January 29, 2003
Never Thought Of It That Way
In a lengthy guest column to the Seattle Times, former Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Bill Owens put a new spin on the uniqueness of the "threat" to the world's people posed by Saddam Hussein.
He ran down the usual laundry list, of course: Saddam gassed his own people (forgot to mention, as may be some sort of rule, that the U.S. supported that activity), Saddam invaded two other countries (forgot to mention that the U.S. supported Iraq's invasion of Iran, and probably goaded him into invading Kuwait, as well as that the U.S. has invaded and/or bombed literally scores of countries since World War II -- as well as plenty before that), Saddam has defied UN Resolutions (forgot to mention that the U.S. is far in the lead among World actors on this score as well), etc..
But here comes the kicker: "Further, Iraq is the only country that fires at U.S. and allied aircraft on an almost daily basis." Okay, doublethink is one thing. Righteous indignation over Iraq's firing at U.S. and "allied" aircraft -- even though the no-fly zones have since day one been imposed unilaterally, without permission from any international body, and even though the U.S. bombs Iraqi "targets" almost daily (can you say "terrorism") -- is fine (so to speak). But the "only" stipulation seems to come straight out of left field -- or Mars.
What you can do: Write a letter to the editor of the Times, explaining that Iraq would probably be joined by other countries in almost daily firing at U.S. aircraft just as soon as the U.S. imposed no-fly zones upon, and engaged in almost daily bombing runs over, them.
High-Fivin' White Guys
You expect the President of the United States to lie every time he opens up his hole. But do we really need to witness a fucking standing ovation for each and every lie? To put it a bit more crudely: is there any practical difference between last night's "address" and the fucking Nuremberg rally?
Stephen Zunes has ably dissected Bush's lies. But maybe we could take a moment to genuflect at the audacity of this particular nugget:
And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country, your enemy is ruling your country.
(APPLAUSE)
And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation.
(APPLAUSE)
One couldn't imagine even Ariel Sharon being able to straight-facedly toss that one out.
Not to be outdone, however, Senator Thad [Note to self: must cite people named "Thad" more often] Cochran, of Mississippi, opined that, "I think the president did what he had to do in terms of talking about the importance of waging peace aggressively." This statement surely deserves a sarcastic rejoinder -- if only one could find the words.
A Final Solution for the Cradle of Civilisation?
In the last week, the United Nations, CARE, the International Rescue Agency, Oxfam, Unicef, and others have warned of the humanitarian disaster which will befall the Iraqi population (particularly those in large cities) should the United States launch its much-desired war. Aid agencies are working with the UN to try to prevent a humanitarian disaster, but, "At this stage we don't have any resources to implement any plans," according to a UN spokesman.
A war will create 900,000 refugees who will need to be cared for, 500,000 casualties requiring medical treatment, and 5 million hungry who will need to be fed.
"Millions of Iraqis could face hunger and disease," and, "If any military strike disrupted Iraqi authorities' distribution of food or the transport network, there could be very, very serious humanitarian consequences," says Ed Cairns, of Oxfam. He also warns that, ""Water and sanitation are electrically pumped in much of Iraq. So targeting of electricity supplies for military reasons could also have a very severe civilian effect," and that, "The public health statistics in Iraq are already grim and we would be very concerned that an existing humanitarian crisis could be tipped over the edge into catastrophe."
It's worth recalling that none of these warnings even discuss the long-term effects of either the massive civilian destruction or of the planned use by the United States of radiological weaponry.
At the same time, CBS is reporting that the American military's current war plan calls for launching 800 cruise missiles -- more that were launched in the entire Gulf War -- upon Iraq in the first two days of war. A Pentagon "official" assuress that, "There will not be a safe place in Baghdad," while the plan's co-creator compares it to the Hiroshima bombing, and rejoices that, "You also take the city down. By that I mean you get rid of their power, water." Dropping even the pretense of striving to minimise so-called "collateral damage", the plan advocates, "a regime of Shock and Awe through delivery of instant, nearly incomprehensible levels of massive destruction directed at influencing society writ large, meaning its leadership and public, rather than targeting directly against military or strategic objectives." (Alas, the "pretense" was just public posturing anyway. The U.S. military has long utilised these sorts of methods. The Air Force has boasted, for example, of the first Gulf War, that, "The loss of electricity shut down the capital's water treatment plants and led to a public health crisis from raw sewage dumped in the Tigris River.")
In other words, the Pentagon is openly -- even elatedly -- planning an unprecedented barrage upon civilian infrastructure (in a country already suffering from twelve years of debilitating sanctions), even as humanitarian relief agencies are warning that such an attack will produce catastrophic consequences for the civilian population.
I don't know about your dictionary, but mine defines "genocide" as: "The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group." That's what the U.S. is planning, and it appears we've got about a month to prevent it happening. It's time for us to inundate the White and the Congress with a barrage of our own: postcards, letters, phone calls, faxes. And if ever there were a time to stop paying taxes and stop driving cars, this would seem to be it.
Will the genocide be prevented? It's up to us.
January 27, 2003
Triplethink
Bush has warned Iraqi troops that if they follow any orders to use weapons of mass destruction against U.S. troops, they will be tried and "persecuted" as war criminals.
By contrast, not only has the Bush Administration failed to warn American troops against using weapons of mass destruction, it has also offered to Saddam immunity from "persecution" for his past war crimes.
Textbook Triplethink, wouldn't you say? (Those worried that U.S. planners have not been offered immunity from persecution for their crimes, as has Saddam, might want to look into this matter.)
Is He Pooping His Pants?
No, he's just consternated at the Dow's latest misfortune: it's dropped below 8,000 for the first time in three months. The market's slide has been precipitated by fears that a new war, undertaken without European consent, will wreck the economy.
So, where does this leave us? U.S. domestic opinion is turning steadily against war, World opinion is decidedly against war, U.S. allies are (at least for the moment) bristling, Tony Blair's own party is divided, the U.S. military establishment has issued warnings, and now the U.S. business community is getting cold feet.
Meaning? Well, what else? Full steam ahead!
Two Suns In The Sunset
In mentioning in passing the other night the Bush Administration's drawing up of plans to use nuclear weapons in Iraq, a local news anchor sounded bored to tears.
One might hope this boredom stems from cynicism, from the knowledge that in utilising Depleted and non-Depleted Uranium munitions in Iraq, Yugoslavia, and Afghanistan, the U.S. has already been nuking its "enemies" for more than a decade. But, probably, he was just distracted, hoping to be able to get hold of his bookie in time for the Super Bowl.
