on Bush and Iran: Shifting targets: New Propaganda push to attack their Revolutionary Guard

2007-09-30T16:03:00.000-05:00

Crooks and Liars � Sy Hersh on Bush and Iran: Shifting targets: New Propaganda push to attack their Revolutionary Guard

Isn't it interesting how things have changed: a year ago Sy was saying "they want to attack Iran," and everybody called him a nut. Now, he's still saying "they want to attack Iran," and everyone's basically saying, "Yeah, no shit -- tell us something we don't already know, buddy." (Or, if you're FOX Noise, "Yes, and it's imperative that we DO attack Iran! Right now!")

While I appreciate CNN having Sy on, watch this video and see if anything seems ... odd to you.

Is anyone else irate about the fact that — for a full 3 minutes — the caption at the bottom of the screen says “Iranian Threat”??!!

(Why not “Pretext For War”, or, “Another Disasterous War of Aggression Planned”? — o.k., that last one might not fit…)

We seem to have gone completely down the rabbit hole now — where black is white, up is down, lies are truth, everything is completely upside down, and yet no one recognizes it.

Even if Iran IS involved in Iraq: who gives a shit? They’re neighbors, with a long and complex history with one another. The Iranians have INFINITELY more right to be involved with Iraq than the U.S. ever could. How this is not self-evident to everyone on the planet is bewildering to me. It’d be like if Iran had illegally invaded the U.S., overthrown our government and occupied our country for 4 years — and then those of us fighting to drive the occupation out got help from Mexico, so Iran said “We’ve got to invade Mexico now — they’re killing our boys!”

It’s just f*cking insane.

It’s like the term “Foreign Fighters” — it doesn’t even pass the laugh test, yet everyone accepts it as having some meaning. We brought a couple hundred thousand white Christians who don’t speak Arabic and probably don’t even know the difference between Sunni and Shiite 3000 miles across an ocean to take over Iraq — and then have the utter audacity to bitch about “Foreign Fighters” in Iraq!!!

Last point: most of the foreign suicide bombers appear to be Saudis (no big surprise), while the Iranian government is allied with the new Iraqi government and are arch-enemies with groups like Al Qaeda and the Taliban. So AT BEST this saber rattling against Iran is tactical idiocy, a distraction from the real enemy, and alienating a potential ally — but that’s only IF the U.S. government was REALLY concerned with fighting terrorism, which is clearly farcical.

FACT: under the Bush Administration’s own “Preemptive War Doctrine,” Iran is FULLY 100% justified right now in attacking the U.S. (Indeed, they have 10 times more justification than we had for invading Iraq.)

Question: which is worse?: claiming that the holocaust if open for debate (and let me be clear: it’s not, any more than the Native American holocaust is up for debate)? Or spitting on the U.N. Charter and the Geneva Accords, designed to prevent future wars of aggression, and essentially behaving like Nazi Germany? Whatta ya think, AIPAC? Israel? Anyone?

The only way out is impeachment. NOW.

Just a slight historical revision

2007-09-30T14:10:00.000-05:00

Media Matters - AP misrepresented context of Limbaugh "phony soldiers" comment

The entire clip of Rush is here: Limbaugh: Service members who support U.S. withdrawal are "phony soldiers"

Ah, Stalin would be proud...

In the span of just a week, Media Matters has forced both Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh to scramble into defense mode and desperately try to deny what they said -- even though it's all right there for the world to see/hear/read.

These right-wing bastards are a sick joke.

They've come to realize that there are such things as video tape and audio recording devices -- which makes things really difficult, because then "Left Wing Smear Merchants" like MediaMatters can *gasp* document and play back what they've said! How dare they?! Fortunately, the right wing blow hards like drug-addled gas bag Rush Limbaugh and phone sex enthusiast Bill O'Reilly have figured out a way around this: rather than simply ignore MediaMatters, they accuse MediaMatters of "taking their comments out of context," and then defending their comments by -- you guessed it -- taking them out of context.

It's the typical right wing "Big Lie" tactic -- accuse your opponent of doing exactly what you yourself are guilty of. It really muddies up the waters for people. Really just a page out of Orwell, or (dare I say) Goebbels.

In a way, I LOVE the fact the O'Reilly and Limbaugh are now constantly attacking MediaMatters -- it's free publicity, in any case. Only problem is, the Ditto Heads who listen to these lying fascist bullies will likely never actually go to the Media Matters web site to check it out -- they'll just assume their Dear Leaders are telling them the truth.

If they had a single shred of dignity, integrity, or honesty, they would simply apologize, denounce their statements, and that would be the end of it. But of course if you're a right wing thug, you can never admit a mistake, or admit you are (or have ever been) wrong, or issue a correction, or apologize, let alone change your behavior.

Since that's not an option, listen up, Sirs: here is what you do:

1.) simply play back the recording of your comments in their entirety, and let your listeners judge for themselves. (You know: "We Report, You Decide"?)

2.) post a link to the Media Matters article you are discussing, so that people can quickly and easily go there and see just how right you are, and how viciously this Left Wing Smear Merchant has lied and distorted your statements, misquoted and slandered you. (You can put this URL at the bottom of the screen on your TV segment, too. I'm sure your producers can manage that.)

3.) this is what you REALLY should do -- there will even be MONEY in it for you (and we all know how you love that money): file a lawsuit against Media Matters for libel. Please, PLEASE do this, Good Sirs; I would LOVE to see this case -- how they've "slandered" you by documenting exactly what you said, complete with audio, video, and a full transcript. LOVE it.

Please? Do it for me?

Video: Rudy skips minority debate to fundraise with Bo Derek

2007-09-29T17:32:00.000-05:00

Video: Rudy skips minority debate to fundraise with Bo Derek

"
We can imagine how busy Rudy is. Running for president while distorting your record on 9/11, takes a lot of time and energy. So I can't say we were surprised to learn that Rudy (plus Romney, Thompson and McCain -- WTF??) was too busy to attend Thursday night's debate on minority issues hosted by Tavis Smiley.

But where was Rudy going? John Ehrenfeld, a BNF field producer, volunteered to track him down. Turned out he would be right here in Southern California accepting an endorsement from widely discredited Pete Wilson, who's known for exploiting racial division for votes, and pushing the horrible proposition 187. Then off to a $2300-a-plate fundraiser at the Biltmore Four Seasons in Santa Barbara with Bo Derek.

John attended the "open to anyone" endorsement announcement, but was quickly escorted out when they learned he was from Brave New Films! (Read John's blog about the whole event) Quietly though, Phillip snuck through and got the full deal on tape. Always send two people!

"

You know he's looking out for the Little Guy, because he gets his money at $2300-a-plate fund-raising dinners. It's the Republican way. ("Some call you the elite -- I call you my base.")

Meanwhile Barack has almost 500,000 donations. (Probably not from the elite who have $2300 just lying around...)

Here in Minnesota we've got the schmuck Norm Coleman (hand-picked by Bush to run in the first place, by the way) raising money in the same way as Rudy, but trying to hide it. Bush came here for the thousand-dollar-a-plate dinner bullshit -- and they raised a ton of money; however, they did not announce the event to the public, and in fact the press were not allowed to attend or take any pictures. Hmmm...

Who's The Best Christian To Lead?

2007-09-28T12:00:00.000-05:00

Crooks and Liars � Dartmouth Democratic Debate: On Faith

This type of garbage REALLY pisses me off.

While I thought all of the answers were good, I wish someone had objected to the question itself. (E.G., "Um, Tim? What the hell is wrong with you?")

Or if someone had answered with: "The passage about stoning to death queers, adulterers and disobedient children -- that's my favorite off the top of my head. I also like the bit about God asking Abraham to kill Isaac -- I get a kick out of that. My kids love it too, at bedtime."

And people wonder why atheists like myself are hostile to religion. Jesus H. Christ.

Send My Kids To Iraq, Please!

2007-09-13T15:17:00.000-05:00

Sam Seder takes a call from a conservative dad who plans to "absolutely" encourage his three kids to sign up for the military when they come of age.

I warn you, it's extremely sad and depressing.

"Send my kids to Iraq!" [ .mp3, 6 min., 5.5MB ]

—ungeziefer

Fuck Biden

2007-09-10T00:52:00.000-05:00

Crooks and Liars � Meet The Press: Senator Joe Biden Will Not Vote To Cut Funding For Iraq Occupation

"If I had my way, we'd just develop an impenetrable forcefield bubble and laser eyes for each and every troop, and then we would be able to kill with impunity without losing the lives of a single American Invader -- er, I mean, Soldier. These other Democratic candidates simply aren't willing to PAY for the laser eyes, and the invisibility cloaks, and the bullet-proof bubbles and the forcefields. They want to "bring our troops home," Tim -- as though they'll be safe here! These other Democrats want our troops to be blown up and hurt and killed -- but I have more integrity than that, Tim. I'm EVEN willing to lose an election, if it means our kids can stay over there longer and be blown up repeatedly without dying. THAT'S leadership, Tim."

"Freddie the Stud," OR, "Thanks, Viagra!"

2007-09-09T13:26:00.000-05:00

—ungeziefer

The Pinky Show presents: The Iraq War: Legal or Illegal?

2007-09-08T19:27:00.000-05:00

There's nothing here everyone doesn't already know -- but this style/format is HILARIOUS. For some reason I can't stop watching... And giggling. (And then crying a bit, and then giggling some more...)

—ungeziefer

The Surge Is Working! Long Live The Surge!

2007-09-08T16:35:00.000-05:00

The results are in! "Operation Enduring Occupation" (TM) is a Success!

[ source ]

As you can see from these charts, the heroic sacrifices of our brave troops continue to increase. At first glance, this might give one the impression that the Surge (TM) has lead to more casualties. Indeed, it is misleading charts such as these that give aid and comfort to our enemies. O.K., sure, troop deaths have increased dramatically in every single month compared with last year. But any idiot could have expected that. The Surge involved sending in another 30,000 troops; if even a small percentage of those get killed, it's going to skew the results. I mean, that's just basic math, people.

And look at those numbers for September! Yes! -- (I think we all know what those anti-war types are going to say: "It's only the 8th of the month," and "blah blah blah." These traitors want us to lose -- it's as simple as that; and they wouldn't recognize success if it walked up and shot them in the face.)

But, now, what about the Iraqis?

The answer to that is: it depends on how you do the numbers.

The best news here is that about 4 million Iraqis are safe and sound in other countries. The less people we have to provide security for, the better. So, that's going to help a lot.

Now, as to the violence figures:

First off, most of the violence is good -- e.g., us killing terrorists, the Iraqi police and military killing terrorists, Shia forces killing other more extreme Shia forces, Sunni insurgents (formerly "terrorists") killing Al Qaeda members rather than us, etc.

In addition, if for example a car suddenly explodes, we could classify that as a "traffic incident," or "spontaneous automotive combustion"; even if we were clairvoyant and could definitely assert that this explosion was deliberate, the exact cause, motive, and target is so difficult to determine that it's really a moot point, and not worth classifying -- lest our numbers be thereby rendered unreliable.

Another problem is, as countless news reports have observed, much of the Death-Squad-type violence has been carried out by people "wearing police [or Iraqi Military] uniforms." With these costumes, it's virtually impossible to know who these people are, or who exactly they have tortured and executed and why. If these WERE in fact the Iraqi forces, killing the terrorists, then this would be classified as an increase in security. If, on the other hand, these were rogue elements within the Iraqi forces, loyal to Al Sadr or to one of a number of local tribes, then this could be considered a net increase in violence -- depending on who they kill.

Now, if someone is shot, say, protecting his family from a criminal gang, whatever the motive, we might classify this as an "increase in household security measures," or a "vibrant expression of Second-Amendment Rights" and thus signs of a burgeoning new democracy. (I'm not sure what amendment it would be in Iraq -- probably the First Amendment, actually. Who knows... Of course, pre-invasion each household was already allowed one Kalashnikov -- but that was under a dictatorship, so I'm assuming that now-a-days their freedoms have greatly increased, and each household is allowed three or four AKs, + two rocket launchers and one crate of RPGs. [I sure HOPE so, anyway -- I'd hate to see a REDUCTION in Iraqis' freedoms after all this...])

It's also crucial to note (though the Liberal Media seldom bothers) that the vast majority of terrorists we're fighting in Iraq are from IRAN, the Great Satan -- and it's vital that we kill each and every one of these foreign intruders in Iraq, no matter what it takes. We cannot allow another nation to interfere in the territorial sovereignty of Iraq. Furthermore, if considered in the proper context, we're not really "losing" in Iraq so much as we're getting a head start at winning the war with Iran.

In any event, the common sense view, here, is that all suicide bombing will ultimately result in a net decrease in terrorism; since each terrorist who blows himself up is one less terrorist that we must find, capture, interrogate, torture, detain indefinitely and/or kill. They're really doing our work for us, and they don't even know it. I say we let them.

I don't want to paint too rosy of a picture, here, though. This is certain to be a Long Struggle, regardless of what September brings. Keep in mind that the terrorists attack countries because they hate those countries' freedoms. We are nearing completion of successful mission to liberate Iraq; once Iraq becomes a sovereign and free country, it will surely be the terrorists' next target. Thus, once our mission is over, it will begin again.

But that's pessimistic talk -- akin to the self-serving political rhetoric of the Gloom-And-Doom Cut-And-Run Defeatocrats, such as the Communists at this Unamerican website.

These lying fools will NEVER admit that we're winning -- no matter what happens on the ground.

While it's important to illustrate the difficulties, mainly with book-keeping -- as I have done here -- it's also crucial to remind the American People (who don't have the head for numbers like some of us, nor the patience, nor the will to power -- let's face it, they're all pretty much idiots and cowards who have betrayed our Homeland and our Leader... But I digress...) It's crucial to remind these Flip Floppers that victory IS possible -- indeed, that we SHALL BE victorious. I, for one, am an optimist -- and I believe in this country, unlike some people, who seem to selfishly care about nothing except the lives of their own children.

It's like the President said in many a speech -- to thunderous applause -- prior to the U.S. invasion:

"Once we invade, it's going to be important to Stay The Course, to maintain a large occupying army, for many years, rather than cutting and running. We will need to build 15 or so permanent military bases in Iraq. The costs in lives and treasury -- not to mention to our global reputation -- will be severe. It might very well bankrupt our treasury -- so we're going to have to raise your taxes to pay for it, I'm sorry 'bout that. But it's worth it: for this is the Central Front in the War On Terror; and, if we lose, we're going to leave a power vacuum in the middle of this extremely volatile region -- which will be filled by Al Qaeda and/or Iran. If we go in there, it's gonna be tough; it's gonna be a long struggle; and if we lose, the terrorists are gonna follow us home, and kill your families. The terrorists will have their own country -- a central base of operations from which to plan horrendous attacks against us and our allies, unless we are 100% successful. This invasion is going to put us and the world at risk -- unless we win. And we SHALL win. This is going to be a winnable war -- and we are going to be victorious! (If we're not, well, civilization as we know it will end.)

Thank you, and God Bless Me, and also my country: 'MERICA!"

Some people seem to have short memories, and claim this isn't what happened. I'm sorry, but this isn't the Soviet Union; and you CAN'T JUST REVISE HISTORY.

The folks at "Democracy Arsenal" have a good summary of what does and does not count as "violence" :

"

So to recap. The violence numbers do not include: 1) Sunni on Sunni violence. 2) Shi'a on Shi'a violence 3) Car bombs 4) Getting shot in the front of the head.

But violence is down. Trust me.

"

I'm confident that, under the President's Leadership and that of the wise and forthright General Petraeus, and with the additions of just a few more categories to that list, we shall bring violence down to an acceptable level by Christmas. If not Christmas 2007, then DEFINITELY by Christmas 2008.

-- ungeziefer

Keith Olbermann puts the smack down...

2007-09-05T20:05:00.000-05:00

I sometimes have mixed feelings about Olbermann (except for the "Worst Person In The World" bit -- which I always love). But here, I admire his passion and his guts.

If there truly were a "Liberal Media," this is pretty much what every newscaster in the country would be saying on a daily basis :

—ungeziefer

Sparring with Snow

2007-09-04T11:20:00.000-05:00

"
Announcing Tony Snow's resignation a few minutes ago, George W. Bush told the White House press corps that it's been "a joy to watch him spar with you."

We'll agree with the president on that one.

June 15, 2006: Asked if the White House has any comment on the 2,500th U.S. fatality in Iraq, Snow says: "It's a number, and every time there's one of these 500 benchmarks people want something."

Sept. 9, 2006: Six days after the president says, "We will stay the course" in Iraq, Snow says, "The idea that somehow we're staying the course is just wrong. It is absolutely wrong."

Feb. 15, 2007: Snow on what went wrong in prewar planning for Iraq: "I'm not sure anything went wrong."

March 1, 2007: Snow responds to reports that two U.S. combat brigades will "surge" into Iraq without undergoing the usual counterinsurgency training in California's Mojave Desert first: "Well, but they can get desert training elsewhere, like in Iraq."

March 19, 2007: Snow tells reporters that the Democrats' plan for Iraq represents a "recipe for defeat." When CNN's Ed Henry asks Snow to describe the White House's "recipe for success," Snow asks Henry what his "recipe for success is." When Henry says that winning the war in Iraq isn't exactly in his job description, Snow tells him to "Zip it."

June 14, 2007: Asked if any member of the Bush family is serving in the war on terrorism, Snow responds: "Yes, the president. The president is in the war every day." Reporter: "On the front lines, wherever?" Snow: "The president."

-- Tim Grieve -- Salon.com
"

Classic. I have no doubt that there are hundreds of others that could be added to this list -- but why even bother? (It's sort of like compiling all the stupid shit that Bush says, or his "malapropisms" : after a while it's just like, what's the point anymore?

Sweet Jesus I Fucking Hate Sean Hannity, part 2

2007-08-27T22:07:00.000-05:00

Media Matters - Hannity refused to disavow Ted Nugent's slurs against Obama and Clinton

This dumb bastard keeps repeating the exact same bullshit talking points every single night. He never actually asks questions -- just gives predictable long-winded one-sided nonsensical rants and then at the very end tries to twist said rant into some semblance of a question -- and THEN, if the guest takes more than five words in attempt to answer the blathering mad hatter rant of a question, Sean of course cuts them off and says "clearly you can't answer a simple question"... And then he goes into another rant, disguised as a question, and if the guest tries to answer his previous question he interrupts them and then accuses THEM of interrupting HIM! And so it goes.

Anyway.

Again, if Sean doesn't know that air raids kills civilians, he is literally too stupid to be on TV and should be fired immediately and returned to the eighth grade. Better yet, he should really just sign up for military service right now -- I don't think he's too old, they'd probably take him. If he's too cowardly to do that, then I suggest he go to Afghanistan for just a month or two, follow the bombs and see to what extent they discriminate between militants and civilians.

(Hopefully for all of us, he will not return.

Oh no! Did I offend you, Sean? Maybe instead I should just call you a "piece of shit" and yell at you to suck on my assault rifle? Or joke about raping you with said assault rifle? Is that better?)

Or, if Sean's really not all that committed to the War On Terror -- that Great War For Civilization As We Know It -- then he could just, oh, read a paper, maybe :

"What causes the documented high level of civilian casualties -- 3,000 - 3,400 [October 7, 2001 thru March 2002] civilian deaths -- in the U.S. air war upon Afghanistan? The explanation is the apparent willingness of U.S. military strategists to fire missiles into and drop bombs upon, heavily populated areas of Afghanistan."

A Dossier on Civilian Victims of United States' Aerial Bombing of Afghanistan:

"The number of Afghan civilians killed by US bombs has surpassed the death toll of the 11 September attacks, according to a study by an American academic. Nearly 3,800 Afghans died between 7 October and 7 December, University of New Hampshire Professor Marc Herold said in a research report." -- 3 January, 2002

BBC: Afghanistan's civilian deaths mount

"
On Saturday, Karzai accused NATO and U.S.-led troops of carelessly killing scores of Afghan civilians and warned that the fight against resurgent Taliban militants could fail unless foreign forces show more restraint.

"Afghan life is not cheap and it should not be treated as such," Karzai said angrily.

The mounting toll is sapping the authority of the Western-backed Afghan president, who has pleaded repeatedly with U.S. and NATO commanders to consult Afghan authorities during operations and show more restraint.

Karzai also denounced the Taliban for killing civilians, but directed most of his anger at foreign forces.

In one of the recent incidents lamented by Karzai, police said NATO airstrikes killed 25 civilians along with 20 militants who fired on alliance and Afghan troops from a walled compound in the southern province of Helmand.
"

USA Today: Afghan civilians reportedly killed more by U.S., NATO than insurgents

Civilian Casualties........

Does Sean even give a shit about how many civilians we've killed? He must -- he's a good Christian boy, right? Ha. I spit in his fake Christian face. Just another arrogant lying hypocritic of the Reich. What an absolutely evil rancid sack of bile Hannity is.

The embassy P.R. tour

2007-08-26T11:18:00.000-05:00

Hear a General, Hug a Sheik: Congress Visits Iraq - New York Times

So members of Congress get to see the "Tactical Momentum" first hand, in highly choreographed Green Zone tours. Not a surprise.

And that some are buying it -- well, perhaps also not a surprise.

But this is almost as surreal as John McCain's "stroll through the marketplace" :

"
The Pentagon is pleased and a senior White House official called the trips “a net plus.” And at least one Democrat, Representative Brian Baird of Washington, an early opponent of the war, has changed his mind.

Mr. Baird was especially struck by his trip to Yusufiya, a farm town about 15 miles south of Baghdad in an area long dominated by Sunni insurgents. He met the mayor, visited a market and chatted with two sheiks, a Sunni and a Shiite, who “embraced us in front of everybody out on the street,” he said.

“That’s real progress,” Mr. Baird said, though he confessed he did not tell his wife about the region’s nickname, the triangle of death, and said the whole scene was a little surreal. “You have your flak jacket on, and your Kevlar helmet and you’re surrounded by guys with automatic weapons as you’re standing there, talking to the mayor. And you realize there’s a dusty old car next to you and you’re saying, ‘God, I hope that doesn’t blow up.’ ”

The Congressional Iraq tours rarely include chats with ordinary Iraqis. “You don’t have the mobility for that,” Mr. Kingston said. And Iraqis are a tad suspicious of the marketplace scenes. When faced with an American in a business suit and a flak jacket, they tend to react warily, unsure of who the visitor might be, or what role he plays in Iraq policy.

Iraqi officials view the Congressional visits — quick in-and-out trips — with a blend of appreciation and scorn. Most wish the Americans would stay longer.

"

Now I don't know about you, but I call that Real Progess (TM)!

TruthDig has a good little op-ed on this. And be sure to read that NY Times Op-Ed piece -- it really is excellent.

The Man on the Daily Show

2007-08-24T01:26:00.000-05:00

Crooks and Liars � Senator Barack Obama on The Daily Show

What can you say? He's honest. He's self-assured but thoughtful. He doesn't take the bait and attack his opponents.

O.K., sure: Kucinich has a hot wife:

(Who's also extremely brilliant and thoughtful and compassionate, and melts you with her British accent.

Interesting the media doesn't take note of her at all...

I know this is insignificant -- but, come on! Seriously! She could be a super-model! You're telling me that a media obsessed with Brittany Spears, J-Lo, Paris Hilton, Lindsey Lohan, Nicole Richie, etc. etc. etc., can't find a hot story here? A media who thinks the fact that Hillary Clinton has breasts is NEWS? Please explain this to me????!!!!

Guess you have to be a fat bald dirty old dog-faced 'Good Ol Boy' like Fred Thompson

before the guys'll start droolin over your manly scent and talking about your multiple and young-enough-to-be-your-daughter wives as an ASSET to your campaign...

Real reporting from Falluja

2007-08-23T20:27:00.000-05:00

ColdType - Writing Worth Reading From Around The World

I realize, of course, that this is all "ancient history" -- why should we possibly care about something that happened, like, more than a YEAR ago, right?! (Unless, of course, the atrocities are committed by our official "enemies" -- in which case, we must never forget...)

Well, anyway, if you actually give a shit, these are an excellent (if thoroughly depressing and disturbing) read, which I highly recommend.

Professional liars? Or just too lazy to read three sentences?

