Iraq through the looking glass

Gilliard has an interesting take here.
He writes that "Ahmed Chalabi has managed to influence the most powerful people in the US government to, essentially, boost Iran's fortunes in the world . . . Chalabi's feat in getting the US to attack Iraq and then help it fail at this task is likely as much espionage as anything else."
In other words, Iran worked through Chalabi to get the US to take out Saddam and then to make sure the US got bogged down fighting a guerilla war.
It just goes to prove the saying "those who live by the sword will die by the sword."
Now, the one thing I am uncertain about is whether anyone could have predicted that the US would get so bogged down in Iraq. It was their stupid decisions in the early days of the war which caused their problems now.
But a large number of those bad decisions can be traced back directly to Chalabi. It was Chalabi who told them they would be greeted with flowers so they didn't send enough troops, and it was Chalabi who said he could run the country right away so they didn't plan for an Iraqi government, and it was Chalabi who wanted the Iraq army disbanded, etc etc.
And there is one image of Iran's calculated, strategic ruthlessness that I cannot get out of my head: Robert X. Cringely's description of Iran sending thousands of its children to be shot to pieces by Iraqi guns during the Iran-Iraq war, just to prove Iran's own moral superiority.

I eventually finished the piece and decided to go see the war since I had been in Beirut and Angola, but had never seen trench warfare, which is what I was told they had going in Iran. So I took a taxi to the front, introduced myself to the local commander, who had gone, as I recall, to Iowa State, and spent a couple days waiting for the impending human wave attack.
That attack was to be conducted primarily with 11-and 12-year-old boys as troops, nearly all of them unarmed. There were several thousand kids and their job was to rise out of the trench, praising Allah, run across No Man's Land, be killed by the Iraqi machine gunners, then go directly to Paradise, do not pass GO, do not collect 200 dinars.
And that's exactly what happened in a battle lasting less than 10 minutes. None of the kids fired a shot or made it all the way to the other side. And when I asked the purpose of this exercise, I was told it was to demoralize the cowardly Iraqi soldiers.
It was the most horrific event I have ever seen, and I once covered a cholera epidemic in Bangladesh that killed 40,000 people.
Waiting those two nights for the attack was surreal. Some kids acted as though nothing was wrong while others cried and puked. But when the time came to praise Allah and enter Paradise, not a single boy tried to stay behind . . . Welcome to the New Morality.

So yes, perhaps it could be all just one big espionage plot -- a Middle Eastern version of The Looking Glass War, with Iran as the Circus and Chalabi as Control, and the entire US military as the bungling, amateurish, egotistical Department, tricked by the Circus into crushing and deadly failure.

It's Official

At least, it seems official now.
World O'Crap reports that Canada is Our Latest Enemy according to a Newsmax article. WOC writes

I assume that in a couple of weeks, the President will announce that "The people of the United States will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with socialized medicine, gay marriages, and maple syrup." Condi will say that we'd better invade them now, because we don't want the smoking gun to be a hockey stick. Dick Cheney will remark, 'I think it's not surprising that people make a connection between Mariah Carey Celine Dion and 9/11.'. . .

And isn't that just special?

Great movie moments for unions

I tried to post a brilliant comment to Digby's post about the importance of organized labour Which Side Are You On, Boys? -- but haloscan failed on me. So I thought I might as well make the comment here, at a longer length.
My comment was that it is not surprising that society doesn't appreciate unions as much as we once did, considering declines in union membership.
Its too bad, too, because labour unions and labour-management relations, particularly in Canada, have greatly matured over the last decade -- the hysterical anti-union everything-is-their-fault management attitude has declined, as has the arrogance of unions gleefully seizing every opportunity to screw up people's vacation plans.
Anyway, I can't think of an easier or better way to introduce people to the importance of unions than to show them two movies: first, "Norma Rae" to illustrate not only why industrial unions were life-savers for workers, but also the importance of union principles like the closed shop. And second, "They Shoot Horses, Don't They?" to illustrate how easy it is to treat people like dirt when they have no organization to defend themselves. It might certainly still be possible for someone to remain anti-union after seeing these two films, but at least they would have an understanding of why other people support the union movement.