Anybody out there feel a little less bored than him? Anybody out there concerned over the United States' nuclear arsenal -- mushroom clouds or no? If so, you know what to do: letters to the editor; phone calls, letters, and postcards to the White House; phone calls to talk radio; e-mails to your contacts; marching in the streets. Maybe this latest "revelation" will sway those yet-undecided, and rouse those not yet mobilised.
January 22, 2003
The People Are Speaking
Not only were the world's people running, running, wild in the streets this past week end, and giving pollsters what-for, but they're making their opinions known online as well.
A Time magazine online poll, boasting more than 270,000 respondents to-date (and still counting), finds that 83% consider the United States the "greatest threat to world peace in 2003", compared with 9% who've chosen Iraq, and 8% North Korea.
Meanwhile, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer's daily poll for January 21 found 48% opposing an attack, with only 29% approving (and 22% with mixed feelings).
Not to be outdone, CNN's "Question of the Day" for January 21 found that 76% of people consider Sen. Kennedy's "views most like [theirs] when it comes to the Iraqi crisis," as opposed to 24% who chose Pres. Bush.
January 21, 2003
Blowing Hard
The following letter hasn't yet not been published by The Stranger. But it is sure to not be published within the next few days. It did, at least, put a special page full of letters in response onto its website.
Christopher Hitchens' unrelenting drive to wrest the title "Dirigible of Drivel" from Limbaugh's gaping orifice has now touched down upon Seattle's own Stranger, begging the Seattle peace community to get on behind the Bush Administration's war on Iraq.
Amusingly, Hitchens' Stranger bio boasts that his latest book is entitled Why Orwell Matters. That being the case, and in lieu of a point-by-point rebuttal, how about some random calling of bullshit on Hitchens' doublethink?
• "Ever since [September 11], the United States has been at war with the forces of reaction. May I please entreat you to reread the preceding sentence?" Uh, okay. Is this why we're planning to attack the most secular nation in the region? Or, is this why we're so buddy-buddy with Saudia Arabia, Pakistan, the "Northern Alliance", Israel, et al.? Or, is this why Bush himself originally declared a "crusade" against bin Laden?
• "To these people, the concept of a civilian casualty is meaningless." Yeah. But Colin "It's really not a number I'm terribly interested in" Powell is losing sleep over the hundreds of thousands civilians expected to be killed, and the million or more refugees expected to be created by the next Gulf War? Or the civilian devastation wrought by the use of Depleted Uranium munitions and the intentional destruction of civilian infrastructure?
• "If the counsel of the peaceniks had been followed...Kosovo would have been emptied of most of its inhabitants." Even though there were zero refugees before the bombing started. Milosevic's crack-down was indeed criminal, but the crack-down began after the initiation of bombing, and the refugees were fleeing not only the crack-down, but also the bombing itself.
• "The first [of three "well-established" reasons to favour "regime change"] is the flouting by Saddam Hussein of every known law on genocide and human rights." Which the U.S. avidly supported at the time, and for which Donald Rumsfeld now wants Saddam to be granted immunity from prosecution of. And for which hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis deserve to be killed, apparently.
• "The second is the persistent effort by Saddam's dictatorship to acquire the weapons of genocide." But the U.S., Israel, Russia, India, Pakistan, France, China -- hell, and even North Korea -- are allowed to acquire such weapons without reprisal. The U.S. is also allowed to use them whenever the fuck it feels like it.
• "The third is the continuous involvement by the Iraqi secret police in the international underworld of terror and destabilization. I could write a separate essay on the evidence for this." But why bother? Just believe me, okay?
• "And I shall add that any 'peace movement' that even pretends to care for human rights will be very shaken by what will be uncovered when the Saddam Hussein regime falls. Prisons, mass graves, weapon sites... just you wait." Oh, now I remember: it's not members of the Bush Administration, but the peace movement that rabidly supported Saddam's worst human rights abuses as they occurred and that now wants him to be granted immunity from prosecution for them. How silly of me to forget.
• "Do you mean that oil isn't worth fighting for, or that oil resources aren't worth protecting?" Perhaps we mean that they don't belong to us. Or perhaps that global warming blows. Or, maybe, just maybe, that perhaps the killing of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians isn't worth securing the easy access by the multinationals to them.
• "Do you recall that Saddam Hussein ignited the oilfields of Kuwait when he was in retreat, and flooded the local waterways with fire and pollution?" Impeccable logic, sir! Another U.S. attack will likely elicit another attempt by Saddam to destroy our oil, touching off another ecological catastrophe. Therefore, let's attack!
• "Are you indifferent to the possibility that such a man might be able to irradiate the oilfields next time?" No, nor are we indifferent to the certainty that the U.S. will irradiate the rest of the country the next time. That's why we're opposed to there being a "next time". Oh, my head hurts.
• "OF COURSE it's about oil, stupid." Yeah, we already knew that.
• "To say that he might also do all these terrible things if attacked or threatened is to miss the point." Begging your forgiveness. But the point isn't that he might "also" do these terrible things if attacked, but that he'd only do these terrible things if attacked.
• "The Iraqi and Kurdish peoples are now, by every measure we have or know, determined to be rid of him." Maybe we can let them vote upon the efficacy of a U.S. invasion on their "behalf"?
• "And the hope, which is perhaps a slim one but very much sturdier than other hopes, is that the next Iraqi regime will be better and safer, not just from our point of view but from the points of view of the Iraqi and Kurdish peoples." Very slim, indeed. But it seems like an okay risk from where we're sitting (after all, we won't be running from the bombs): we kill hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians in order to "change" their regime, on the essentially nonexistent chances that the next regime will be "better and safer".
• "The sanctions policy, which was probably always hopeless, is now quite indefensible. If lifted, it would only have allowed Saddam's oligarchy to re-equip. But once imposed, it was immoral and punitive without the objective of regime change. Choose." It in fact strengthened Saddam's grip over the population. But, no possibility, alas, of ending the sanctions regime while at the same time discontinuing the repeated bombing raids, cleaning up the Depleted Uranium, insisting upon region-wide disarmament (as mandated by UN 687), and supporting genuinely democratic movements within the Iraq (not to mention the region and world at large)? Didn't think so. Okay, then, we choose sanctions. What the heck, "we think the price is worth it".
