May 28, 2003
Hiatus
Some readers, noticing the recent paucity of postings, may be wishing to peer behind the curtain at the "wizard" authoring this blog to see if yours truly has fallen asleep.
No, but. He's been working more than usual of late, while still maintaining the Iraq War Fallout page, and putting in some many hours editing and laying out the latest edition of the newsletter of the Nonviolent Action Community of Cascadia (see the online version, uploaded a few days ago).
Alas, just as time has been cleared to again begin railing away at the injustice of it all, this blogger has developed carpal-tunnel symptoms, so is going to take it easy for a while.
But believe you me, there's yet plenty of nastiness to write about -- so watch this space!
Posted by Eddie Tews at 02:21 PM
| Comments (0)
A New York Times story discussing the reality of deflation in Japan (as well as its spectre in the States), in speculating that the topic would not come up during the Bush/Koizumi wing-ding at Bush's ranch, argued that, "The specter of a wealth-destroying beast such as deflation is so frightening and the tools for fighting it so limited that both men are likely to feign confidence and talk of things they have more control over, such as their shared commitment to stopping North Korea from accumulating nuclear weapons."
While it would be interesting to hear an argument that the Bush Administration has control over anything, one can't help but wonder what the Administration expects voters to make of a President running so scared that he refuses even to acknowledge basic issues regarding the well-being American workers (who would, after all, be hit hardest by an implosion of the economy)?
May 25, 2003
Heads In The Sand
A New York Times story discussing the reality of deflation in Japan (as well as its spectre in the States), in speculating that the topic would not come up during the Bush/Koizumi wing-ding at Bush's ranch, argued that, "The specter of a wealth-destroying beast such as deflation is so frightening and the tools for fighting it so limited that both men are likely to feign confidence and talk of things they have more control over, such as their shared commitment to stopping North Korea from accumulating nuclear weapons."
While it would be interesting to hear an argument that the Bush Administration has control over anything, one can't help but wonder what the Administration expects voters to make of a President running so scared that he refuses even to acknowledge basic issues regarding the well-being American workers (who would, after all, be hit hardest by an implosion of the economy)?
Posted by Eddie Tews at 01:29 PM
| Comments (0)
Both Dai Williams and the Uranium Medical Research Centre had in 2002 issued warnings of a "mystery metal", believed to be non-depleted Uranium, having been utilised in the United States' war in Afghanistan -- and, in the case of Williams, speculating that the same "mystery metal" would be brought to bear in Iraq.
The UMRC has now revealed that it has detected "astonishing" levels of radiation in the Afghan civilians tested so far, and warns that if its findings are corroborated country-wide, the nation faces a "severe public health disaster" and that, "Every subsequent generation is at risk."
One presumes similar findings will in future occur in Iraq. As the Bush Administration considers airstrikes to cripple Iran's nuclear capabilities, and a naval blockade to cripple North Korea's, the question begs: when will the mainstream media notice the massive levels of destruction wrought by the United States' weapons?
What You Can Do: First, since this blog hasn't recommended it for at least three days: get rid of your fucking motor-car. If we don't consume the oil, there will be no point in Cheney 'n' Pals obtaining it. Second, forward the BBC story linked above (along with the Christian Science Monitor story mentioned earlier this week) to as many teevee "outlets" as is convenient to you. Third, forward the story to your representatives and senators, along with a note requesting them to get off their dimpled asses and start getting some fucking work done.
May 23, 2003
Nuking Niggers For Fun And Profit
Both Dai Williams and the Uranium Medical Research Centre had in 2002 issued warnings of a "mystery metal", believed to be non-depleted Uranium, having been utilised in the United States' war in Afghanistan -- and, in the case of Williams, speculating that the same "mystery metal" would be brought to bear in Iraq.
The UMRC has now revealed that it has detected "astonishing" levels of radiation in the Afghan civilians tested so far, and warns that if its findings are corroborated country-wide, the nation faces a "severe public health disaster" and that, "Every subsequent generation is at risk."
One presumes similar findings will in future occur in Iraq. As the Bush Administration considers airstrikes to cripple Iran's nuclear capabilities, and a naval blockade to cripple North Korea's, the question begs: when will the mainstream media notice the massive levels of destruction wrought by the United States' weapons?