2007-08-23T09:36:00.000-05:00

Media Matters - CBS' Storm, Schieffer cropped Michelle Obama quote, claimed "it may be up to the wives to criticize" Clinton

O.K. Here is what Michelle Obama said:

"
MICHELLE OBAMA: That one of the most important things that we need to know about the next President of the United States is, is he somebody that shares our values? Is he somebody that respects family? Is a good and decent person? So our view was that, if you can't run your own house, you certainly can't run the White House. So, so we've adjusted our schedules to make sure that our girls are first, so while he's traveling around, I do day trips. That means I get up in the morning, I get the girls ready, I get them off, I go and do trips, I'm home before bedtime. So the girls know that I was gone somewhere, but they don't care. They just know that I was at home to tuck them in at night, and it keeps them grounded, and, and children, the children in our country have to know that they come first. And our girls do and that's why we're doing this. We're in this race for not just our children, but all of our children.
"

I know what you're thinking -- she SOUNDS like she's talking about her own family -- but don't be naive: clearly there's some dark and sinister subtext, here. ... Did you figure it out? No?

Never fear! The Liberal Media is here!

When I heard "is HE somebody that shares our values? Is HE somebody that respects family ..." I couldn't help wondering: just what man is she referring to? Hmm -- is she REALLY talking about her husband? Highly unlikely. ... Must be Rudy Guliani, I'm thinking. That makes sense, I guess -- three wives, estranged from his kids, second wife found out about the divorce from a press conference, etc....

And what's all this "WE" stuff -- "OUR children?" What? Do they even HAVE children? Just what is she trying to subliminally SAY, here??

Thank the Lord for the investigative journalists -- they figured it out! It was a subliminal dig at Hillary! Ooh -- cat fight! Look at the claws on these bitches!

It all makes sense now! Way to go, "journalists"!!

Blast Off!: Progressivism is not dead! (But it's on life support ...)

2007-08-16T02:17:00.000-05:00

Blast Off!: Progressivism is not dead! (But it's on life support ...)

Disturbing, but not really surprising.

Sweet Jesus, I fucking hate Sean Hannity

2007-08-15T22:10:00.000-05:00

Media Matters - Hannity repeatedly mischaracterized Obama remarks, accused him of "political missteps"

Oooohh!! Apparently it's a "Big Controversy" that air raids kill civilians, and that we don't have enough troops in Afghanistan. Wow! Breaking news! He sure put his foot in his mouth there! EVERYBODY knows that bombs ONLY kill terrorists! That's how we DESIGNED them! These are SMART bombs -- if they see a civilian, they choose NOT TO EXPLODE -- that's just common sense. It's those NASTY MOOSLEMS that are doin all the killin -- EVERYBODY knows THAT! How can this Barak Hussein Osama Mustafa be so NAIVE AND IRRESPONSIBLE??!!

(I guess Obama will just have to have 8 kids and send them on a bus or a Winnebago in support of his campaign [and thereby, naturally, "supporting Our Troops"TM])

Remember 9/11? That was MINE!!

2007-08-10T19:52:00.000-05:00

village voice > news > Rudy's Five Big Lies About 9/11 by Wayne Barrett
with special research assistance by Alexandra Kahan

I've never quite understood why anyone would want to keep reminding us about the most pathetic intelligence failure in the history of this country. But, apparently, it works.

"September the 11th -- Apply directly to the forehead! September the 11th -- Apply directly to the forehead! September the 11th -- Apply directly to the forehead!"

But I have a feeling that, especially with the NY firefighters as outspoken as they are against Guiliani, it might not fly this time.

"
Giuliani even went so far, in his 2004 testimony before the 9/11 Commission, to claim that if he'd been told about the presidential daily briefing headlined "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the U.S.," which mentioned New York three times, "I can't honestly tell you we would have done anything differently." Pressed about whether the city would have benefited from knowing about a spike in warnings so vivid that the CIA director's "hair was on fire," Giuliani just shrugged.
"

Obama in context

2007-08-08T20:41:00.000-05:00

Saw a clip on several news stations of Obama "backtracking" and sounding faltering and eating his words about Iraq vs. Pakistan, etc. Did you see it? What a JOKE that Obama is, huh?

Unless you watched the debate (I did not), I'm guessing you saw the same tiny little clip taken out of context as I did.

Well, here's the whole segment:

Interesting, isn't it.

(If you listen closely, you can easily hear the audience voicing their shame and disgust with Obama's cowardly flip-flopping mushy-mouthed words, and their love and support for Hillary.)

There is absolutely no way this lousy editing was anything except deliberate -- and as far as I'm concerned, isolating that 5-second clip is exactly the same as lying. (Maybe not libel, but close.)

Ah, the "Liberal Media"...

Here's a suggestion for all you Obama-bashing bastards: Ask this question to all the candidates (of both parties): "If you had actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets holed up in those mountains [between Afghanistan and Pakistan] who murdered 3,000 Americans and who are plotting to strike again, and President Musharraf would not act, would you?"

I would like them all to go on record as saying, "No, absolutely not. That is naive and irresponsible. ... And furthermore, if I DID do anything, I want to assure you that I would be willing to use nuclear weapons, even in a first strike against a nuclear country, regardless of whether that action violates the NPT and could well lead to WWIII if not Armaggedon itself. Now THAT'S what a responsible leader would do."

That is what I would like to see.

And then I would like these media liars (who clearly have learned next to nothing from their complete and utter failure in the lead-up to Iraq) to stop repeating White House propaganda about Iran, and to at least acknowledge what our own military on the group are reporting in Iraq: there is no evidence that the government of Iran is aiding the insurgency in Iraq; Iran is helping to STABILIZE Afghanistan, whose president said as much publicly); the democratic freedom-loving government in Iraq who love so much continues to establish closer relations with Iran; meanwhile the vast majority of the "foreign fighters" in Iraq are from SAUDI ARABIA -- with whom we have just agreed to provide another $20 Billion in armaments.

Does anyone even care that "President" Musharraf is not an elected official, but rather a dictator who took power as a general in a military coup? Guess not. (In order to qualify as a "dictator" in the U.S. media, apparently you have to have the support of around 60% of your population, like Chavez.) Does anyone care that the Pakistani ISI supported the Taliban in the first place and helped bring them to power? Nah -- that's ancient history. And anyway that's WAY back then, when we were on the terrorists' side...

Having said all this, I DO think that destabilizing Pakistan would be a bad idea. But military action there, or in Saudi Arabia, or any number of other countries I could name, at least makes some sense -- the OPPOSITE is true of Iraq or Iran.

(But, you know, that's only if you actually believe this government gives a shit about stopping terrorism.)

—ungeziefer

Gore Vidal on TheRealNews

2007-08-07T21:47:00.000-05:00

—ungeziefer

Yay! It's not illegal anymore!

2007-08-06T09:00:00.000-05:00

Bush Signs Law to Widen Legal Reach for Wiretapping - New York Times:

"
... the new law for the first time provided a legal framework for much of the surveillance without warrants that was being conducted in secret by the National Security Agency and outside the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the 1978 law that is supposed to regulate the way the government can listen to the private communications of American citizens.

“This more or less legalizes the N.S.A. program,” said Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies in Washington, who has studied the new legislation.

Previously, the government needed search warrants approved by a special intelligence court to eavesdrop on telephone conversations, e-mail messages and other electronic communications between individuals inside the United States and people overseas, if the government conducted the surveillance inside the United States.

. . . . . . . .

"The new law gives the attorney general and the director of national intelligence the power to approve the international surveillance, rather than the special intelligence court. The court’s only role will be to review and approve the procedures used by the government in the surveillance after it has been conducted. It will not scrutinize the cases of the individuals being monitored.
"

Hats off to Congress for keeping us safe from privacy. Well done, indeed, lads!

I hope that's the way things work from now on: if a court rules something illegal, just change the law. It's so simple -- I wish I'd thought of it!

Most importantly, placing more of our trust in Torture Tzar Alberto Gonzales -- a fine, upstanding, honest and competent young man from the great state of Texas. We love you, Al! *girlish screams*

the sterile futility of green pork

2007-08-05T12:05:00.000-05:00

Energy Bill Adopted by House Requires Utilities to Use Renewable Power Sources - New York Times

Reason #12,683 why I hate Republicans.

"
WASHINGTON, Aug. 4 — The House passed a wide-ranging energy bill on Saturday that will require most utilities to produce 15 percent of their electricity from renewable sources like wind and solar power. President Bush has vowed to veto the bill because it does nothing to encourage increased domestic production of oil and gas.
"

Ummm ... that's the point, dumb-ass. Those are not "renewable" or "clean."

"The bill allots money for the development of alternative fuels and for increased efficiency of appliances and buildings. It is also meant to spur research on methods to capture the carbon dioxide emissions that scientists say are largely responsible for global warming.

The House also passed a bill to repeal roughly $16 billion in tax breaks for the oil industry enacted in 2005. Some of the money would be used to pay for the research grants and renewable-fuel projects in the energy bill.
........
"

I just gotta say, here, to all the cynics who hate both parties and won't bother to support the Democrats because "there's no difference between the two parties," etc. blah blah blah: you're full of shit. The Dems have done a lot already, in a very short time, even with a tiny majority and a dick-head president who threatens to veto anything substantial. And this bill illustrates the point perfectly: Republicans = billions in tax cuts for oil companies even as they are exceeding their own profit records; Democrats = repealing said tax breaks and funding alternative energy.

When I recall Nader's remark in 2000 about how there wasn't a "dime's worth of difference" between Bush and Gore, I think he still needs to publicly apologize for that asinine crap. It's truly hard to imagine how different these past 6 years would have been, had Bush been sent back to Crawford instead of installed by his cronies on the Supreme Court.

"
The White House expressed its opposition to the Democratic energy bills, saying they did not meet their stated goals of reducing oil imports, strengthening national security, lowering energy prices and beginning to address global warming. The White House also said the tax bill unfairly singled out the oil industry.
"

Ah! It's that "Compassionate Conservatism!" He really does have a heart -- look how bad he feels for the poor little oil companies, everyone's picking on them, god it makes me want to weep, the depth of his compassion...

How can Bush -- after saying we're "addicted to oil" in his State of the Union speech -- turn around and claim that reducing our dependence on foreign oil and funding alternative energies (which, presumably, will reduce our dependence on foreign oil) is a bad thing and wouldn't help national security or begin to address global warming? ... Oh yeah, I forgot, whatever Bush says is usually the exact opposite of what is true. You're right: I'm looking for reason and logic where there is none. (Anyway, "Global Warming" is a myth invented by Al Gore, isn't it? (In cahoots with thousands of so-called "scientists.") So why should Congress do anything about it?)

"
Republican opponents of the measure echoed the White House position, saying that the package provided no new supplies of energy, would drive up fuel prices and provide billions in what they called “green pork” to support Democrats’ pet environmental projects.
. . . . . . . .
“This is really an exercise in sterile futility,” Mr. Barton said, referring to the president’s veto threat, “because this bill isn’t going anywhere.”
"

First of all, all he's saying here is that Bush is a jackass; and if the Republicans got behind the measure, they could override a veto, so maybe he should consider convincing his fellow-Republicans to stop obstructing it, hmmm?? And I don't wanna hear one GODDAM word from any fucking Republican about gas prices. EVER. You know what drives up gas prices? Corporate greed, excess profits, and excess consumption (wars in the Middle East don't help, either); and by their own Free Market Utopian logic, 1.) the oil companies should never get subsidies, and 2.) reduced demand will drive prices DOWN. They seem also to ignore the fact that solar and wind energy captures energy that's now essentially being wasted, and is practically self-sustaining; how in the world can they say that would not "create" new energy??? Furthermore, every time there's a bill that would increase CAFE standards, the bloody Republicans oppose it.

Personally, I think this bill is weak. 2020? Are you kidding me? What's the hold up? If we spent HALF of the time/energy/money as we spent on the mindless slaughter in Iraq, we could do this in three years.

And what ABOUT those CAFE standards? Why was that left out? And what about further incentives for Hybrids and electric cars? Why is there still a bloody waiting list for a Prius?

I don't get it.

Fuck it: I'm with Barack all the way

2007-08-03T00:32:00.000-05:00

(And, yes, Hillary's been pissing me off, and I do think she would end up being "Bush Light.")

What about Kucinich? What about Gravel? What about Edwards?

Oh, you mean aside from their baggage and the media's conspiracy against them?

I'm too cynical at this point. The system is rigged, and the underdog is fucked. We need to just be glad that someone who would usually be the underdog is actually one of the two front-runners, and put all our weight behind that person.

I realize it's an underwhelming, mundane and conventional decision: be that as it may: I say "Obama '08!" (both as an endorsement, and a prediction).

Lastly (on the 'Obama vs. Hillary' bit): Robert Scheer (as always) brings things back to reality on 'Left, Right & Center' :

Tony Blankley: "Hillary has no experience..." (mp3, 1.1MB)

—ungeziefer

Yet another documentary on the Iraq War...

2007-07-21T14:33:00.000-05:00

No End In Sight | Charles Ferguson | Representational Pictures

Elect Susie Flynn for President

2007-07-14T15:16:00.000-05:00

"How come the money that can’t be found to insure all children this year
can be found every 2 months for the Iraq war?"

Our rotted press corps, a division of "Camp Victory"

2007-07-01T12:26:00.000-05:00

Glenn Greenwald

"
On June 22, the BBC -- under the headline: "'Al-Qaeda gunmen' killed in Iraq" -- reported, along with virtually every major American media outlet, the following claim, without any challenge or questioning:

US helicopters have killed 17 gunmen with suspected al-Qaeda links in Iraq's Diyala province north of Baghdad, the US military says.

But unlike the American media outlets which mindlessly reported these "Al Qaeda kills," the BBC at least followed up on this story and found that there are substantial grounds, to put it mildly, for believing those claims were false. In a follow-up article -- prompted by protests from residents of the village where the "Al Qaeda kills" occurred -- the BBC reported:
A group of villagers in Iraq is bitterly disputing the US account of a deadly air attack on 22 June, in the latest example of the confusion surrounding the reporting of combat incidents there. . .

On 22 June the US military announced that its attack helicopters, armed with missiles, engaged and killed 17 al-Qaeda gunmen who had been trying to infiltrate the village of al-Khalis, north of Baquba, where operation "Arrowhead Ripper" had been under way for the previous three days.

The item was duly carried by international news agencies and received widespread coverage, including on the BBC News website.

But villagers in largely-Shia al-Khalis say that those who died had nothing to do with al-Qaeda. They say they were local village guards trying to protect the township from exactly the kind of attack by insurgents the US military says it foiled.

Minutes before the attack, they had been co-operating with an Iraqi police unit raiding a suspected insurgent hideout, the villagers said.
They added that the guards, lightly armed with the AK47 assault rifles that are a feature of practically every home in Iraq, were essentially a local neighbourhood watch paid by the village to monitor the dangerous insurgent-ridden area to the immediate south-west at Arab Shawkeh and Hibhib, where the al-Qaeda leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was killed a year ago.

According to local witnesses, then -- none of whom were interviewed by the media outlets obediently reciting the U.S. military's dramatic narrative about "17 Al Qaeda fighters killed" -- those who were killed by the U.S. strikes had absolutely nothing to do with "Al Qaeda," but instead were guarding their own villages against the very Sunni insurgents whom we now call "Al Qaeda."

........

Indeed, the only time our media outlets question what the military says is when there are angry witnesses disputing the military's version, as demonstrated by this NYT article this morning, detailing how the U.S. military's killing of what it claimed was four "Taliban fighters" actually resulted in the death only of "Haji Muhammada Jan, who was about 80 years old . . . and two of his sons and a grandson," none of whom had anything to do with the Taliban.

None of this is complicated, and other than a deliberate desire to disseminate Bush administration propaganda about the war, it really is virtually impossible to understand why our media's "reports" about the war blindly assume, time and again, that whatever the U.S. government or military says can simply be converted without investigation or skepticism into what they report as "news." Over and over, such statements prove to be completely false, and yet the media never even minimally raises the level of skepticism to which it subjects these claims.

........
"

"SPIN: The Art of Selling War"

2007-06-30T13:00:00.000-05:00

Directed by Josh Rushing, a veteran Marine Corps media spokesman, "SPIN: The Art of Selling War" is an investigative documentary that looks at the standard justification for going to war by the American administrations of past and present.

(Rushing, who was sort of the 'main character' of the documentary "Control Room", experienced a transformation of sorts since the Iraq war. He now works for Al Jazeera International. Amy Goodman interviewed him recently on DemocracyNow!.)

—ungeziefer

Ah, the mind of a Michael Savage listener...

2007-06-21T18:58:00.000-05:00

From the Stephanie Miller Show, a Michael Savage listener and Freeper-type lunatic calls in to CSPAN...

(I want to see the video of this -- because there's NO WAY he could read that whole thing with a straight face.)

Yes, these people really do exist.

{ longer clip of the segment here }

—ungeziefer

"Foreign Fighters" : Liebermann vs. Iran

2007-06-20T22:39:00.000-05:00

audio (Sam Seder show

What can you say -- it's truly sad when "Charlie in Austin Texas" knows more about Islam and about the nations we're trying to take over than our "distinguished" senators. (Mind you, I'm giving Lieberman the benefit of the doubt here: if he's not ignorant, then he's just a bald-faced liar and a conscious warmonger.)

Those "foreigners" in Iran! Always trying to interfere with stuff that's none of their business -- like, for example, the countries bordering them. Hey, Iran: GET OFF OUR TURF!

Now, at the risk of stating the obvious, the government that was elected in Iraq (which we helped put in power, and now consider our allies and are supporting against an insurgency) are Shia, and are ALLIED with Iran. This was predictable (and indeed predicted) before the elections.

Iraqi Shiite with ties to Iran gains top billing (December 16, 2004)

On the eve of his meeting with Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamanei – a rare honor for a visiting dignitary – Prime Minister Maliki called the Islamic Republic of Iran “a good friend and brother.”

Al Maliki and al-Jaafari have long belonged to the Islamic Dawa and/or SCIRI parties, both with mutual support from Iran. SCIRI is also the largest party in the Iraqi Council of Representatives. SCIRI ("Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq) was founded and based in Iran; and both Al Maliki and al-Jaafari lived in exile in Iran for many years.

(Iran? What?? What do THEY know about Iraq? Oh, that's right! Several million Iraqi exiles live there! Why did all those Iraqis flee to Iran, anyway? Oh yeah! Because they were brutally repressed and slaughtered by Saddam first when we supported our boy in Bahghdad in his war against Iran, and then after trying to overthrow Saddam, at our behest, in 1991! Oops, forgot about that.... But, that's neither here nor there.)

The insurgents who are blowing themselves up and attacking U.S. and "Iraqi Forces" are mostly Sunni extremists who hate the Shia and nationalists who hate the occupation of their country. (There are also large numbers of Shias who resent all these exiles coming back and taking over the country after living safely abroad all these years [what we might call "carpet-baggers"] -- but that's another story.) The very notion that Iran would be aiding the insurgents is so preposterous that it doesn't actually warrant comment.

But alas, facts and history don't matter: we're the U.S. of Motherfuckin A, come across the Atlantic to put ya'll foreigners in your place! You so-called "Iraqi neighbors" better mind your own fuckin bizness and stay out of our country -- I mean to say, um, er, the Iraqis' country...)

Where did all this Iran rubbish COME from, anyway? First it was "We've gotta get rid of Al Qaeda -- let's attack the one nation in the region that has no established ties with them!" There, got rid of one of Bin Laden's sworn enemies, Saddam Hussein -- who had proceeded to replace Bin Laden as the greatest threat to mankind since Hitler, of course. Now what? Who's next in the Enemy Of The Month Club? I know! Better attack the nation in which Saddam was more despised than in any other (with the possible exception of Kuwait -- although I think Iran would indeed win the "hatred of Saddam" contest). The country that fought against Saddam for almost 10 years. You know, the country that's strongly allied with the current government that we helped establish in Iraq! Yeah! That sounds reasonable!

If Iran is supporting any militias in Iraq, it would be the Shia death squads who go around "in police uniforms" (cause, you know, we can't come out and say that they ARE THE BLOODY POLICE), round up suspected insurgents or other suspicious-looking Sunnis, torture them to death with electric drills and then drop the bodies in the Tigris or in a sewage ditch on the outskirts of Baghdad. That is to say, the same death squads that WE are supporting.

I just... I... Um... But... Wait, but... Isn't... Aren't..... They don't...... Uhhhhh... Hold on, uhh... You're not..... Ummmmmmmmmm............ THIS IS FUCKING INSANTIY!!

But, the, you know: black is white, and up is down, and we've always been at war with Eurasia. Which is indeed Doubleplusgood.

I swear to christ, when I listen to these lunatics like Lieberman, I can only conclude that one of us has literally lost his mind. I hope it's me, because I think people in positions of power should be somewhat sane.

—ungeziefer

Test

2007-05-28T01:11:00.000-05:00

Test post...

Recently (or not so recently, depending on your point of view) changed to a new host server, since which time none of my blogs have been functional. Nor have I had the time or inclination to post anything.

Today, my good friend (and future brother-in-law) .d. asked to post something on ye ol' Cadaver Politik blog, so I'm trying to fix this bitch up again. We shall see...

Crossing fingers, toes, and eyes...

—ungeziefer

The Anti-Empire Report - 12-17-06

2006-12-18T01:35:00.000-06:00

The Anti-Empire Report
Some things you need to know before the world ends
December 17, 2006
by William Blum

Designer monsters

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a man seemingly custom-made for the White House in its endless quest for enemies with whom to scare Congress, the American people, and the world, in order to justify the unseemly behavior of the empire. The Iranian president has declared that he wants to "wipe Israel off the map". He's said that "the Holocaust is a myth". He recently held a conference in Iran for "Holocaust deniers". And his government passed a new law requiring Jews to wear a yellow insignia, à la the Nazis. On top of all that, he's aiming to build nuclear bombs, one of which would surely be aimed at Israel. What right-thinking person would not be scared by such a man?

However, like with all such designer monsters made bigger than life during the Cold War and since by Washington, the truth about Ahmadinejad is a bit more complicated. According to people who know Farsi, the Iranian leader has never said anything about "wiping Israel off the map". In his October 29, 2005 speech, when he reportedly first made the remark, the word "map" does not even appear. According to the translation of Juan Cole, American professor of Modern Middle East and South Asian History, Ahmadinejad said that "the regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time." His remark, said Cole, "does not imply military action or killing anyone at all," which presumably is what would make the remark threatening.[1] Readers are advised that the next time they come across such an Ahmadinejad citation to note whether a complete sentence is being quoted, and not just "wipe Israel off the map".

At the conference in Teheran ("Review of the Holocaust: Global Vision"), the Iranian president said: "The Zionist regime will be wiped out soon, the same way the Soviet Union was, and humanity will achieve freedom."[2] Obviously, the man is not calling for any kind of violent attack upon Israel, for the dissolution of the Soviet Union did not occur through force or violence.

As for the Holocaust myth, I have yet to read or hear words from Ahmadinejad's mouth saying simply and clearly and unequivocally that he thinks that the Holocaust never happened. He has commented about the peculiarity of a Holocaust which took place in Europe resulting in a state for the Jews in the Middle East instead of in Europe. And he argues that Israel and the United States have exploited the memory of the Holocaust for their own imperialist purposes. He also wonders about the accuracy of the number of Jews -- six million -- killed in the Holocaust, as have many other people of all political stripes, including Holocaust survivors like author Primo Levi. (The much publicized World War One atrocities which turned out to be false made the public very skeptical of the Holocaust claims for a long time.)

The conference gave a platform to various points of view, including six members of Jews United Against Zionism, at least two of whom were rabbis. One was Ahron Cohen, from London, who declared: "There is no doubt what so ever, that during World War 2 there developed a terrible and catastrophic policy and action of genocide perpetrated by Nazi Germany against the Jewish People." He also said that "the Zionists make a great issue of the Holocaust in order to further their illegitimate philosophy and aims," indicating as well that the figure of six million Jewish victims is debatable. The other rabbi was Moshe David Weiss, who told the delegates: "We don't want to deny the killing of Jews in World War II, but Zionists have given much higher figures for how many people were killed. They have used the Holocaust as a device to justify their oppression." His group rejects the creation of Israel on the grounds that it violates Jewish religious law in that a Jewish state can't exist until the return of the Messiah .[3]

Clearly, the conference -- which the White House called "an affront to the entire civilized world"[4] -- was not set up to be simply a forum for people to deny that the Holocaust, to any significant degree, literally never took place at all. I think its safe to say that very few of the attendees held this position, which is so untenable.

