Images of civilian dead, wounded in Fallujah become anti-American rallying point:
Knight Rider reporter Matthew Schofield writes "In this one week, Fallujah has come to symbolize for Iraqis everything that is wrong with the U.S.-led occupation of Iraq. 'When the four Americans were murdered, almost all Iraqis were horrified, and understood that the reaction must be strong,' said Iraqi journalist Dhrgam Mohammed Ali, referring to the killing March 31 of four private security guards whose bodies were then mutilated, dragged through Fallujah and hung from a bridge. 'But now, we see women and children dying, trying to escape and not being allowed to, and many stop remembering the dead Americans. Instead, they wonder why four dead Americans are worth so much, while hundreds of dead Iraqis are worth so little.' "
I've read comparisons of Fallujah to the Tet Offensive in the Vietnam War, when Americans first realized they were losing.
But this is starting to remind me more of Stalingrad.
Monday, April 12, 2004
Sunday, April 11, 2004
Where was James Bond when we needed him?
Bush Says Memo Said 'Nothing About an Attack on America'
What they wanted was that Bin Laden should telephone Washington to issue a declaration of war, like evil genuises always do, like Dr. No did, or Goldfinger.
And then they wanted James Bond to find a Treasure Map showing little airplanes at Boston and Newark, with little dotted lines ending in New York and Washington, with a little legend (written conveniently in English of course) saying "WTC - boom!" and "Pentagon - boom!" and 'White House - boom!" And a sprawl across the bottom "OK for am on Sept. 11. Best of luck! (signed) Osama"
Then, of course, they would definitely have done something.
What they wanted was that Bin Laden should telephone Washington to issue a declaration of war, like evil genuises always do, like Dr. No did, or Goldfinger.
And then they wanted James Bond to find a Treasure Map showing little airplanes at Boston and Newark, with little dotted lines ending in New York and Washington, with a little legend (written conveniently in English of course) saying "WTC - boom!" and "Pentagon - boom!" and 'White House - boom!" And a sprawl across the bottom "OK for am on Sept. 11. Best of luck! (signed) Osama"
Then, of course, they would definitely have done something.
No news here, folks, move along, move along
Richard Reeves - EXIT STRATEGY: FIRE THEM ALL
Reeves notes about the PDB on Bin Laden: "The title, by the way, was published a year ago in The Washington Post, but no one noticed -- as no one noticed a front-page story in The New York Times revealing the secret bombing of Cambodia more than 30 years ago. An institutional flaw of the press is that it says things only once, and if the timing is wrong, no one notices."
I tried to post about this yesterday (Blogger was down) -- I think there is more of a pattern here than Reeves realizes.
The May, 2002 Washington Post story Reeves is talking about is here.
Note that it was written by Bob Woodward, who was at the time talking to Bush for his fawning book to be published in November of that year.
Note also the tone of the story -- poor Bush, he really didn't have the right information.
This is a frequent technique we have seen in the Bush campaign and administration for the last four years. A story starts to heat up, media start to circle. Then a high-profile reporter publishes a page one story quoting unnamed but obviously authorative sources which appears to wrap everything up -- there is nowhere else to go, everything is settled. You can almost hear the patrolman at the crime scene saying "Nothing to see here, folks, no news here, just move along, move along."
Reeves says its a story that no one notices -- but in fact its a story that everyone notices -- this one was on page one of the Post -- but it creates the impression that the issue is all wrapped up, that there is no more news here.
And sure enough, in a few weeks after this, the media had moved on to quoting their unnamed confidential sources about how successful the US would be in a war with Iraq.
Reeves notes about the PDB on Bin Laden: "The title, by the way, was published a year ago in The Washington Post, but no one noticed -- as no one noticed a front-page story in The New York Times revealing the secret bombing of Cambodia more than 30 years ago. An institutional flaw of the press is that it says things only once, and if the timing is wrong, no one notices."
I tried to post about this yesterday (Blogger was down) -- I think there is more of a pattern here than Reeves realizes.
The May, 2002 Washington Post story Reeves is talking about is here.
Note that it was written by Bob Woodward, who was at the time talking to Bush for his fawning book to be published in November of that year.
Note also the tone of the story -- poor Bush, he really didn't have the right information.
