September 30, 2003
Another Day, Another Insipid Apologia
Discredited at every turn so far, the hawks have come up with another after-the-fact justification for the war on Iraq: the mainstream media are pulling the wool over Americans' eyes by not reporting the "good stuff" happening in Iraq.
Columnist John Leo, in taking up this newest cause, adduces three principle arguments.
• Pre-war Iraq was a "grotesque charnel house" and a genuine threat to America, and that this was known by the media, which refused to report it, thus delaying an invasion to "halt the incredible butchery and torture".
This theory, apart from being un-related to whatever "good stuff" may be happening today, has a few holes.
First, the mainstream media were all the way on board cheering every step of the way during the months leading up to the invasion, and all the way through the duration of the war proper. (Anybody that would like to present examples to the contrary is welcome to use the comments form to do so. The mainstream media's archives are all there online, so, knock yourselves out.) It was only when American soldiers started getting picked off by Iraqi guerillas to the tune of one per day, and the associated costs of occupation began to skyrocket that the media began to put up the slightest bleats.
Second, the United States has never had a problem with butchery and torture -- indeed practices some of its own not only in Iraq and Afghanistan, but also on an island just 90 miles off the coast of Florida. "If you don't violate someone's human rights some of the time, you probably aren't doing your job," is the Pentagon's rule of thumb. Israel, Indonesia, Guatemala, Shah-era Iran, pre-Gulf War Iraq, El Salvador, Uzbekistan... The list of U.S. client-state "charnel houses" is, as we all very well know, very long indeed.
Third, nothing the media -- or the anti-war movement, or the United Nations, or any other actor -- did or said affected the timeline for war. The Bush Administration deployed its strike force patiently and methodically, then, when it was pleased with its military readiness, announced that Saddam had "failed to disarm", and initiated the war.
Fourth, the nature and magnitude of Saddam's internal repression would have had no bearing whatever on its threat to the outside world. This non sequitur aside, the threat to Iraq's neighbours, let alone the U.S. mainland, was zilch. This was known to the United States no later than 1995, when the State Department's favourite defector testified that all Iraqi WMD had been destroyed.
Fifth, the U.S.-as-liberator angle was not advanced until well after preparations for war had begun, and only after it became clear that the UNMOVIC inspectors were not going to be turning up any "smoking guns".
• The "27 reporters left in Iraq are 'all huddled in a hotel'," so have no way of knowing what's going on inside the country.
But take Canadian reporter Chris Deliso, who spends his days walking among the people of Iraq, and who says that, "It is probably more dangerous now than at any time since US President Bush declared the war to be over," and that, "Bremer & Company are completely out of their depth in Iraq."
Or take Robert Fisk, a distinguished Middle East correspondent of some decades, who actually speaks Arabic, and who most definitely does not confine himself to a hotel room:
The fact is that months after the war was officially supposed to be over, there are hundreds of people dying in this country every week by violence. I'm just watching two Apache helicopters as I speak to you now just flying over the buildings in front of me, on 'antiterrorist patrol', as it's called. There is a real guerilla war underway here, and when you are on the ground you realize it's moving out of control.
• U.S. soldiers have been sending in reports from Iraq "which have generally been positive and hopeful."
Fisk again (ibid):
What you find is that the real soldiers, I'm talking about non-reservists, full-time U.S. soldiers, they know they're involved in a guerilla war. They know it's not working. They know the place is falling to bits. What they tell me is when it gets up to the generals on your side of the lake, they don't want to admit it.
Even more telling, reports from soldiers' family members:
"Jake has been vocal about the misinformation and poor equipment and has written to Sen. Bill Nelson twice."
"I asked my son why they would need sharp-shooters on the roof if there were no Iraqis at the Airport. He said they were for the SOLDIERS! He said they were all warned that any one that went on a roof would be SHOT!"
"As I sit here and look at the American Flag, images of my husband come racing through my mind. I sit and wonder, 'What was this for?' He e-mails me everyday talking about the conditions over there. He and the other soldiers refer to Iraq as 'Hell'."
Or how about some more:
"I'm tired of reading letters telling soldiers to quit whining and do their job. People who are writing these letters have no clue as to what is going on over here."