As to the yellow star story of this past May -- that was a complete fabrication by a prominent Iranian-American neo-conservative, Amir Taheri. There are as well other egregious examples of Ahmadinejad's policies and words being twisted out of shape in the Western media, making him look like a danger to all that's holy and decent. Political science professor Virginia Tilley has written a good account of this. "Why is Mr. Ahmadinejad being so systematically misquoted and demonized?" Tilley asks. "Need we ask? If the world believes that Iran is preparing to attack Israel, then the US or Israel can claim justification in attacking Iran first. On that agenda, the disinformation campaign about Mr. Ahmadinejad's statements has been bonded at the hip to a second set of lies: promoting Iran's (nonexistent) nuclear weapon programme."[5]

Ahmadinejad, however, is partly to blame for this "disinformation". I heard him in an interview while he was at the UN in September being asked directly about "the map" and the reality of the Holocaust, and he refused to give explicit answers of "yes" or "no", which I interpret as his prideful refusal to accede to the wishes of what he regarded as a hostile Western interviewer asking hostile questions. In an interview with the German news magazine, Der Spiegel (May 31 2006), Ahmadinejad states: "We don't want to confirm or deny the Holocaust." The Iranian president is also in the habit of prefacing certain remarks with "Even if the Holocaust happened ... ", a rhetorical device we all use in argument and discussion.

It may already be too late. The conventional wisdom about what Ahmadinejad has said and meant may already be set in marble. Ban I Moon, at a news conference on December 14, after being sworn in as the new secretary-general of the United Nations, was asked by an Israeli reporter whether the United Nations was going to address the issue of Holocaust deniers. Ban replied: "Denying historical facts, especially on such an important subject as the Holocaust is just not acceptable. Nor is it acceptable to call for the elimination of any state or people."[6] Let's hope that this is not very indicative of the independence of mind that we can expect from the new secretary-general. Myths die so hard.

Time magazine has just foregone its usual selection of "Person of the Year" and instead chosen "You", the Internet user. Managing editor Richard Stengel said that if it came down to one individual it probably would have been Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, but that "It just felt to me a little off selecting him."[7] In previous years Time's "Person of the Year" has included Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler.

No one ever thinks they're guilty of anything. They're all just good ol' patriots.

General Augusto Pinochet, who escaped earthly justice on December 10, was detained in London in 1999 awaiting a ruling by a British court on whether he would be extradited to Spain on a Spanish judge's warrant to face charges of crimes against humanity committed during his rule in Chile from 1973 to 1990. "I tell you how I feel," he told a London journalist at the time. "I would like to be remembered as a man who served his country, who served Chile throughout his entire life on this earth. And what he did was always done thinking about the welfare of Chile."[8]

P.W. Botha, former president of South Africa died November 1. He was a man who had vigorously defended the apartheid system, which led to the jailing of tens of thousands of people. He never repented or apologized for his actions, and resisted attempts to make him appear before the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission. At one point he declared: "I am not going to repent. I am not going to ask for forgiveness. What I did, I did for my country."[9]

As Pol Pot lay on his death bed in 1997, he was interviewed by a journalist, who later wrote: "Asked whether he wants to apologize for the suffering he caused, he looks genuinely confused, has the interpreter repeat the question, and answers ‘No'. ... ‘I want you to know that everything I did, I did for my country'."[10]

"In these three decades I have been actuated solely by love and loyalty to my people in all my thoughts, acts, and life." Adolf Hitler, "Last Will and Testament", written in his bunker in his final hours, April 29, 1945.

Fast Forward now to 2036 ... George W. Bush lies dying, Fox News Channel is in the room recording his last words ... "I know that people think the whole thing ... that thing in Iraq ... was a bad thing, and they hold it against me ... I appreciate their view ... I can understand how they feel ... But y'know, I did it for America, and the American people, and their freedom ... The more you love freedom, the more likely it is you'll be attacked ... Saddam was a real threat ... I still think he had weapons of mass destruction ... and someday we'll find 'em ... someday we'll say mission accomplished! ... that will really be a turning point! ... So I'm prepared to meet my maker and whatever he has in mind for me ... in fact I say Bring it on!"

William Shirer, in his monumental work "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich", comments that Hitler's Last Will and Testament "confirm that the man who had ruled over Germany with an iron hand for more than twelve years, and over most of Europe for four, had learned nothing from his experience."[11]

Shirer tells us of another happening concerning Hitler's bunker, on April 12. When news of the death of President Franklin Roosevelt reached Nazi Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels, he phoned Hitler in the bunker. "My Fuehrer," Goebbels said. "I congratulate you! Roosevelt is dead! ... It is the turning point."[12]

The United States of Punishment

2.2 million imprisoned ... "We're Number One! USA! USA! USA!" ... 7 million -- one in every 32 American adults -- either behind bars, on probation, or on parole ... When it comes to sentencing, let me tell you, people, and pardon my language, the United States is one hell of a tough mother fucker ... beginning with mandatory minimum sentences ... there are tens of thousands of young men rotting their lives away in American prisons for simple possession of a drug, for their own use, for their own pleasure, to enjoy with a friend, no victims involved. Do you think a person should be in prison if he hasn't hurt anyone? Either physically, financially, or in some other real and serious manner? Jose Antonio Lopez, a legal permanent resident with a family and business in South Dakota, was deported back to Mexico a while ago because of a cocaine charge -- Sale? No. Use? No. Possession? No. ... He told someone where they could buy some.[13] Another man was sentenced to 55 years in prison for three marijuana deals because he was in possession of a gun each time, which he did not use or brandish. Possession of a firearm in a drug transaction requires a much stiffer prison sentence. Four former attorneys-general and 145 former prosecutors and judges wrote in support of a lighter sentence for this man. The presiding judge himself called the sentence "unjust, cruel and irrational", but said the law left him no choice.[14]

On December 1, a court in the Netherlands convicted four Dutch Muslims of plotting terrorist attacks against political leaders and government buildings. The heaviest sentence for any of them was eight years.[15] On December 13, a priest was convicted of taking part in Rwanda's 1994 genocide by ordering militiamen to set fire to a church and then bulldoze it while 2,000 people seeking safety were huddled inside. The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda sentenced him to 15 years in prison.[16] Considerably lighter sentences than in the United States are generally a common phenomenon in much of the world. In the US, the mere mention of the word "terrorist" in a courtroom will likely bring down 30, 40, 50 years, life in prison, on the defendant's head, even for only thinking and talking of an action, an Orwellian "thoughtcrime", with nothing concrete done to further the plan.

Colombian drug traffickers, British Muslims, and others accused of "terrorist" offenses strenuously fight extradition to the United States for fear of Uncle Sam's merciless fist. They're the lucky ones amongst Washington's foreign targets; they're not kidnapped off the street and flown shackled and blindfolded to secret dungeons in shadowy corners of the world to be tortured.

For those who think that no punishment is too severe, too cruel, in the War on Terrorism against the Bad Guys, it must be asked what they think of the case of the Cuban Five. These are five Cubans who were engaged in the United States in the 1990s trying to uncover information about anti-Castro terrorists based in Miami, some of whom shortly before had been carrying out a series of bombing attacks in Havana hotels and may have been plotting new attacks. The Five infiltrated Cuban-American organizations based in Miami to monitor their actions, and they informed the Cuban government of their findings. The Cuban government then passed on some of the information to the FBI. And what happened next? The FBI arrested the five Cubans.

The Cubans were held in solitary confinement for 17 months; eventually they were tried, and in 2001 convicted on a variety of charges thrown together by the government for the occasion, including murder (sic!) and conspiracy to commit espionage (probably the first case in American judicial history of alleged espionage without a single page from a single secret document). They were sentenced to prison terms ranging from 15 years to life. But the federal government's lust for punishment was still not satisfied. They have made it extremely difficult for their Cuban prisoners to receive family visits. Two of them have not seen their wives and children since their arrest in 1998; the other three have had only scarcely better luck.[17] Yet another glorious chapter in the War on Terrorism.

The making of official history

It was just a passing remark in an Associated Press story about the recent overthrow of the Fiji government. "It was the nation's fourth coup in 19 years," the article noted, the first being the 1987 coup. "The takeover, like the previous three coups, has its roots in the ethnic divide between the descendants of ancient Melanesian warrior tribes and those of Indian laborers brought by former colonial power Britain to work in sugar plantations."[18] That's how "official history" is created and passed on, all the more effective because it's unconscious, unknowing, voluntary, and done by "objective" journalists.

In 1987, Fiji Prime Minister Timoci Bavrada made Washington officials unhappy by identifying himself with the non-aligned movement (always a risk for a country during the Cold War), and even more so by taking office with a pledge to reinstate Fiji as a nuclear free zone, meaning that nuclear-powered or nuclear-weapons-carrying ships could not make port calls. When Bavrada's predecessor, R.S.K. Mara, instituted the same policy in 1982, he was put under intense American pressure to drop it. Said the US ambassador to Fiji that year, William Bodde, Jr., "a nuclear free zone would be unacceptable to the US, given our strategic needs ... the US must do everything possible to counter this movement." The following year, Mara dropped the policy.

Two weeks after Bavrada took office, American UN Ambassador Vernon Walters visited the island. The former Deputy Director of the CIA had a long and infamous history of showing up shortly before, during, or shortly after CIA destabilization operations. Walters met with Bavrada, ostensibly to discuss UN matters. He also met with Lt. Col. Sitiveni Rabuka, third-in-command of the Army. Two weeks later, Rabuka led a military coup which ousted Bavrada.

The day after the coup, a Pentagon source, while denying US involvement, declared: "We're kinda delighted ... All of a sudden our ships couldn't go to Fiji, and now all of a sudden they can."

These happenings, and others concerning the 1987 Fiji coup which I recount elsewhere [19], are of the type that the mainstream media typically ignore or, if obliged to deal with them, would have us believe are no more than coincidences.
The anonymous author of the Associated Press story can be forgiven for not knowing of the American fingerprints all over the Fiji coup. The story has probably not appeared in any media except those on the left; if by chance a mainstream editor came across such a story he would likely dismiss it as a "conspiracy theory". Well, you can call people like me "conspiracy theorists" if you call everyone else "coincidence theorists".
There are of course implausible conspiracy theories, but that is an altogether different matter.

Some things to look forward to in 2007

January: Insurgents in Iraq explode a nuclear bomb, totally destroying all of Iraq and everyone in it. Bush declares: "There will be no change in our policy of bringing freedom and democracy to the people of Iraq. We will not cut and run."

March: To add to the ban of liquids and jells aboard aircraft, solids are now banned. But gasses are still allowed.

June: Halliburton is awarded a 300 million dollar no-bid contract to investigate contractor fraud in Iraq.

September: New York City policemen run down, then shoot, mace, stab, beat up, and hang a Muslim resident of Brooklyn after thinking that he might be a suspected terrorist who fit the Terrorist Profile, was alleged to be on the Master Terrorist Watch List, and appeared to be carrying what they imagined, or think they imagined, might be a concealed bomb, or something of that nature.

November: George W. announces that he will ask Congress to give embryos the vote.

December: Gasses are now banned aboard aircraft. The only permitted forms of matter are now ionized atoms, electrons, neutrinos, quarks, and dark matter. (The last being what Dick Cheney is completely composed of, he is allowed aboard any airplane.)

NOTES
[1] AlterNet, www.alternet.org/, May 5, 2006
[2] Associated Press, December 12, 2006
[3] nkusa.org/activities/Speeches/2006Iran-ACohen.cfm (Cohen's talk); Telegraph.co.uk, article by Alex Spillius, December 13, 2006; Associated Press, December 12, 2006
[4] Associated Press, December 12, 2006
[5] counterpunch.org/tilley08282006.html
[6] Washington Post, December 15, 2006, p.27
[7] Associated Press, December 16, 2006
[8] Sunday Telegraph (London), July 18, 1999
[9] Democracy Now (Pacifica Network), November 1, 2006
[10] Nate Thayer, in Far Eastern Economic Review (Hong Kong), October 30, 1997, pages 15 and 20
[11] paperback edition, p.1459
[12] Ibid., p.1441
[13] Washington Post, December 6, 2006, p.3
[14] Bulletin News Network, Inc., The White House Bulletin, December 4, 2006
[15] Associated Press, December 1, 2006
[16] Associated Press, December 13, 2006
[17] For the details of the case see my essay, "Cuban political prisoners ... in the United States", members.aol.com/bblum6/polpris.htm
[18] Associated Press, December 6, 2006
[19] William Blum, Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower, pages 199-200

To make a financial donation to support the work of the
Anti-Empire Report you can use the following address.
Thank you.
William Blum
5100 Connecticut Ave., NW #707
Washington, DC 20008-2064

William Blum is the author of:
Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War 2
Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower
West-Bloc Dissident: A Cold War Memoir
Freeing the World to Death: Essays on the American Empire
Portions of the books can be read, and copies purchased, at www.killinghope.org
Previous Anti-Empire Reports can be read at this website.
To add yourself to this mailing list simply send an email to with "add" in the subject line. I'd like your name and city in the message, but that's optional. I ask for your city only in case I'll be speaking in your area.
Or put "remove" in the subject line to do the opposite.
Any part of this report may be disseminated without permission. I'd appreciate it if the website were mentioned.

Quote of the week

2006-10-24T10:49:00.000-05:00

"I hope they sell a bunch of their crappy, cause I'm gonna sue em for every nickel they have."
-- Cindy Sheehan

—ungeziefer

Attack On Iran Inevitable - Nuke Use In White House Plan

2006-10-01T15:44:00.000-05:00

Interview with retired Air Force Colonel Sam Gardiner -- on the probability of air strikes on Iran and the likely consequences (video)

Habeas Corpus, R.I.P. (1215 - 2006)

2006-09-30T13:04:00.000-05:00

“A Total Rollback Of Everything This Country Has Stood For”

The Senate has agreed to give President Bush extraordinary power to detain and try prisoners in the so-called war on terror. The legislation strips detainees of the right to challenge their own detention and gives the President the power to detain them indefinitely.

—ungeziefer

"Just so long as I'm the dictator . . ."

2006-09-30T10:58:00.000-05:00

Bob Woodward tells us this:

"
President Bush is absolutely certain that he has the U.S. and Iraq on the right course, says Woodward. So certain is the president on this matter, Woodward says, that when Mr. Bush had key Republicans to the White House to discuss Iraq, he told them, “I will not withdraw, even if Laura and Barney are the only ones supporting me.”
"

He's going to be taking advice from his horse next. If Bush playing his gee-tar while New Orleans was drowning didn't remind you of Nero . . .

Isn't that pretty much the definition of a dictatorship -- I will do whatever I want no matter what anyone else says? Maybe it's not control/rule by force, but at the very least it is the OPPOSITE of democracy.

Bush says the Iraqis want us there. This poll demonstrates that the opposite is true :

"
Most Iraqis Want US Troops Out Within a Year

Say US Presence Provoking More Conflict Than it is Preventing

Approval of Attacks on US-led Forces Rises to 6 in 10

A new WPO poll of the Iraqi public finds that seven in ten Iraqis want US-led forces to commit to withdraw within a year. An overwhelming majority believes that the US military presence in Iraq is provoking more conflict than it is preventing and there is growing confidence in the Iraqi army. If the US made a commitment to withdraw, a majority believes that this would strengthen the Iraqi government. Support for attacks on US-led forces has grown to a majority position—now six in ten. Support appears to be related to a widespread perception, held by all ethnic groups, that the US government plans to have permanent military bases in Iraq.
. . . . . . . .
"

Bush says everything in Iraq is going just fine. "See, I just listen ta the folks on the ground. Them generals tell me ain't no 'civil war' goin on over thar."

I hate cliches, but seriously: "Who are you going to believe? Me, or your lying eyes?"

More on Woodward's new book at ThinkProgress: New Woodward Book Details Multiple Bush Cover-Ups Over Iraq

Bush: "I don't know Jack"

Abromoff scandal officially hovering over the White House:

And as some have pointed out, it's important to realize that the 10 meetings with Rove are only those SPECIFICALLY SCHEDULED for one-on-one meetings; with almost 500 White House visits, it's very probable that there were countless others; and once he's admitted into the White House, who knows how many people he met with how many times?

And I have not seen this reported lately, but we should recall that this was known before yesterday's new revelations:

"
Jack Abramoff was a member of the Bush Administration's 2001 Transition Advisory Team assigned to the Department of the Interior.[25] Abramoff befriended the incoming Deputy Secretary of the Interior, J. Steven Griles. In the first 10 months of 2001, the Abramoff lobbying team logged almost 200 contacts with the new Administration.
"

[ source: Wikipedia ]

On the media in general . . .

I'm pleased that the media is starting to actually do their job, to an extent. But the problem is, it's not because they're courageous or because they have integrity or anything of the sort; in my view, it's apparent that they're actually still taking the easy route -- that is, NOW it's o.k. to criticize the government, because about 75% of the population disapproves of the president and Congress. It still seems like they're putting ratings and "giving people what they want" comes before true investigative journalism. (Probably I'm stating the obvious here -- but it's worth repeating, I think.) And they're STILL going along with this march-to-war-with-Iran rubbish -- which is completely unfathomable to me.

—ungeziefer

Miscellany

2006-09-25T02:47:00.000-05:00

Well, it's happened again -- about 3 weeks without a post. What gives? Dunno . . .

But anyway, here's a sort of wrap-up of recent events and my take on them.

1.) Bush now admits that indeed we DO have secret CIA prisons. After blatantly lying about this previously, and calling any such suggestions "absurd." Is this a major scandal? Apparently not, in the era of Bush. NOTHING is a fucking scandal, apparently.

It's now official: The Republicans are the Party of Torture. (Vote Torture in '06!). What the HELL is wrong with John McCain? Sometimes I like the guy, but this is truly outrageous.

A good post here: Unclaimed Territory - by Glenn Greenwald: Everyone -- including Democrats -- agrees to pretend that Bush "compromised" on torture

I don't have any new insight into this, but I think it's worth repeating what every sane person with a conscience has said: it doesn't matter whether torture "works" or not -- don't fucking torture people. After we murdered 2 or 3 million Vietnamese (we seem not to know, nor to care much), it's easy to see how they might hate us (the "savage enemy") enough to want to torture John McCain to get information about what other villages we planned to bomb in the near future; does that JUSTIFY it? Beyond that, it DOESN'T work; it provides BAD intelligence. It's part of the reason we mistakenly invaded Iraq: we tortured some guy until he told us what we wanted to hear (that Saddam supported and trained Al Qaeda), which we now know is completely false (and the guy, of course, later recanted and explained that he'd made it all up simply to make the pain stop). This is now public record. There are numerous cases like this. The only way it's usefull is if your goal is not the truth (or actual "intelligence") but forced confessions that you can use for political ends and propaganda -- which is about as "EVIL" as anything I can think of.

Just recently a Canadian was finally released after being unjustly imprisoned for something like five years, "rendered" to Syria where he was tortured, and then found to be completely innocent by a Canadian investigation. Alberto Gonzales' response? : Lie, deny, dismiss. Not even an apology.

So after almost 60 years, suddenly the Geneva Conventions have become "vague" and "ambiguous." Whaa??? "What does 'degrading' mean? What does 'dignity' mean? What does 'human' mean? It's just so VAGUE!" As a Christian, Bush should maybe simply apply the Golden Rule? What would I consider degrading or dehumanizing if was done to me? It's not that hard. And in any case, as signatories to the Geneva Conventions, they are the SUPREME LAW; neither the President of a country nor the Congress has the right to "re-interpret" them -- this is ludicrous. The fact is -- and it's clear for everyone to see -- all they're doing is covering their asses, and trying to make the war crimes they've committed legal -- even retroactively.

And when that argument doesn't work, they say "well, these aren't 'soldiers,' these are 'terrorists' -- 'unlawful enemy combatants' -- so the Geneva Accords don't apply to them anyway. That logic is faulty for a number of reasons. 1.) it doesn't matter; the Geneva Accords apply to ANY PERSON who is captured. 2.) in the case of Iraq, we're not fighting a nation's military (there isn't one); we're fighting an insurgency; the fact that they don't wear a uniform is neither surprising nor relevant. Civilians don't wear uniforms -- does that mean they have no rights? By this logic, the Jews who in Warsaw who fought the Nazis would have no rights either, and could justifiable by tortured. Which brings me to the MAIN point: when you illegally invade and occupy another country, it is YOU who have NO RIGHTS; having already committed a grave breach of the UN Charter, you are in no position to be re-interpreting the Geneva Accords on a whim; you have ONLY OBLIGATIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES.

It's not just about how we treat our prisoners; it's also about the standard -- which must be UNIVERSALLY APPLIED and adhered to -- which affects how OUR soldiers must be treated if captured. Bush has been asked on several occasions about this, directly, and he always evades the questions, calls it "purely hypothetical," then he gets real mad and shouts at the reporter about something tangential. (If you caught his press conference at the Rose Garden last week -- have you ever seen this sick bastard so rude, arrogant and hostile to every reporter who asked him a polite question? It was a new low -- even for him -- and literally made me want to strangle him to death with my bare hands.)

Audio: Sam Seder -
clip1
clip2

"They cut off heads, we should be able to cut off heads, too!" That's the moral logic of these sick bastards?

I've said before, there are people in this world who could be tortured to death and I really couldn't care less. (Zarqawi, for example.) But these pro-torture Republicans are LYING when they say that all of our prisoners are evil terrorists, or "unlawful enemy combatants" (whatever that means -- apparently anyone Bush declares to be one -- but if we're to take the words serious it would apply to every U.S. soldier in Iraq, since they are fighting an "unlawful" war). We're always forced to accept the absurd premise that every single detainee is somehow sub-human, the worst of the worst, people who would cut your throat just as soon as look at you, pure evil. What we know -- which isn't a lot, I grant you -- is that most of them appear to be completely innocent. Most of them were NOT captured "on the battlefield in Afghanistan" as we're told. There were sweeps, people get caught up in them, many are simply people who were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Victims. By-standers. Civilians. We paid out huge sums of money to the Northern Alliance and others for intelligence -- name someone you don't like or have a grudge against, or even some random person, get paid a bunch of money. LOTS of innocent people.

But again: it's the PRINCIPLE which is so crucial. "Rough interrogation techniques" aside, we're throwing out Habeas Corpus, here. These psychos are pushing for the ability to kidnap people at random, hodl them indefinitely without a lawyer or any formal charges or any judicial review or oversight, without the ability to speak to their families or to the press, to torture people, try them in secret military tribunals with secret evidence that the accused is never entitled to see and thus cannot possibly rebut, evidence gained through COERSION, and then execute people if they are in fact convicted based on the secret and coerced "evidence" against them. Can you think of ANYTHING that more aptly defines that term "Un-American"??

2.) A few words in defense of Hugo Chavez: yes, his rhetoric is over-the-top at times. Yes, he is too eager to befriend the leaders of certain nations (apparently adopting the logic that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend"). But let's be honest here. First off, he was being playful and joking around -- if you watch the video of his remarks at the U.N. you can see that, and people LAUGHED -- why? Because it was a joke. But more importantly, I think he gives Bush too much credit: he is a demon, or minion at best. Secondly, you can call him "rude" all you want -- big fuckin deal, he was "rude." If you're George Bush -- or ANY American -- you should be thanking your lucky stars that Chavez is as NICE as he is. We tried to overthrow his twice-democratically-elected popular government with a violent COUP. If Chavez had reacted in the way that Bush would have -- had there been a coup against the Bush regime orchestrated by a foreign power -- Bush would be in a coffin right now, and the U.S. would likely have been bombed into the stone age. In short, I think he's more than entitled to make a few "rude" remarks. (Same goes for Castro, and many others in Central and South America.)

3.) This Just In! Iraq War leads to increase in terrorism! Shocking! Who could have foreseen this? . . . What? . . . Oh, pretty much everyone not only could have but did? . . . Oh. Well. Ummm . . . Never mind, then.

4.) We Are Conducting Military Operations Inside Iran Right Now. The Evidence Is Overwhelming. What hippie commy pinko conspiracy nut is saying this nonsense, anyway? . . . What? . . . It's retired Air Force Col. Sam Gardiner? . . . Oh. Damn. Umm . . . Guess he's another one who's "drunk the Kool-Aid" of the crazy moon bat lefty conspiracy nuts, then. Just like Scott Ritter.