This is a frequent technique we have seen in the Bush campaign and administration for the last four years. A story starts to heat up, media start to circle. Then a high-profile reporter publishes a page one story quoting unnamed but obviously authorative sources which appears to wrap everything up -- there is nowhere else to go, everything is settled. You can almost hear the patrolman at the crime scene saying "Nothing to see here, folks, no news here, just move along, move along."
Reeves says its a story that no one notices -- but in fact its a story that everyone notices -- this one was on page one of the Post -- but it creates the impression that the issue is all wrapped up, that there is no more news here.
And sure enough, in a few weeks after this, the media had moved on to quoting their unnamed confidential sources about how successful the US would be in a war with Iraq.
Failure of will
Eschaton Atrios nails it: "The issue isn't, of course, that Bush failed to stop 9/11 - it's that he apparently failed to do anything to try and stop 9/11. "
Saturday, April 10, 2004
The true test of Paul Martin's leadership
The Village Voice: Features: Soldiers Choose Canada by Alisa Solomon
Forget the sponsorship scandal, the nominations battles, committee chairmanships, that steamship line -- the true test of Paul Martin's leadership will be how he handles these deserting soldiers.
He needs to signal clearly that Canada will accept US soldiers as refugees. This will be an extremely difficult path to take, because it will totally infuriate the United States government. Quite likely, such a decision wouldl lead to tit-for-tat revenge that will deeply affect our economy, because the US government would do things like fingerprinting Canadians at the border, refusing to reopen the border to Canadian beef, imposing more lumber tarrifs, etc. Thus, it will be deeply controversial position, and Martin will need all his leadership skills to talk Canadians into supporting such a position based solely on moral principle. It will be expensive, both in political and economic capital -- opposition politicians (the ones who would have got us into the Iraq war a year ago) will pounce all over him, Canadian travellers will be howling at the even longer border delays, Canadian exporters and farmers will bear a disproportionate share of the economic fallout.
But the alternative -- either to reject them as refugees or to just sit back and say its all up to individual refugee boards -- would condemn Canada in the eyes of the rest of the world as a morally bankrupt nation. If we refuse to protect these boys from the facists now in charge in the US, we will have abandoned our deepest national principles. History will not forgive us.
Forget the sponsorship scandal, the nominations battles, committee chairmanships, that steamship line -- the true test of Paul Martin's leadership will be how he handles these deserting soldiers.
He needs to signal clearly that Canada will accept US soldiers as refugees. This will be an extremely difficult path to take, because it will totally infuriate the United States government. Quite likely, such a decision wouldl lead to tit-for-tat revenge that will deeply affect our economy, because the US government would do things like fingerprinting Canadians at the border, refusing to reopen the border to Canadian beef, imposing more lumber tarrifs, etc. Thus, it will be deeply controversial position, and Martin will need all his leadership skills to talk Canadians into supporting such a position based solely on moral principle. It will be expensive, both in political and economic capital -- opposition politicians (the ones who would have got us into the Iraq war a year ago) will pounce all over him, Canadian travellers will be howling at the even longer border delays, Canadian exporters and farmers will bear a disproportionate share of the economic fallout.
But the alternative -- either to reject them as refugees or to just sit back and say its all up to individual refugee boards -- would condemn Canada in the eyes of the rest of the world as a morally bankrupt nation. If we refuse to protect these boys from the facists now in charge in the US, we will have abandoned our deepest national principles. History will not forgive us.
Friday, April 09, 2004
WestJet vs Air Canada
WestJet puts analyst, co-founder on leave "Mr. Brewer . . . claims the [illegally obtained] information has helped WestJet increase its market share from 10 per cent to 30 per cent since 2000."
I don't know anything about the merits of this lawsuit, but this line in the news story struck me -- how comforting for Air Canada to believe that Westjet is so successful because of illegally-obtained data -- it couldn't possibly be that the Westjet staff are friendlier or their check-ins quicker or their flights more reliable or that Air Canada is just an all-around pain in the Canadian neck with frequent descents to being a pain in the ass, could it?
I don't know anything about the merits of this lawsuit, but this line in the news story struck me -- how comforting for Air Canada to believe that Westjet is so successful because of illegally-obtained data -- it couldn't possibly be that the Westjet staff are friendlier or their check-ins quicker or their flights more reliable or that Air Canada is just an all-around pain in the Canadian neck with frequent descents to being a pain in the ass, could it?