What You Can Do: First, since this blog hasn't recommended it for at least three days: get rid of your fucking motor-car. If we don't consume the oil, there will be no point in Cheney 'n' Pals obtaining it. Second, forward the BBC story linked above (along with the Christian Science Monitor story mentioned earlier this week) to as many teevee "outlets" as is convenient to you. Third, forward the story to your representatives and senators, along with a note requesting them to get off their dimpled asses and start getting some fucking work done.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 04:46 PM
| Comments (0)
The United States has suspended imports of Canadian beef following the discovery in Canada of a mad-cow-diseased cow.
Sensible enough, perhaps. But at precisely the same time, the U.S. is taking its "beef" with the EU's refusal to import genetically modified foods from the United States to the WTO, claiming the EU has "perpetuated a trade barrier".
Ah, that lovable Bush Administration. If nothing else, you've gotta give it credit for leaving no stone unturned in its quest to destroy the world.
Trade-Off
The United States has suspended imports of Canadian beef following the discovery in Canada of a mad-cow-diseased cow.
Sensible enough, perhaps. But at precisely the same time, the U.S. is taking its "beef" with the EU's refusal to import genetically modified foods from the United States to the WTO, claiming the EU has "perpetuated a trade barrier".
Ah, that lovable Bush Administration. If nothing else, you've gotta give it credit for leaving no stone unturned in its quest to destroy the world.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 12:11 AM
| Comments (0)
The award for most overlooked major news story of recent memory goes to the Christian Science Monitor's smash-up expose of the radioactive legacy left by the United States' "Depleted" Uranium munitions.
Just a few days after the Pentagon insisted, of the DU remains, that, "There is not really any danger, at least that we know about, for the people of Iraq," and that, "If somebody needs to go into a tank that's been hit with depleted uranium, a dust mask, a handkerchief is adequate to protect them -- washing their hands afterward;" the Monitor found "significant levels of radioactive contamination from the US battle for Baghdad," even while it "saw only one site where US troops had put up handwritten warnings in Arabic for Iraqis to stay away."
The story paints a grim picture of the environmental and public health horrors awaiting the brave people of Iraq (as well as "coalition" forces), and should have landed on the front page of every major paper in the country.
Weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, you ask? The Monitor has found the smoking gun, all right. Yet four days later, a search of Google News finds that only Common Dreams has picked up the story.
Gotta love that free press...
The other nominees? How about Martin Luther King III's and Greg Palast's "Jim Crow Revived In Cyberspace" (AKA "Literally Not Counting Niggers"), the LA Times' survey of hospitals finding that the war killed at least 1,700 civilians in Baghdad alone (which dovetails with the jump of Iraq Body Count's running total to over 4,000), and the UN's recent warnings that Iraqi agriculture is "on the brink of collapse" and that more than twice as many children -- to 300,000 -- as before the invasion "face death from acute malnutrition".
May 19, 2003
The Envelope, Please
The award for most overlooked major news story of recent memory goes to the Christian Science Monitor's smash-up expose of the radioactive legacy left by the United States' "Depleted" Uranium munitions.
Just a few days after the Pentagon insisted, of the DU remains, that, "There is not really any danger, at least that we know about, for the people of Iraq," and that, "If somebody needs to go into a tank that's been hit with depleted uranium, a dust mask, a handkerchief is adequate to protect them -- washing their hands afterward;" the Monitor found "significant levels of radioactive contamination from the US battle for Baghdad," even while it "saw only one site where US troops had put up handwritten warnings in Arabic for Iraqis to stay away."
The story paints a grim picture of the environmental and public health horrors awaiting the brave people of Iraq (as well as "coalition" forces), and should have landed on the front page of every major paper in the country.
Weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, you ask? The Monitor has found the smoking gun, all right. Yet four days later, a search of Google News finds that only Common Dreams has picked up the story.
Gotta love that free press...
The other nominees? How about Martin Luther King III's and Greg Palast's "Jim Crow Revived In Cyberspace" (AKA "Literally Not Counting Niggers"), the LA Times' survey of hospitals finding that the war killed at least 1,700 civilians in Baghdad alone (which dovetails with the jump of Iraq Body Count's running total to over 4,000), and the UN's recent warnings that Iraqi agriculture is "on the brink of collapse" and that more than twice as many children -- to 300,000 -- as before the invasion "face death from acute malnutrition".
Posted by Eddie Tews at 08:06 PM
| Comments (0)
The Bush Administration, which has been pushing to develop "usable" nuclear weapons, scored a recent breakthrough when the Senate Armed Services Committee gave it a thumbs-up.