5.) A Senate report confirms conclusively what every thinking person already knows: that Saddam had NO links with Al Qaeda; and that rather than being in league with Zarqawi, as the Bush Administration claimed, Saddam considered him an enemy and a threat and tried to capture him (not to mention the fact that Zarqawi was in northern Kurdistan -- an area NOT in Saddam's control and indeed part of the "no-fly zone" in which Saddam's forces could not step foot without being attacked by either the Kurdish forces or U.S. war planes. Why didn't we blame the Kurds -- our good pals -- for "supporting" and "harboring" Zarqawi?)

And the Bush Mafia's response to this report? The usual. Lies, lies, and more lies. Cheney (who admitted he hadn't even bothered to read the report) repeated the same lies; Bush repeated the same lies; Condi repeated the same lies. The people are pathological and have absolutely no shame. None.

Audio: another good clip from the Sam Seder show, in which he smacks down a caller desperately clinging to belief in the lies of Bush Co.

6.) Bush Co. is now QUOTING BIN LADEN! What is going on here? The Republicans have been trying to justify the Iraq War by again calling it "the Central Front in the War On Terror" -- and to prove it, they quote Bin Laden! Apparently they now take him at his word, believe everything he says, and agree with him.

That aside, the premise is meaningless. Not only did they help Bin Laden exponentially in recruiting by fulfilling his prediction that the U.S. would invade Iraq, but ANY muslim country in the Middle East that we invaded and occupied in this way would of course be considered by Bin Laden as the "Central Front" in his Holy War against us -- Egypt, Pakistan, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, etc. etc. The fact that Al Qaeda is fighting us in Iraq (and by all accounts they're a small faction -- probably less than 5% of fighters) only goes to show that we have turned Iraq into a training ground and rallying cry for terrorists, radicalized and united Muslims against us.

7.) Chris Wallace has his smug smirking ass handed to him by Bill Clinton on FOX "News". There are many things I dislike strongly about Clinton, but I cannot stomach these fucking right-wing bastards -- who WILL NOT TOLERATE any SUGGESTION that Bush dropped the ball before 9/11 -- trying to blame Clinton for it.

He might be slightly disingenous when he says that "no one had ever heard of Al Qaeda" in 1993 (it's somewhat hard to say now exactly what was known then -- here's a timeline that sheds SOME light. But by most accounts I've read, Al Qaeda (as an enemy of the U.S. -- as opposed to the friendly Al Qaeda forces in the form of the Mujahideen which was Reagan's darling group of allies, trained, funded and organized by the Reagan Administration to fight the Russians in Afghanistan) didn't really exist until after the Gulf War (when Bin Laden WANTED TO FIGHT AND DRIVE SADDAM OUT OF KUWAIT, which is when he turned against both the Saudi Royalty and the U.S. So it's not clear whether or not two years later anyone really understood what this group was thinking, what threat they posed, etc.

In any case, 99% of what Clinton says is right, and while I (like many on the left) get tired of being an apologist for Clinton, nothing gives me more pleasure than seeing a FOX "News" pimp or whore getting bitch-slapped -- they deserve it, and then some. (How much you want to bet you won't be seeing Richard Clarke on FOX any time soon?)

And here's a revealing test for you -- a challenge that I hereby issue to anyone who supports Bush and yet blames Clinton for being "soft on terror": name me 3 Republicans -- JUST THREE -- who consistently spoke out about terrorism during the '90s; who brought up the name "Osama Bin Laden" more than once during that decade; who criticized Clinton for NOT invading/bombing/attacking terrorists enough, etc. Please, please: to quote the words of an Honorable and Distinguished Statesman: "Bring It On." (You're right, I mis-quoted him; it should be "Bring 'EM on." I totally took his words out of context and distorted their meaning, for which I apologize sincerely.)

7.) Bush continues to Flip Flop on Bin Laden. After saying "I don't really care where he is" -- on SEVERAL occasions -- and then lying and denying it in the 2004 presidential debates, he says AGAIN that he's not concerned about Bin Laden.

Last link (I've been listening to Sam Seder a lot again lately . . .) : Number of subpoenas issued to the White House - Clinton vs. Bush. If this doesn't make it sink in how crucial it is for SOME OVERSIGHT of this Republican-controlled government, probably nothing will.

Ethnically Cleansing the Entire Middle East

2006-09-03T15:34:00.000-05:00

US Army Contemplates Redrawing Middle East Map to Stave-off Looming Global Meltdown

In a little-noted article printed in early August in the Armed Forces Journal, a monthly magazine for officers and leaders in the United States military community, early retired Major Ralph Peters sets out the latest ideas in current US strategic thinking. And they are extremely disturbing.

Ethnically Cleansing the Entire Middle East

Maj. Peters, formerly assigned to the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence where he was responsible for future warfare, candidly outlines how the map of the Middle East should be fundamentally re-drawn, in a new imperial endeavour designed to correct past errors. "Without such major boundary revisions, we shall never see a more peaceful Middle East," he observes, but then adds wryly: "Oh, and one other dirty little secret from 5,000 years of history: Ethnic cleansing works."

. . . . . . . .

He chastises the United States and its coalition partners for missing "a glorious chance" to fracture Iraq, which "should have been divided into three smaller states immediately."

. . . . . . . .

"We are entering a new American century", he says, in a veiled reference to the Bush administration Project of the same name founded in the same year he was writing. In the new century, "we will become still wealthier, culturally more lethal, and increasingly powerful. We will excite hatreds without precedent."

. . . . . . . .

"There will be no peace. At any given moment for the rest of our lifetimes, there will be multiple conflicts in mutating forms around the globe. Violent conflict will dominate the headlines, but cultural and economic struggles will be steadier and ultimately more decisive. The de facto role of the US armed forces will be to keep the world safe for our economy and open to our cultural assault. To those ends, we will do a fair amount of killing."

. . . . . . . .

US generals had repeatedly war-gamed a prospective conflict with Iran, but consistently found that the simulations predicted "an absolute nuclear disaster", from which no clear winner would emerge. The scenarios gamed were so dismal, he said, that the generals briefed administration officials to avoid such a war at all costs. However, the source said that the Bush administration is ignoring the fears of the US military.

Real Wages Fail to Match a Rise in Productivity - New York Times

2006-09-01T02:02:00.000-05:00

"
With the economy beginning to slow, the current expansion has a chance to become the first sustained period of economic growth since World War II that fails to offer a prolonged increase in real wages for most workers.
. . . . . . . .
"

Labor Day Executive Excess report: Oil and Defense CEOs Pocket the Spoils

2006-08-31T04:15:00.000-05:00

"
. . . . . . . .
Since the “War on Terror” began, CEOs at the top 34 military contractors have enjoyed average paychecks that are double the compensation they received in the four years leading up to 9/11.

The new Executive Excess report surveys all publicly held U.S. corporations among the top 100 defense contractors that had at least 10 percent of revenues in defense. These 34 CEOs combined have pocketed almost a billion dollars since 9/11 — enough to employ more than a million Iraqis for a year to rebuild their country.

In 2005, defense industry CEOs walked off with 44 times more pay than military generals with 20 years experience, and 308 times more than Army privates.
. . . . . . . .
"

Not that this is surprising -- everyone knows this intuitively. But it's nice (that's not at all the right word, but you know what I mean) to have the actual numbers to demonstrate it.

As far as the hiring of a million Iraqis -- unless I'm even worse at math than I thought, we'd only be paying them $1000 per year; which seems like worse than slave wages, does it not? Still, assuming for the sake of argument that $1000 American per year is actually a decent wage for Iraqis: what does that say about the $350 Billion we've spent thus far on the Iraq war? Well, it says that we could have instead employed 1 million Iraqis to rebuild (and defend) their country for 350 years.

Hell, if nothing else we could just pay them double in exchange for not attacking us -- which, I grant you, would only bring us peace for 175 years. But, still, that's something. In fact, I'm fairly confident that within that time we would probably even be able to figure out an exit strategy -- and then, Hurray! Mission Accomplished!

Or maybe instead of spreading it out over 350 or 175 years, we could have simply said, "Here: here is $350 Billion for you. Use it to fix everything that we've destroyed. We're going home now. Enjoy your country and your freedom. You're welcome."

Hmmm . . .

No, you're right. That wouldn't benefit American Corporations sufficiently.

Nah, better to buy bullets, bombs, and body bags, I think.

Bush respectfully disagrees with the "Democrat Party"

2006-08-21T23:45:00.000-05:00

The timing on this couldn't have been more perfect. Just finished watching the "Colbert Report" with guest Geoffrey Nunberg -- about his book "Talking Right," and how the right wing have successfully manipulated language to misinform and to control debate.

After which I flip channels briefly, and I hear Bush talking about Iraq and how "some in the Democrat Party would like to see us leave," etc. etc.

That may or may not mean anything to you, and probably seems trivial -- but it's actually pretty alarming, if you're familiar with this particular tactic.

If you don't get it, just think about it or look into it or whatever. There's a subtext there, and it's an intential insult. I'll just say that it's the equivalent of saying "Repuglickers" instead of "Republicans." The only people you normally hear use it -- and they use it consciously and consistenly -- are the really really extreme right-wing fundamentalist fascist types like Pat Robertson, Newt Gingrich, Tom DeLay, Bill Frist, etc.

All of whom fit perfectly into the Bush Cabal -- true, so why am I surprised?

Good point. I guess I'd just never heard Bush use the term -- and he's been around for a while now.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that he'll start using it from now on -- or at least during election season. Keep your ears peeled.

According to Wikipedia, every Republican president has used the term; and "The context has usually been negative--but not always, as when President George W. Bush declared, during a visit to Georgia that he was traveling 'with proud members of the Democrat Party.'" (Gee, that's not biased or anything -- of course when Bush used it, he meant no harm -- He's Just A Good Ol' Boy, He Doesn't Mean Any Harm . . .")

But as MediaMatters recently noted:

"
"among those of the Republican persuasion," the use of " 'Democrat Party' is now nearly universal" thanks to "Newt Gingrich, the nominal author of the notorious 1990 memo 'Language: A Key Mechanism of Control,' and his Contract with America pollster, Frank Luntz." While Hertzberg noted that Luntz "road-tested the adjectival use of 'Democrat' with a focus group in 2001" and "concluded that the only people who really dislike it are highly partisan adherents of the ... Democratic Party," he also wrote that Luntz had told him recently that "[t]hose two letters ['ic'] actually do matter," and that Luntz "recently finished writing a book ... entitled 'Words That Work.' "
"

Do they "work" to manipulate and control people's perceptions? Dunno. If nothing else, it's apparently a fun way for Republicans to say "Fuck You, You Dirty Rotten Rat Bastards" without actually coming out and saying it?

—ungeziefer

Daily Kos: Beautiful Dead Girls

2006-08-21T23:22:00.000-05:00

"
We hear a lot about beautiful dead girls in the US media. Here are some that we haven't heard about much. Their smiles haven't been plastered over the supermarket tabloid press, and they're not likely to be.
. . . . . . . .
"

Kurds flee homes as Iran shells Iraq's northern frontier

2006-08-18T23:04:00.000-05:00

This is one of the most interesting stories I've come across in a long time. Amidst the growing perception that there's some kind of "clash of civilizations" emerging, tradition vs. modernity or East vs. West or Christianity/Zionism vs. Islam or Us vs. Them or Good vs. Evil or whatever . . . it's important to remember how complex things are.

We already know that Iraq (now magically transformed from "Evil Enemy" to "Great Democracy") is allying closely with Iran. But now Turkey (our ally) is working with (or competing with?) Iran (our hated enemy) to attack the Kurds (our friends, but enemies of Turkey -- also in this case considered "terrorists" by the State Department and the EU, etc.) in Iraq . . .

I don't really understand it and don't know what to say about it. But things are messy and are only going to get messier . . .

Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | Kurds flee homes as Iran shells Iraq's northern frontier

Bush Must Negotiate to Make America Safer, Say Former Generals

2006-08-18T22:43:00.000-05:00

Jesus, I hate these military types. They're all pansy-ass pinko commy liberal terrorist-loving cowards and traitors who hate America and only want to give aid and comfort to the enemy and make us lose by cutting and running and let the world become One State Dominated by Islamic Fascism because they hate Jesus. Pussies.

"
SAN FRANCISCO, Aug 17 (OneWorld) - Twenty-one former generals and high ranking national security officials have called on United States President George W. Bush to reverse course and embrace a new area of negotiation with Iran, Iraq, and North Korea. In a letter released Thursday, the group told reporters Bush's 'hard line' policies have undermined national security and made America less safe.

Of particular concern for the generals was increased saber rattling between Washington and Tehran over the development of an Iranian nuclear program.

"We call on the administration to engage immediately in direct talks with the government of Iran without preconditions to help resolve the current crisis in the Middle East and to settle differences over an Iranian nuclear program," their letter read.

"An attack on Iran would have disastrous consequences for security in the region and U.S. forces in Iraq," they argued. "It would inflame hatred and violence in the Middle East and among Muslims everywhere."

In a telephone news conference Thursday morning, the former security officials took particular aim at the Bush Administration's policy of refusing to negotiate with terrorists or with states that support them.

"That seems strange since Ronald Reagan was willing to negotiate with the Soviets even though they were the 'Evil Empire," said retired Lt. General Robert Guard, who served as special assistant to Defense Secretary Robert McNamara during the Vietnam War and now works at the non-profit Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation. "One wonders why George Bush can't negotiate with the Axis of Evil."

The generals further argued that the Bush Administration's invasion of Iraq is at least partially responsible for Iran's drive to develop a nuclear program.

"When you announce an axis of evil of three countries and invade one and then say that Iran should take that as a lesson, it does seem that it may give them an incentive to do precisely what they don't want them to do," Guard said, "develop a nuclear weapon."

Former director of Policy Planning for the State Department, Morton Halperin, said the same goes for North Korea. The more belligerent the Bush Administration behaves, he said, the faster North Korea will work to develop nuclear weapons.

"The North Koreans want to talk to us directly," said Halperin, who now works for the Washington, DC-based Center for American Progress. "Their concern is about getting security assurances from us and about getting diplomatic recognition. We should not be afraid to talk to our opponents."

At the White House, Bush's spokesperson Tony Snow dismissed the letter.

"In a political year people are going to make political statements, including retired generals, and they're perfectly welcome to," Snow told reporters at his daily briefing. "It's an important addition to the public debate. But we're also--the president is a guy who has got real responsibility here. Now, I've got to tell you, just given to what I said...in response to the sort of ongoing cost of promoting freedom around the globe, do you not think a president will do everything in his power to succeed? And the answer is, yes. He's not sitting around saying, boy, I'm stubborn, I'm going to stick with it.

"That's not the way the president is," Snow said, insisting the Bush administration is planning policy changes while declining to offer specifics.

But the generals who signed the letter say Bush has been stubborn, and a poor student of history.

General Joseph Hoar, the Commander in Chief of U.S. Military Central Command under presidents Bill Clinton and George H. W. Bush, said the George W. Bush administration would be advised to remember the French occupation of Algeria, which lasted 134 years.

Nationalist rebels launched an insurgency against the French in 1954. After eight years of insurgent bombings and counter-terrorism operations, France was finally forced to quit Algeria in 1962.

Hoar says like the Battle of Algiers the current war on terror is a war of ideas.

"Until we get away from the idea that we can solve these problems through the use of military force and begin to change the political problems causing discontent by providing security and services, we're not going to win this war," he said.

"

Lebanon's pain grows by the hour as death toll hits 1,300

2006-08-17T20:22:00.000-05:00

By Robert Fisk

0817/06 "The Independent" -- -- They are digging them up by the hour, the swelling death toll of the Lebanon conflict. The American poet Carl Sandburg spoke of the dead in other wars and imagined that he was the grass under which they would be buried. "Shovel them under and let me work," he said of the dead of Ypres and Verdun. But across Lebanon, they are systematically lifting the tons of rubble of old roofs and apartment blocks and finding families below, their arms wrapped around each other in the moment of death as their homes were beaten down upon them by the Israeli air force. By last night, they had found 61 more bodies, taking the Lebanese dead of the 33-day war to almost 1,300.

In Srifa, south of the Litani river, they found 26 bodies beneath ruins which I myself stood on just three days ago. At Ainata, there were eight more bodies of civilians. A corpse was discovered beneath a collapsed four-storey house north of Tyre and, near by, the remains of a 16-year old girl, along with three children and an adult. In Khiam in eastern Lebanon, besieged by the Israelis for more than a month, the elderly village "mukhtar" was found dead in the ruins of his home.

Not all the dead were civilians. At Kfar Shuba, dumper-truck drivers found the bodies of four Hizbollah members. At Roueiss, however, all 13 bodies found in the wreckage of eight 10-storey buildings were civilians. They included seven children and a pregnant woman. Ten more bodies were disentangled from the rubble of the southern suburbs of Beirut - where local people claimed they could still hear the screams of neighbours trapped far below the bomb-smashed apartment blocks. The Lebanese civil defence organisation - almost as brave as the Lebanese Red Cross in trying to save lives under fire - believe at least three families may be trapped in basements deep below the wreckage.

Ignoring the dangers of unexploded ordnance, several Lebanese Shia Muslims returned to their destroyed homes to retrieve personal belongings - including family snapshots and albums that contain the narrative of their lives - only to fall between gaps in the broken apartment blocks and plunge dozens of feet into the darkness beneath. Among the last to die only minutes before the UN ceasefire came into effect was a child who was found in her dead mother's arms in Beirut.

How many of these dead would have survived if George Bush and Tony Blair had demanded an immediate ceasefire weeks ago will never be known. But many would have had the chance of life had Western governments not regarded this dirty war as an "opportunity" to create a "new" Middle East by humbling Iran and Syria.
"

Good thing this story is regarded as insignificant by the media. (Oh, sorry -- the guy who killed a child ten years ago may have been caught -- guess we'll have to cover that 24/7 for a week or two . . .)

(O.K. -- MSNBC did have Seymour Hersch on. If only Chris Matthews would have let him get a word in edge-wise, that would have been something, at least.)

And I have to say thank God for Jimmy Carter -- who, unlike Howard Dean and pretty much every other Democratic leader, is at least willing to state the obvious. (I guess when you're not in office you have freedom of speech again, and do not have to bow down [or bend over] for AIPAC) :

"I don't think that Israel has any legal or moral justification for their massive bombing of the entire nation of Lebanon. What happened is that Israel is holding almost 10,000 prisoners, so when the militants in Lebanon or in Gaza take one or two soldiers, Israel looks upon this as a justification for an attack on the civilian population of Lebanon and Gaza. I do not think that's justified, no."

Gee, yeah, ya think?

What's sad is that this is practically heresy in this country -- not in Israel, just here.

Hizbullah, Zionism and the Ideology of late Imperial America

2006-08-10T19:36:00.000-05:00

". . . . . . . .
Today, the bustling streets of Haret Hreik are gone. Where families lived and thrived, struggled and laughed, is an emptiness of rubble –the bombed ruins of a greedy imperial war that stops at nothing. Today Lebanon stands behind Hizbullah. The Lebanese have become the bitter, cheering on-lookers of the resistance which lobs its out-dated missiles relentlessly across the border as the Israeli war machine refuels again and again. But US precision guided bombs, cluster bombs, white phosphorus, unmanned aerial drones, drones to guide the bombs, helicopters armed with missiles, F-16s, gun ships and state-of-the-art armed and trained ground forces with night vision surveillance and combat goggles have succeeded in uniting far more than the Lebanese behind the daring defiance of Hassan Nasrallah.

Sixteen years of civil war, of murderous sectarian acrimony, of inter-ethnic killing, suspicion and paranoia and today –after 28 days of hell unleashed upon it by the arrogant racism of a militant and ideological Zionism— 89% of Lebanon’s Sunni Muslims, 80% of its Christians, 80% of its Druze and 100% of its Shiite populations support Hizbullah’s resistance against Israel and the United States.
. . . . . . . ."

"My Goodness . . . A Dickens Of A Time"

2006-08-05T13:25:00.000-05:00

Quote of the week:

"I have never painted a rosy picture . . . and you'd have a dickens of a time trying to find instances where I've been excessively optimistic." -- Donald Rumsfeld

(This one's not bad, either) :

"What I worry about is we're playing a game of 'Whack A Mole' here." -- John McCain

False storylines pervade media coverage of upcoming elections

2006-08-05T13:02:00.000-05:00

When all I can do is clench my fists and grind my teeth, thank christ for MediaMatters, who consistently bring clarity to what we all know but don't have the time or resources to prove, and continue to dispell the obscene and absurd "Liberal Media" myth.

More books on the stolen presidential election of 2004

2006-08-05T12:47:00.000-05:00

Fooled Again: How the Right Stole the 2004 Election and Why They'll Steal the Next One Too (Unless We Stop Them)
by Mark Crispin Miller

The Crisis of American Democracy: The Presidential Elections of 2000 and 2004
by David North

Was the 2004 Presidential Election Stolen?: Exit Polls, Election Fraud, and the Official Count
by Steve Freeman, Joel Bleifuss

Did George W. Bush Steal America's 2004 Election?
by Bob Fitrakis, Steve Rosenfeld, Harvey Wasserman

How the Gop Stole America's 2004 Election & Is Rigging 2008
by Bob Fitrakis, Harvey Wasserman

—ungeziefer

The "Sane Republican Of The Year Award" goes to . . . Chuck Hagel

2006-08-03T12:02:00.000-05:00

"The sickening slaughter on both sides must end now. President Bush must call for an immediate cease fire. This madness must stop." -- Senator Chuck Hagel (R-Nebraska), on the current Middle East crisis

I encourage you to read the whole speech. It's intelligent, even-handed, and wise. (Usually I'm just hoping for sane.)

—ungeziefer

Sick Joke

2006-08-03T10:59:00.000-05:00

Night of Death for Lebanese

O.K., we'll stop the slaughter for a couple days -- just kidding! Thanks, I'll be here all week! Or maybe two or three . . .

That might as well have been what Olmert said to Lebanon this week:

"On Monday, the first day of a temporary suspension of Israeli airstrikes, dozens of people emerged, squinting in the searing sun at a scene of destruction so complete that they barely understood what they were looking at. Their town had been crushed, its very heart torn out and pulverized into a chalky dust.
. . . . . . . ."

For Lebanese, Calm Moment to Flee Ruins

And then . . .

"As Israel poured soldiers and artillery shells into southern Lebanon, it vowed Monday to press ahead with its war on Hezbollah and made a number of airstrikes after promising a 48-hour pause in its air campaign.

“The fighting continues,” Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said. “There is no cease-fire, and there will not be any cease-fire in the coming days.”

Israel promised Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Sunday that it would halt air operations for two days, except to respond to “imminent threats,” like rocket-launching teams, and to support ground forces.

Ms. Rice said she had accepted Israel’s explanation for resuming airstrikes barely 12 hours after the suspension was announced.
. . . . . . . .

Meanwhile, Hezbollah held its fire, with the Israeli Army counting only three mortar shells landing in Israel on Monday and no rockets, compared with a record 156 rockets launched on Sunday and about 100 daily before.
. . . . . . . ."

Israel Pushes On Despite Agreeing To Airstrike Lull

"We cannot be expected to negotiate or discuss anything else while the ruthless, pitiless sword of the Israeli war machine continues to drip with the blood of innocent women and children." -- Prime Minister of Lebanon, Fouad Siniora, at the UN

See! You can't negotiate with these "terrorists"! A ceasefire won't do any good! Um, no -- they're simply saying that if you stop bombing us, we'll talk. (Seems pretty reasonable to me.) Israel stopped, and Hezbollah stopped. That very brief ceasfire could have lasted -- but obviously Israel didn't want that, because then when they started bombing again they would naturally look like the aggressor; better just to keep the bombs falling -- that way you can still claim to be "defending yourself" against the Hizbollah rockets.

What pisses me off most about the news reporting on this crisis is how fast history gets revised. It's almost universally reported now (even on Air America at times) that Israel was "attacked" by Hezbollah and "responded" in order to "defend itself." Ed Schultz is constantly yelling about how "Hezbollah was launching rockets into Israel -- what the heck is Israel supposed to do, anyway? What would YOU do?" Etc. Yes, it's true that Hezbollah "started it" by killing a few Israeli soldiers and capturing two others. Which side of the border it was on (which is important) is unclear; but in any case that was (at least ostensibly) the provocation that Israel was responding to. (Though, again, it has been documented that Israel was looking for an excuse to invade anyway. But put that aside.)

However: when you hear reporters talking about Israel "responding" to the rocket fire, they're quite simply lying. All this started because of the capture of TWO FUCKING SOLDIERS -- after which Israel began air strikes, and Hezbollah responded in kind (if by "in kind" we mean "with puny rockets, rather than F-16's, bombs weighing several tons, hellicopter gunships, tanks, guided missiles, and quite possibly chemical weapons").