"I don't give a damn about Rumsfeld. All I give a damn about is going home."
"We are slowly becoming frantic. I hear people saying they are going to begin hurting themselves or others if they can't go home. The helplessness our soldiers are feeling is indescribable, it is past the point of, 'Suck it up and drive on.' We just want somewhere to drive on to."
Back to the drawing board, weirdos...
Posted by Eddie Tews at 04:54 PM
| Comments (0)
Having weathered the uproar over the Sixteen Words, the Bush Administration is now embroiled, as we all know, in its offshoot.
News of the Justice Department's launching of a "full-blown criminal investigation" into the matter has touched off a "press stampede".
The leading left-leaning blogs -- Talking Points Memo, This Modern World, Eschaton, Whiskey Bar, Kos, Calpundit, et al., are circling over the story like vultures.
Perhaps this, that, or the other scandal will bring down the Bush dynasty. Then, wither his Administration's fallen angels? The similarities to Watergate may be instructive.
The Nixon Administration was brought down not because of its part in the barbaric Indochina wars and the toppling of Allende, for example. It was brought down for some relatively minor (infinitely minor, compared with its Indochina wars), bumbling party-politic shenanigans.
Spake America's senior representative to the Nuremberg trials, in August 1945:
For the first time, four of the most powerful nations have agreed not only upon the principles of liability for war crimes of prosecution, but also upon the principle of individual responsibility for the crime of attacking the international peace.
Repeatedly, nations have united in abstract declarations that the launching of aggressive war is illegal. They have condemned it by treaty. But now we have the concrete application of these abstractions in a way which ought to make clear to the world that those who lead their nations into aggressive war face individual accountability for such acts.
And:
We must make clear to the Germans that the wrong for which their leaders are on trial is not that they lost the war, but that they started it. And we must not allow ourselves to be drawn into a trial of the causes of the war, for our position is that no grievances or policies will justify resort to aggressive war. It is utterly renounced and condemned as an instrument of policy.
It was the "crime of attacking the international peace" for which the German and Japanese leaders were hanged. No such fate awaited the architects of the savage deeds visited upon Indochina -- indeed, Henry Kissinger won the Nobel Peace Prize, yet today walks around a free man, and is considered a kind of sage on matters of diplomacy and foreign policy.
And it is for the "crime of attacking the international peace" that the architects of the Bush Wars should be imprisoned for a very, very long time. The Camp X-Ray "treatment" is probably too good for the miscreants who've murdered tens of thousands (and counting), and littered two countries with radioactive dust and unexploded ordnance.
Not to minimise the criminal nature of the Wilsongate leakings, but if the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Colombia are the Bush Administration's highest crimes and "misdemeanors", there are any number of crimes -- the Administration's environmental policies chief among them -- of far greater import, but which aren't even on the radar.
Yet through it all, if the Bush Administration is finally undone by its own corruption and hubris, the greatest conceivable punishment is that Dubya will be forced to retire to his ranch to watch teevee and eat pretzels all the day long.
As an aside, it might also be interesting to note the Clinton Administration's reaction to a scandal wrought by deeds so trivial they're hardly worth discussion: a major act of state terrorism -- namely, the four-day round-the-clock bombing of Iraq known as "Desert Fox" -- that set back impeachment proceedings by three or four days. Yet when the proceedings picked back up again, not a peep was heard regarding the crime (one among many, more accurately stated) that should have seen Clinton off to the slammer "until the end of time".
Scandalgate
Having weathered the uproar over the Sixteen Words, the Bush Administration is now embroiled, as we all know, in its offshoot.
News of the Justice Department's launching of a "full-blown criminal investigation" into the matter has touched off a "press stampede".
The leading left-leaning blogs -- Talking Points Memo, This Modern World, Eschaton, Whiskey Bar, Kos, Calpundit, et al., are circling over the story like vultures.
Perhaps this, that, or the other scandal will bring down the Bush dynasty. Then, wither his Administration's fallen angels? The similarities to Watergate may be instructive.
The Nixon Administration was brought down not because of its part in the barbaric Indochina wars and the toppling of Allende, for example. It was brought down for some relatively minor (infinitely minor, compared with its Indochina wars), bumbling party-politic shenanigans.