• "I recently sat down with my old friend Dr. Barham Salih, who is the elected prime minister of one sector of Iraqi Kurdistan. Neither he nor his electorate could be mentioned if it were not for the no-fly zones imposed--as a result of democratic protest in the West--at the end of the last Gulf War." But not imposed until after the U.S. watched (and/or aided in) Saddam's brutal putting down of the incipient rebellion which threatened to topple his regime entirely. How convenient.
• "But the Kurds have pressed ahead with regime change in any case. Surely a 'peace movement' with any principles should be demanding that the United States not abandon them again." Sure, we can demand it. But why would we think, having abandoned them twice before, that the U.S. wouldn't do it again? And why would not invading Iraq -- in other words, not provoking Saddam to crack down again, thereby leaving intact the popular, autonomous institutions already in place in Iraqi Kurdistan -- constitute an abandonment? It's at the least an illogical supposition, isn't it?
• "I like to think I could picture a mass picket in Seattle, offering solidarity with Kurdistan against a government of fascistic repression." You're talking about Turkey, right? Not to downplay the brutality of Saddam's fascistic repression. But it's not at the moment "against" the Kurds, while Turkey's fascistic repression currently is against the Kurds. O miserable world. But, yeah, a Seattle demonstration opposing U.S. support of governments of fascistic repression would be the tops.
• "Instead, there is a self-satisfied isolationism to be found, which seems to desire mainly a quiet life for Americans." Or, maybe, a "quiet life" for America's victims. Do ya think?
• "The option of that quiet life disappeared a while back." On October 12, 1492, to be precise. Truly a "day of infamy", and the world just hasn't been the same since.
Okay, maybe that was pretty close to point-by-point after all. But shit-howdy, this piece contained more instances of doublethink per column-inch that probably even Dubya hisself could deliver.
Bankrupt
Rumsfeld opened his mouth and removed all doubt (not that there ever had been any) that the United States is opposed in principle to crimes against humanity -- or, at least, those committed by Saddam Hussein.
Back when, Saddam was a major U.S. ally, and, even after he'd fallen out of favour, and his country had been destroyed, he was allowed to crush a popular rebellion that might have overthrown him. (In fact, a few years back, I attended a lecture by an Iraqi refugee who claimed that the U.S. actively aided Saddam's crushing of the rebellion.) His crimes are now being used to make a case for war. But wait! Rumsfeld (whose recommendations carry the moral and legal weight of Jehova himself, you see) on Sunday averred that, "To avoid a war, I would personally recommend that some provision be made so that the senior leadership in that country and their families could be provided haven in some other country." No doubt Rumsfeld prescribes some manner of "Saddamismo without Saddam" for the Iraqis Saddam leaves behind.
Joining Rumsfeld in the Hall of Shame are:
• German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, who "dearly wants to avoid further antagonizing the Bush administration, which viewed his anti-war position as a betrayal. But he knows that retreating even a half-step on Iraq could cost him his coalition government, which holds a reed-thin majority in the Parliament." Schroder's "dilemma" is described as (for him) a "no-win situation". Yeah, gee, risking the ire of the United States (knowing full well the U.S. only bombs niggers), or authorising the absolute destruction of an entire culture. Very difficult choice. • A Turkish businessman opposed to the war because "all the businessmen will be affected." Turkey is "torn" generally because, on the other hand of the United States' proposed $14 Billion in aid should it support the war is the prospect of a repeat of "dealing with the torrent of Iraqi refugees that flooded across its borders," during the first Gulf War, or the "worries that the Kurds in northern Iraq could use the war as a pretext to declare independence, perhaps reigniting Turkey's war against its own Kurdish separatists, which after nearly two decades seems finally to be coming to an end," or the fear that, "At some point, the U.S. will withdraw and Turkey will still be here." God forbid the Turkish genocide of the Kurds should be interrupted by a silly little American war of genocidal scale against the Iraqis! • France, which has publicly "vowed" to veto any new Security Council resolution authorising a war upon Iraq (which the Bush Administration has promised to ignore anyways), but has "dispatched its only aircraft carrier to the gulf" so that it can join in the nigger-bombing at the "last minute", and "told Secretary of State Colin Powell in closed meetings that France would be more inclined to support war if United Nations weapons inspectors confirmed after another two months or so that Iraq was not willing to disarm peacefully." (Ah, the old rule of thumb still applies: Niggers with Nukes = No Good, Whites with WMDs = Won-der-ful.) • Russia, which took a break from pummeling Chechnya for just long enough to accept an Iraqi bribe. Will Russia eventually flop? Well, can Iraq really, in the final analysis, offer better bribes than the United States?
But back to Rumsfeld and the Beast of Baghdad. Why is the U.S. suddenly trying to "avoid war"? Perhaps the "hundreds of thousands of demonstrators across four continents", including a "cool" half-million in DC, and perhaps 200,000 in San Francisco, had something to do with it? Has the Bush Administration suddenly entered full-on face-saving mode, trying to spare itself the political fallout of embarking upon a massively unpopular war while at the same time being able to boast of having elicited "regime change"? Assuming so, let's keep up the pressure. We may just have the motherfuckers on the run!
Sob Story
An "American intelligence official" has lamented to Seymour Hersh that, "The West's primary control of nuclear proliferation was based on technology denial and diplomacy. Our fear was, first, that a Third World country would develop nuclear weapons indigenously; and, second, that it would then provide the technology to other countries. This is profound. It changes the world."
Translation: "We tried to prevent the niggers from ever attaining the capability to hit us back when we bombed the fuck out of them. We failed. That sucks."
The Phone Number Of The Beast
"It's the connotation. Nobody wants to be part of the mark of the beast," lamented Carlene Light, an office worker at Kentucky Mountain Bible College, after the college was assigned the telephone prefix of 666. Speak for yourself, Carlene! I would gladly sell my soul to obtain what you have been given free of charge. Y'all need to quit your bitchin', and realise the grass is currently greenest on your side. Or something.
In other religion news, not only has the Pope issued a biting condemnation of the proposed Iraq war, saying it would be a "defeat for humanity"; but he's also called together his homeys, and now 38 leaders of major world religions have "appealed to believers in all faiths to work to avert a conflict in Iraq."
So, those of you who have entrusted your fate to a divine power have now been issued an assignment by His/Her/Its divinely chosen representatives: work to avert a conflict in Iraq. In other words, if you believe in god, but you're not protesting the upcoming war, you're going to Hell. Now, that should be incentive enough, n'est pas?
Rah! Rah! ...Rah?
Feeling supremely elated and galvanised by yesterday's massive rally and march through downtown Seattle (which was accompanied by Martin Luther King's inspiring oration opposing the Vietnam War), I rushed home to watch the local news, certain that a showing of this size and energy couldn't possibly be downplayed.