Silver bullets and the Lone Ranger
Clarke: Rice Testimony Bolstered My Claims In responding to Condi Rice's testimony, Clark said "The problem was that there was information buried in FBI and the CIA that wasn't shaken out. And by having the Cabinet members come to the White House every day in crisis mode and then go back to their departments and look for anything that is anywhere in the departments in December 1999, we were able to get the kind of information we needed to stop the attacks. You know, there may be structural problems within those agencies, but the way you overcome them ... is by having the leaders of the agencies get together in the White House as a team in crisis mode. "
This is exactly right, as anyone who works in a bureaucracy would agree.
The "structural problem" of CIA vs FBI has been in existence for 60 years, so its not going to get resolved in six months, or maybe never. The "task force" is a common and effective technique to get around bureaucratic barriers and allow an organization to focus on specific problems.
But its basically an incremental approach, an iteritive process, a methodology that doesn't know where its going until it gets there. The Bush administration prefers the "single unified theory" approach. As Condi's testimony unwittingly revealed, it looks for "silver bullet" solutions -- the one grand plan, the simple elegant answer, that can be presented with a flourish -- there you go, problem solved.
This has been their approach to education (No Child Left Behind), the economy (tax cuts), health care (prescription drug benefit), the deficit (when tax cuts have improved the economy, the deficit will cure itself), gay marriage (constitutional ammendment), terrorism (The Patriot Act), the war on terrorism (preemptive war), the Middle East (road map), the war in Iraq (get to Baghdad). And once a problem is "solved" their attention turns to something else.
Nothing is inter-connected, nothing is complicated, nothing is nuanced or long-term, and the people who argue that things aren't so simple are scorned or ignored with a blank, puzzled stare.
As Salon points out, the overriding White House issue in the summer of 2001 was stem cell research. It was all Bush could think about, he absolutely had to find the answer -- and as soon as he did, he went on what he considered to be a well-earned vacation.
The belief in the silver bullet is why they are in trouble now, on so many fronts. Once they have solved a problem, they move on. If it rears its ugly head again, they cannot understand why -- it must be the fault of those partisan Democrats who keep trying to mess things up -- and so they keep trying to swat it down again with the same rhetoric, the same talking points, the same solution.
Its a Lone Ranger view of reality where everything is black or white, you're either for us or against us, we're the good guys so everything can be wrapped up in half an hour. Hi Ho Silver!
This is exactly right, as anyone who works in a bureaucracy would agree.
The "structural problem" of CIA vs FBI has been in existence for 60 years, so its not going to get resolved in six months, or maybe never. The "task force" is a common and effective technique to get around bureaucratic barriers and allow an organization to focus on specific problems.
But its basically an incremental approach, an iteritive process, a methodology that doesn't know where its going until it gets there. The Bush administration prefers the "single unified theory" approach. As Condi's testimony unwittingly revealed, it looks for "silver bullet" solutions -- the one grand plan, the simple elegant answer, that can be presented with a flourish -- there you go, problem solved.
This has been their approach to education (No Child Left Behind), the economy (tax cuts), health care (prescription drug benefit), the deficit (when tax cuts have improved the economy, the deficit will cure itself), gay marriage (constitutional ammendment), terrorism (The Patriot Act), the war on terrorism (preemptive war), the Middle East (road map), the war in Iraq (get to Baghdad). And once a problem is "solved" their attention turns to something else.
Nothing is inter-connected, nothing is complicated, nothing is nuanced or long-term, and the people who argue that things aren't so simple are scorned or ignored with a blank, puzzled stare.
As Salon points out, the overriding White House issue in the summer of 2001 was stem cell research. It was all Bush could think about, he absolutely had to find the answer -- and as soon as he did, he went on what he considered to be a well-earned vacation.
The belief in the silver bullet is why they are in trouble now, on so many fronts. Once they have solved a problem, they move on. If it rears its ugly head again, they cannot understand why -- it must be the fault of those partisan Democrats who keep trying to mess things up -- and so they keep trying to swat it down again with the same rhetoric, the same talking points, the same solution.