Spake America's senior representative to the Nuremberg trials, in August 1945:
For the first time, four of the most powerful nations have agreed not only upon the principles of liability for war crimes of prosecution, but also upon the principle of individual responsibility for the crime of attacking the international peace.
Repeatedly, nations have united in abstract declarations that the launching of aggressive war is illegal. They have condemned it by treaty. But now we have the concrete application of these abstractions in a way which ought to make clear to the world that those who lead their nations into aggressive war face individual accountability for such acts.
And:
We must make clear to the Germans that the wrong for which their leaders are on trial is not that they lost the war, but that they started it. And we must not allow ourselves to be drawn into a trial of the causes of the war, for our position is that no grievances or policies will justify resort to aggressive war. It is utterly renounced and condemned as an instrument of policy.
It was the "crime of attacking the international peace" for which the German and Japanese leaders were hanged. No such fate awaited the architects of the savage deeds visited upon Indochina -- indeed, Henry Kissinger won the Nobel Peace Prize, yet today walks around a free man, and is considered a kind of sage on matters of diplomacy and foreign policy.
And it is for the "crime of attacking the international peace" that the architects of the Bush Wars should be imprisoned for a very, very long time. The Camp X-Ray "treatment" is probably too good for the miscreants who've murdered tens of thousands (and counting), and littered two countries with radioactive dust and unexploded ordnance.
Not to minimise the criminal nature of the Wilsongate leakings, but if the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Colombia are the Bush Administration's highest crimes and "misdemeanors", there are any number of crimes -- the Administration's environmental policies chief among them -- of far greater import, but which aren't even on the radar.
Yet through it all, if the Bush Administration is finally undone by its own corruption and hubris, the greatest conceivable punishment is that Dubya will be forced to retire to his ranch to watch teevee and eat pretzels all the day long.
As an aside, it might also be interesting to note the Clinton Administration's reaction to a scandal wrought by deeds so trivial they're hardly worth discussion: a major act of state terrorism -- namely, the four-day round-the-clock bombing of Iraq known as "Desert Fox" -- that set back impeachment proceedings by three or four days. Yet when the proceedings picked back up again, not a peep was heard regarding the crime (one among many, more accurately stated) that should have seen Clinton off to the slammer "until the end of time".
Posted by Eddie Tews at 03:48 PM
| Comments (2)
You can't make this shit up: "For U.S. soldiers wondering what they should and should not do in their role as occupiers of Iraq, help may be on the way from the Israel Defense Forces."
Quote Of The Moment #0020
You can't make this shit up: "For U.S. soldiers wondering what they should and should not do in their role as occupiers of Iraq, help may be on the way from the Israel Defense Forces."
Posted by Eddie Tews at 02:45 PM
| Comments (0)
Criticism is growing in Congress over Iraq overhaul bill, the headline sez. That's good, right?
Well, kinda. But lookit what Congress is criticising, and why:
The $20 Billion in "reconstruction" aid, because it's a little bit too much of a "generous thing for this administration to do for other people on the other side of the planet, on our dime, borrowing money to do it," and because, "I have children in South Dakota, particularly on my Indian reservations, who have access to virtually no health care at all."
Now, surely, spending $20 Billion to remake Iraq in the IMF's image, and for the benefit of politically-connected multinationals is a plan leaving much to be desired. And, certainly, the war being perpetrated by the plutocrats against the proles in this country should be considered incredibly scandalous and disgraceful.
But we destroyed Iraq and Afghanistan in the first place -- with Congress members clearing and cheering the way despite overwhelming opposition from their constituents.
Let's give $20 Billion, or $87 Billion, or $500 Billion -- in reparations, to be spent as seen fit by the victims of our cruise missile "diplomacy".
Could we afford it? In point of fact, we have undertaken the responsibility. If we can't afford it, that's our cross to bear: we bite the bullet and meet our responsibility.
But, guess what? $500 Billion is roughly what the Pentagon spends in a given year -- the various "supplemental" funding requests are over and above the "normal" military budget. So, yes, not only do we have a responsibility to "rebuild" Iraq and Afghanistan (and Nicaragua, and the Occupied Territories, and East Timor, and Colombia, and Haiti, and Cuba, and so on...), but we can afford it.