Yet the "local" news' lead story was a ski-resort avalanche in British Columbia, which had killed seven or eight people. A tragedy, to be sure. But meriting top-story billing, and something like ten minutes' worth of coverage? If the news were to report with such zeal upon the killing, by Anglo/American-waged sanctions, of 250 children daily, perhaps we wouldn't be today peering into the precipice.
News of the march did come, eventually. To hear it told, several "hundred" people attended, the march comprising eight city blocks. I'm here to tell you, having seen it with my own eyes, that the march encompassed at least twenty city blocks, those blocks filled up with several thousand enthusiastic protesters.
Not that such misreporting is anything new. But given the magnitude of the event, it seems it would be more difficult to pull the wool over. Those of you sympathetic to the cause but unable to attend, know this: you're not alone, nor even remotely close to it.
Welcome Back!
After an agonising hiatus of nearly two years, following the destruction of its offices by flames, The Baffler has finally published its fifteenth number.
The self-described "Magazine That Blunts The Cutting Edge" has since 1988 unremittingly obliterated popular culture with uncommonly smart and pointed writing (as well as fiction, poetry, and imagery), without, gasp!, compromising its sense of humour.
Even its subscription appeal, in fact, elicits belly-laughs aplenty: "This is a new kind of war, friend, fought without think-tank money, celebrities, or glossy ads from transnational luxury conglomerates. It will require sacrifices. We will ask you to send a check or money order for $24 to the address below, which will ensure delivery of Bafflers 16 through 19. Coalition partners in Canada and Mexico will be asked to add an extra $4 for postage, while those elsewhere in the world will be asked to tack on $20."
The new ish takes on, among other topics, the Super Bowl, the weather, the cross-promotional media giants, superstar chefs, rock 'n' race, doll collector mania, and elite ritual societies.
If the magazine isn't quite as fiery as one might have expected, following the too-long layoff and the societal changes wrought by September 11, well, it just goes to show the heights to which expectations had been raised by previous editions. And it's still just about the best damned thing you'll read all year. Subscribe today!
Here endeth the unsolicited plug.
January 15, 2003
"He Gassed His Own People"
Yes, he certainly did. Saddam's gassing of Kurds at Halabja in 1988 is presented today, by the Bush and Blair Administrations, as indicative of Saddam's tyrannical methods, and is the subject of a lenghty piece by the Los Angeles Times' Jeffrey Fleishman.
Odd that a crime of 15 years ago is seen as justification to commit crimes of incalculably greater magnitude today. But the charge is true nevertheless, as are the conclusions that Saddam was and is a brutal monster.
However, somehow, some way, Bush and Blair (and now Fleishman) always seem to neglect to mention that the gassing of the Kurds, as well as the rest of Saddam's crimes of the pre-Gulf War era, were fairly rabidly supported by the Reagan Administration. After Halabja, the U.S. in fact escalated the flow of military aid to Iraq.
If it "was" a crime now, it was a crime then. And if Bush and Blair want Saddam to be held accountable now for crimes he committed then (a reasonable proposition, to say the least), then those that enabled his crimes should (they're still alive, after all) be held accountable as well.
Fleishman also reports (as have others) that a new Gulf War will provoke yet another attack upon the Kurds, quoting a victim of the 1988 attack as saying that, "We expect it to happen again. We have nothing to save us. No gas masks. No chemicals suits. No medicines. We have only the experience of what happened the first time."
But Fleishman is unable to draw the obvious logical conclusion that, if the Bush and Blair Administrations, as they've often proclaimed to, really gave one-half of one fuck about the Iraqi Kurds (their indifference to the plight of the Turkish Kurds has been amply demonstrated), then they would not mount an invasion assured of provoking such an attack.
We're All Really Fucked Now
I made the mistake last night of doing something I very rarely do: I turned on the radio.
The topic was Iraq, and the quest, some know-it-all from some right-wing DC think-tank, assured the listening public that Saddam poses the world's gravest threat to world peace and security, and that the U.S. would be justified taking him down even without a so-called "smoking gun".
Then the callers had their turn. After hearing comments the like of, "North Korea will get its turn, but first we have to deal with Iraq, which is sitting on our oil," and, "Whether you want to call them 'Arab' or 'Muslim', we know what they look like, and they would sooner slit my kids' throats; so we're going to have to get used to the idea of killing a lot of them," and that those opposed to war are, "a bunch of morons," and, "If the United States had taken care of Hitler after the invasion of Poland, millions of lives could've been saved;" it seems the only variable left to wonder about is whether the nuclear armageddon will kill us all, or whether the polar shift will get us first. Either way, it would appear that we're not long for this world.
The worst part: the show's host was actually asking fairly decent devil's-advocate-type questions, pointing up factual errors made by callers, and generally trying to throw a bit of water onto the fire.
Anyhow, I'm sure my "paranoia" will soon enough settle back into a nice, seething anger, allowing me to return to the task at hand: resisting the fucking war-mongers.
The Subversives Are Guarding The Hen-House
Well, not really. But Bruce Ramsey's Op-Ed in today's Seattle Times is a breath of fresh air for a major metropolitan daily. Ostensibly an interview with ex-marine now anti-war activist Philip Gold, it touches not only upon tactical questions most rah-rah gunslingers would sooner ignore, but also questions U.S. motives for conducting the soon-to-be conducted war, and even takes a dig at Americans' "narcissism of the mighty", asking whether the war can be "won" with "the minimal loss of U.S. lives (the only lives we count) that Americans have come to expect."
It's been shewn that persistent, intelligent, mannered requests for more balanced coverage from our media "organs" can attain results. Perhaps Ramsey's piece is a result of such persistence? And it never hurts to thank those journalists willing to go out on a limb. If you've a free moment, go ahead and pass along a word-up to Mr. Ramsey.
January 14, 2003
Rangel Tangle
In case you missed it, Rumsfeld's response to Rep. Rangel's bid to reinstate the draft on the grounds that the military is vastly overrepresented by the poor and minorities was pretty bizarre.
The crux of Rangel's argument completely escaped him. Or perhaps he intentionally ignored it. Either way, it's a pretty funny non sequitur.
A "Dove" Speaks Out
Washington Post Ombudsman Michael Getler on January 12 questioned the wisdom of the Bush Administration's drive to war. On what grounds, one might ask?