Gonzo journalism about Canada's most hated couple

Homolka's interview last night on CBC was self-serving bullsh*t -- we should all appreciate how sorry she feels about what she did, even though it wasn't really her fault of course.
In covering the reaction to its Homolka interview, the CBC quoted a number of people tonight describing her as a monster and a psychopath. Then the reporter made this astounding statement: that "some Canadians are willing to accept that Karla Homolka has a human side."
Bullsh*t. More self-serving bullsh*t.
There is not a single Canadian who accepts her as human.
It was just good old gonzo journalism, pretending that they did the interview just because all those inquiring minds were so eager to see Homolka's "human side".
And now Bernado is getting into the act, too -- Bernardo's lawyer says killer 'agitated' over attention given to Homolka -- now saying that he wanted to let Mahaffy go but Homolka killed her.
More self-serving bullsh*t.
And I don't understand how the media can even report such tripe, once more ripping the hearts out of the Mahaffy family just so that they can use a teaser headline before their commercial break -- stay turned for Bernardo's new accusation!
Have they no shame?

Some American Pie

Buzzing aroung the blogosphere today, I saw a number of posts despairing of the direction which the United States is going. I heard echoes of this song as I read what they were saying:

Oh, and there we were all in one place,
A generation lost in space
With no time left to start again.
So come on: jack be nimble, jack be quick!
Jack flash sat on a candlestick
Cause fire is the devil’s only friend.
Oh, and as I watched him on the stage
My hands were clenched in fists of rage.
No angel born in hell
Could break that satan’s spell.
And as the flames climbed high into the night
To light the sacrificial rite,
I saw satan laughing with delight
The day the music died
He was singing,
Bye-bye, Miss American Pie.
Drove my chevy to the levee,
But the levee was dry.
Them good old boys were drinkin’ whiskey and rye
And singin’, this’ll be the day that I die.
This’ll be the day that I die.
I met a girl who sang the blues
And I asked her for some happy news,
But she just smiled and turned away.
I went down to the sacred store
Where I’d heard the music years before,
But the man there said the music wouldn’t play.
And in the streets: the children screamed,
The lovers cried, and the poets dreamed.
But not a word was spoken;
The church bells all were broken.
And the three men I admire most:
The father, son, and the holy ghost,
They caught the last train for the coast
The day the music died.
And they were singing,
Bye-bye, Miss American Pie.
Drove my chevy to the levee,
But the levee was dry.
And good old boys were drinkin’ whiskey and rye
Singin’, this’ll be the day that I die.
This’ll be the day that I die.

Religiously correct

We rented Beyond the Sea tonight - what an absolutely terrific movie! [Warning about this link if you are at work -- the music plays automatically.] A labour of love by Kevin Spacey, who looked and sounded and acted and danced remarkably like Bobby Darin. Not only that, but the movie was done in such an original way for a biopic, while showing reverence for all of the movie-musical-biography traditions -- big song-and-dance numbers, the loving ethnic childhood, the excentric family, the troubled yet ultimately loving marriage, the virtually invisible children, the final breakthrough concert followed by the sad death scene. This movie had it all, plus some great music.
The one song I missed hearing was It Ain't Necessarily So. Then I started thinking about the lyrics, and realized that under the new "religious correctness" these days, there is no way a filmmaker would risk picketing by the Christian Right by having a lead character sing lyrics like this:
"It ain't necessarily so.
It ain't necessarily so.
The things that your liable
to read in the bible
ain't necessarily so . . .
Methus'lah lived nine hundred years,
Methus'lah lived nine hundred years,
But who calls that livin'
When no gal will give in
To no man that's nine hundred years? . . . "
Anyway, if you like Bobby Darin's music, rent this DVD.

Chasing the Niger Papers

Billmon says "I long ago accepted the fact that we're all living in a bad sequel to the Bourne Identity."
And when you read the ins and outs of his post on The Niger Papers, The Sting and The Italian Job, its easy to believe him.

You haff relatives in the old country ya?

Since it now appears that Karl Rove was the Plame leak source for at least six reporters in the White House press corps, Digby wonders why none of these journalists would write about it.
Well, I could think of ways that a government could prevent a reporter from writing anything for TWO YEARS -- and, in fact, why most of them still haven't written anything. Yes, I could speculate ....

1812 again

My favorite thing about the US Independence Day is watching the Boston Pops performance of the 1812 Overture -- BSO -- 2005 Fourth-of-July Extravaganza
I am always enthralled how well the huge audience knows this music -- the cheers when the Russian trumpets first sound always send chills down my spine.