Of course, in order to then afford the "rebuilding" of the "homeland", we might -- the horror! -- have to repeal or roll back the Bush tax cuts.
What you can do: Contact your Congressperson, instructing him or her to cease treating the military portion of the $87 Billion -- and the military budget in general -- as a sacred calf. Tell them it's time to close down all foreign bases, bring home all troops, drastically slash the military budget, pay reparations to our victims, and then, yeah, get busy at home.
September 29, 2003
Back Asswards
Criticism is growing in Congress over Iraq overhaul bill, the headline sez. That's good, right?
Well, kinda. But lookit what Congress is criticising, and why:
The $20 Billion in "reconstruction" aid, because it's a little bit too much of a "generous thing for this administration to do for other people on the other side of the planet, on our dime, borrowing money to do it," and because, "I have children in South Dakota, particularly on my Indian reservations, who have access to virtually no health care at all."
Now, surely, spending $20 Billion to remake Iraq in the IMF's image, and for the benefit of politically-connected multinationals is a plan leaving much to be desired. And, certainly, the war being perpetrated by the plutocrats against the proles in this country should be considered incredibly scandalous and disgraceful.
But we destroyed Iraq and Afghanistan in the first place -- with Congress members clearing and cheering the way despite overwhelming opposition from their constituents.
Let's give $20 Billion, or $87 Billion, or $500 Billion -- in reparations, to be spent as seen fit by the victims of our cruise missile "diplomacy".
Could we afford it? In point of fact, we have undertaken the responsibility. If we can't afford it, that's our cross to bear: we bite the bullet and meet our responsibility.
But, guess what? $500 Billion is roughly what the Pentagon spends in a given year -- the various "supplemental" funding requests are over and above the "normal" military budget. So, yes, not only do we have a responsibility to "rebuild" Iraq and Afghanistan (and Nicaragua, and the Occupied Territories, and East Timor, and Colombia, and Haiti, and Cuba, and so on...), but we can afford it.
Of course, in order to then afford the "rebuilding" of the "homeland", we might -- the horror! -- have to repeal or roll back the Bush tax cuts.
What you can do: Contact your Congressperson, instructing him or her to cease treating the military portion of the $87 Billion -- and the military budget in general -- as a sacred calf. Tell them it's time to close down all foreign bases, bring home all troops, drastically slash the military budget, pay reparations to our victims, and then, yeah, get busy at home.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 04:33 PM
| Comments (1)
The geniuses in the Pentagon are looking to build a new "superbomb" that "could take out targets -- such as underground caverns that conceal weapons of mass destruction -- without posing the severe political risks of using nuclear bombs."
Got it? The reason we don't just nuke the whole of the Third World has nothing to do with the widespread destruction and carnage, nor the long-term environmental/health catastrophe they'd bring upon the targeted areas. We're only constrained by "severe political risks". But then, nuclear weapons by any other name don't bear political risks, either.
Note, too, planning for the new "superbomb" has elicited scorn from the scientific community not for the catastrophic damage its use would cause, not for (in the example given) the atmospheric release that would result from "taking out" "caverns that conceal weapons of mass destruction" (we know exactly where all the Third World's weapons of mass destruction are concealed, see?), but because of the "implausibility" of the process' being able to release as much energy (that is, cause as much destruction) as advertised.
Why They Hate Us Update #0001
The geniuses in the Pentagon are looking to build a new "superbomb" that "could take out targets -- such as underground caverns that conceal weapons of mass destruction -- without posing the severe political risks of using nuclear bombs."
Got it? The reason we don't just nuke the whole of the Third World has nothing to do with the widespread destruction and carnage, nor the long-term environmental/health catastrophe they'd bring upon the targeted areas. We're only constrained by "severe political risks". But then, nuclear weapons by any other name don't bear political risks, either.
Note, too, planning for the new "superbomb" has elicited scorn from the scientific community not for the catastrophic damage its use would cause, not for (in the example given) the atmospheric release that would result from "taking out" "caverns that conceal weapons of mass destruction" (we know exactly where all the Third World's weapons of mass destruction are concealed, see?), but because of the "implausibility" of the process' being able to release as much energy (that is, cause as much destruction) as advertised.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 04:06 PM
| Comments (0)
Paul Greengrass' harrowing and mesmerising 2002 re-creation of the eponymous 1972 "Bloody Sunday" massacre of unarmed Northern Ireland civil rights protesters by the British military is among the finest couple of dozen films this blogger has ever screened.