• A "dirty bomb" or other radioactive device might in retaliation be exploded in an American city. • Assuming Saddam has weapons of mass destruction, he'd use them against the U.S. in the event of an attack. • A war against Iraq might drain resources from the "battle against bin Laden". • "The burden of war will be borne by a tiny fraction of Americans who happen to be in the military or reserves. No sacrifice is asked of anyone else."
No qualms over killing several hundred thousand Iraqi civilians, and generating a million or more refugees. (Hell, that's not even considered a "burden" or a "sacrifice". The least he could have done would have been to write that, "No sacrifice is asked of anyone else, excepting some niggers.") No qualms over intentional destruction of Iraqi infrastructure. No qualms over firing off hundreds of tons of radioactive munitions. No qualms over the illegal occupation of Afghanistan. No qualms over defying the wishes of U.S. and world citizens, or the international community.
Yes, some of the potential reactions he fears could indeed come to pass, possibly even devastatingly. But the war would be illegal and (one would think) scandalously, shamefully immoral before it blew up in our faces. And it ought to be opposed on these grounds.
What you can do. Not another fucking letter to the editor? Well, what else? The more they receive taking them to task, the more they're likely to include that strain of opinion in their letters pages. Keyboards ready! The Post's letters policy is even online, helpfully.
January 13, 2003
Ignorance Is Bliss
White House counselor Karen Hughes led the first official delegation of American Women to Afghanistan, in order to bring the beleaguered country $3.5 Million in aid (about 15 seconds' worth of annual U.S. military spending, I guess). She said that she was "a little surprised to see so many women still in burqas. ... I hope it is a choice and not out of fear, but I think we heard in the meeting that there is still a substantial amount of fear."
Geez, a few minutes on the web before departure could've confirmed her fears. Both Human Rights Watch and RAWA (a group of Afghan women focused on women's rights) have posted extensive links and reports to their websites, detailing the dire situation faced by Afghan women (and the population in general) one year after "liberation". An HRW report released less than a month ago found that, "Afghan women and girls have suffered mounting abuses, harassment and restrictions of their fundamental human rights during 2002." Additionally the UN refugee agency says it is not encouraging refugees to return home because the country is still unsafe and living conditions are bad.
A year from now, they'll be saying the same sorts of things about Iraq...
January 12, 2003
The Name Of This Blog Is...
...or, perhaps should be, Doublethink Watch. This was not the original intent, but the Bush Administration is really in mid-season form right now.
Colin Powell states that North Korea, in withdrawing from the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty, "has thumbed its nose at the international community. This is very regrettable."
Uh-huh. A partial listing of treaties and agreements the Bush Administration has abandoned: the ABM treaty, the Biological Weapons Convention, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the Convention on the Prohibition of Landmines, the Chemical Weapons Convention, the Kyoto Global Warming Accord, the International Criminal Court... The list goes on.
What You Can Do. Same as usual: expose the lies and hypocrisy to your friends and family. Write letters to the Editors in which such stories appear, write letters to the White House calling bullshit on its double-standards. Boring, boring, boring. But also absolutely necessary.
Yet Another Unpublished Letter
This one to The Stranger.
Hi, Three beefs regarding Sandeep Kaushik's fine piece regarding the looming Iraq war.
Firstly, while it would indeed be a cold day in Hell before the Bush Administration took to fostering democracy overseas (or at home, for that matter), that would still not justify the war, either legally or morally. Or, if it would, then, it would be justified for any country with the ability to do so (there's the rub: the United States appears to be the only country in the world which spends more on the military than the rest of the world combined) to militarily destroy (then, uh, "rebuild" in its own image) any country in possession of weapons of mass destruction. (Even if we were to restrict the licence to only non-white countries, on the principle that the west insists on "reserving the right to bomb niggers", that would still leave much of the world's population ripe for the picking any time some power-drunk cowboy felt the itch.)
Second, the anti-war movement is indeed suffusing the mainstream population. (Much of it emanating from faith-based organisations throughout the country, as was the case with the Central American solidarity movement of the Reagan years.) Hell, it's even breaking into the mainstream media, which is no small feat. 200,000 in DC, 100,000 in San Francisco, 400,000 in London, Reps' offices being inundated with calls and faxes, polls showing a consistently growing unpopularity over the seemingly inevitable war. The movement is real, and much more organised and visible than, for example, it was eight weeks prior to the first Gulf War. You're right, though: it probably won't be enough to make a difference.
The left doesn't want to "err on the side of more dead Americans." It's quite apparent that Bush Administration foreign policy is increasing the likelihood of future terrorist attacks (as is openly acknowledged by the State Department, and as bin Laden has repeatedly warned since well before September 11th), no matter how many dead Muslims W. is able to ring up.
Anyway, more reporting like this, please!
January 08, 2003
Let's Active
The movement that has sprung up to challenge the American drive to war, before the shooting has even begun is, apparently, unprecedented. There are lots of formations offering lots of ways for people to join in.
But here are a few ideas I've not seen discussed.
Motor Car Boycott. I know it's for oil. You know it's for oil. We all know it's for oil. (Or if we don't, have a look-see at the opinion of the oil industry itself.) Since it doesn't look as though the overwhelming opposition by the world's people is going to prevent a war, why not hit them where it hurts? Park your car (or sell it), round up all of its keys, and mail them to a relative living in another state. Then write a letter to the White House stating what you've done, and why. Then convince your friends and family to do the same thing. Yes, it's a major inconvenience. For those living in rural areas, it may even be impossible. But not nearly so inconvenient as living under a carpet of U.S. bombs. There are other benefits: you won't believe how much money you'll save (especially if you sell your car altogether), you'll feel much healthier walking short distances rather than driving, and you'll get much more productive work done on public transit than sitting in your car in the middle of a gridlock.
War Tax Resistance. Fifty percent of your federal income taxes are sucked up by the military. If this is not how you want the federalales to allocate your hard-earned hard-earned, then, deny it to them. It's as simple as requesting a W-4 from your employer, figuring out how many exemptions you would need to claim to reduce paycheck withholdings to zero, penciling in that number of exemptions, and returning it to your employer. Yes, it would be an act of civil disobedience. No, you would not be sent packing to the stoney lonesome. The IRS wants to collect the money, not imprison you. Unless you're able to hide your assets, it probably will collect, eventually. So it's not an activity that should be undertaken lightly, or without prior counselling. But it's an activity one should give serious consideration to undertaking nevertheless. (Those not ready to engage in full-on tax resistance straight away can withhold smaller, symbolic amounts instead.) There is a knowledgeable and competent base of support for those considering taking this step. Consult, for example, the National War Tax Resistance Coordinating Committee and the Nonviolent Action Community of Cascadia (full disclosure: I volunteer for the second organisation).