Of the wisdom of the Administration's moves, Richard Garfield (the notorious former head of UNSCOM), in an interview for Australian teevee, opined, "There's none. I'm sorry to interrupt you, but it's just profound nonsense." The Senate apparently agrees to disagree.
A May 13 article in the Los Angeles Times noted that, while the Senate committee had voted to repeal the Spratt-Purse amendment banning development of "mini-nukes", "officials insist that they have no present plans to build such bombs, recent steps make it clear that they want to fully explore their options."
Fast-forward to May 14, and the appearance in the New York Times of an article headlined, "Panel Rejects Nuclear Arms Of Small Yield". The House Armed Services Committee has "rejected" the same bill that its Senate doppleganger had passed, causing the bill's original co-author, John Spratt to rejoice that, "The action in the House sends an important message: that the United States is not backsliding towards development of new battlefield nuclear weapons."
Yay for our team, right? Alas, the ban was "upheld" only after a compromise "approved a measure to allow research into low-yield nuclear weapons." So the Bush Administration is now allowed to do exactly what it had wanted to do: "fully explore" its "options".
If that's not "backsliding", what would be? Does anybody seriously doubt that once the Administration's finished "exploring", and decided what it wants, then Spratt-Purse will be repealed outright?
Lexical Disconnect
The Bush Administration, which has been pushing to develop "usable" nuclear weapons, scored a recent breakthrough when the Senate Armed Services Committee gave it a thumbs-up.
Of the wisdom of the Administration's moves, Richard Garfield (the notorious former head of UNSCOM), in an interview for Australian teevee, opined, "There's none. I'm sorry to interrupt you, but it's just profound nonsense." The Senate apparently agrees to disagree.
A May 13 article in the Los Angeles Times noted that, while the Senate committee had voted to repeal the Spratt-Purse amendment banning development of "mini-nukes", "officials insist that they have no present plans to build such bombs, recent steps make it clear that they want to fully explore their options."
Fast-forward to May 14, and the appearance in the New York Times of an article headlined, "Panel Rejects Nuclear Arms Of Small Yield". The House Armed Services Committee has "rejected" the same bill that its Senate doppleganger had passed, causing the bill's original co-author, John Spratt to rejoice that, "The action in the House sends an important message: that the United States is not backsliding towards development of new battlefield nuclear weapons."
Yay for our team, right? Alas, the ban was "upheld" only after a compromise "approved a measure to allow research into low-yield nuclear weapons." So the Bush Administration is now allowed to do exactly what it had wanted to do: "fully explore" its "options".
If that's not "backsliding", what would be? Does anybody seriously doubt that once the Administration's finished "exploring", and decided what it wants, then Spratt-Purse will be repealed outright?
Posted by Eddie Tews at 05:43 PM
| Comments (0)
Donald H. Rumsfeld, whose ties to the Saddam regime he now purports to have despised have been well documented, and who was earlier this year proselytising for Saddam to be granted immunity from prosecution for the crimes in which he, Donald H., was complicit; has explained away Iraqi anarchy by surmising that, "Every jail in that country was emptied, so on the street are looters, hooligans, and bad people. They have to be rounded up and put back in," and promising that, "The forces there will be using muscle."
So while Human Rights Watch's 2002 country report noted the regime's "arbitrary arrest of suspected political opponents and members of their families" and Amnesty International is tacitly accusing the Bush and Blair Administrations of, "A failure to treat" the issue of "disappeared" victims of Saddam's regime "properly and as a matter of urgency"; Donald H. -- rather than addressing the dearth of electricity, food, potable water, medicine, petrol (!), basic services, police, and paid employment (from whence the anarchy has clearly sprung) -- is spouting off about the need for a good old-fashioned "round up".
It isn't, surely, any wonder that the Bush Administration would be neglecting the task of making a full accounting of Saddam's crimes -- we were, after all, fully in support of those crimes. But at least it looks as though the Bush Administration is keeping its promise to model Iraqi democracy after American democracy: all niggers into the slammer.
May 15, 2003
Still A Saddamite
Donald H. Rumsfeld, whose ties to the Saddam regime he now purports to have despised have been well documented, and who was earlier this year proselytising for Saddam to be granted immunity from prosecution for the crimes in which he, Donald H., was complicit; has explained away Iraqi anarchy by surmising that, "Every jail in that country was emptied, so on the street are looters, hooligans, and bad people. They have to be rounded up and put back in," and promising that, "The forces there will be using muscle."