Winner of the Best Picture award at both Sundance and Berlin, the film, based on journalist Don Mullan's 1997 account Eyewitness Bloody Sunday has been released concurrent to the ongoing re-examination of the day's events, begun under the auspices of Lord Saville in 1998, and scheduled to conclude in 2004 (and which in turn was impelled in part by Mullan's book). The British military's justification for the shootings -- which, in the age of global communications quickly became recognised as gospel the world over -- had it that the troops had been fired on by armed rioters. The official inquiry into the matters, the Widgery Report, found the British military innocent of any wrongdoing -- found, in the words of Mullan, "the guilty innocent, and the innocent guilty".
Filmed documentary-style entirely with handheld cameras, and scored only with the crackle of British radio communications, the film bristles with a breathtaking immediacy and authenticity. Indeed, a great many of the 10,000 extras used to re-create the day's fateful march had participated in the original 1972 march, while the actors used to portrary the British paratroopers were themselves former troopers. At the heart of the film, James Nesbitt's astonishing performance as protestant MP and leader of the Civil Rights movement Ivan Cooper is perhaps the finest by an "actor in a leading role" since Brando's Don Corleone.
The intent in making the film was, in the words of Greengrass, to "create an account that can be recognised across these islands" as an accurate representation of the day's events. A kind of truth-commission-in-waiting for the "official" findings of the Saville inquiry.
By all accounts, the filmmakers, who have dedicated the movie to "all victims of political violence in Ireland and the World", have succeeded. In fact, they insist that the major victory was in the making of the film, a "mini-peace process", according to Mullan, whose greatest import was "that it was made by Irish and British people together" (Greengrass and producer Mark Redhead are both British). Nesbitt, a Protestant, echoes Mullan: "...a big section of the Unionist community realise we can't walk away, and we've got to sit down and acknowledge things and share things."
The World's peace and justice movements can perhaps learn a lesson from the success, despite its miniscule budget, of the film in not only reaching a wide audience, but in bringing antagonists together to find a common ground. Because of both its availability to mass audiences and the visceral nature of the medium, agitprop filmmaking should be a more effective educational and organising tool that it at present seems to be.
For, as with most great works of art, Bloody Sunday transcends its specific context to make a universal statement condemning injustice wherever it lies, and commanding the world's attention for the plight of the dispossessed.
Viewers with similar experiences will inevitably be transported to the streets of fin de siecle Seattle, or Genoa, or Washington, DC. And here lies the true import of the film, an indictment of the use of violence -- from any party -- to settle political disputes. (Mullan, who says that if he had been a few years older he would probably have joined up the IRA following the days events, is especially insistent on this point.)
The British machinations of 30 years ago -- the insistence that, while the "loss of life is greatly to be regretted", the killing of innocent civilians could be justified as an act of "self-defence" (a ridiculous position even if the violence had been initiated in the streets) ; the use of the overarching "war against the IRA" to validate the use of force (even if, as in this case, the IRA had nothing to do with the day's events); the restriction of civil liberties in the name of "security"; the internment without due process of dissidents and/or those that can be associated (however flimsily) with "terrorists" -- reverberate strongly in George Bush's America.
Perhaps most chillingly, the viewer will recognise in today's context the ominous prescience of Cooper's admonitions to the British government, following the day's events:
You know what you've just done, don't you? You've destroyed the Civil Rights Movement. And you've given the IRA the biggest victory it will ever have. All over this city tonight, young men...boys, will be joining the IRA, and you will reap a whirlwind.
Tony Kushner, in a recent Seattle Weekly interview, posits that "whatever you do with your day job -- and writing plays is what I do -- is no replacement for activism, which is a necessary part of being a citizen in a democracy. And not to be foolish and think that writing a political play is going to do it, because there's only one thing that does it -- organizing and voting and demonstrating and fundraising and e-mailing and joining groups. Art is not [it]."