Human Shields. Iraq Peace Team, Christian Peacemakers Teams, the International Solidarity Movement, the Universal Kinship Society, and others send delegations to Iraq, Colombia, Palestine, Afghanistan and other recipient nations of U.S. bombs in order to aid and act in solidarity with victims of U.S. militarism. The latter group is attempting to recruit tens of thousands of people to travel to Iraq to act as human shields -- on the assumption that the Bush Administration would think twice pulling the trigger knowing the chances that somebody with white skin could get injured or killed. A supremely courageous act that's obviously not for everyone, and inherently very dangerous. But even those of us who cannot make this sort of commitment can monetarily and psychologically support those who have and shall.
Survey Says. Doubt the veracity of the major opinion poll releases? Take your own! Needs just a paper, pencil, and clipboard. Anywhere there's a captive audience would work best: in the workplace, in the theatre (prior to a show's beginning), on the bus, in a line, etc.. Then make sure to publicise the results to your local media.
The Eight-Hour March. The marches protesting the upcoming war (if not the rallies preceding them!) have to-date been incredibly vibrant, spontaneous, organic, and spirited. They've attracted some attention, but haven't seem to have done such a good job reaching out to those whose attentions they've attracted. So how about planning a march to encompass, say, all the daylight hours (volunteers could sign up for different shifts, as needed)? Or both rush hours as well as the lunching hour (with recuperative breaks in-between)? But here's the important part: make sure there are dedicated teams to pass out informational packets to all those gaping bystanders, as well as all those stranded motorists.
The Dispersed "March". Rather than actually marching, all those who turn up to march could be utilised to station somebody at every corner of every intersection in the downtown area (during, again, the most highly trafficked times of day and week). Each with a sign and a big stack of informational packets to hand off to passersby (and those waiting for their traffic signal to change).
Commandeer A TV Station. Okay, it'd take a tonne of logistical and technical organising. But if it could be pulled off -- and if there were enough people to prevent the station's falling back into the wrong hands -- it could have a helluva big impact.
Anyway, just some thoughts. In the final analysis it probably doesn't matter so much what we do as that we do: any time spent in dissent is time well-spent.
The Mother Of All Doublethink
And, what do you know? It wasn't even W. himself. Close enough, though. Ari Fleischer was given a good old-fashioned grilling by Helen Thomas during Monday's press "briefing".
Amidst a barrage of questions trying to get to the bottom of the Administration's War Fever, she asked whether the Iraqis had "laid the glove on you or on the United States" in the last 11 years.
Fleischer's response was: "I guess you have forgotten about the Americans who were killed in the first Gulf War as a result of Saddam Hussein's aggression then. " So that's it, then. We're going to invade Iraq in 2003 -- killing tens or hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians -- because a few hundred American soldiers were killed in 1990 when the Iraqi military tried feebly to defend itself from the American blitz.
Later in the exchange, Fleischer was perhaps guilty of a Freudian slip when he lamented that, "Helen, if you think that the people of Iraq are in a position to dictate who their dictator is, I don't think that has been what history has shown." Straight from the horse's mouth: it's the right and responsibility of the President of the United States to "dictate who their dictator is" to the Iraqi population.
Who Are These People?
If no weapons of mass destruction are uncovered in Iraq, the Bush Administration's pretext for bombing becomes "complicated" (though surely no one doubts that one will be generated). However, if the inspectors do turn up some illegal weapons, 68% of Puget Sound area residents favour an invasion. This figure apparently jibes reasonably well with nationwide opinion.
At the risk of beating a dead horse here, one can't help wondering how many of these 68% would also favour some outside force invading the United States and changing its regime (or that of any other nation openly pursuing illegal weapons programmes)? If not, why not? This is not a rhetorical question -- "Inquiring minds want to know," as the saying goes.
If you or somebody you know supports "disarming" Iraq via carpet bombing, destruction of civilian infrastructure, use of radioactive weaponry, and forcible overthrow of its sovereign government; but does not think that every other country maintaining or pursuing an illegal weapons programme should receive a heapin' dose of the same medicine, please encourage them to use this post's comment form to explain why.
Thanks in advance.
January 06, 2003
Let's Pretend
So far, weapons inspections in Iraq are proceeding more smoothly than anyone dared imagine. It appears that those, including Scott Ritter and Hans von Sponeck, who've contended for months that Iraq was largely disarmed by 1998 (and remains so), were right all along.
But just for shits 'n' giggles, let's take a trip to The Land Of Make-Believe, and suppose that Saddam does hold some weapons of mass destruction, and that he's hidden them where no arms inspectors will be able to find them. Let's further pretend that he's even got the capability to deliver these weapons. And let's go out on another limb and suppose that, though he didn't do so in the first Gulf War, and hasn't at any time since (and, according to as impeccable a source as U.S. intelligence, would only ever do so in the event of a U.S. attack), Saddam intends to use these weapons upon the United States and its allies at any moment.
We all know that Iraq would be far from the only country to possess weapons of mass destruction, nor the first to use them. Indeed, the world leader in possessing and using such weapons is none other than the United States itself. Its current fumigation campaign in Colombia, for one example, is obliterating the Colombian peasantry. Its use of Depleted Uranium (and, apparently, non-depleted Uranium) munitions, for another example, has caused environmental and public health catastrophes in Iraq, Yugoslavia, and Afghanistan. In the Middle East, Israel openly maintains a nuclear stockpile, and has (as has the U.S., we'll recall) even threatened to make use of it.
Ah, but we should know that it's just the niggers and gooks that aren't allowed to possess weapons of mass destruction (unless, like Pakistan and India, they're allies in the "War On Terror"; or, like China, they comprise 20% of the World's population, so that there's nothing we can do about it).
Having make-believe established, then, that Iraq is in possession of weapons of mass destruction, has them safely hidden from inspectors, is capable of delivering them to the North American land mass, intends to deliver them even in the absence of a U.S. attack, and is a nigger state; can we please bomb the shit out of Baghdad now?
It would appear so, as the debate over whether or not the United States should launch an invasion of Iraq has been hijacked by the Bush Administration and its willing accomplices (principally the Blair government and the mainstream media), so that war will be launched the moment inspectors turn up a shred of evidence. A recent story in the London Independent, for example, while purporting to demonstrate UN Secretary General Kofi Annan's "warning" that the U.S. has not yet made the case for war, states that, "His remarks were a blunt warning to Britain and the United States that they will need clear evidence of clandestine weapons programmes in Iraq to win support from other nations for any military campaign against Saddam Hussein this winter."