In short, YES Israel was provoked. But if you think that justifies killing hundreds of innocent women, children, and elderly people (not to mention "military-aged males," who are all cynically presumed to be "militants") -- you are quite simply deranged. All of this could have been prevented with a prisoner swap. (It's estimated that as many as 20,000 Palestinians have been rotting in Israeli jails for years -- but I guess that's not "kidnapping.") Furthermore, Israel didn't even TRY to negotiate, to work with the Lebanese government, or U.N., or the European Union, or even the U.S. -- let alone with Hezbollah.

So, yes, I condemn both sides for the unnecessary killing. But I'm not going to support this senseless destruction and slaughter just because the perpetrators happen to be Jewish.

Daily Kos: 9/11 Deception by Pentagon Suspected by Officials

2006-08-02T18:43:00.000-05:00

"
Suspicion of wrongdoing ran so deep that the 10-member commission, in a secret meeting at the end of its tenure in summer 2004, debated referring the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation, according to several commission sources. Staff members and some commissioners thought that e-mails and other evidence provided enough probable cause to believe that military and aviation officials violated the law by making false statements to Congress and to the commission, hoping to hide the bungled response to the hijackings, these sources said.

. . . . . . . .

"We to this day don't know why NORAD [the North American Aerospace Command] told us what they told us," said Thomas H. Kean, the former New Jersey Republican governor who led the commission. "It was just so far from the truth. . . . It's one of those loose ends that never got tied."

Senator Dayton: NORAD Lied About 9/11

Suffer the children

2006-07-30T20:39:00.000-05:00

The bodies of at least 27 children were found in the rubble

They are hitting children to bring the fighters to their knees."

"There is no place at this sad moment for any discussions other than an immediate and unconditional ceasefire as well as international investigation of the Israeli massacres in Lebanon now." -- Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Saniora

Lebanon's 9/11 or Why Do They Hate Us? Picture Album

Pictures From Qana

"Under fire in Beirut" By Robert Fisk

—ungeziefer

Daily Kos: The next big corporate scandal: backdating stock options

2006-07-28T23:56:00.000-05:00

NPR (audio - mp3 - 968k) : SEC Files First Charges in Stock-Option Dating Probe

See also: US: Study Finds Backdating of Options Widespread

Success! Loopholes found in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty!

2006-07-28T23:42:00.000-05:00

CNN.com - U.S. House OKs India nuclear deal - Jul 26, 2006

"
The approval vote was 359-68 after lawmakers rejected amendments that aimed to put limits on India's nuclear weapons program and were proposed by critics concerned the deal would harm nonproliferation goals.
. . . . . . . .

The deal would allow nuclear-armed India to buy American nuclear reactors and fuel for the first time in more than 30 years, despite the fact it has still not signed the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
. . . . . . . .

Pouring 'nuclear fuel'

Democratic Rep. Edward Markey of Massachusetts, head of a bipartisan nonproliferation task force, lambasted the deal as pouring "nuclear fuel on the fire of an India-Pakistan nuclear arms race" because it would allow New Delhi to expand its nuclear weapons production to upward of 50 bombs a year from seven.

During several hours of debate, the House, led by President George W. Bush's Republican Party, soundly rejected an amendment that would have forced India to halt fissile material production as a condition of the nuclear deal.

The House also rejected an amendment that would forbid India from capitalizing on a new ability to buy U.S. nuclear fuel by diverting all its domestically produced uranium for weapons use. India now uses half of its domestic uranium for energy production and half for weapons, lawmakers said.
. . . . . . . .

Proponents [of the amendment] said requiring India to halt production of weapons-related fissile material would help ensure U.S. technology aided India's energy production, not bomb-making.

As a signatory to the NPT, the United States is obligated not to help India and other states advance their nuclear weapons programs.
[emphasis mine]
. . . . . . . .
"

Clever. See, we're not actually HELPING them build more weapons. We're just selling them a whole lot more nuclear material for energy use -- that way, they can use all of THEIR OWN nuclear material for weapons, and use OURS for energy. It's a win-win.

But wait -- why are we helping them, again? Aren't we supposed to hate and despise countries who refuse to sign the NPT (except Israel, of course -- but that goes without saying)? Doesn't that make them a "rogue state"? Shouldn't we be punishing them -- agreeing to help them with their energy needs ON THE CONDITION that they sign the NPT, stop making nuclear weapons and disarm their existing nukes?

Hm. Oh well. Guess nobody cares.

No. 1 U.S. oil company earns $1,318 a second -- a 36% jump in profits

2006-07-28T02:03:00.000-05:00

(Want the bumper sticker? MoveOn was giving them away, but they've run out. If you want to print your own, click here to download a pdf)

Exxon Rides Oil and Gas Prices to 36% Gain in Profit

NPR: Exxon's $10 Billion Profit Leads Oil Industry [ .mp3 audio, 960K ]

Royal Dutch Shell profit climbs 40%

ConocoPhillips Profit Leaps by Nearly Two-Thirds

Yay! (Guess they really DID need that $85 Billion in tax subsidies!)

". . . this quarter is the highest by any organization ever," said Fadel Gheit, an energy analyst at Oppenheimer.

Irving, Texas-based Exxon Mobil caught considerable flak from the general public for its record fourth quarter, which came soon after gasoline prices hit record highs.

Compounding matters, the company gave its outgoing CEO Lee Raymond a retirement package worth about $350 million around the same time.

That combination of events led to a public outcry calling for restrictions on CEO pay and calls from lawmakers who wanted to institute a windfall profits tax on the oil industry or even break up some of the oil giants that merged in the 1990s.

But the industry says that oil prices fluctuate widely over time and that, in the long run, it's actually less profitable than a number of other industries.

. . . . . . . .

When asked about investing in renewable energy technologies, an Exxon official said that, apart from ethanol, it's generally not part of the company's plan.

"There are very few that are economical without subsidies," said Henry Hubble, vice president for investor relations, on a conference call. "We don't think it makes sense to invest in it at this point."

[ CNN Money ]

Just think what we could do if we decided to nationalize all the oil companies. All that money, instead of benefiting huge corporations, could be used for education, health care, job training, etc. etc. etc. (Hell, if nothing else we could at least use it to pay for the stupid fucking WAR, right?)

It's been done in Venezuela (oh, how the Right hate to see a country using its own resources for its own people, rather than to profit foreign corporate investors); and now in Bolivia; and Ecuador might be moving in that direction . . . Nonetheless, the idea is, naturally, unthinkable here. We believe -- religiously -- that whatever the so-called "Free Market" brings about is inherently good, by definition; to even question this is heresy to those who worship the Almighty Dollar.

But explain to me why we should oppose nationalization? Seems to me that opposition to this means you'd prefer to support an unaccountable and hierarchical institution led by billionaires who care only about profit, rather than support the people democratically making the decisions and spreading the wealth.

—ungeziefer

Casus Belli - The Israeli Soldiers - Were they kidnapped in Israel, Or Captured In Lebanon?

2006-07-26T13:01:00.001-05:00

Saturday July 22nd 2006, 11:45 am

“The border of Southern Lebanon and Israel is a seamless web of intervisible Israeli outposts with night vision devices, tied together with ground surveillance radar, plowed-flat and raked daily to see footprints, and backed by quick reaction forces. Israelis routinely make incursive patrols into Lebanon. It is nearly impossible for an organized group of Hezbolla or anyone else to cross the border south, much less capture prisoners there. The very notion that this was an incursion INTO Israel is propped up solely by the credulity of the general public that knows nothing about military operations. In reality, the idea is as ludicrous as the Easter Bunny.” - Stan Goff

. . . . . . . .

You'll hit us, warned UN staff | The World | The Australian

2006-07-26T12:27:00.000-05:00

UN observers made 10 frantic telephone calls to the Israeli military, warning them aerial attacks were getting close to their post, in the hours before a direct hit on their bunker killed four peacekeepers.

A UN report released last night said the peacekeepers were told during each of the calls that the bombing would cease, but they were then hit by a precision-guided missile.
. . . . . . . .

The attack came a day after hospital officials in southern Lebanon accused Israel of deliberately targeting ambulances clearly marked with the red cross, killing more than a dozen civilians, including children.
. . . . . . . .

Still more "liquidation" (NOT "terrorism" -- no no, that's right out)

2006-07-25T22:10:00.000-05:00

The carnage in Lebanon continues

One of my favorite quotes bears repeating:

"A terrorist is someone who has a bomb but does not have an Air Force." -- William Blum

This is not new (it's from last Friday), but I thought it relevant given that everyone's asking "why would Israel strike against the U.N.?" :

From Juan Cole's 'Informed Comment' blog :

' I've just heard from Christine . . . via text messaging . She is in the Bekaa valley in a bomb shelter and Israel is bombing the village where she is at the moment. She says they are bombing the Red Cross, food lorries, fire brigade, hospitals and emergency relief centres . . . She is very concerned about the lack of reporting by the international media about the details of this violence. '

There's over-abundant evidence of the deliberate targeting of civilians (sometimes, in candid moments, they even come right out and admit that what they're trying to do is make the Lebanese people suffer so that they will blame Hezbollah and turn against them -- the problem, of course, being that they're more likely to achieve the exact opposite with this type of insane escalation). But even giving Israel the benefit of the doubt: if it really was an accident, then they need to stop talking about "smart bombs" or "precision bombs" and their alleged accuracy; and they need to just come out and state clearly that they bomb with the full knowledge and understanding that they're killing and maiming scores of innocent civilians.

This is obvious on its face, by the way -- otherwise, why are the U.S. and all the European countries scrambling to evacuate their citizens? Unless you're a member of Hezbollah, you should be safe, right?

I hate the way this sounds, but honestly I wish we had left all the Americans there and not evacuated a single one. Why? Because I think once a few Americans started being blown up by Israeli air strikes, you'd see an end to this horrific shit real fucking fast.

Whether the attack on the U.N. observer post was deliberate, I don't know. I thought Kofi Annan made a very strong case:

"This coordinated artillery and aerial attack on a long-established and clearly marked U.N. post at Khiyam occurred despite personal assurances given to me by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that U.N. positions would be spared Israeli fire," he said in a statement.

"Furthermore, General Alain Pelligrini, the U.N. force commander in south Lebanon, had been in repeated contact with Israeli officers throughout the day on Tuesday, stressing the need to protect that particular U.N. position from attack."

Again, you might ask, "Why would they do that? Wouldn't that just turn more people against them? What would they really have to gain from it?" Well, what do they really have to gain from murdering nearly four hundred people in one week and destroying half of Lebanon? What did they really have to gain from Sabra and Shatila, or from occupying Gaza and the West Bank? What did they have to gain from invading Lebanon the first time? Similarly you might ask, What did Hezbollah have to gain by capturing 2 Israeli soldiers (well, actually in that case they thought they would gain the release of Lebanese prisoners -- but, details.) What did the U.S. have to gain by bombing the Red Cross on at least three separate occasions, both in Afghanistan and in Iraq? Or by bombing Al Jazeera -- also in both countries? Or by taking over the hospitals of Falluja? Or by telling the Iraqis, in pretty clear terms, "we're going to destroy your country and then steal your oil, which we will then sell to rebuild it"? Or by refusing to promise Iraq that we have no plans to permanently occupy their country and do not wish to establish permanent military bases there? Or by refusing to have elections there or a trial for Saddam for over a year? What did Osama Bin Laden have to gain by plotting 9/11? I really don't know. I'm not convinced these are terribly rational people.

"Why would they do that when it's just going to make people turn against them?" You tell me. (If there's an answer, it's probably something like "Let them hate, so long as they fear.")

Meanwhile, White House Endorses Column Calling For Israel to Attack Syria

And now, some comic relief (lest I go and stick my head in the oven) :

FOX NEWS headline tonight: "BIGGER THREAT TO U.S.: MIDEAST FIGHTING OR HUGO CHAVEZ?"

You can't make this stuff up.

This was pretty interesting, too: rather than exploring why there's so much animosity towards the state of Israel, FOX chose instead to interview an Orthodox Rabbi who believes the State of Israel should be dismantled. Odd: "Blame Israel?"

I thought Hell had frozen over in another segment, in which FOX allowed an actual debate to take place! : Are Arab media fueling flames of hatred in Middle East? (Perhaps because they have a narrow and stereotypical view of Al Jazeera, they assumed any representative from that station would simply be a raving nut yelling loudly for the killing of all Jews everywhere or something, and thus make their case for them.)

No doubt "fueling the flames of hatred" means "actually showing the truth of what's going on," which is not allowed on FOX. I think the Israeli bombs are doing enough "hatred flame fueling" on their own, myself. And, you know, ACTUAL FLAME fueling and stuff. But, maybe that's just me.

—ungeziefer

"Thank God for the bunker busters" (and other notes from a world gone mad)

2006-07-24T23:18:00.000-05:00

All right. I've been paying more attention to this bullshit than is probably good for me.

And what can I do about it? Not a goddam thing.

Oh well.

But.

What follows is a long and somewhat tangential post on the "Middle East Crisis" (as it's being dubbed).

On a Paula Zahn segment I witnessed a segment with the title (I kid you not) : "The End Of The World?" (All about religious fanatics. Like our president, and others. [Actually, I don't think she even bothered to include King George. Cause, you know, that would be "partisan" and "liberal bias" and etc.].)

To her credit, when interviewing former Israeli Prime Minister, Zahn asked him point-blank whether or not White Phosphorus was used in the attacks on Lebanon. He assured us that "our weapons are all legal" -- basically a subtle evasion of the question, much like Alberto Gonzales, when asked about torture, saying "our interrogation tactics are all approved and legal" (meaning "I, and/or others in the executive branch, decreed that these techniques are a.o.k."). In fact -- just in case phosphorus WAS used despite Israeli denial, apparently -- the segment went on to explain how these weapons are in fact not [technically] banned, and so "even if they WERE used," it would have been just find -- but I'm not saying we used them! I didn't say that!"

(By the way -- not that I should have to even say this, except perhaps to a four-year-old child or a sociopath [in which case why bother], but there's a simple test to determine whether or not something is morally acceptable: in this case, the test question would be: would it be morally acceptable for Hezbollah to use White Phosphorus against Israel or the United States?)

Glenn Beck said -- literally, explicitly and unequivocally, no exageration whatsoever here -- that Hizbollah are "worse than the Nazis."

In a world gone crazy: WSJ Editor: U.S. Missiles Save Lebanese Lives [VIDEO]

UK Govt Sources Confirm War With Iran Is On

"Britain and the United States ... will go to war with Iran before the end of the year. . . . Israel, with US and British support, is deliberately escalating the cycle of retaliation to legitimize the imminent targeting of Iran before year's end.
. . . . . . . ." By Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed (author of THE WAR ON FREEDOM: How and Why America was Attacked, September 11th, 2001

'10 buildings for every rocket'

"The Israeli air force has been ordered to hit 10 buildings in south Beirut - where Hezbollah has its headquarters - for every rocket the group fires at the Israeli port of Haifa."

More on the pre-meditation of Israel's invasion of Lebanon (with the capture of two of its soldiers clearly a mere pretext):

Secret 2001 Pentagon Plan to Attack Lebanon: Bush's Plan for "Serial War" revealed by General Wesley Clark

The Israeli invasion of Lebanon was planned between top Israeli officials and members of the Bush administration.

Israeli Warplanes target Red Cross and UN in southern Lebanon

As if that were not enough, more on the use of white phosphorous and perhaps other chemical weapons by Israel in its pre-meditated assault on Lebanon:

Chemical Weapons used against Lebanese Civliians

Lebanon accuses Israel of using "internationally prohibited weapons against civilians"
Phosphorus incendiary bombs and vacuum bombs

Israel bans reporting of use of "unique" weapons in Lebanon: Israel has issued new censorship guidelines banning reporting of the "use of unique kinds of ammunition and weaponry" in Lebanon. . . . . . . . .

Replenishing the Stockpiles of Israel's WMD

The bombs which are now being rushed to Israel are the [U.S.-made] large 5000 lb GBU 28 bunker buster bombs, which can in one strike in an urban area kill literally hundreds of people.

The US claims that the bunker buster bomb is safe for the surrounding civilian population, because the explosion is underground. Israel has stated that the GBU 28 is to be used against Hizbollah, because Hizbollah has taken refuge in deap underground bunkers:

"Designed to penetrate hardened command centers located deep underground, the GBU-28 is a 5,000-pound laser-guided bomb that uses a 4,400-pound penetrating warhead and contains 630 pounds of high explosives."

( http://www.irmep.org/GBU.htm )

The GBU-28 has already been used in densely populated urban areas inside Lebanon. The gruesome images of charred and mutilated bodies following these aerial bombings, could indeed be the result of the use of the GBU-28, which is among the deadliest weapons in the conventional arsenal. . . . . . . . .

And, just in case you still think Armageddon is a ways off . . . :

Pakistan 'building reactor for 50 nukes' per year

From a 1996 Human Rights Watch report, "Human Pawns":

. . . . . . . .
For over a decade, a conflict has raged on the border of Israel and Lebanon, where Israel occupies a large section of Lebanese territory. Civilians have been the principal targets and victims in this conflict. Both sides-Israel and its allied Lebanese militia, the South Lebanon Army, on one side, and guerrillas affiliated with Hizballah and a number of small Palestinian factions on the other-have exhibited a willful disregard for international humanitarian law (also known as the laws of war). Both sides have directly targeted civilians and indiscriminately lobbed shells and fired rockets at civilian population centers during various stages of the conflict.1 Israel, with its superior firepower, has caused by far the most civilian casualties, and the most damage to residential homes and civilian infrastructure.
. . . . . . . .
Likewise, Human Rights Watch is disturbed by eyewitness testimony suggesting that Israel may have used white phosphorus, or a similar incendiary ordinarily used for marking purposes, in an antipersonnel mode in populated areas in southern Lebanon. White phosphorus ammunition, according to experts, can cause severe burns and permanent scars. During the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982, the Israeli shelling of villages in southern Lebanon in July 1993, and subsequent shelling attacks, there have been numerous allegations of Israeli forces using phosphorus against civilians. The available circumstantial evidence of the illegal use of phosphorus, and/or other incendiaries, by Israel against Lebanese civilians during the 1993 events and afterwards is so compelling as to warrant serious investigation and a public response by the Israeli government. Among other evidence, Human Rights Watch saw several civilians, including children, in southern Lebanon with burns that are likely to have been caused by phosphorus.
. . . . . . . .

Guess nothing changes.

—ungeziefer

"I'm just sick in the stomach, to put it mildly"

2006-07-24T16:34:00.000-05:00

-- Rep. Nick J. Rahall II, D-W.Va., who is of Lebanese descent, on the U.S. House vot to support Israel's military campaign against Lebanon. The vote passed by 410-8

House Passes Pro-Israel Resolution, Lawmakers Vote 410-8 To Support Israel's Military Campaign In Lebanon - CBS News

Mmm. Wonder if this could have anything to do with it . . .

Irony lives on

2006-07-24T13:56:00.000-05:00

Iraq PM to urge U.S. to work for a cease-fire in Lebanon

What the Iraqi government (which the right wing loves so much) has to say about Israel's bombardment of Lebanon:

"The hostile acts against Lebanon will have effects on the region and we are not far from what is going on in Lebanon," al-Maliki said. "We will speak with the United Nations and American government to call for a cease-fire quickly."

. . . . . . . .

Hezbollah and its leader, Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, have a wide following among Iraqi Shiites, who comprise about 60% of the nation's 27 million people.

. . . . . . . ."

And you've probably seen media reports trying to spin the situation -- saying that al-Maliki was asked to call off his visit because others in the new Iraqi government don't want him to call for a ceasfire in Lebanon. This is not only inaccurate, it is Orwellian; it is the exact OPPOSITE of the truth. He has been asked not to make the visit to Washington in order to make a strong statement to the U.S. that the Iraqi government WANTS a ceasefire:

"On Saturday, the Fadhila party, which is part of al-Maliki's Shiite alliance, urged the prime minister to call off the visit. Fadhila holds 15 seats in the 275-member parliament and dominates the provincial administration in Basra, Iraq's second-largest city.

"Fadhila demands that the prime minister cancel his visit to the U.S. in solidarity with the Lebanese people and over what is going on there, the disasters due to the Zionist aggression amid international silence about these crimes," party official Sheik Sabah al-Saiedi told The Associated Press.

And the icing on the cake here is this:

Al-Maliki also is expected to discuss the timetable for the U.S.-led coalition to hand over primary security responsibility to the Iraqis."

Of course, our good pals the Saudis also have insisted that Bush push for a cease fire.

—ungeziefer

"A complete and total sham"

2006-07-24T12:53:00.000-05:00

Or, as Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy put it:

"[Bush] is saying, if you do every single thing I tell you to do, I'll do what I should have done anyway."

This "compromise" bill that is meant to provide review and oversight of Bush's illegal and unconstitutional warrantless NSA wiretapping program actually appears to do the opposite. Instead it allows the program to expand, and potentially to continue with even less oversight than before.

I have a LOT of respect for Arlen Specter. (I happened to catch his speech supporting the flag-burning amendment -- and even THAT I respected, although I thought the whole bill was complete and utter nonsense.) But the fact is, he's just caving in on this one.

From the "Balkinization" blog:

"
Specter's proposed legislation, if passed in its present form, would give President Bush everything he wants. And then some. At first glance, Specter's bill looks like a moderate and wise compromise that expands the President's authority to engage in electronic surveillance under a variety of Congressional and judicial oversight procedures. But read more closely, it actually turns out to be a virtual blank check to the Executive, because under section 801 of the bill the President can route around every single one of them. Thus, all of the elegant machinery of the bill's oversight provisions is, I regret to report, a complete and total sham. Once the President obtains the powers listed in section 801, the rest of the bill is pretty much irrelevant. He will be free of Congressional oversight forever.

But first, the details: The bill authorizes the FISA court to permit "electronic surveillance programs"-- the key point being that these involve domestic surveillance of U.S. citizens-- for periods up to 90 days, periods which are indefinitely renewable. Authorization is on a program by program basis, rather than on the basis of the particular individuals who are being watched. All legal challenges to the surveillance program-- including challenges to the use of evidence in other prosecutions or litigation-- can be moved to the secret FISA court if the Attorney General states that national security demands it. The FISA court, in turn, has the power to dismiss a challenge to the legality of the program "for any reason." This provision seems puzzling: literally it says that the court can dismiss legal challenges to programs for any reason, whether good or bad, and even if the objections to the programs are well founded. In fact, the provision makes sense only if its purpose is to allow the FISA court to immunize Presidential surveillance from legal attack.

. . . . . . . .

In short, if this bill is passed in its present form, it would seem to give the Executive everything it could possibly dream of-- a lax method of oversight and the possibility of ignoring that oversight whenever the President chooses. The NSA can (1) engage in ongoing electronic surveillance within FISA with indefinite 90 day renewals, (2) engage in electronic surveillance without even seeking a court order for a year, and finally (3) under section 801, engage in electronic surveillance outside of FISA under the President's constitutional authority to collect foreign intelligence surveillance.

Barely two weeks after Hamdan, which appeared to be the most important separation of powers decision in our generation, the Executive is about to get back everything it lost in that decision, and more. In Hamdan, the Supreme Court gave the ball to Congress, hoping for a bit of oversight, and Senator Specter has just punted.
"

See also: Specter's Bill Is No "Compromise" [ Daily Kos ]

War on Lebanon Planned for at least a Year

2006-07-23T20:05:00.000-05:00

Matthew Kalman reveals that Israel's wideranging assault on Lebanon has been planned in a general way for years, and a specific plan has been in the works for over a year. The "Three Week War" was shown to Washington think tanks and officials last year on powerpoint by a senior Israeli army officer:

"More than a year ago, a senior Israeli army officer began giving PowerPoint presentations, on an off-the-record basis, to U.S. and other diplomats, journalists and think tanks, setting out the plan for the current operation in revealing detail."
The Israelis tend to launch their wars of choice in the summer, in part because they know that European and American universities will be the primary nodes of popular opposition, and the universities are out in the summer. This war has nothing to do with captured Israeli soldiers. It is a long-planned war to increase Israel's ascendency over Hizbullah and its patrons.
. . . . . . . ."

Ahh, "Diplomacy" . . .