So while Human Rights Watch's 2002 country report noted the regime's "arbitrary arrest of suspected political opponents and members of their families" and Amnesty International is tacitly accusing the Bush and Blair Administrations of, "A failure to treat" the issue of "disappeared" victims of Saddam's regime "properly and as a matter of urgency"; Donald H. -- rather than addressing the dearth of electricity, food, potable water, medicine, petrol (!), basic services, police, and paid employment (from whence the anarchy has clearly sprung) -- is spouting off about the need for a good old-fashioned "round up".
It isn't, surely, any wonder that the Bush Administration would be neglecting the task of making a full accounting of Saddam's crimes -- we were, after all, fully in support of those crimes. But at least it looks as though the Bush Administration is keeping its promise to model Iraqi democracy after American democracy: all niggers into the slammer.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 03:42 PM
| Comments (0)
In the wake of Monday's terror attacks in Riyadh, Colin Powell promised to "commit ourselves again to redouble our efforts" and The Superbrain boasted that the perpetrators would "learn the meaning of American justice".
Er, "commit ourselves again"? Powell is all-but admitting that the Administration's dicking off in Iraq had diverted its attention away from preventing further terrorist attacks. Not only that, but any two-year-old could see that the region would be further inflamed by the Administration's raining thousands of bombs and missiles -- including those, like radioactive munitions and cluster bombs, that will continue to kill for centuries -- upon a defenceless Middle Eastern country, then turning its homeboys loose to steal the nation's resources while the population is left to fend for itself in a lawless world run amok and while epidemics of disease take hold. Yet it did it anyway. The Administration's actions comprised monumental crimes against humanity, and its negligence as regards the threat of future September 11s is tantamount to treason. As if it needed to be mentioned, the two go hand-in-hand.
Yet Dubya, in all his arrogance, invokes "the meaning of American justice". Yeah, well, tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis and Afghanis have already discovered the meaning of American "justice" all too well. But whither bin Laden and co., the evildoers the Administration has supposedly been so assiduosly hunting down since September 11? In the words of a senior U.S. counter-terrorism official: "Who knows?" In the words of Donald H. Rumsfeld: "Who knows?"
Whistling In The Dark
In the wake of Monday's terror attacks in Riyadh, Colin Powell promised to "commit ourselves again to redouble our efforts" and The Superbrain boasted that the perpetrators would "learn the meaning of American justice".
Er, "commit ourselves again"? Powell is all-but admitting that the Administration's dicking off in Iraq had diverted its attention away from preventing further terrorist attacks. Not only that, but any two-year-old could see that the region would be further inflamed by the Administration's raining thousands of bombs and missiles -- including those, like radioactive munitions and cluster bombs, that will continue to kill for centuries -- upon a defenceless Middle Eastern country, then turning its homeboys loose to steal the nation's resources while the population is left to fend for itself in a lawless world run amok and while epidemics of disease take hold. Yet it did it anyway. The Administration's actions comprised monumental crimes against humanity, and its negligence as regards the threat of future September 11s is tantamount to treason. As if it needed to be mentioned, the two go hand-in-hand.
Yet Dubya, in all his arrogance, invokes "the meaning of American justice". Yeah, well, tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis and Afghanis have already discovered the meaning of American "justice" all too well. But whither bin Laden and co., the evildoers the Administration has supposedly been so assiduosly hunting down since September 11? In the words of a senior U.S. counter-terrorism official: "Who knows?" In the words of Donald H. Rumsfeld: "Who knows?"
Posted by Eddie Tews at 02:50 PM
| Comments (1)
A few short months ago, this blog suggested that one reason the Bush Administration was so hell-bent upon destroying Iraq was so that it could award lucrative "reconstruction" contracts to its friends.
But even a blogger as cynical as this one couldn't have imagined the extent to which this would prove to be the case -- and the brazenness with which the Administration would enact its plans.
Can the Administration really get away with having essentially granted to Halliburton control of Iraq's oil reserves -- a deal which was apparently worked out months in advance of the war, and which could be worth up to $7 Billion?