50 lies

One of the surprising things about the Iraq War is that there sometimes appear to be two different wars underway here -- the one that the US is winning, according to the right wing press and bloggers, and the one they are losing, in reality.
While poking around the internet this morning, I saw this Kos diary (which credits an unlinked Digby post.) Anyway, it refers to an old story which may explain some of the dicotomy.
Eighteen months ago, in November 2003, this story reported on an investigation by a USAF Colonel (Ret.) Sam Gardiner which he called "Truth from These Podia: Summary of a Study of Strategic Influence, Perception Management, Strategic Information Warfare and Strategic Psychological Operations in Gulf II". His report identified fifty news stories about the Iraq war that were faked up to sell the Iraq War. The texts of the Gardiner report are here in pdf files: Part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4, part 5, and part 6 -- each of these is about 10 pages long, so I don't really understand why the report wasn't posted in a single document.
Anway, here is a list of the stories which Gardiner says were faked to create and maintain support for the Iraq War:
• Iraq was connected to terrorism and 9/11
• Lt. Commander Speicher might still be alive
• Iraq had drones
• Mohammad Atta met with Iraqi
• Ansar al-Salm had a poison factory
• Chemical and biological weapons: Quantities, Location, Delivery readiness
• Iraq had Weapons labs
• Iraq had WMD cluster bombs
• Iraq's Scuds
• Saddam punished people by cutting off ears
• Cyber war capability
• The nuclear materials from Niger story
• The aluminum tubes story
• Iraq developing nuclear weapons
• Iraq developing dirty bombs
• Troops handing out food; humanitarian operations
• US did not attack the power grid
• Surrender of the 507th
• US troops approaching the 'Red Zone' where WMD would be used.
• US troops fighting the 51st Iraqi Mechanized Division & commander
• The 'uprising' in Basrah supporting the invasion
• 'Liberations' of Umm Qasr and Basrah
• Iraqi white flag incidents (pretending to surrender)
• US and UK uniforms to commit atrocities
• Iraqis were executing prisoners
• The 'Salman Pak' terrorist training facility
• Private Lynch story: language (eg, described as an "ambush")
• Iraq using children soldiers
• The 1000-vehicle attack from Baghdad
• How few civilian casualties
• Saddam hung a woman for waving at troops
• WMD locations: Moved to Syria, Hidden, Just-in-time program
• Changing descriptions of the post-conflict enemy
• The status of infrastructure repairs
• French stories (as punishment for not supporting the war): High precision switches, Smallpox strains, Signing long term oil contracts, Spare parts for aircraft, Roland missiles, Passport for Iraqi leaders
• Russian stories (also punishment): Signing long term oil contracts, Night-vision goggles, GPS Jamming equipment, Saddam in embassy
• British Parliamentarian punishment (Galloway)

Imagine how f*cked your brain would be if you still believed some or all of these stories? And, accepting these as true, imagine how amazed you would be that anyone would not be 100 per cent behind the Iraq War? Why, you would be in a parallel universe, the one where the US won the war in Iraq but the darned Main Stream Media and those crazy bloggers just wouldn't admit it.

Live 8

In Barrie:

Photos of war

Maybe all wars are basically the same, or at least the tragedies are the same. I got thinking the other day about comparable photos between Vietnam and Iraq. Here are some I found.
First, here is what is likely the most famous photo from the Vietnam War. The running Vietnamese girl forgave the pilot who napalmed her. I wonder whether the little Iraqi girl covered with the blood of her parents, shot at an American roadblock, will be able to forgive someday.


Here is another famous Vietnam photo of a spy being casually shot by a South Vietnamese chief of police, which started the American disenchantment with South Vietnam government.
And here is the Fallaugh contractor-burning photo which appalled America, and showed Americans that Iraq was still a war zone. Click here to see how Fallaujh looks today.


And finally, here are two photos unique to Iraq.
First, the Abu Ghraib photo which may well become the most famous photo from this war. And second, this sad, sad photo of a little boy whose brains were blown out during the bombing of Baghdad was shown all over Aljazeera TV during the first week of the war. Western networks refused to show it, even when the coverage of the boy's death itself became a news story. So it took a long time before Americans understood that people all over the Middle East were angry about the War in Iraq.