2006-07-23T12:48:00.000-05:00

Bolton dismisses Syria offer for dialogue

"It has been Syria's ongoing position that we are ready to have a dialogue with the United States."
-- Syrian Deputy Foreign Minister Faisal Mukdad

"Syria doesn't need dialogue to know what they need to do."
-- John Bolton, US Ambassador to the United Nations

Mukdad told Britain's Sky News that Damascus was ready to talk on the condition that Washington engages on the question of Israeli occupation of neighbouring land. . . .

Iraq: "The situation is terrifying and black"

2006-07-23T12:37:00.000-05:00

Reuters AlertNet - ANALYSIS-Gloom descends on Iraqi leaders as civil war looms

BAGHDAD, July 21 (Reuters) - Iraqi leaders have all but given up on holding the country together and, just two months after forming a national unity government, talk in private of "black days" of civil war ahead.

Signalling a dramatic abandonment of the U.S.-backed project for Iraq, there is even talk among them of pre-empting the worst bloodshed by agreeing to an east-west division of Baghdad into Shi'ite and Sunni Muslim zones, senior officials told Reuters.

Tens of thousands have already fled homes on either side.

"Iraq as a political project is finished," one senior government official said -- anonymously because the coalition under Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki remains committed in public to the U.S.-sponsored constitution that preserves Iraq's unity.

One highly placed source even spoke of busying himself on government projects, despite a sense of their futility, only as a way to fight his growing depression over his nation's future.

"The parties have moved to Plan B," the senior official said, saying Sunni, ethnic Kurdish and majority Shi'ite blocs were looking at ways to divide power and resources and to solve the conundrum of Baghdad's mixed population of seven million.

"There is serious talk of Baghdad being divided into east and west," he said. "We are extremely worried."

On the eve of the first meeting of a National Reconciliation Commission and before Maliki meets President George W. Bush in Washington next week, other senior politicians also said they were close to giving up on hopes of preserving the 80-year-old, multi-ethnic, religiously mixed state in its present form.

"The situation is terrifying and black," said Rida Jawad al -Takki, a senior member of parliament from Maliki's dominant Shi'ite Alliance bloc, and one of the few officials from all the main factions willing to speak publicly on the issue.

"We have received information of a plan to divide Baghdad. The government is incapable of solving the situation," he said.

As sectarian violence has mounted to claim perhaps 100 lives a day and tens of thousands flee their homes, a senior official from the once dominant Sunni minority concurred: "Everyone knows the situation is very bad," he said. "I'm not optimistic."

. . . . . . . .

"Please use restraint. Have some more bombs."

2006-07-23T12:10:00.000-05:00

Just in case there's anyone on the planet who actually still believes the United States wants peace, or still does not know the answer to the question, "Why do they hate us??" . . .

U.S. Speeds Up Bomb Delivery for the Israelis

By DAVID S. CLOUD and HELENE COOPER

WASHINGTON, July 21 — The Bush administration is rushing a delivery of precision-guided bombs to Israel, which requested the expedited shipment last week after beginning its air campaign against Hezbollah targets in Lebanon, American officials said Friday.

The decision to quickly ship the weapons to Israel was made with relatively little debate within the Bush administration, the officials said. Its disclosure threatens to anger Arab governments and others because of the appearance that the United States is actively aiding the Israeli bombing campaign in a way that could be compared to Iran’s efforts to arm and resupply Hezbollah.

The munitions that the United States is sending to Israel are part of a multimillion-dollar arms sale package approved last year that Israel is able to draw on as needed, the officials said. But Israel’s request for expedited delivery of the satellite and laser-guided bombs was described as unusual by some military officers, and as an indication that Israel still had a long list of targets in Lebanon to strike.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Friday that she would head to Israel on Sunday at the beginning of a round of Middle Eastern diplomacy. The original plan was to include a stop to Cairo in her travels, but she did not announce any stops in Arab capitals.

Instead, the meeting of Arab and European envoys planned for Cairo will take place in Italy, Western diplomats said. While Arab governments initially criticized Hezbollah for starting the fight with Israel in Lebanon, discontent is rising in Arab countries over the number of civilian casualties in Lebanon, and the governments have become wary of playing host to Ms. Rice until a cease-fire package is put together.

To hold the meetings in an Arab capital before a diplomatic solution is reached, said Martin S. Indyk, a former American ambassador to Israel, “would have identified the Arabs as the primary partner of the United States in this project at a time where Hezbollah is accusing the Arab leaders of providing cover for the continuation of Israel’s military operation.”

The decision to stay away from Arab countries for now is a markedly different strategy from the shuttle diplomacy that previous administrations used to mediate in the Middle East. “I have no interest in diplomacy for the sake of returning Lebanon and Israel to the status quo ante,” Ms. Rice said Friday. “I could have gotten on a plane and rushed over and started shuttling around, and it wouldn’t have been clear what I was shuttling to do.”

Before Ms. Rice heads to Israel on Sunday, she will join President Bush at the White House for discussions on the Middle East crisis with two Saudi envoys, Saud al-Faisal, the foreign minister, and Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the secretary general of the National Security Council.

The new American arms shipment to Israel has not been announced publicly, and the officials who described the administration’s decision to rush the munitions to Israel would discuss it only after being promised anonymity. The officials included employees of two government agencies, and one described the shipment as just one example of a broad array of armaments that the United States has long provided Israel.

One American official said the shipment should not be compared to the kind of an “emergency resupply” of dwindling Israeli stockpiles that was provided during the 1973 Arab-Israeli war, when an American military airlift helped Israel recover from early Arab victories.

David Siegel, a spokesman for the Israeli Embassy in Washington, said: “We have been using precision-guided munitions in order to neutralize the military capabilities of Hezbollah and to minimize harm to civilians. As a rule, however, we do not comment on Israel’s defense acquisitions.”

Israel’s need for precision munitions is driven in part by its strategy in Lebanon, which includes destroying hardened underground bunkers where Hezbollah leaders are said to have taken refuge, as well as missile sites and other targets that would be hard to hit without laser and satellite-guided bombs.

Pentagon and military officials declined to describe in detail the size and contents of the shipment to Israel, and they would not say whether the munitions were being shipped by cargo aircraft or some other means. But an arms-sale package approved last year provides authority for Israel to purchase from the United States as many as 100 GBU-28’s, which are 5,000-pound laser-guided bombs intended to destroy concrete bunkers. The package also provides for selling satellite-guided munitions.

An announcement in 2005 that Israel was eligible to buy the “bunker buster” weapons described the GBU-28 as “a special weapon that was developed for penetrating hardened command centers located deep underground.” The document added, “The Israeli Air Force will use these GBU-28’s on their F-15 aircraft.”

American officials said that once a weapons purchase is approved, it is up to the buyer nation to set up a timetable. But one American official said normal procedures usually do not include rushing deliveries within days of a request. That was done because Israel is a close ally in the midst of hostilities, the official said.

Although Israel had some precision guided bombs in its stockpile when the campaign in Lebanon began, the Israelis may not have taken delivery of all the weapons they were entitled to under the 2005 sale.

Israel said its air force had dropped 23 tons of explosives Wednesday night alone in Beirut, in an effort to penetrate what was believed to be a bunker used by senior Hezbollah officials.

A senior Israeli official said Friday that the attacks to date had degraded Hezbollah’s military strength by roughly half, but that the campaign could go on for two more weeks or longer. “We will stay heavily with the air campaign,” he said. “There’s no time limit. We will end when we achieve our goals.”

The Bush administration announced Thursday a military equipment sale to Saudi Arabia, worth more than $6 billion, a move that may in part have been aimed at deflecting inevitable Arab government anger at the decision to supply Israel with munitions in the event that effort became public.

On Friday, Bush administration officials laid out their plans for the diplomatic strategy that Ms. Rice will pursue. In Rome, the United States will try to hammer out a diplomatic package that will offer Lebanon incentives under the condition that a United Nations resolution, which calls for the disarming of Hezbollah, is implemented.

Diplomats will also try to figure out the details around an eventual international peacekeeping force, and which countries will contribute to it. Germany and Russia have both indicated that they would be willing to contribute forces; Ms. Rice said the United States was unlikely to.

Implicit in the eventual diplomatic package is a cease-fire. But a senior American official said it remained unclear whether, under such a plan, Hezbollah would be asked to retreat from southern Lebanon and commit to a cease-fire, or whether American diplomats might depend on Israel’s continued bombardment to make Hezbollah’s acquiescence irrelevant.

Daniel Ayalon, Israel’s ambassador to Washington, said that Israel would not rule out an international force to police the borders of Lebanon and Syria and to patrol southern Lebanon, where Hezbollah has had a stronghold. But he said that Israel was first determined to take out Hezbollah’s command and control centers and weapons stockpiles.

Thom Shanker contributed reporting for this article.

"let them hate so long as they fear" . . .

2006-07-23T11:37:00.001-05:00

The Anti-Empire Report
Some things you need to know before the world ends
July 22, 2006
by William Blum

The End Is Near, but first, this commercial.

There are times when I think that this tired old world has gone on a few years too long. What's happening in the Middle East is so depressing. Most discussions of the eternal Israel-Palestine conflict are variations on the child's eternal defense for misbehavior -- "He started it!" Within a few minutes of discussing/arguing the latest manifestation of the conflict the participants are back to 1967, then 1948, then biblical times. I don't wish to get entangled in who started the current mess. I would like instead to first express what I see as two essential underlying facts of life which remain from one conflict to the next:

1) Israel's existence is not at stake and hasn't been so for decades, if it ever was, regardless of the many de rigueur militant statements by Arab leaders over the years. If Israel would learn to deal with its neighbors in a non-expansionist, non-military, humane, and respectful manner, engage in full prisoner exchanges, and sincerely strive for a viable two-state solution, even those who are opposed to the idea of a state based on a particular religion could accept the state of Israel, and the question of its right to exist would scarcely arise in people's minds. But as it is, Israel still uses the issue as a justification for its behavior, as Jews all over the world use the Holocaust and conflating anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism.

2) In a conflict between a thousand-pound gorilla and a mouse, it's the gorilla which has to make concessions in order for the two sides to progress to the next level. What can the Palestinians offer in the way of concession? Israel would reply to that question: "No violent attacks of any kind." But that would still leave the status quo ante bellum -- a life of unmitigated misery for the Palestinian people forced upon them by Israel. Peace without justice.

Israel's declarations about the absolute unacceptability of one of their soldiers being held captive by the Palestinians, or two soldiers being held by Hezbollah in Lebanon, cannot be taken too seriously when Israel is holding literally thousands of captured Palestinians, many for years, typically without any due process, many tortured; as well as holding a number of prominent Hezbollah members. A few years ago, if not still now, Israel wrote numbers on some of the Palestinian prisoners' arms and foreheads, using blue markers, a practice that is of course reminiscent of the Nazis' treatment of Jews in World War II. [1]

Israel's real aim, and that of Washington, is the overthrow of the Hamas government in Palestine, the government that came to power in January through a clearly democratic process, the democracy that the Western "democracies" never tire of celebrating, except when the result doesn't please them. Is there a stronger word than "hypocrisy"? There is now "no Hamas government," declared a senior US official a week ago, "eight cabinet ministers or 30 percent of the government is in jail [kidnapped by Israel], another 30 percent is in hiding, and the other 30 percent is doing very little."[2] To make the government-disappearance act even more Orwellian, we have Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, speaking in late June about Iraq: "This is the only legitimately elected government in the Middle East with a possible exception of Lebanon."[3] What's next, gathering in front of the Big Telescreeen for the Two Minutes Hate?

In addition to doing away with the Hamas government, the current military blitzkrieg by Israel, with full US support, may well be designed to create "incidents" to justify attacks on Iran and Syria, the next steps of Washington's work in process, a controlling stranglehold on the Middle East and its oil.

It is a wanton act of collective punishment that is depriving the Palestinians of food, electricity, water, money, access to the outside world ... and sleep. Israel has been sending jets flying over Gaza at night triggering sonic booms, traumatizing children. "I want nobody to sleep at night in Gaza," declared Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert[4]; words suitable for Israel's tombstone.

These crimes against humanity -- and I haven't mentioned the terrible special weapons reportedly used by Israel -- are what the people of Palestine get for voting for the wrong party. It is ironic, given the Israeli attacks against civilians in both Gaza and Lebanon, that Hamas and Hezbollah are routinely dismissed in the West as terrorist organizations. The generally accepted definition of terrorism, used by the FBI and the United Nations amongst others, is: The use of violence against a civilian population in order to intimidate or coerce a government in furtherance of a political objective.

Since 9-11 it has been a calculated US-Israeli tactic to label the fight against Israel's foes as an integral part of the war on terror. On July 19, a rally was held in Washington, featuring the governor of Maryland, several members of Israeli-occupied Congress, the Israeli ambassador, and evangelical leading-light John Hagee. The Washington Post reported that "Speaker after prominent speaker characteriz[ed] current Israeli fighting as a small branch of the larger U.S.-led global war against Islamic terrorism" and "Israel's attacks against the Shiite Muslim group Hezbollah were blows against those who have killed civilians from Bali to Bombay to Moscow." Said the Israeli ambassador: "This is not just about [Israel]. It's about where our world is going to be and the fate and security of our world. Israel is on the forefront. We will amputate these little arms of Iran," referring to Hezbollah.[5]

And if the war on terror isn't enough to put Israel on the side of the angels, John Hagee has argued that "the United States must join Israel in a pre-emptive military strike against Iran to fulfill God's plan for both Israel and the West". He speaks of "a biblically prophesied end-time confrontation with Iran, which will lead to the Rapture, Tribulation, and Second Coming of Christ."[6]

The beatification of Israel approaches being a movement. Here is David Horowitz, the eminent semi-hysterical ex-Marxist: "Israel is part of a global war, the war of radical Islam against civilization. Right now Israel is doing the work of the rest of the civilized world by taking on the terrorists. It is not only for Israel's sake that we must get the facts out -- it is for ourselves, America, for every free country in the world, and for civilization itself."[7]

As for the two Israeli soldiers captured and held in Lebanon for prisoner exchange, we must keep a little history in mind. In the late 1990s, before Israel was evicted from southern Lebanon by Hezbollah, it was a common practice for Israel to abduct entirely innocent Lebanese. As a 1998 Amnesty International paper declared: "By Israel's own admission, Lebanese detainees are being held as 'bargaining chips'; they are not detained for their own actions but in exchange for Israeli soldiers missing in action or killed in Lebanon. Most have now spent 10 years in secret and isolated detention."[8]

Israel has created its worst enemies -- they helped create Hamas as a counterweight to Fatah in Palestine, and their occupation of Lebanon created Hezbollah. The current terrible bombings can be expected to keep the process going. Since its very beginning, Israel has been almost continually occupied in fighting wars and taking other people's lands. Did not any better way ever occur to the idealistic Zionist pioneers?

But while you and I get depressed by the horror and suffering, the neo-conservatives revel in it. They devour the flesh and drink the blood of the people of Afghanistan, of Iraq, of Palestine, of Lebanon, yet remain ravenous, and now call for Iran and Syria to be placed upon the feasting table. More than one of them has used the expression oderint dum metuant, a favorite phrase of Roman emperor Caligula, also used by Cicero -- "let them hate so long as they fear". Here is William Kristol, editor of the bible of neo-cons, "Weekly Standard", on Fox News Sunday, July 16:

"Look, our coddling of Iran ... over the last six to nine months has emboldened them. I mean, is Iran behaving like a timid regime that's very worried about the U.S.? Or is Iran behaving recklessly and in a foolhardy way? ... Israel is fighting four of our five enemies in the Middle East, in a sense. Iran, Syria, sponsors of terror; Hezbollah and Hamas. ... This is an opportunity to begin to reverse the unfortunate direction of the last six to nine months and get the terrorists and the jihadists back on the defensive."

Host Juan Williams replied: "Well, it just seems to me that you want ... you just want war, war, war, and you want us in more war. You wanted us in Iraq. Now you want us in Iran. Now you want us to get into the Middle East ... you're saying, why doesn't the United States take this hard, unforgiving line? Well, the hard and unforgiving line has been [tried], we don't talk to anybody. We don't talk to Hamas. We don't talk to Hezbollah. We're not going to talk to Iran. Where has it gotten us, Bill?"

Kristol, looking somewhat taken aback, simply threw up his hands.

The Fox News audience does (very) occasionally get a hint of another way of looking at the world.

William Blum is the author of:

Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War 2
Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower
West-Bloc Dissident: A Cold War Memoir
Freeing the World to Death: Essays on the American Empire

www.killinghope.org
Previous Anti-Empire Reports can be read at this website.

This is not "terrorism"???

2006-07-21T19:28:00.000-05:00

"While Hezbollah's actions are deplorable, and as I've said Israel has a right to defend itself, the excessive use of force is to be condemned." -- Kofi Annan

5,818 Iraqi civilians killed in May and June alone, according to the most recent report issued by the United Nations mission in Iraq. 100 people per day are murdered.

"Perhaps the most gruesome story in that report is that of 12-year old Omar's. He had been kidnapped, and his family paid a $30,000 ransom, only to have Iraqi police find his body in a plastic bag. He had been sexually assaulted and hung with his own clothes." (CNN)

In Lebanon, The Dead Have To Wait

20,000 wounded in Lebanon:
“The dead are rotting in the rubble of smashed homes”

". . . . . . . . PARKED outside the small general hospital in Tyre is a badly refrigerated lorry container in which are stacked the bodies of 91 Lebanese civilians, 55 of them children.  The bodies have been placed inside black plastic rubbish bags and labelled in anticipation of the time, days or weeks from now, when their surviving relatives - if any - can come to collect them.
. . . . . . . ." 
South Lebanon, Has Become A Killing Zone

Scores of Lebanese Civilians Buried in Tyre

Carpenters and volunteers were hard at work in the courtyard of Tyre’s state hospital today, busily constructing dozens of coffins for a mass burial for more than 80 Lebanese civilians who were killed in the 10-day-old Israeli bombing campaign.

Nearby, two trucks stood parked. For days, their motors have been running around the clock. They are refrigerator trucks, and since the hospital mortuary overflowed at the start of the Israeli bombing campaign, they have been used to store a growing cargo of corpses.

The hospital's director, Dr. Salman Zeynadin, says many of the victims died from serious burns, the results of Israeli air and artillery strikes in the villages and countryside around Tyre. With the situation still too dangerous to hold proper burials, Dr. Zeynadin ordered the temporary burial of the bodies in a mass grave.

Doctors in Tyre say since the fighting began, the city's hospitals have received more then 300 wounded and 102 dead.

Israeli jets have repeatedly bombed the road network in southern Lebanon. The road to Tyre snakes past demolished bridges and bombed gas stations. Cars have to skirt around huge craters in the road.

The town of Tyre itself is almost completely deserted. In the ancient port, several men sat next to idle fishing boats. George Atiya, a 48-year old carpenter, said his friends and neighbors have been receiving automated phone calls from the Israeli military, with warnings recorded in Arabic instructing them to evacuate all of Southern Lebanon.

Across town today, bulldozers dug two long trenches in an abandoned field. And in the afternoon, Lebanese army trucks loaded with coffins, backed into the pits.

One by one, soldiers dragged the boxes out and laid them on the ground. As they worked, Israeli warplanes began bombing a ridge just a few miles away.

Just before bulldozers finally filled in the pits, workers rushed in to add another coffin. It contained the body of a Lebanese woman killed in an Israeli air strike today. She was buried along with 81 others.

Day after day, Red Cross worker Sam Zheir has been bringing dead and wounded people in from the countryside. All of them, he said, were civilians. Many were buried today.

As the Israeli military bombs southern Lebanon, aircraft periodically drop leaflets over the countryside, instructing people in Arabic to evacuate the area and move north, for their own safety.

But leaving is dangerous. Two days ago, Zheir says he found a car full of fleeing civilians, which had been hit by an Israeli bomb."

—ungeziefer

Bill O'Reilly interviews John Kerry

2006-07-21T01:52:00.000-05:00

[ part1 ]
[ part2 ]

I'm not exactly sure when this took place. But believe it or not, O'Reilly is almost CIVIL.

As always he shows how smart and tough he thinks he is -- with every question you can hear him saying "Ha! Answer THAT one, John -- I'd like to see you try!" And after every question, he gets his ass handed to him.

—ungeziefer

Lebanon News - Western media has dropped the ball by failing to tell the real story in Lebanon

2006-07-21T01:17:00.000-05:00

. . . . The numbers speak for themselves. As of Wednesday evening, Israeli attacks had killed at least 292 civilians in Lebanon, while Hizbullah rockets had killed 13 noncombatants in the Jewish state. Lebanon has approximately 3.5 million people. On a per-capita basis, that means that as of Wednesday, the rough equivalent of 9/11 has happened every day here for eight days.

I'm not sure about the "per-capita" approach, but it's interesting to consider in those terms.

And you can be certain that the numbers are far higher. As the author points out, "No one knows how many people are buried in these piles of shattered concrete and twisted steel, only that local residents would have had far less warning than Hizbullah members did about the beginning of so many ends - and that most of their escape routes were cut off by the destruction of roads and overpasses before the Dahiyeh itself became a target."

Sweet Christ, I fucking hate FOX News.

I've been watching a lot of TV news the past week, and overall the coverage of the Middle East situation has been, I think, quite good -- dare I say "Fair And Balanced." (Sirois's point notwithstanding.) CNN, MSNBC, BBC, etc. -- all pretty even-handed and reasonably thorough. True, they're completely ignoring the situation in Gaza, even though it's directly related and about 90 Palestinians have been killed in the past week or so. Sure, they're failing to sufficiently point out that firing some 50-pound rockets is slightly different from dropping 23 tons of bombs on each building. Sure, they're ignoring why Hezbollah came about and the important fact that if not for Hezbollah, Lebanon would probably still be under a 20-plus-year Israeli military occupation. Sure, they're probably over-emphasizing the role of Iran and Syria. Sure, they're obviously more concerned about the Americans evacuating Lebanon than about the 500,000-plus Lebanese refugees driven in terror from their homes who don't have the luxury of a military escort out of the country. And, yes, they forget to mention that perhaps if Israel hadn't bombed all the bridges, air ports and roads and blockaded the sea, people could get out. Etc. But they are focusing, appropriately, on the massive carnage, destruction and civilian casualties in Lebanon; while also seeing the events through the lens of Israel's point of view.

Then I turn to FOX . . .

I don't even know what to say, frankly. O'Reilly blasts the Pope for condemning both sides and lamenting the murder of civilians -- and then (responding to an email) claims that he never said it was o.k. to kill civilians and that anyone who even suggests such a thing is a "Kool-Aid drinker" (you know, that "Left Wing Kool Aid"). Anyone who criticizes Israel is (of course) an "anti-semite." Not a shred of history is provided. Iran and Syria are (of course) primarily to blame, and we should bomb them. And so on. (You get the idea.)

As usual, talking heads in the media lament, "What can the U.S. possibly do? And why is it always up to US??"

And, as usual, they ignore the fact that we could do a lot without any effort at all. For example, by simply NOT vetoing U.N. resolutions (in this case calling for a cease fire) like we ALWAYS do. John Bolton likes to bitch about the U.N. and pretend the body is "ineffective" and never does anything to solve the world's problems -- and what does he do? Delay, delay, delay. Refuses to cooperate and offers no help, and no solutions. "More talk, less action," Bolton is literally saying. We have to wait until "the time is right" for a cease fire.

A more extreme action the U.S. could take -- without even having to cooperative with the international community -- would be this: TELL ISRAEL TO KNOCK IT OFF. That's it. Would Israel listen? We'll never know, because it's never been tried. (And of course if they ignored us, we could simply say "no more arms and $5 Billion per year of American tax dollars for you." Or -- even MORE radical -- tell them "no more constantly, unequivocally and unconditionally siding with you in the Palestinian conflict.")

In short, we wouldn't have to do much. But what we are doing, and what we're not, are making matters far worse.

IN GAZA:

US vetoes UN resolution on Gaza

Israel bombs foreign ministry in Gaza

Israel intensifies Gaza action

Chemical weapons?

In Shifa hospital, Dr al-Saqqa said most of the dead bodies taken to the facility were torn apart and completely burnt.

"Even bodies of the injured have been almost completely burnt. They have been deformed in a very ugly way that we have never seen before," he told Aljazeera channel.

Al-Saqaa, who heads the hospital's emergency service, said relatives had been unable to identify the dead victims.

"When we try to X-ray dead bodies, we find no trace of the shrapnel that hit the person killed," he said, adding that the bodies seemed to have been chemically burnt.