Its a Lone Ranger view of reality where everything is black or white, you're either for us or against us, we're the good guys so everything can be wrapped up in half an hour. Hi Ho Silver!
Thursday, April 08, 2004
Humanitarian crisis coming
Battles rage at two Iraqi mosques: "Iraqi insurgents fought U.S. troops at two mosques in Fallujah and held sway over all or part of three cities in southern Iraq in the worst chaos and violence since Baghdad fell a year ago Friday. "
And remember that "humanitarian crisis" which didn't happen last April? Well, stay tuned.
My analysis is that Iraqis have had enough and they will keep fighting now as long as their ammunition holds out because they want to push the troops out of their cities.
But the flow of food and medicine into these cities will stop as a result. Last spring, there was no humanitarian crisis because Saddam had distributed three months food from the Oil for Food program, and the war bypassed the cities to a large extent in the push for Bagdad.
But as this rebellion continues, people will have to gather their families and try to escape the fighting by moving into the country or by trying to cross the borders into Kuwait or Jordon or Syria or Iran. This will be a disaster.
And remember that "humanitarian crisis" which didn't happen last April? Well, stay tuned.
My analysis is that Iraqis have had enough and they will keep fighting now as long as their ammunition holds out because they want to push the troops out of their cities.
But the flow of food and medicine into these cities will stop as a result. Last spring, there was no humanitarian crisis because Saddam had distributed three months food from the Oil for Food program, and the war bypassed the cities to a large extent in the push for Bagdad.
But as this rebellion continues, people will have to gather their families and try to escape the fighting by moving into the country or by trying to cross the borders into Kuwait or Jordon or Syria or Iran. This will be a disaster.
Canadian aid worker kidnapped in Iraq
Canadian aid worker kidnapped in IraqThis is awful "A Canadian humanitarian aid worker was kidnapped in southern Iraq, the Foreign Affairs Department said today. Fadi Ihsan Fadel was taken hostage while doing work for the New York City-based International Rescue Committee, a non-governmental organization." My heart goes out to his family.
Wednesday, April 07, 2004
Knee-jerk right-wingism
Harper's Magazine for April 2004 contains a great article Lie Down for America, which asks why American mid-western working stiffs vote Republican when the Democrats actually care about them (minimum wage, unions, medicare) and the Republicans do not (globalization, deregulation). Author Thomas Frank discusses the stereotypes this creates and the impact this has on how the media analyzes elections.
It would take a PhD thesis to explain why this has happened over the last 40 years. Maybe its all a big corporate plot.
But I think one possible contributor is how we have all become used to what I term "knee-jerk right-wingism" when we are dealing with life's absurdities these days -- and Canadians are just as bad at doing this as Americans are.
How many times have you said "goddamn unions" when a stike inconveniences you?
Or "goddamn political correctness" when reading a news report of another 6-year-old expelled for bringing a butter knife to school.
Or "goddamn politicians" when a politician does something stupid.
Or "goddamn bureaucrats" when a government tells us we can't do something we want to do. Its a common but mindless reaction.
Do we ever hear a radio talk show host or a TV commentator or a newspaper columnist, even one not rabidly right-wing, who analyzes current events without falling into this well-worn groove?
Compare to whether the average person has EVER said, or heard, or even thought, "goddamn corporate greed" when a company corners the market in some essential service, or "goddamn incompetent management" when labour relations deteriorate to the point that a union is locked out, or "goddamn tax evader" when some lawyer or accountant promotes another scheme for people to avoid taxes.
My point is, the public discourse in our society now tends to generalize and demonize the left, while the right doesn't get the same treatment.
Maybe it would help if we could at least recognize knee-jerk right wingism when we hear it. And, maybe, think it through a little more.
It would take a PhD thesis to explain why this has happened over the last 40 years. Maybe its all a big corporate plot.
But I think one possible contributor is how we have all become used to what I term "knee-jerk right-wingism" when we are dealing with life's absurdities these days -- and Canadians are just as bad at doing this as Americans are.
How many times have you said "goddamn unions" when a stike inconveniences you?
Or "goddamn political correctness" when reading a news report of another 6-year-old expelled for bringing a butter knife to school.
Or "goddamn politicians" when a politician does something stupid.
Or "goddamn bureaucrats" when a government tells us we can't do something we want to do. Its a common but mindless reaction.