We'll see. But it's interesting to note that the bellyaching over the deal has focused upon Cheney's ties to Halliburton. Clearly an angle worth bellyaching over. But in light of the "coalition"'s repeated claims that, "Iraq's future belongs to the Iraqis themselves," shouldn't we be wondering why it is that any American companies should be considered for any operations inside Iraq?
What You Can Do: Contact your congresspersons, telling them to reject the colonisation of Iraq, and to insist that contracts awarded to non-indigenous companies be revoked. They won't stand up to be counted unless we force them to.
May 14, 2003
A Stroll Down Memory Lane
A few short months ago, this blog suggested that one reason the Bush Administration was so hell-bent upon destroying Iraq was so that it could award lucrative "reconstruction" contracts to its friends.
But even a blogger as cynical as this one couldn't have imagined the extent to which this would prove to be the case -- and the brazenness with which the Administration would enact its plans.
Can the Administration really get away with having essentially granted to Halliburton control of Iraq's oil reserves -- a deal which was apparently worked out months in advance of the war, and which could be worth up to $7 Billion?
We'll see. But it's interesting to note that the bellyaching over the deal has focused upon Cheney's ties to Halliburton. Clearly an angle worth bellyaching over. But in light of the "coalition"'s repeated claims that, "Iraq's future belongs to the Iraqis themselves," shouldn't we be wondering why it is that any American companies should be considered for any operations inside Iraq?
What You Can Do: Contact your congresspersons, telling them to reject the colonisation of Iraq, and to insist that contracts awarded to non-indigenous companies be revoked. They won't stand up to be counted unless we force them to.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 04:30 PM
| Comments (0)
The Fed's announcement, earlier this week, that a deflationary spiral may soon afflict the U.S. economy, has induced a state of semi-panic in the mainstream media. (Studious economy-watchers have been warning of deflation for some time, but not until now had Greenspan said, "Boo!")
Also this week; in reporting that Al-Qaida has moved its operational base to Central Asia, is undergoing a recruiting boom, and is preparing a new September-11-sized attack on U.S. soil; the media has noticed that maybe the Iraq bloodletting hasn't made us safer, after all. There can be little doubt that the next September 11 will elicit another musclebound U.S. military crusade, further escalating the seemingly unstoppable spiral of violence.
Apart from the drubbing working class American (and world) citizens would suffer with the onset of economic free fall, an endless series of cruise missile "diplomacies", and the final evisceration of civil liberties; are the two items related? We could say that they're inversely related, of course: the more the economy continues to founder, the more the Bush Administration will play up the threats of the terrorist bogeyman. A third item from the week's media cavalcade may provide another link: the Bush Administration is endeavouring to cover up findings of the investigation into the events of September 11.
The cynical might suggest that we're doomed to repeat history. The conspiracy theorists might suggest that that's the plan. The remainder might suggest that, either way, the human race is well and truly fucked.
May 08, 2003
Spiralling
The Fed's announcement, earlier this week, that a deflationary spiral may soon afflict the U.S. economy, has induced a state of semi-panic in the mainstream media. (Studious economy-watchers have been warning of deflation for some time, but not until now had Greenspan said, "Boo!")
Also this week; in reporting that Al-Qaida has moved its operational base to Central Asia, is undergoing a recruiting boom, and is preparing a new September-11-sized attack on U.S. soil; the media has noticed that maybe the Iraq bloodletting hasn't made us safer, after all. There can be little doubt that the next September 11 will elicit another musclebound U.S. military crusade, further escalating the seemingly unstoppable spiral of violence.
Apart from the drubbing working class American (and world) citizens would suffer with the onset of economic free fall, an endless series of cruise missile "diplomacies", and the final evisceration of civil liberties; are the two items related? We could say that they're inversely related, of course: the more the economy continues to founder, the more the Bush Administration will play up the threats of the terrorist bogeyman. A third item from the week's media cavalcade may provide another link: the Bush Administration is endeavouring to cover up findings of the investigation into the events of September 11.
The cynical might suggest that we're doomed to repeat history. The conspiracy theorists might suggest that that's the plan. The remainder might suggest that, either way, the human race is well and truly fucked.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 11:52 PM
| Comments (0)
"We're all veterans of a fucked-up world" sang the Dead Milkmen on their brilliant 1985 platter Big Lizard In My Backyard.
If ever there were any doubts, this side-bar, taken from the current issue of the (also brilliant) Left Business Observer, should remove them.