But if the two worlds -- activism and art, soul and heart -- can be successfully commingled, so much the better will be our chances of humanising the world's polities. Bloody Sunday is a giant step down this path.
September 28, 2003
Required Viewing
Paul Greengrass' harrowing and mesmerising 2002 re-creation of the eponymous 1972 "Bloody Sunday" massacre of unarmed Northern Ireland civil rights protesters by the British military is among the finest couple of dozen films this blogger has ever screened.
Winner of the Best Picture award at both Sundance and Berlin, the film, based on journalist Don Mullan's 1997 account Eyewitness Bloody Sunday has been released concurrent to the ongoing re-examination of the day's events, begun under the auspices of Lord Saville in 1998, and scheduled to conclude in 2004 (and which in turn was impelled in part by Mullan's book). The British military's justification for the shootings -- which, in the age of global communications quickly became recognised as gospel the world over -- had it that the troops had been fired on by armed rioters. The official inquiry into the matters, the Widgery Report, found the British military innocent of any wrongdoing -- found, in the words of Mullan, "the guilty innocent, and the innocent guilty".
Filmed documentary-style entirely with handheld cameras, and scored only with the crackle of British radio communications, the film bristles with a breathtaking immediacy and authenticity. Indeed, a great many of the 10,000 extras used to re-create the day's fateful march had participated in the original 1972 march, while the actors used to portrary the British paratroopers were themselves former troopers. At the heart of the film, James Nesbitt's astonishing performance as protestant MP and leader of the Civil Rights movement Ivan Cooper is perhaps the finest by an "actor in a leading role" since Brando's Don Corleone.
The intent in making the film was, in the words of Greengrass, to "create an account that can be recognised across these islands" as an accurate representation of the day's events. A kind of truth-commission-in-waiting for the "official" findings of the Saville inquiry.
By all accounts, the filmmakers, who have dedicated the movie to "all victims of political violence in Ireland and the World", have succeeded. In fact, they insist that the major victory was in the making of the film, a "mini-peace process", according to Mullan, whose greatest import was "that it was made by Irish and British people together" (Greengrass and producer Mark Redhead are both British). Nesbitt, a Protestant, echoes Mullan: "...a big section of the Unionist community realise we can't walk away, and we've got to sit down and acknowledge things and share things."
The World's peace and justice movements can perhaps learn a lesson from the success, despite its miniscule budget, of the film in not only reaching a wide audience, but in bringing antagonists together to find a common ground. Because of both its availability to mass audiences and the visceral nature of the medium, agitprop filmmaking should be a more effective educational and organising tool that it at present seems to be.
For, as with most great works of art, Bloody Sunday transcends its specific context to make a universal statement condemning injustice wherever it lies, and commanding the world's attention for the plight of the dispossessed.
Viewers with similar experiences will inevitably be transported to the streets of fin de siecle Seattle, or Genoa, or Washington, DC. And here lies the true import of the film, an indictment of the use of violence -- from any party -- to settle political disputes. (Mullan, who says that if he had been a few years older he would probably have joined up the IRA following the days events, is especially insistent on this point.)
The British machinations of 30 years ago -- the insistence that, while the "loss of life is greatly to be regretted", the killing of innocent civilians could be justified as an act of "self-defence" (a ridiculous position even if the violence had been initiated in the streets) ; the use of the overarching "war against the IRA" to validate the use of force (even if, as in this case, the IRA had nothing to do with the day's events); the restriction of civil liberties in the name of "security"; the internment without due process of dissidents and/or those that can be associated (however flimsily) with "terrorists" -- reverberate strongly in George Bush's America.
Perhaps most chillingly, the viewer will recognise in today's context the ominous prescience of Cooper's admonitions to the British government, following the day's events:
You know what you've just done, don't you? You've destroyed the Civil Rights Movement. And you've given the IRA the biggest victory it will ever have. All over this city tonight, young men...boys, will be joining the IRA, and you will reap a whirlwind.
Tony Kushner, in a recent Seattle Weekly interview, posits that "whatever you do with your day job -- and writing plays is what I do -- is no replacement for activism, which is a necessary part of being a citizen in a democracy. And not to be foolish and think that writing a political play is going to do it, because there's only one thing that does it -- organizing and voting and demonstrating and fundraising and e-mailing and joining groups. Art is not [it]."