"We are sure that Israel is using a new chemical or radioactive weapon in the new operation. More than 25% of the injured are children, aged under 16."

Four teenagers playing football were among the dead on Monday.

At least 51 Palestinians have been killed since the operation started two weeks ago. An Israeli soldier also died as a result of "friendly fire", according to the Israeli military.

. . . . . . . .

Olbermann: "This just in from hell . . ."

2006-07-20T21:28:00.000-05:00

Media Matters -
Olbermann handed Savage "Worst Person" runner-up for saying the "American left" are "the Nazis of our time":

"Our runner-up tonight: Michael Savage. Now, the bar is higher for him because ordinarily we do not like to mock the insane . . . This just in from hell: Satan has chosen the Michael Savage show to broadcast over the P.A. system to torture the souls of the eternally damned."

Savage:

"Hezbollah leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah is a good friend of the liberal left wing, the [filmmaker] Michael Moore wing, the [Sen.] Barbara Boxer [D-CA] wing, the [Sen.] Ted Kennedy [D-MA] wing, the anti-American wing of the Democrat Party. . . . Barbara Boxer should be real happy today. . . . The American left is cheering today. They'll probably break open the jug wine and cheer that Jews are dying, and that they're living and cowering in bomb shelters. One day, the 'Deutschland über alles' may be played in Jerusalem, and the American left can tear off their masks once and for all and show themselves to be what they really are -- which is the Nazis of our time."

Don't want to wound like a Nazi or anything, but . . . can't we please just exterminate people like Savage? Please??

—ungeziefer

Drunk? Or just an idiot?

2006-07-18T11:41:00.000-05:00

Some fun Bush gaffes from the G8 Summit -- which apparently Bush took about as seriously as a frat party.

Groping German Chancellor

Telling Putin he hopes that Russia will try to get "democray" like in Iraq

[ CNN story ]

Repeatedly talking about "slicing the pig," even when asked about serious stuff like the current Middle East crisis

Overall, presenting himself once again as the cowboy clown in chief

—ungeziefer

Where Am I? And What Am I Doing In This Hand Basket? . . .

2006-07-17T12:47:00.000-05:00

My opinion: FUCK Hezbollah, they brought it on themselves -- and they obviously don't give a shit about the people of Lebanon, because Israel's reaction was predictable. But FUCK Israel for killing countless innocents who have nothing to do with Hezbollah and for destroying the civilian infrastructure of Lebanon rather than capturing/killing Hezbollah militants. If the logic is, "You kill one of us, we'll kill 100 of you," then Hezbollah will now (following Israel's logic) have to kill 1000 Israelis, and then Israel will kill 100,000 Lebanese . . . and there is no end to this insane escalation and pointless bloodbath.

Fortunately, the U.S. is leading the way to solving the crisis -- by 1.) vetoing a U.N. resolution calling for a ceasefire and for the captured Israelis to be released, and 2.) discouraging and postponing a UN intervention force.

"I am dismally aware of the extent to which the blood of Palestinians is not worth anything like the blood of Israelis, still less the blood of Westerners. A good case in point was on the BBC's Question Time when every single member of the panel knew the name of the Israeli occupation soldier 'kidnapped' by the resistance, and they felt they had to pay endless sympathies to his family.

I found myself screaming at the television: "Can any of you name a single Palestinian victim, just say in the last 12 days, when 24 Palestinians, mostly women and children were killed by Israel in bomb, shell and rocket attacks?" No one knows the names of these victims, no one describes the Palestinian leaders who were kidnapped and languish in Israeli dungeons. All were seized in exactly the same way as this Israeli solder was seized. This is a double standard that does not occur to most people, but is endlessly burrowing away in my mind." -- George Galloway [ source ]

—ungeziefer

Why "Net Neutrality" is a Terrible, Terrible Idea -- by Ted "Bridge To Nowhere" Stevens

2006-07-14T13:55:00.000-05:00

More on Stevens' blocked tube theory here: Your Own Personal Internet

—ungeziefer

Quote of the week

2006-07-13T01:46:00.001-05:00

"
President Bush: "Peter. Are you going to ask that question with shades on?"

Peter Wallsten of the Los Angeles Times: "I can take them off."

Bush: "I'm interested in the shade look, seriously."

Wallsten: "All right, I'll keep it, then."

Bush: "For the viewers, there's no sun."

Wallsten: "I guess it depends on your perspective."

Bush: "Touché.
"
—An exchange with legally blind reporter Peter Wallsten, to whom Bush later apologized, Washington, D.C., June 14, 2006

There have been rare moments in which I have actually liked -- yes, LIKED George W. Bush.

This is one of them.

And for a moment I'd thought that this was another.

But apparently Bush was not sharing a gag, here -- he actually had no idea Wallsten was blind, and was simply mocking him because he was a reporter, as he mocks every other reporter.

It's weird, because watching the video clip -- a couple times -- it seems so obvious that Bush knew he was blind, and THUS IT WAS FUNNY. If he didn't know -- which apparently he did not -- it's not funny at all, just distracting and evasive and rude and stupid.

Which makes me hate the son of a bitch again.

Ah well.

About.com: http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/06/14.html#a8710

Flip Flopper?

2006-07-12T22:47:00.000-05:00

Not that I think we should be bombing North Korea or anything. (How much of a threat are they? Well, although it's rarely phrased this way in the media, the truth is that the LONG-range missile they test-fired recently -- you know, the one that made it about 30 feet before plummeting into the ocean -- MIGHT POSSIBLY be able to one day hit Alaska. Aside from, of course, the fact that the rockets were not actually weaponized. (Pah. Details.)

Here's another good clip (from Mike Malloy) [1.2MB]. Don't you just want to smack that arrogant smirk off King George's lying face?

—ungeziefer

From Gaza, with Love

2006-07-09T21:01:00.000-05:00

From Gaza, with Love

A good blog with a first-hand perspective on the collective punishment currently being imposed on Palestine.

Unfortunately, reading some of the comments will surely reinforce the belief that that conflict will NEVER end. (I can't decide if I really want to read the many comments that ended up being "deleted by blog administrator" or not . . .) People are scary.

The "History Channel" is a joke

2006-07-08T17:12:00.000-05:00

Embarassed as I am to admit it, I've been watching a bit of T.V. today.

I did actually learn something quite fascinating on "Myth Busters": a few feet of water will protect you from even the most high-powered (50-cal) rifle. Although some smaller weapons (9-mm pistol, I think it was) will go through about 10 feet of water and still kill you, the larger high-velocity rounds basically disintegrate on impact with the water and sink in little pieces. (Seems to me there should be a military application here . . .)

But then I turned to the "History Channel" -- expecting to learn something about, like, you know, history and stuff.

Instead I got this:

1.) a "psychic" describing what REALLY happened at WACO -- by "sensing" and "feeling" it. And of course he "solved" the mysteries about who shot first (the Davidians), who started the fire (the Davidians), whether or not people were held there by Koresh against their will (they were), whether the Davidians actually WANTED to die (they did), etc. etc. If it could be taken at all seriously, it would have to be called crass government propaganda. (Also, the only people interviewed were FBI agents and pro-government spokespeople who repeated the official story.)

2.) a show about the Ten Commandments, in which every statement (including about the Israelites talking to God, and Him talking back) was taken for granted and described as fact. They didn't even bother to site a source, or say "according to such-and-such parable . . ."; simply said "this happened. And then this happened. ..." At that point I just became ill and had to shut it off.

I only ocassionally watch the "History Channel," but today just confirmed my earlier opinions -- which were based on: 1.) a show about the invasion of Panama (they actually mention at the beginning that Noriega was essentially a CIA operative throughout his entire dictatorship, but then quickly move on, and the rest of the hour-long feature is all about the bravery of the U.S. military and what a great and heroic mission it was, how sick and twisted Noriega was, etc.); 2.) a couple similar shows about Saddam Hussein; 3.) a show about the anti-Cuban terrorists in Florida -- who WERE actually referred to as "terrorists," at least, but the entire show maintained that that the FBI was doing its all to find and arrest these groups, without ever bothering to mention that most of these groups have been deliberately protected and given assylum by the U.S. government, which has also consistently refused any compensation to the victims or extradition of the terrorists who have been found. And then there's the constant faux-patriotic, pro-military, pro-war, weapon-worship on every edition of "Mail Call" and most editions of "Modern Marvels" . . .

A small sampling, granted, but, so far I'd have to say that the channel makes a mockery of the very concept of "history."

Guess that's why God gave us books.

—ungeziefer

Rest In Peace

2006-07-07T01:41:00.000-05:00

Finally all the persecution will stop. God bless Ken Lay -- Chistian, Hero, Saint, and Martyr.

—ungeziefer

Quote of the week

2006-06-29T02:43:00.000-05:00

"There's no reason why future generations of little Buffetts should command society just because they came from the right womb. Where's the justice in that?" -- Billionaire Warren Buffett

I'm trying now to recall if it was on the Daily Show or The Colbert Report, but one of them showed a clip of a press conference in which Bill Gates and Warren Buffet answered questions about their philanthropic efforts. And some very, very clever reporter asked something like, "What did your kids do wrong -- did they stay out past curfew or something?" Obviously implying that Buffet SHOULD, all else being equal, have given all his riches to his "heirs," his children. Buffet responded with something like, "I don't believe that in a just society someone should be rich simply because they happened to come out of a particular womb." (VERY rough paraphrase.)

Of course these sentiments are not new.

On the estate tax:

"
Question: Could you discuss your views on [the estate tax] and how you will allocate your wealth to your children?

Buffett: It really reflects my views on how a rich society should behave. If it werenÂ’t for this society, I wouldnÂ’t be rich. It wasnÂ’t all me. Imagine if you were one of a pair of identical twins and a genie came along and allowed you to bid on where you could be born. The money that you bid is how much you had to agree to give back to society, and the one who bids the most gets to be born in the US and the other in Bangladesh. You would bid a lot. It is a huge advantage to be born here.

There should be no divine right of the womb. My kids wouldnÂ’t go off and do nothing if I give them a lot of money, but if they did, that would be a tragedy. $30 billion will be generated from estate taxes, which will go to help pay for the war in Iraq and other things. If you take away the estate tax, that money will have to come from somewhere else. If not from estate taxes then you inherently get it from poorer citizens.

Less than 2% of estates will pay the estate tax. They would still have $50 million left over on average. I think those that get the lucky tickets should pay the most to the common causes of society. I believe in a big redistribution. Wealth is a bunch of claim checks that I can turn in for houses, etc. To pass those claim checks down to the next generation is the wrong approach.

But for those that think I am perpetuating the welfare state, consider if you are born to a rich parent. You get a whole bunch of stocks right at the beginning of your life, and thus you are sort of on a welfare state of support from your rich parents from the beginning. WhatÂ’s the difference?
"

Right on. (Emphasis mine.)

(A great film that offers perspective on this topic is "Born Rich".)

Perhaps the #1 reason the Republican Party is so completely corrupt, greedy and despicable can be seen in all its vile nakedness in their repeated, adamant attempts at repealing the "death tax." (It's still going on as I write this.)

What? There's actually a TAX on DEATH? That's an outrage! That's obscene! That's Big Government again trying to steal money from the Little Guy! That's SOCIALISM! The STATE continuing to aggregate MORE AND MORE POWER UNTO ITSELF!!!

Uhh . . . no. Actually, 1.) the estate tax began (this is relevant right now) because we were facing a world war, and our leaders thought maybe we should actually try to fucking PAY FOR IT. 2.) The ESTATE tax only affects those with a huge ESTATE (hence the name) -- that is, those with many millions (or Billions) or dollars in assets -- that is, less than 2% of the population. The greedy corrupt corporate whore Republican fascist bastards who favor the repeal of this tax like to lie about it (otherwise their efforts would be UNIVERSALLY condemned) by saying that "the government takes away Family Farms" and "the government takes away Small Businesses" with the DEATH Tax. Not a SINGLE CASE has been shown of a family farm or small business having to go under because of the estate tax. Not one. Zero. Nada. Zilch. Zip. None.

Let's repeat it once again: THEY'RE GREEDY FUCKING LIARS.

Again: GREEDY FUCKING LIARS.

Good.

All right. To be less "political" (god forbid) and more fair-minded, I'll concede that IN AN IDEAL AND PERFECT WORLD (the "Free Market Utopia," as I call it -- which does not, can not, and never will exist, by the way), every person fully and completely deserves each and every penny which he or she has. He or she has earned it, and is entitled to do WHATEVER he or she pleases with it. If Buffet wants to buy an island, more power to him. If he wants to hold a giant bonfire on the White House lawn, to symbolize what George W. Bush is doing with our tax dollars, he has every right. If he wants to EAT the money, let him. If he wants to spend it on hookers and blow -- that's his right. He's earned it. If he wants to spend it on a WAR, let him -- it's his money. If he wants to pay homeless people vast sums of money for performing degrading acts, fine. If he WANTS to give it away the charity, fine . . . But THE GOVERNMENT cannot and should not FORCE him to do so.

O.K. I understand.

This is perfectly logical. Except for a couple of things.

1.) No man is an island. No one has succeeded without help.

If you went to public school, the government (WE) provided that. If you went to an expensive and exclusive PRIVATE school, SOMEONE paid for that -- not you. Furthermore, EVEN IF you were born poor, but brilliant -- and I commend and hold in high esteem anyone who has overcome great obstacles in order to achieve success against the odds -- presumably you were able to achieve this largely because of NATURAL GIFTS that you were born with -- NOT simply because you "decided to work hard."

Furthermore, much of the private wealth in this country was generated, and continues to be generated, through public subsidies -- and I'm not just talking about agriculture. Most of the aviation industry -- hell, MOST industries -- developed because of "national security" (and those "quotation marks" are important). We used to have a concept, as a society, of "the commons" -- things that we ALL own. The very concept of "The Corporation" only came into existence because we DECIDED, as a SOCIETY, to PERMIT -- the GRANT THE PRIVELEDGE TO -- a group of people to "incorporate" in order to provide a "PUBLIC SERVICE."

If we want an extremely hierarchical society (or Aristocracy), in which the rich get richer and the poor get poorer every generation, if we want an oligarchy or serfdom -- which is precisely what the Revolutionary War was fought AGAINST -- then, fine. American IS that. If that's the case -- if THAT is "America" -- then I DO hate it, and I WILL burn the flag, regardless of whatever "laws" might be passed.

2.) It is INHERENTLY unjust that one person owns 44 Billion dollars.

This whole post is a tip of the hat to Warren Buffet -- and Bill Gates, I think, also deserves MUCH adulation and praise for what he has done.

However: I do not accept the conventional wisdom that these people are necessarily selfless, great philanthropists, motivated by pure altruism. Warren Buffet is about 70 years old. Even after his donations (which he is giving in small increments, by the way, year by year), he will have AT MINIMUM 7 Billion dollars left for himself. MINIMUM. ANY person could live their entire life without working one second on a small fraction of 1 Billion dollars. (To put it in perspective: a Billionaire essentially could live one thousand years and still make 1 Million dollars every year. Think about that. Warren Buffet -- AFTER giving away most of his money -- could live for SEVEN THOUSAND YEARS MAKING 1 MILLION DOLLARS EACH YEAR. Still think he "deserves every penny"????)

If you (all by yourself) were to devise the "just" society (I'm thinking of John Rawls' thought experiment), would you state that "one person -- provided he or she is smart and works hard -- is allowed to acquire as much as 1000 times what the average person has"??????? THINK about this. Again: even THIS is assuming that "THE AVERAGE PERSON" is a MILLIONAIRE." This concept is being EXTREMELY CONSERVATIVE. With today's society and its obscenely unequal wealth distribution, the actual document would have to read: "Any one person is allowed to acquire as much as 44,000 times what the average person has." (Assuming, of course, that "the average person" owns about $44,000. The reality is that most people OWE about $30,000 -- they own LESS THAN NOTHING.)

To some extent, of course, people do indeed get what they deserve (***IDEALISM ALERT!!!! IDEALISM ALERT!!!!*** UTOPIA!!!! UTOPIA!!!! KARMA!!!! KARMA!!!!). But can you really, HONESTLY say that a mill worker, a steel worker, a mechanic, a guy in an auto plant, a guy working in a lumber mill, or a coal mine, or on a farm, or any factory, or school, or hospital, or even the guy cleaning the toilets, or the post man, or a plumber, electrician, carpenter, mason (keeping in mind, of course, that these guy sonly make a living wage because they're in UNIONS), hell, even the guy at the DMV, the guy at Walmart, or Burger King, or Radio Shack, or Best Buy . . . . . . . . who work 40+ hours a week, DESERVE to live in POVERTY?????

(Yes, I will acknowledge that some of the above-mentioned professions pay fairly well -- again, in large part ONLY because of UNIONS -- but my POINT is that 1. hard work should MEAN something and 2. IF a person can't make a living by working 60+ hours a week, (or, two parents each working 40+ hours a week), then the whole "Family Values" concept is an evil, evil scam. Even if children do not need to eat, if a mother and father are required to raise a child (NO gay marriage), when is this child-rearing supposed to take place if both parents are working MORE than full-time in order to pay the mortgage, to pay for gas to get to work, to pay for electricity and heat and garbage and car insurance and day care and clothes and shoes and . . . . . . . ??? . . .

3.) Why didn't he do this sooner?

A simple question: if you had the power to prevent millions of people from dying, and chose not to, but instead chose to invest your money and let it build and build and build . . . Should you be commended, or condemned?

Again, I want to make it clear that, like everyone else, I DO commend Warren Buffet for what he is doing -- for he does not HAVE to do it, and I respect him greatly for it.

But: this planet has some serious fucking problems that could be solved pretty easily with enough resources invested. Millions of people die every year from starvation, from AIDS, and other treatable diseases. millenniumenium Fund was considered HUGH -- REVOLUTIONARY!!! -- because it was a promise (lie) to commit 5-10 Billion dollars to the "third world" to treat disease and feed the starving.billionilion dollars: less than one-third of what Buffet has decided now to give to the Gates Foundation. Less than ONE-THIRTIETH of what we have spend so far on the Iraq War. (And that's just the allocated funds -- without the interest on that debt, which will accrue for generations to come . . .)

Again, trying to be fair, I can see the argument that, since Buffet (or Gates) is an excellent business man, he was wise to invest his money and let the wealth accumulate -- otherwise he would not now have as much as he does. You give 1 Billion dollars to Africa, they spend it to cure a million people, great -- but, then you're out of money. You INVEST the 1 Billion, let it grow into 44 Billion, NOW you can REALLY help!!!!

True. But, in the meantime, millions of people have died needlessly. And perhaps -- (probably not, but PERHAPS, as now) -- if you had made the commitment and shown your generosity earlier, others might have followed your example (even ifselfishelfih, egotistical reasons), and the funds would have increased ten-fold.

4.) EVEN IF Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, et. al., COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY DESERVE EVERY PENNY THEY OWN, that does NOT mean that their children are entitled to be born rich and live their entire lives as born-rich, non-working stiffs. THIS is the point that Buffet, and Gates, and Gates' Billionaire father -- along side Ted Turner and others -- have been trying to make.

(I say "trying" to make, because clearly George W. Bush, and most Republicans in Congress, and apparently a vast proportion of the American people -- having been properly propagandized -- have not understood this point. To this very moment, these people are trying with all their might to reduce -- or, if they can, completely repeal -- the so-called "Death Tax.")

. . . . . . . .

I have to admit, I'm pretty ignorant about economics. (I will not even capitalize the Word, because I do not believe it deserves it.) But even a child can figure out the basics:

There is a PIE, which is to be split between 100 people. (You may picture this pie in your mind, if you like, and even choose your own flavor.) Each person gets a small portion of this PIE. All else being equal, each person gets 10% of this pie. But some people are lazy or dumb or both, or cannot find a job that they can make money at, so some get more of the pie than others. (Up to here, I'm actually fine with this -- so don't call me a "Socialist." At best, I'm an EXTREMELY CONSERVATIVE Socialist.") . . . . . . . . At some point, it comes to pass that 2% of the people own 70% of the PIE. The other 98% of the people have to share the remaining 30% of the PIE. Many of these 98% fight each other, in attempt to get more of the pie, so they can eat and feed their starving children and, if they're lucky, buy a TV set. The remaining 2% of the people sit and contemplate which companies, and which countries, they should buy next . . .

Does this look to you like a "fair and just and equitable and SUSTAINABLE" society?????

HINT: If you answered "YES," then you need to be institutionalized promptly. If you answered "NO," then you need to do something RIGHT FUCKING NOW, because this is EXACTLY the society in which we live.

We have to face the truth: if you were to design the "just society" -- the "best of all possible worlds" -- you would not say that it's o.k. that some live in desolate poverty, some starve to death, some die of curable diseases, while others amass more and more wealth every day and exploit the desperate by demanding the cheapest possible labor . . .

This is what "democracy" means: we can choose the society in which we live. We make the rules.

Let's start making them.

And taking the heads of the greedy who break them.

—ungeziefer

—ungeziefer

Not again . . .

2006-06-27T14:52:00.000-05:00

Hear Us Now:

It appears as though the FCC might once again be considering relaxing media ownership rules. [*vomit*]

My comments:

"
The fact that the FCC, or any of our representatives in government, is even considering relaxing media ownership guidelines is absolutely appalling and reprehensible. It would be a move in the exact opposite direction from what is needed -- which is stronger, and strongly enforced, anti-trust laws, to break up the current media monopolies.

When a few companies own everything, and the government works hand-in-hand with these massive corporations to help them consolidate even further, our system has essentially become -- in the original sense of the term -- a fascist one: "the merger of state and corporate power" (Mussolini). The only thing worse might be (speaking of Italy) if the leader of the country personally owned most of the media.

The current media situation is a perfect illustration of why unfettered capitalism is antithetical to the ideals not only of democracy but of "free markets" -- which can bring about increased liberty only if competition and choice are increased. We must remember that capitalism is not inherently good in and of itself; it is good only to the extent that it serves to maximize [perfect] LIBERTY.

With every merger or buy-out, the markets become less free and fair. When companies, rather than competing, simply purchase (and thus eliminate) their competition, growing larger and more powerful every year, we have no "free market system" any longer.

The most telling proof (as if proof were lacking) that this media consolidation is dangerous and damaging to public awareness, is the very simple fact that the media themselves do not report this important story! They know that no amount of propaganda is going to succeed on this issue, because virtually everyone -- from all walks of life and every political stripe -- is against further media consolidation. Therefore they conceal the facts. Our government leaders do the same, and rules and regulations are passed behind closed doors and with as little public input or oversight as possible, meeting with industry lobbyists rather than the people who TRULY OWN the airwaves and who grant these corporations the priviledge to exist in exchange for providing a PUBLIC SERVICE.

I encourage you to explore the resources on the following web site:

http://www.corporations.org/media/

Thank you very much for your time and consideration.
"

—ungeziefer

Thank You Lt. Ehren Watada - Lt. Watada refused Iraq deployment today; Under complete restriction and gag-order without charge

2006-06-23T01:16:00.000-05:00

Thank You Lt. Ehren Watada - Lt. Watada refused Iraq deployment today; Under complete restriction and gag-order without charge

"
. . . . . . . .
Lt. Watada’s mother, Carolyn Ho, who flew in from Honolulu, Hawaii to support her son, said today, “My son’s decision to refrain from deploying to Iraq comes through much soul searching. It is an act of patriotism. It is a statement to all Americans, to men and women in uniform, that they need not remain silent out of fear, that that they have the power to turn the tide of history: to stop the destruction of a country and the killing of untold numbers of innocent men, women, and children. It is a message that states unequivocally that blindly following orders is no longer an option. My son, Lt. Watada’s stance is clear. He will stay the course. I urge you to join him in this effort.”

Judy Linehan, of Military Families Speak Out said, “As the mother of an officer who deployed to Iraq with Lt Ehren Watada’s Stryker Brigade in their first mission, I know the human cost of war intimately. I stand in solidarity with Lt Watada as he breaks ranks with a Commander-in-Chief who has flouted international law with impunity in the prosecution of this illegal war and occupation of an unarmed country. The lieutenant’s quiet resolve and quest for truth facing into our government’s fabricated deceptions carry hope to a world that trusts in the rule of law. Thank you, Lt Watada, for your courageous stand.”
"

Jesus, I hate these bastards

2006-06-23T01:08:00.000-05:00

GOP-Run Senate Kills Minimum Wage Increase

After voting themselves a pay raise for the ninth year in a row, these Republican fat cat special-interest-lobby-controlled greedy corporate whores blocked an EXTREMELY modest increase in the minimum wage -- which would have been the first increase in nearly a decade.