Salutin riffs

If I could, I would have just linked directly to today's Rick Salutin column in the Globe and Mail. But the columnists are behind their subscription wall and I refuse -- REFUSE! -- to pay twice, once for the paper version and again for the online paper.
Salutin often takes a contrary view, and his writing is so vivid and crisp that he often convinces me that he is right. Here are his three riffs from today:

Let us give thanks that our nation is not an imperial power. I am thinking mainly about the effects of empire not on the ruled but on the rulers like our southern neighbours . . . look at how hard it is for them to get clarity about the bog in Iraq. The issue gets framed as: When will Iraqi forces be ready to take over, so our troops can leave? But the nationality of forces fighting against the insurgency isn't what counts; the imperial power always tries to use the locals as its police (as the British did in India and Africa). What counts is who has power over policy and resources in Iraq, and there's no sign the United States plans to relinquish any. So the debate on when to "draw down" U.S. troops and leave is hollow. Some of it is diversionary propaganda from the Bushites; but much of it is sincere self-delusion, because many Americans just don't want to see themselves in their imperial reality.

Then Salutin goes on a tear about CEOs who decry higher government spending:

The boys seem especially peeved at Paul Martin for not staying as stingy and accommodating as he once was . . . Back in 1995, [Martin said] "some people seem to enjoy the bloodsport of cutting spending; they forget that a country is about people, and a government is about representing people." The guy has always been a cluster of contradictions -- not the worst thing for a person in politics to be.

Finally, he talks about the last parliament:

During the past hysterical months, I often found myself flipping to the parliamentary channel to see what was on, as I would to a sports or news channel. They'd be debating issues that mattered, with evident passion and involvement. MPs, even backbenchers, emerged as personalities; there was genuine back and forth and, above all, uncertainty of outcome, as in sports. They passed significant legislation and had meaningful debates . . . due to that disparaged, belittled, uncontrollable minority situation, a great Parliament.

Goodbye, O'Connor. Goodbye, Choice.

Right off the mark, this NARAL ad is running at the top of the NYT website: Take Action: Don't Let Anti-Choice Extremists Win the Fight for the Supreme Court.
But they will, by October.
Is there anyone in the world who thinks that Bush will not seize on this tremendous opportunity to put in place an anti-abortion judge? Is there anyone who thinks that this is not exactly why the Christian Right elected him and a Republican Senate in the first place?
Goodbye, Roe v Wade. Goodbye Women's Right to Choose.
Earlier this spring the Republicans in Senate would not overturn the fillibuster rule and destroy the Senate's advise and consent role, just for Bolton or for the other intellectual lightweights Bush wanted to appoint. But the Republicans will definitely overturn the fillibuster for this, if they need to, to make sure an anti-abortion judge replaces O'Connor.
And it would not matter if this tears the Senate and the country apart. It wouldn't matter if a million people marched in New York or Los Angeles or Boston or even Atlanta in support of women's right to choose. Bush and the boys simply DO NOT CARE WHAT WOMEN THINK.
As I have pointed out before, this is actually an end to choice, not to abortion. As a medical procedure which can save a woman's life, the abortion procedure will still be available. The difference is that the woman herseof will not be able to chose it. Instead, the choice will be made by a committee of doctors and/or of Christian Right hospital board members -- and you can bet that the grounds will be pretty narrow.
Rape? Incest? Extreme youth? Amniocentosis results showing disability? Nope, not good enough. Neither your body nor your choices matter anymore, woman -- get back into the kitchen and take off those shoes!
Anyone in the US who is now younger than 40 does not remember a time when women did not have the right to have a legal abortion if they wanted to.
They don't remember what a long, hard battle it was to establish the principle that women, and everyone else for that matter, should have the right to make their own moral and ethical decisions.
They're about to find out.
And when I think of the 2004 election and the horrendous impact it will have on America, I think of the Frost poem:
Two roads diverged in a yellow wood,
. . . long I stood
And looked down one as far as I could
To where it bent in the undergrowth;
Then took the other . . .
Oh, I kept the first for another day!
Yet knowing how way leads on to way,
I doubted if I should ever come back.
I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I-
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.

UPDATE: Americablog points out that the impact will be broader than just abortion. All of Scalia's dissents will now be the majority opinions . . . And Americablog seems to think there may actually be a chance of winning this one in the Senate. Well, I hope so. Fight the good fight!

Only in the Globe

I was impressed by this: The Globe and Mail: Stephen Leacock's hidden treasure -- I think only the Globe would banner a story like this across the front page on Canada Day, because it considers itself Canada's newspaper (and rightfully so) and prides itself in showing this kind of leadership in a celebration of what is uniquely Canadian.