Lightness In the early days of the war, when things weren't going so well for the "coalition", it was said that the force was too light. But after the sandstorm cleared and the snipers were mowed down, that alleged lightness became a widely praised virtue. But that force was light only by American standards: 300,000 troops; an endless rain of Tomahawks, JDAMs, and MOABs; thousands of vehicles, from Humvees to Abrams tanks; hundreds of aircraft, from Apaches to B-1s; several flotillas of naval support -- and enormous quanitities of expensive petroleum products. It takes five gallons of fuel just to start an Abrams tank, and after that it gets a mile per gallon. And filling one up is no bargain. Though the military buys fuel at a wholesale price of 84¢ a gallon, after all the expenses of getting it to the front lines are added in, the final cost is about $150 a gallon. That's a steal compared to Afghanistan, where the fuel is helicoptered in, pushing the cost to $600/gallon. Rummy's "lightness" is of the sort that only a $10 trillion economy can afford.
But as the rest of the ish makes clear (and the prognostications are now being echoed in the mainstream press by Roberts Reich and Kuttner), the economy can't afford Bush-onomics.
If the Democrats had something, anything to offer in alternative, we could be writing The Superbrain's epitaph right now.
May 04, 2003
V.F.W.
"We're all veterans of a fucked-up world" sang the Dead Milkmen on their brilliant 1985 platter Big Lizard In My Backyard.
If ever there were any doubts, this side-bar, taken from the current issue of the (also brilliant) Left Business Observer, should remove them.
Lightness In the early days of the war, when things weren't going so well for the "coalition", it was said that the force was too light. But after the sandstorm cleared and the snipers were mowed down, that alleged lightness became a widely praised virtue. But that force was light only by American standards: 300,000 troops; an endless rain of Tomahawks, JDAMs, and MOABs; thousands of vehicles, from Humvees to Abrams tanks; hundreds of aircraft, from Apaches to B-1s; several flotillas of naval support -- and enormous quanitities of expensive petroleum products. It takes five gallons of fuel just to start an Abrams tank, and after that it gets a mile per gallon. And filling one up is no bargain. Though the military buys fuel at a wholesale price of 84¢ a gallon, after all the expenses of getting it to the front lines are added in, the final cost is about $150 a gallon. That's a steal compared to Afghanistan, where the fuel is helicoptered in, pushing the cost to $600/gallon. Rummy's "lightness" is of the sort that only a $10 trillion economy can afford.
But as the rest of the ish makes clear (and the prognostications are now being echoed in the mainstream press by Roberts Reich and Kuttner), the economy can't afford Bush-onomics.
If the Democrats had something, anything to offer in alternative, we could be writing The Superbrain's epitaph right now.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 09:02 PM
| Comments (2)
President Bush has, "from the dramatic setting of the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln", declared the combat phase of Iraqi Freedom concluded.
Join now with Not Counting Niggers as we, in this Special Commemorative Post; re-live the thrills, the highs, the majesty, the mystery; of the first three weeks of Free Iraq.
Note: The contents of this post have been moved to a new location.
Tales Of The Liberation
President Bush has, "from the dramatic setting of the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln", declared the combat phase of Iraqi Freedom concluded.
Join now with Not Counting Niggers as we, in this Special Commemorative Post; re-live the thrills, the highs, the majesty, the mystery; of the first three weeks of Free Iraq.
Note: The contents of this post have been moved to a new location.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 08:38 PM
This blogger has long maintained that Noam Chomsky and Gabriel Kolko (not necessarily in that order) are the two most important authors one should read if one desires to understand the way the world works. (Mix in some George Orwell and some Emma Goldman, and you're well on your way.)
Both have new must-read pieces online.
Kolko's is a smart, sobering analysis of the diplomatic corner the U.S. has backed itself into, mirroring the overarching thesis of his extremely impressive body of work. He ends with the cheerful conclusion that, "The U.S. has no alternative but to accept the world as it is, or prepare for doomsday." Knowing the Bush Administration as we do, we cannot but assume it will choose the latter path -- happy happy joy joy. One of these years, yours truly is going to up and OCR the entirety of the 700 pages of the long-out-of-print The Limits Of Power. Watch for it...
Chomsky's is an interview conducted shortly after the war's inception, transcribed for the current number of Monthly Review (the best magazine in the country, says this blogger -- be sure to also check out this issue's e-mails to her parents from Rachel Corrie). If you prefer your Chomsky served up unabridged and foot-noted, you've that option as well.