Do we ever hear a radio talk show host or a TV commentator or a newspaper columnist, even one not rabidly right-wing, who analyzes current events without falling into this well-worn groove?
Compare to whether the average person has EVER said, or heard, or even thought, "goddamn corporate greed" when a company corners the market in some essential service, or "goddamn incompetent management" when labour relations deteriorate to the point that a union is locked out, or "goddamn tax evader" when some lawyer or accountant promotes another scheme for people to avoid taxes.
My point is, the public discourse in our society now tends to generalize and demonize the left, while the right doesn't get the same treatment.
Maybe it would help if we could at least recognize knee-jerk right wingism when we hear it. And, maybe, think it through a little more.
The Final Exam (Iraq section)
CNN.com - Rumsfeld: Coalition faces test of will - Apr 7, 2004
Rummy says "We're facing a test of will, and we will meet that test."
So, because this is exam time now at the university I work for, this remark put me in mind of drawing up a general exam to test "will" in Iraq:
1. Philosophy: Why are the Americans in Iraq? Please list at least five reasons in your answer which have now been declared "inoperative".
2. Mathematics: Take the number of WMD found and divide by the number of Iraqis killed. Then multiply the answer by the cost of the war in billions to the American treasury, and add the number of soldiers killed and wounded. Discuss.
3. English: Write a poem which rhymes "Freedom Fries" with "lies."
4. Geography: In your desk you will find a map of the United States. Calculate the distance between Walter Reed Hospital and the White House, and compare to the flight schedule of Air Force One over the last 12 months. Explain why Bush has been too busy to visit the wounded.
5. History: Describe how the average Iraqi would think that their experience under the American occupation differs from the Palestinian experience. Please include discussion of prisons, POW camps, targetting of civilians, and targetting of religious leaders in your answer.
6. Biology. Describe how far up his ass Rumsfeld can go with this "test of will" analogy, and how far he can take the American people before they realize how dark it is in there.
When completed, please turn your test paper over on your desk and have a good cry. Final grades will be curved.
(with thanks to The Final Exam poster -- and look at this version, too)
Rummy says "We're facing a test of will, and we will meet that test."
So, because this is exam time now at the university I work for, this remark put me in mind of drawing up a general exam to test "will" in Iraq:
1. Philosophy: Why are the Americans in Iraq? Please list at least five reasons in your answer which have now been declared "inoperative".
2. Mathematics: Take the number of WMD found and divide by the number of Iraqis killed. Then multiply the answer by the cost of the war in billions to the American treasury, and add the number of soldiers killed and wounded. Discuss.
3. English: Write a poem which rhymes "Freedom Fries" with "lies."
4. Geography: In your desk you will find a map of the United States. Calculate the distance between Walter Reed Hospital and the White House, and compare to the flight schedule of Air Force One over the last 12 months. Explain why Bush has been too busy to visit the wounded.
5. History: Describe how the average Iraqi would think that their experience under the American occupation differs from the Palestinian experience. Please include discussion of prisons, POW camps, targetting of civilians, and targetting of religious leaders in your answer.
6. Biology. Describe how far up his ass Rumsfeld can go with this "test of will" analogy, and how far he can take the American people before they realize how dark it is in there.
When completed, please turn your test paper over on your desk and have a good cry. Final grades will be curved.
(with thanks to The Final Exam poster -- and look at this version, too)
One option
In Iraq, Withoout Options Great column by Harold Meyerson in the Washington Post:
". . . it's increasingly apparent that we've opted to privatize our force -- relying on private security guards to supplement our official force on the ground. The decision epitomizes much that's wrong with the Bush presidency -- in particular, its desire to evade responsibility and accountability for its actions. If the bodies of the security guards killed in Fallujah had not been mutilated, how many American voters would have noticed? One recent poll shows that near-plurality of Americans now favors our leaving Iraq. But precisely because this was not a war we had to fight, just up and leaving would be politically and morally duplicitous. We wrested control of Iraq when we did not have to, and leaving it to its own devices as sectarian violence grows worse would be a dismal end."
He continues "The only unequivocally good policy option before the American people is to dump the president who got us into this mess, who had no trouble sending our young people to Iraq but who cannot steel himself to face the Sept. 11 commission alone. [emphasis mine]"
Enough said.