Confident that some shred of evidence will be found -- or manufactured -- the United States continues to send more and more troops to the Persian Gulf region.
But is the mere existence of weapons of mass destruction really the first and only criterion we should employ in deciding to go to war? Even were we to consider it necessary to trash the UN Charter and the Geneva Conventions to save the world from Saddam's pretend weapons of mass destruction, shouldn't the potential humanitarian consequences for the Iraqi citizens, and Iraqi and American soldiers, be the primary consideration? For this, we need not pretend: according to reports from Medact/International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, The Catholic Agency for Overseas Development, the United Nations, Kurdish authorities, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, and Eos Life-Work; the war would be absolutely cataclysmic, killing up to 500,000 civilians (without taking into account the long-term health effects of the U.S. use of radiological weapons and further destruction of Iraqi infrastructure).
Even in our pretend scenario, it's inconceivable that Saddam could cause even a miniscule fraction of that much damage with his pretend weapons of mass destruction capabilities before being wiped out. (And let's don't forget that it's awfully disingenous to be pretending such things to begin with, not to mention awfully distressing that we need to add the "not counting niggers" clause to avoid noticing the hypocrisy of the Western World's WMD scare-mongering.)
Denis Halliday, one of two former UN employees to have resigned in protest from the task of administering the UN Oil For Food Programme in Iraq, has, witnessing the savage results of a decade of punishing ecnomic sanctions, accused the West of committing genocide upon the people of Iraq. Given the already fragile status of life in Iraq, a U.S.-led war may remove any lingering doubts.
What you can do: Contact major media outlets, urging them to prominently publicise the likely humanitarian consequences of a major military assault. Copied below is a letter I've sent. You can cut-and-paste that letter into the body of an e-mail message (or compose your own). Below that is a list of media e-mail addresses. Cut-and-paste these into the "Blind Copy" (or "BCC") field of your e-mail message. Type your own e-mail address (or perhaps the White House's: president@whitehouse.gov) into the "To" field, and send it on its way.
Next, forward the text of this post (or this link to the process) to every contact in your address book, asking them to take the same steps.
If you want to get really ambitious, you can print out several copies of your letters, gather signatures to them, and send them via the surface mails to some major media organisations.
Finally, you can download, print, and distribute this half-page flyer. (It's in Word format, so you can localise it if you live outside the Seattle area.)
Good Afternoon, Given the signal role of the mainstream media in shaping Americans' opinions concerning the upcoming war in Iraq, it is of paramount importance that the media as completely as possible inform Americans of the likely consequences of such an undertaking, and to do so before the initiation of hostilities. As several recent studies and reports detailing the probable humanitarian consequences of the impending war have gone virtually unnoticed by the mainstream media, I'm afraid that in my opinion you've been negligent in your duties.
Consider: ~Collateral Damage, a recent report, jointly released by Medact and International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, estimates that "total possible deaths on all sides during the conflict and the following three months range from 48,000 to over 260,000. Civil war within Iraq could add another 20,000 deaths. Additional later deaths from post-war adverse health effects could reach 200,000. If nuclear weapons were used the death toll could reach 3,900,000. In all scenarios the majority of casualties will be civilians." See URL:http://www.ippnw.org/CollateralDamage.html.
~The Catholic Agency for Overseas Development, in a November report, concludes that, "Heavy bombardments and the use of military forces will have incalculable consequences for a civilian population that has already suffered so much. It would be difficult to imagine a single, more effective way of wreaking devastation on an already devastated country and creating a major humanitarian crisis with hundreds of thousands of innocent victims." See http://www.cafod.org.uk/iraq/iraqshame20021101.shtml.
~Kurdish authorities and International Aid Agencies warn that an attack on Iraq could trigger a humanitarian catastrophe in Kurdish Iraq. See http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,840555,00.html.
~Ruud Lubbers, the UN High Commisioner for Refugees insisted last month that war would be "a disaster from a humanitarian perspective," creating one million refugees. See http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1229-05.htm.
~The United States is apparently planning to utilize over 1,000 tons of natural (as opposed to depleted) uranium munitions in Iraq, which would create massive civilian, military, and environmental havoc. See http://www.eoslifework.co.uk/u231.htm#S6healthhaz.
~The United States is planning to deploy land mines in Iraq, despite their well-known long-term effects upon civilians. See http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002-12-10-landmines-usat_x.htm.
In light of these reports, and in the interests of cultivating a fully informed populace, I would like to strongly urge you to provide prominent, recurring coverage of the likely and (once war begins) actual humanitarian consequences of the war.
(Note that this letter is not specifically intended for publication, though newspaper editors have my permission to publish it if you choose to do so.)
Thank you for your time,
netaudr@abc.com, niteline@abc.com, 2020@abc.com, info@cnbc.com, cnn.feedback@cnn.com, comments@foxnews.com, world@msnbc.com, nightly@nbc.com, today@nbc.com, dateline@nbc.com, newshour@pbs.org, ombudsman@npr.org, atc@npr.org, morning@npr.org, letters@latimes.com, letters@nytimes.com, editor@usatoday.com, feedback@wsj.com, ombudsman@washpost.com, letters@newsweek.com, letters@time.com, letters@usnews.com, conedit@ajc.com, letters@baltsun.com, news@globe.com, letterstoeditor@bostonherald.com, letters@suntimes.com, news@cleveland.com, letterstoeditor@dallasnews.com, letters@denverpost.com, business@det-freepress.com, viewpoints@chron.com, HeraldEd@herald.com, politics@startribune.com, letters@newsday.com, Inquirer.Opinion@phillynews.com, DailyNews.Opinion@phillynews.com, letters@post-gazette.com, letters@uniontrib.com, letters@examiner.com, letters@sjmercury.com, editpage@seattle-pi.com, opinion@seatimes.com, viewer@c-span.org
January 05, 2003
Oh, It's Okay Then...
Pakistanis are pissed off because the U.S. dropped a 500-pound bomb on a religious school apparently situated in Pakistan.
A U.S. spokesman claims in defense that "the entire incident [took place] in Afghanistan." You see, 'cause it's okay to drop 500-pound bombs on Afghan schools...
Don't Worry, Be Happy
Because it can't come up with the $6.6 Million needed to publish factory-closure information, the U.S. Labor Department is halting the program, to the dismay of Employment Security Departments nationwide.