May 01, 2003
Now Read This
This blogger has long maintained that Noam Chomsky and Gabriel Kolko (not necessarily in that order) are the two most important authors one should read if one desires to understand the way the world works. (Mix in some George Orwell and some Emma Goldman, and you're well on your way.)
Both have new must-read pieces online.
Kolko's is a smart, sobering analysis of the diplomatic corner the U.S. has backed itself into, mirroring the overarching thesis of his extremely impressive body of work. He ends with the cheerful conclusion that, "The U.S. has no alternative but to accept the world as it is, or prepare for doomsday." Knowing the Bush Administration as we do, we cannot but assume it will choose the latter path -- happy happy joy joy. One of these years, yours truly is going to up and OCR the entirety of the 700 pages of the long-out-of-print The Limits Of Power. Watch for it...
Chomsky's is an interview conducted shortly after the war's inception, transcribed for the current number of Monthly Review (the best magazine in the country, says this blogger -- be sure to also check out this issue's e-mails to her parents from Rachel Corrie). If you prefer your Chomsky served up unabridged and foot-noted, you've that option as well.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 11:30 PM
| Comments (1)
Condoleezza Rice is now explaining that Iraqi weapons per se will not be found because Saddam hid his WMD programme in "'dual-use' infrastructure". If this blog may be permitted to quote itself:
Right, well, this squares nicely with the Administration's repeated pre-war assertions that U.S. intelligence had proven (to the Administration, if not to its own agents, nor to anybody else) that Saddam had "failed to disarm" -- thus the critically urgent need to for the second time in a decade blast the holy fucking shit out of the country's beleaguered millions.
But Ms. Rice has let another cat out of the bag. The point of placing billions of dollars of holds on "dual use" items was, according to the State Department, to "help prevent the diversion of oil-for-food goods" that "Iraq can use to rebuild its military capabilities". But if Iraq retains the germ of a weapons programme in its "'dual-use' infrastructure", then Condi has contradicted the official State Department line. One (or both) of them is lying, in other words.
Now, there were, naturally, plenty of lies in the State Department's various sanctions-era apologia.
But supposing we were to take the Rice at her word? In that case, we find that the Administration is acknowledging that Colin Powell's 5 February presentation (not to mention The Superbrain's daily pronunciamentos) was straight-up bullshit; and that the sanctions regime, while it succeeded in killing a million children, could not succeed, hard as it tried, in preventing Saddam from acquiring "dual-use" technology.
So, in addition to contradicting itself about the nature of "dual-use" holds, the Bush Administration is by its own admission either lying about the reason for the absence of WMD in post-war Iraq or it was lying about (and fabricating evidence concerning) the existence of WMD.
Surprised?
For The Love Of Condi
Condoleezza Rice is now explaining that Iraqi weapons per se will not be found because Saddam hid his WMD programme in "'dual-use' infrastructure". If this blog may be permitted to quote itself:
Right, well, this squares nicely with the Administration's repeated pre-war assertions that U.S. intelligence had proven (to the Administration, if not to its own agents, nor to anybody else) that Saddam had "failed to disarm" -- thus the critically urgent need to for the second time in a decade blast the holy fucking shit out of the country's beleaguered millions.
But Ms. Rice has let another cat out of the bag. The point of placing billions of dollars of holds on "dual use" items was, according to the State Department, to "help prevent the diversion of oil-for-food goods" that "Iraq can use to rebuild its military capabilities". But if Iraq retains the germ of a weapons programme in its "'dual-use' infrastructure", then Condi has contradicted the official State Department line. One (or both) of them is lying, in other words.
Now, there were, naturally, plenty of lies in the State Department's various sanctions-era apologia.
But supposing we were to take the Rice at her word? In that case, we find that the Administration is acknowledging that Colin Powell's 5 February presentation (not to mention The Superbrain's daily pronunciamentos) was straight-up bullshit; and that the sanctions regime, while it succeeded in killing a million children, could not succeed, hard as it tried, in preventing Saddam from acquiring "dual-use" technology.
So, in addition to contradicting itself about the nature of "dual-use" holds, the Bush Administration is by its own admission either lying about the reason for the absence of WMD in post-war Iraq or it was lying about (and fabricating evidence concerning) the existence of WMD.
Surprised?