As far as I'm concerned, they're simply criminals, and should be dealt with accordingly. Beyond that, I don't even know what the fuck to say.

O.K.: I'll say one thing:

For all those brain-dead talking-point-repeating Republican propagandist pieces of excrement out there who constantly parrot the lie that "Democrats don't have any ideas," here's a simple one for you:

Pass a law linking the lowest pay scale to the highest. That is, the CEO (or whoever is paid the most) in any company cannot make more than (for example) 10x what the lowest-paid employee in that company earns. Lest I be labeled a "Socialist" for this proposal, let's make it EVEN LESS equal/fair/democratic: 100X! So if the lowest-paid employee makes $5.15 an hour (the minimum wage), the highest-paid employee (or employER), cannot make more than $515.00 AN HOUR. (Approximately $1,070,000 per year.) If the CEO's want to earn more, they can; all they have to do is raise the pay scale of all their employees accordingly. (In short, when they get a raise, everyone else in the company gets one too.) Does this not seem more than reasonable? Would not the VAST majority of Americans STRONGLY support such a law -- probably even demand that it does not go far enough, that those at the top should in fact earn far LESS? You bet your filthy ass they would.

So why is no one proposing such a thing? Where are these alleged "far-left" Democrats? (Hint: they don't exist.)

And why isn't anyone in this so-called "liberal" media suggesting such a thing (for example, when interviewing lawmakers)? (Hint: ibid.)

While we're at it, I guess we'll have to pass a similar law linking the minimum wage with lawmakers' salaries, but of course they're clearly too corrupt to propose such a bill.

Ahhhh, freedom. I hope Iraq establishes an Oligarchy as lovely as ours.

Freedom On The March

2006-06-21T23:47:00.000-05:00

The Anti-Empire Report
Some things you need to know before the world ends
June 21, 2006
by William Blum

Great Moments in the History of Imperialism

National Public Radio foreign correspondent Loren Jenkins, serving in NPR's Baghdad bureau, met earlier this month with a senior Shiite cleric, a man who was described in the NPR report as "a moderate" and as a person trying to lead his Shiite followers into practicing peace and reconciliation. He had been jailed by Saddam Hussein and forced into exile. Jenkins asked him: "What would you think if you had to go back to Saddam Hussein?" The cleric replied that he'd "rather see Iraq under Saddam Hussein than the way it is now."[1]

When one considers what the people of Iraq have experienced as a result of the American bombings, invasion, regime change, and occupation since 2003, should this attitude be surprising, even from such an individual? I was moved to compile a list of the many kinds of misfortune which have fallen upon the heads of the Iraqi people as a result of the American liberation of their homeland. It's depressing reading, and you may not want to read it all, but I think it's important to have it summarized in one place.

Loss of a functioning educational system. A 2005 UN study revealed that 84% of the higher education establishments have been "destroyed, damaged and robbed".
The intellectual stock has been further depleted as many thousands of academics and other professionals have fled abroad or have been mysteriously kidnapped or assassinated in Iraq; hundreds of thousands, perhaps a million, other Iraqis, most of them from the vital, educated middle class, have left for Jordan, Syria or Egypt, many after receiving death threats. "Now I am isolated," said a middle-class Sunni Arab, who decided to leave. "I have no government. I have no protection from the government. Anyone can come to my house, take me, kill me and throw me in the trash."[2]

Loss of a functioning health care system. And loss of the public's health. Deadly infections including typhoid and tuberculosis are rampaging through the country. Iraq's network of hospitals and health centers, once admired throughout the Middle East, has been severely damaged by the war and looting.

The UN's World Food Program reported that 400,000 Iraqi children were suffering from "dangerous deficiencies of protein". Deaths from malnutrition and preventable diseases, particularly amongst children, already a problem because of the 12 years of US-imposed sanctions, have increased as poverty and disorder have made access to a proper diet and medicines ever more difficult.

Thousands of Iraqis have lost an arm or a leg, frequently from unexploded US cluster bombs, which became land mines; cluster bombs are a class of weapons denounced by human rights groups as a cruelly random scourge on civilians, particularly children.

Depleted uranium particles, from exploded US ordnance, float in the Iraqi air, to be breathed into human bodies and to radiate forever, and infect the water, the soil, the blood, the genes, producing malformed babies. During the few weeks of war in spring 2003, A10 "tankbuster" planes, which use munitions containing depleted uranium, fired 300,000 rounds.

And the use of napalm as well. And white phosphorous.

The American military has attacked hospitals to prevent them from giving out casualty figures of US attacks that contradicted official US figures, which the hospitals had been in the habit of doing.

Numerous homes have been broken into by US forces, the men taken away, the women humiliated, the children traumatized; on many occasions, the family has said that the American soldiers helped themselves to some of the family's money. Iraq has had to submit to a degrading national strip search.

Destruction and looting of the country's ancient heritage, perhaps the world's greatest archive of the human past, left unprotected by the US military, busy protecting oil facilities.

A nearly lawless society: Iraq's legal system, outside of the political sphere, was once one of the most impressive and secular in the Middle East; it is now a shambles; religious law more and more prevails.

Women's rights previously enjoyed are now in great and growing danger under harsh Islamic law, to one extent or another in various areas. There is today a Shiite religious ruling class in Iraq, which tolerates physical attacks on women for showing a bare arm or for picnicking with a male friend. Men can be harassed for wearing shorts in public, as can children playing outside in shorts.

Sex trafficking, virtually nonexistent previously, has become a serious issue.

Jews, Christians, and other non-Muslims have lost much of the security they had enjoyed in Saddam's secular society; many have emigrated.

A gulag of prisons run by the US and the new Iraqi government feature a wide variety of torture and abuse -- physical, psychological, emotional; painful, degrading, humiliating; leading to mental breakdown, death, suicide; a human-rights disaster area.

Over 50,000 Iraqis have been imprisoned by US forces since the invasion, but only a very tiny portion of them have been convicted of any crime.

US authorities have recruited members of Saddam Hussein's feared security service to expand intelligence gathering and root out the resistance.

Unemployment is estimated to be around fifty percent. Massive layoffs of hundreds of thousands of Baathist government workers and soldiers by the American occupation authority set the process in motion early on. Later, many, desperate for work, took positions tainted by a connection to the occupation, placing themselves in grave danger of being kidnapped or murdered.

The cost of living has skyrocketed. Income levels have plummeted.

The Kurds of Northern Iraq evict Arabs from their homes. Arabs evict Kurds in other parts of the country.

Many people were evicted from their homes because they were Baathist. US troops took part in some of the evictions. They have also demolished homes in fits of rage over the killing of one of their buddies.

When US troops don't find who they're looking for, they take who's there; wives have been held until the husband turns himself in, a practice which Hollywood films stamped in the American mind as being a particular evil of the Nazis; it's also collective punishment of civilians and is forbidden under the Geneva Convention.

Continual bombing assaults on neighborhoods has left an uncountable number of destroyed homes, workplaces, mosques, bridges, roads, and everything else that goes into the making of modern civilized life.

Hafitha, Fallujah, Samarra, Ramadi ... names that will live in infamy for the wanton destruction, murder, and assaults upon human beings and human rights carried out in those places by US forces.

The supply of safe drinking water, effective sewage disposal, and reliable electricity have all generally been below pre-invasion levels, producing constant hardship for the public, in temperatures reaching 115 degrees. To add to the misery, people wait all day in the heat to purchase gasoline, due in part to oil production, the country's chief source of revenue, being less than half its previous level.

The water and sewage system and other elements of the infrastructure had been purposely (sic) destroyed by US bombing in the first Gulf War of 1991. By 2003, the Iraqis had made great strides in repairing the most essential parts of it. Then came Washington's renewed bombing.

Civil war, death squads, kidnaping, car bombs, rape, each and every day ... Iraq has become the most dangerous place on earth. American soldiers and private security companies regularly kill people and leave the bodies lying in the street; US-trained Iraqi military and police forces kill even more, as does the insurgency. An entire new generation is growing up on violence and sectarian ethics; this will poison the Iraqi psyche for many years to come.

US intelligence and military police officers often free dangerous criminals in return for a promise to spy on insurgents.

Protesters of various kinds have been shot by US forces on several occasions.

At various times, the US has killed, wounded and jailed reporters from Al Jazeera television, closed the station's office, and banned it from certain areas because occupation officials didn't like the news the station was reporting. Newspapers have been closed for what they have printed. The Pentagon has planted paid-for news articles in the Iraqi press to serve propaganda purposes.

But freedom has indeed reigned -- for the great multinationals to extract everything they can from Iraq's resources and labor without the hindrance of public interest laws, environmental regulations or worker protections. The orders of the day have been privatization, deregulation, and laissez faire for Halliburton and other Western corporations. Iraqi businesses have been almost entirely shut out though they are not without abilities, as reflected in the infrastructure rebuilding effort following the US bombing of 1991.

Yet, despite the fact that it would be difficult to name a single area of Iraqi life which has improved as a result of the American actions, when the subject is Iraq and the person I'm having a discussion with has no other argument left to defend US policy there, at least at the moment, I may be asked:

"Just tell me one thing, are you glad that Saddam Hussein is out of power?"

And I say: "No".

And the person says: "No?"

And I say: "No. Tell me, if you went into surgery to correct a knee problem and the surgeon mistakenly amputated your entire leg, what would you think if someone then asked you: Are you glad that you no longer have a knee problem? The people of Iraq no longer have a Saddam problem."

And many Iraqis actually supported him.

"Moderation in temper is always a virtue; moderation in principle is always a vice." Thomas Paine

Recently, Al Gore appeared at a bookstore in downtown Washington signing copies of his new book on environmental concerns, when who should show up on the line of people looking for a signed copy but Ralph Nader. Gore stood up and said: "Nice to see you! How you doing? I'm really so grateful to you for coming by." After more pleasantries, Gore inscribed the book: "For my friend, Ralph Nader. With respect, Al Gore."

Two men in line could not resist remarking to Nader that if not for him Gore might have won the election in 2000. "Thanks to you, we had Bush all these years," said one. "How many are dead in Iraq because of that?"[3] What Nader replied has not been reported.

The idea that Ralph Nader cost the Democrats the 2000 election will likely persist forever, so let me state for all eternity, speaking for myself and for the millions like me: The choice facing us was not Ralph Nader or Albert Gore. The choice facing us was Ralph Nader or not voting at all. If Nader had not been on the ballot, we would have stayed home. The millions who voted for Nader and the millions more who stayed home demanded an inspiring alternative to the Republicans; even a halfway inspiring alternative would have sufficed for most of us. The Democrats did not, and still do not, offer any kind of alternative, particularly on foreign policy. On foreign policy the two major parties are completely indistinguishable. For all intents and purposes, the United States is a one-party state in all but name -- the War Party. The occasional minor points of difference which arise are Democratic artificial constructs created for election purposes, and in these cases the Democrats often take a position to the right of their Republican "opponents", like calling for tougher measures in the war on terrorism or against Iran. This is the case with the Democrats whether we're speaking of the conservatives amongst them, or the moderates, or the liberals. And this has long been the case. Here is an excerpt from a talk delivered in 1965 by Carl Oglesby, President of Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), at an anti-Vietnam War rally in Washington:

The original commitment in Vietnam was made by President Truman, a mainstream liberal.
It was seconded by President Eisenhower, a moderate liberal. It was intensified by the late
President Kennedy, a flaming liberal. Think of the men who now engineer that war -- those
who study the maps, give the commands, push the buttons, and tally the dead: Bundy,
McNamara, Rusk, Lodge, Goldberg, the President [Johnson] himself. They are not moral
monsters. They are all honorable men. They are all liberals.[4]

Eat the Rich. Share your recipes.

With Bill Gates's announcement that he'll be phasing out his day-to-day participation in Microsoft, the media has carried a lot of adulatory stories about the Wunderkind, who became the world's youngest self-made billionaire at age 31. I do not mean to detract from Gates's accomplishments when I point out that for him to have become a billionaire just six years after introducing the MS-DOS 1.0 operating system, Microsoft had to be charging a lot more -- an awful lot more -- for its software than it had to based on the company's costs.

There are those, enamored by the philosophy, practice, and folklore of free enterprise and rugged individualism, who will declare: "More power to the guy! He deserved every penny of it!"

There are others, enamored by the vision of a more equitable society, who question how the current distribution of property and wealth can reasonably be said to derive from any sort of democratic process. By the 21st century, American society should have evolved beyond two percent with breathtaking wealth and seventy-five percent with a daily struggle for a decent life, including the middle class. In fact, along such lines we're regressing.

This is almost heresy to many Americans, who are unwilling to tamper with political and economic arrangements, though they have no qualms about meddling with people's sex lives, women's bodies, and other moral issues. Greed and selfishness are natural, they insist, and have to be catered to.

But if the system should cater to selfishness because it's natural, why not cater to aggression which many of the same people claim is natural?

NOTES
[1] NPR, "Day to Day", June 6, 2006
[2] New York Times, May 19, 2006
[3] Washington Post, June 16, 2006, p.2
[4] November 27, 1965, copy of Oglesby's speech in my possession

William Blum is the author of:
Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War 2
Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower
West-Bloc Dissident: A Cold War Memoir
Freeing the World to Death: Essays on the American Empire

Just show us the motherfucking plane, already

2006-06-20T02:36:00.000-05:00

Last month the Pentagon FINALLY released (supposedly) the tape -- that is to say, one of the FIVE known existing tapes, ALL confiscated within minutes of the attack despite the fact that supposedly the government was taken completley by surprise, and all kept completely secret from the public -- of the plane flying into the Pentagon on 9/11.

Apparently the aim was to put to rest any conspiracy theories that a 747 commercial airliner was not actually what crashed into the building.

Only problem is, you CAN'T SEE A FUCKING PLANE.

In fact, I don't think this is a new video. To me it looks exactly the same as the previously released video -- or, rather, the previously released STILL FRAMES of a video -- which simply show nothing, then nothing, then more nothing, then an explosion.

Although I'm EXTREMELY cynical about this criminal administration (hell, most of them were known war criminals before they were even sworn in), I'm willing to accept that the logical explanation is that a hijacked passenger plane is in fact what crashed into the Pentagon. But: I simply don't understand A.) why we've never SEEN that, and B.) why NO ONE SEEMS TO CARE.

The suspicions, of course, stem from the circumstances, which would lead anyone with a grade-school education to ponder with some skeptical curiosity:

1.) How did this happen? Why wasn't it prevented?

Even though it's standard operating procedure for the U.S. Air Force to intercept any plane within minutes of a SUSPECTED hijacking (or actually even within minutes of any plane either not responding or flying several degress off-course), somehow our government/military was too incompetent to prevent an attack on the most well-guarded military complex ever devised in the history of man, even ALMOST AN HOUR after not only was it known that at least two other planes had indeed been hijacked, but ALMOST AN HOUR AFTER TWO PLANES WERE KNOWN TO HAVE BEEN HIJACKED AND CRASHED INTO THE TWIN TOWERS. Despite this unbelievable failure and complete and inexplicable disregard for standard operating procedure, no one was ever reprimanded, demoted, or even mildly chastised for their treasonous dereliction of duty. This applies to all of the planes involved with the September 11th attacks, but most dramatically and undeniably with the attack on the Pentagon -- which is the most suspcious of the three.

2.) The actual hole in the Pentagon appears to be far too narrow to have been made by a Boeing 747.

3.) The lawn of the Pentagon was relatively unscathed.

4.) No eye-witness has been able to claim with any certainty that they saw a commercial passenger plane crash into the Pentagon (only describing sounds, and claiming to have seen some kind of plane in the area immediately beforehand -- which is consistent with the missile theory)

5.) As was clear at the time, but is even more abundantly clear today, the Bush Administration had ample motivation to allow such an attack to take place (the "New Pearl Harbor" outlined in the Project For A New American Century"), as a pretext not only for invading Afghanistan and Iraq but as an excuse for practically EVERYTHING they've done since. (9/11 was brought up about 50 times in the Republican National Convention in 2004, for example.) Precedents include the Reichstag Fire, and quite probably the attack on Pearl Harbor. Then there's the "Gulf of Tonkin incident." Etc.

6.) Far from begin unthinkinkable, precisely such an attack had in fact been conceived much earlier -- by the far more "liberal" administration of John F. Kennedy -- in "Operation Northwoods."

7.) Various senior members of the Bush administration (including not only Bush himself, but also Cheney and Condoleeza Rice, and others) are on record lying about what they knew about 9/11 beforehand. -- Why isn't this, in itself, grounds for impeachment?

. . . . . . . .

There are many more reasons to list. But the point is, until we see the tapes, any sane person SHOULD doubt the official story.

Why don't they release them?

The only reason I can come up with is that -- assuming the official story is true -- it is useful for such "conspiracy theories" to live, so that at some point the government can release the tapes and discredit these theorists, thus implicitly discrediting ANY AND ALL OTHER questions and theories about 9/11.

Now, before anyone labels me as a "moonbat tin-foil-hat conspiracy theorist," please note that

1.) I AM NOT saying that I necessarily believe that it WASN'T a hijacked commercial airliner that crashed into the Pentagon, only that the government has a responsibility to release the tapes showing that event -- ESPECIALLY if they're going to claim the attack as a primary reason for starting a war,

2.) conspiracies do occur -- quite often, in fact; it is only the dismissive connotations implied by the now cliche phrase [the use of which is frequently propagated by the conspirators themselves] that elicits a chuckle from the guilty, the ignorant, the blindly faithful and the merely gullible,

3.) the OFFICIAL STORY about 9/11 is itself a "conspiracy theory" (and a rather implausible one, involving somebody on a dialisis machine in a cave in Afghanistan directing operations, while coincidentally on that particular day NORAD was conducting an exercise aimed at preventing precisely such an attack as actually took place -- even though supposedly they "never could have predicted" that planes might be used as missiles -- and an apparent complete and total breakdown of command took place for reasons that have yet to be adquately explained . . .),

4.) [This is the elephant in the room]: if the "conspiracy nuts" are WRONG, then THIS deserves even MORE media attention than it has ever received. Because if THE PENTAGON can easily be bombed by some hijackers an hour after three other hijackings (and two successful airline bombings), then our nation surely must be the least protected and most vulnerable in the world! Hell, if it's that easy to attack the Defense Department of the United States Of America, in the most well-guarded Military Industrial Complex ever devised in the history of the world, then we're COMPLETELY fucked.

I have to admit I HATE being labeld a "conspiracy theorist." Before 9/11, in fact, I was one of those people who derided and ridiculed such people. And I have to say that, even now, I'm not at all certain about the truth of 9/11.

My good friend Adam who (if such a thing is possible) hates the Bush adminstration even more fervently than I do, has told me that he dismisses most such theories for one simple, sound and rational reason: they didn't plant WMDs. While they did come up with various excuses and scapegoats, they could just as easily have planted some "Weapons of Mass Destruction" in Iraq, and no one (or few people) would have been the wiser.

It has also occurred to me that if an attack such as 9/11 was premeditated by the PNAC, why would they implicate themselves so blatantly by publishing a statement saying they wished for a "new Pearl Harbor" in order to amass popular support for their imperial wars?

My answer is simply this: 1.) they don't care what the public thinks, they know they can get away with it (as indeed they have).

The simple answer to the question is best phrased as another question: Why has Bush not been impeached?

Or, why has Henry Kissinger not been brought before an International Tribunal in the Hague for War Crimes?

The question seems reasonable, but in fact it begs the question. It's like saying, "well, he's so OBVIOUSLY guilty, therefore he MUST BE INNOCENT!" It's an absurd paradox, which would never be taken seriously in any court of law.

We must figure out some way to hold them accountable. In the meantime, they can get away with it, so they simply do it.

—ungeziefer

Quote of the week

2006-06-13T19:34:00.000-05:00

"These women got paid, they ought to take their money and shut up about it." -- Ann Coulter, referring to 9/11 widows

She's taken some heat for her recent bile spewing. (Though with few exceptions, not from most conservatives or Republicans, interestingly.)

At least some people have the sense to state the obvious: that to say that 9/11 widows are "exploting" their husbands' deaths is so far beyond Orwellian that I am at a loss for words. Anyone with an IQ above 3 who has not been living under a rock for the past five years knows full well who has been exploiting the tragedy of 9/11. (Hint: did you watch the Republican Convention?)

—ungeziefer

The Cadaver Politik Blog

Deja Vu All Over Again...

Russia: THIS AGGRESSION WILL NOT STAND!!

Pakistanis Aided Attack in Kabul, U.S. Officials Say - NYTimes.com

Lady MacClinton

ONN: In The Know: How Can We Make The War In Iraq More Eco-Friendly?

Priest Pwns Bill O’Reilly’s Minion On Rev. Wright

Your Privacy Is Very Important To Us....

Unsustainable Wealth Gap

ABC's Stephanopoulos interviews John McCain

Poor Torture Tzar...

The Onion: Army Holds Annual Bring Your Daughter To War Day

ANNOUNCEMENT: I'M QUITTING SMOKING

It's official: I'm done with Hillary

Crooks and Liars � Sy Hersh on Bush and Iran: Shifting targets: New Propaganda push to attack their Revolutionary Guard

Just a slight historical revision

Video: Rudy skips minority debate to fundraise with Bo Derek

Who's The Best Christian To Lead?

Send My Kids To Iraq, Please!

Fuck Biden

"Freddie the Stud," OR, "Thanks, Viagra!"

The Pinky Show presents: The Iraq War: Legal or Illegal?

The Surge Is Working! Long Live The Surge!

Keith Olbermann puts the smack down...

Sparring with Snow

Sweet Jesus I Fucking Hate Sean Hannity, part 2

The embassy P.R. tour

The Man on the Daily Show

Real reporting from Falluja

Professional liars? Or just too lazy to read three sentences?

Blast Off!: Progressivism is not dead! (But it's on life support ...)

Sweet Jesus, I fucking hate Sean Hannity

Remember 9/11? That was MINE!!

Obama in context

Gore Vidal on TheRealNews

Yay! It's not illegal anymore!

the sterile futility of green pork

Fuck it: I'm with Barack all the way

Yet another documentary on the Iraq War...

Elect Susie Flynn for President

Our rotted press corps, a division of "Camp Victory"

"SPIN: The Art of Selling War"

Ah, the mind of a Michael Savage listener...

"Foreign Fighters" : Liebermann vs. Iran

Test

The Anti-Empire Report - 12-17-06

The Anti-Empire Report Some things you need to know before the world ends December 17, 2006 by William Blum

Designer monsters

No one ever thinks they're guilty of anything. They're all just good ol' patriots.

The United States of Punishment

The making of official history

Some things to look forward to in 2007

Quote of the week

Attack On Iran Inevitable - Nuke Use In White House Plan

Habeas Corpus, R.I.P. (1215 - 2006)

"Just so long as I'm the dictator . . ."

Bush: "I don't know Jack"

On the media in general . . .

Miscellany

Ethnically Cleansing the Entire Middle East

Real Wages Fail to Match a Rise in Productivity - New York Times

Labor Day Executive Excess report: Oil and Defense CEOs Pocket the Spoils

Bush respectfully disagrees with the "Democrat Party"

Daily Kos: Beautiful Dead Girls

Kurds flee homes as Iran shells Iraq's northern frontier

Bush Must Negotiate to Make America Safer, Say Former Generals

Lebanon's pain grows by the hour as death toll hits 1,300

Hizbullah, Zionism and the Ideology of late Imperial America

"My Goodness . . . A Dickens Of A Time"

False storylines pervade media coverage of upcoming elections

More books on the stolen presidential election of 2004

The "Sane Republican Of The Year Award" goes to . . . Chuck Hagel

Sick Joke

Daily Kos: 9/11 Deception by Pentagon Suspected by Officials

Suffer the children

Daily Kos: The next big corporate scandal: backdating stock options

Success! Loopholes found in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty!

No. 1 U.S. oil company earns $1,318 a second -- a 36% jump in profits

(Want the bumper sticker? MoveOn was giving them away, but they've run out. If you want to print your own, click here to download a pdf)

Casus Belli - The Israeli Soldiers - Were they kidnapped in Israel, Or Captured In Lebanon?

The Anti-Empire Report
Some things you need to know before the world ends
December 17, 2006
by William Blum

The Anti-Empire Report
Some things you need to know before the world ends
June 21, 2006
by William Blum

Great Moments in the History of Imperialism