". . . it's increasingly apparent that we've opted to privatize our force -- relying on private security guards to supplement our official force on the ground. The decision epitomizes much that's wrong with the Bush presidency -- in particular, its desire to evade responsibility and accountability for its actions. If the bodies of the security guards killed in Fallujah had not been mutilated, how many American voters would have noticed? One recent poll shows that near-plurality of Americans now favors our leaving Iraq. But precisely because this was not a war we had to fight, just up and leaving would be politically and morally duplicitous. We wrested control of Iraq when we did not have to, and leaving it to its own devices as sectarian violence grows worse would be a dismal end."
He continues "The only unequivocally good policy option before the American people is to dump the president who got us into this mess, who had no trouble sending our young people to Iraq but who cannot steel himself to face the Sept. 11 commission alone. [emphasis mine]"
Enough said.
Patriot games
LiberalOasis writes a great piece on how the administration is failing to handle the situation in Iraq and trying to play the patiotism card again.
They played the patriotism card in the fall of 2002, when the motion to endorse any action Bush wanted to take in Iraq was being debated in congress, and it worked then. It won't work now. There are too many soldier families joining the chorus asking why Americans are dying in and for Iraq, and the Democrats have spines now.
As the Bush administration sees the election abyss opening before it and all their hopes for a second Bush administration sliding into it, what will they do? Change the policies that got them into this mess? I doubt they are capable of that. They may start tossing people over the side to lighten the boat (bye, Condi and Colin).
I seem to be stuck on poetic images lately, but it occurs to me that they won't go gentle into that good night . . .
They played the patriotism card in the fall of 2002, when the motion to endorse any action Bush wanted to take in Iraq was being debated in congress, and it worked then. It won't work now. There are too many soldier families joining the chorus asking why Americans are dying in and for Iraq, and the Democrats have spines now.
As the Bush administration sees the election abyss opening before it and all their hopes for a second Bush administration sliding into it, what will they do? Change the policies that got them into this mess? I doubt they are capable of that. They may start tossing people over the side to lighten the boat (bye, Condi and Colin).
I seem to be stuck on poetic images lately, but it occurs to me that they won't go gentle into that good night . . .
Tuesday, April 06, 2004
Too many odd days
Bush seems to have his odd days, and maybe his even days. But he certainly seems to be having several odd days in a row.
'Dana Milbank's White House Notebook has an item about Bush's "pothole" joke, which he apparently uses every time he talks to a mayor.
Then there is the odd You remind me of my mother joke at a Texas fundraiser.
And his apparent slapping down of an AP reporter who addressed him as "sir" rather than "Mr. President"
And last week's "looking for WMD" banquet joke.
And many Bushisms before this. The worse was his "hitting the trifecta" line about how lucky he was that terrorism, war and national emergency meant he didn't have to balance the budget.
'Dana Milbank's White House Notebook has an item about Bush's "pothole" joke, which he apparently uses every time he talks to a mayor.
Then there is the odd You remind me of my mother joke at a Texas fundraiser.
And his apparent slapping down of an AP reporter who addressed him as "sir" rather than "Mr. President"
And last week's "looking for WMD" banquet joke.
And many Bushisms before this. The worse was his "hitting the trifecta" line about how lucky he was that terrorism, war and national emergency meant he didn't have to balance the budget.
Come fly with me -- no thanks!
ACLU to Sue Government Over 'No-Fly' List "Federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies recommend to the TSA who gets put on the lists, but little else is known about them. The government does not disclose how many people are on the lists or how people qualify to get on or off, nor does it confirm any names on the lists. "
This issue has been in the news for almost three years now. So why should it take an ACUL lawsuit to get it fixed?
I guess everybody in the US government is so busy fighting terrorism that they can't be bothered to fix an incomprehensible bureaucratic system that not only wastes hundreds of thousands of dollars in needless airport screenings, but also terrifies innocent American citizens. Great stuff, George!
This issue has been in the news for almost three years now. So why should it take an ACUL lawsuit to get it fixed?
I guess everybody in the US government is so busy fighting terrorism that they can't be bothered to fix an incomprehensible bureaucratic system that not only wastes hundreds of thousands of dollars in needless airport screenings, but also terrifies innocent American citizens. Great stuff, George!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)