Let's see, $6.6 Million is the amount spent by the military in about 30 seconds (using the War Resisters League's line-item analysis of the Federal Budget).
Let Democracy Flourish!
Here's the text of a Letter to the Editor which I just sent to the Seattle Times and Los Angeles Times:
George Bush claims the looming Iraq war is "not to conquer anybody, but to liberate people" ("U.S. aim is 'to liberate,' Bush says", January 4, 2003). If true, the Bush Administration may want to consider this proposal (which I like to call "Operation: Let Democracy Flourish").
Allow the Iraqi people to vote upon whether or not they would like to be "liberated" by the U.S. military. The United Nations could conduct the plebiscite, to ensure no meddling by the Iraqi state. (Undoubtedly, Saddam would allow the proceedings to go forth unhindered, given the alternative.) Clearly, Saddam would want every citizen to vote, so there wouldn't be a personal danger to those choosing to do so. Nor, since the ballot would be taken anonymously, would there be fear of retribution for voting "incorrectly".
Those wishing to see this process initiated are urged to write, phone, or fax the United Nations Development Programme: One United Nations Plaza, New York, NY 10017; (212) 906-5558; (212) 906-5364 respectively.
January 01, 2003
Bin Laden is Dead! Long live bin Laden!
A Swiss team analysing the recent bin Laden audio warning which caused such a fuss is pretty sure that it's "the work of an imposter," and wonders why the U.S. was so quick to declare the tape's authenticity.
Here's a guess. If the voice on the tape is not bin Laden's, then it's almost certain that he's dead. His passing, however, is unlikely to put a crimp in al-Qaeda's future plans. The organisation is a network, not a hierarchy. And while bin Laden certainly acted as a guru of sorts, and undoubtedly aided in financing the group's operations; the fact remains the individual actors and cells have always retained autonomy. That is, they operate on the affinity group model, thus leaving the individual groups immune to penetration.
So if bin Laden's dead, who does the U.S. bomb in retaliation for the next terrorist attack on American soil (an attack which the Bush Administration insists is "inevitable")? Iraq and Iran are going to be iced terrorist attack or no.
If bin Laden is dead, the U.S. may be forced to confront the fact that its foreign policies are contributing -- indeed, are the primary contributor -- to world instability, and a seemingly never-ending spiral of violence. But if bin Laden is alive (or, if the Bush Administration says he's alive), then whichever country is at that time "harbouring" him will move to the top of the Administration's hit list.
The title of this blog was pinched from the 1939 George Orwell essay of the same name. Written on the eve of the second World War, it reads as though it were written to-day. Dack provides a so-funny-it-hurts graphical illustration of the concept. In addition to this weblog, I'm currently maintaining a "War On Terror" Talking Points page as well as two links collections: one regarding the "War on Terror" and activism, the other regarding fallout from the Iraq War. Haven't been updating them lately, but they're perhaps worth a look nonetheless. If interested, you may also visit my homepage, or check out some things I've written in the past, or visit Eat The State!, a newspaper I help work on. My authorised biography, written by Mr. Robert E. Waddell of Everett, Washington, is (if I may say so) a helluva good read. If you need and/or want to get in touch with me, feel free to send an e-mail to any address you care to invent ("bovine-spongiform-encephalopathy", for example) c/o this domain name.
A word about comments. I prefer to let commenters have the last word, and therefore generally refrain from responding to comments. Contrary comments are most welcome -- though those that try to build an argument are much more appreciated than those that engage in ad hominem histrionics.
A word about comment-spam. This blog does utilise the invaluable mt-blacklist utility. However, the comment-spam is becoming so pervasive that several per day do slip through the cracks. It's kind of a pain in the ass to update the blacklist and de-spam more than once or twice a week, so please don't look too unkindly upon when you happen to run across some of it. Much obliged. If your comment gets blocked, let me know, and I'll help you get it posted.
Having been road-blocked by mt-blacklist, the spammers have turned to spamming Movable Type's TrackBack facility. So, all TrackBack functionality has been disabled on this blog. There were only four or five legitimate TrackBacks in the two-plus years of this blog's existence prior to their elimination, so it shouldn't be any great loss.
-
News
- Antiwar.com.
- Common Dreams News Center.
- Cursor Media Patrol.
- Life After The Oil Crash.
- The War in Context.
Analysis - Anderson Valley Advertiser.
- Asia Times Online.
- William Blum.
- Noam Chomsky.
- CounterPunch.
- Robert Fisk.
- Naomi Klein.
- MediaLens.
- Monthly Review.
- John Pilger.
- Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan.
- Heather Wokusch.
- World Socialist Web Site.
- Z Magazine.
Blogs - The Anthropik Network.
- Baghdad Burning.
- Bitter Greens Journal.
- Clusterfuck Nation.
- Empire Notes.
- Feral Scholar.
- Iraq Dispatches.
- The Oil Drum.
- TomDispatch.
- Whiskey Bar.
By The Numbers - Contributions to Global Warming.
- Drug War Casualty Statistical Graphs.
- Farm Subsidy Database.
- Iraq "Coalition" Casualty Count.
- "Outsourcing The Pentagon".
- The Social Security Game.
- Terrorism Knowledge Base.
- "Where Your Income Tax Money Really Goes".
Recommended Reading - "Behind The Invasion of Iraq", by The Research Unit For Political Economy. (Also available in hard copy from Monthly Review.)
- Blowback, by Chalmers Johnson.
- The Clash Of Fundamentalisms, by Tariq Ali.
- Confessions Of An Economic Hit Man, by John Perkins.
- Confronting The Third World, by Gabriel Kolko; and The Limits Of Power, by Gabriel Kolko and Joyce Kolko.
- Deterring Democracy and Year 501, by Noam Chomsky.
- Killing Hope, by William Blum.
- Late Victorian Holocausts, by Mike Davis.
- On War, by Howard Zinn.
- The Rise And Fall Of Economic Liberalism, by Frederic Clairmont.
- "Terrorism: Theirs And Ours" and "Roots of the Gulf Crisis", by Eqbal Ahmad.
- We Will Not Cease, by Archibald Baxter.
- The Wretched Of The Earth, by Frantz Fanon.
- "When you see somebody who hurts, put your arm around them and tell them you love them."
- "Do not let anyone mislead you."
- "Spending wisely means reducing wasteful spending."
- "Democracy is unfolding."
Cyborg Watch Free Market Miracles Fuck The Troops Fucking Liberal Republicans