But if the two worlds -- activism and art, soul and heart -- can be successfully commingled, so much the better will be our chances of humanising the world's polities. Bloody Sunday is a giant step down this path.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 11:25 AM
| Comments (1)
Mendocino county badly needs a taxpayers' organization. County taxpayers are getting ripped off almost everywhere one looks, this Freedman deal being the tip of a very large iceberg. If I had the money -- and I don't, partly because I have a second lawsuit going against the county which, if I lose, my wife promises to kill me in my sleep because we're in deeep hock to pay for it -- I'd sue not only the County of Mendocino for this outrageous gift to a crazy person they shouldn't have hired in the first place, I'd sue Dennis Huey and Tim Knudsen for signing the checks, then sue the supervisors individually for their major betrayal of the public trust. County Counsel Peter Klein ought to be forced to reimburse the country every penny his vindictive, lame-brained advice costs us, and the incompetents occupying the Country Administrator's sarcophagus ought to be stripped naked and whipped out onto Low Gap Road, then north over the Humboldt County line at least as far as Fortuna. These people are seriously out of control. -- Bruce Anderson, editor/publisher, the Anderson Valley Advertiser.
The online contents of the AVA are relatively sparse, so you'll have to subscribe to receive the full-on AVA experience. But damned if the money could possibly be better-spent! Before revamping it a few years ago, the masthead carried Pulitzer's maxim that, "Newspapers should have no friends." Selections such as this (in point of fact, relatively tame) one give some indication that Anderson has taken this advice to heart.
I mean, could you imagine the Washington Post going into debt to bring suits against the Federal Government? Or advocating (even if tongue-in-cheek) tarring and feathering the members of the Bush Administration, and running them out of town?
Ah, for a truly free press in this country!
September 27, 2003
Quote Of The Moment #0019
Mendocino county badly needs a taxpayers' organization. County taxpayers are getting ripped off almost everywhere one looks, this Freedman deal being the tip of a very large iceberg. If I had the money -- and I don't, partly because I have a second lawsuit going against the county which, if I lose, my wife promises to kill me in my sleep because we're in deeep hock to pay for it -- I'd sue not only the County of Mendocino for this outrageous gift to a crazy person they shouldn't have hired in the first place, I'd sue Dennis Huey and Tim Knudsen for signing the checks, then sue the supervisors individually for their major betrayal of the public trust. County Counsel Peter Klein ought to be forced to reimburse the country every penny his vindictive, lame-brained advice costs us, and the incompetents occupying the Country Administrator's sarcophagus ought to be stripped naked and whipped out onto Low Gap Road, then north over the Humboldt County line at least as far as Fortuna. These people are seriously out of control. -- Bruce Anderson, editor/publisher, the Anderson Valley Advertiser.
The online contents of the AVA are relatively sparse, so you'll have to subscribe to receive the full-on AVA experience. But damned if the money could possibly be better-spent! Before revamping it a few years ago, the masthead carried Pulitzer's maxim that, "Newspapers should have no friends." Selections such as this (in point of fact, relatively tame) one give some indication that Anderson has taken this advice to heart.
I mean, could you imagine the Washington Post going into debt to bring suits against the Federal Government? Or advocating (even if tongue-in-cheek) tarring and feathering the members of the Bush Administration, and running them out of town?
Ah, for a truly free press in this country!
Posted by Eddie Tews at 07:39 PM
| Comments (0)
"He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors." -- Colin Powell, February 24, 2001
September 24, 2003
Quote Of The Moment #0018
"He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors." -- Colin Powell, February 24, 2001
Posted by Eddie Tews at 07:31 PM
| Comments (0)
Brig. General Janis Karpinski is in charge of the 4,400 "security detainees" (her phrase) "scooped up" (Donald H. Rumsfeld's phrase) in Iraq.
"It's not that they don't have rights," explains Karpinski, but because these detainees "have fewer rights" than prisoners of war, this new classification (which Rumsfeld "can't explain") gives the military the "a right to interview them" that it doesn't have with prisoners of war.
This semantic switcheroo, which we'll recall has also been used to deprive "illegal combatants" of the rights of prisoners of war, should come in handy in future as well.
Watch for something like the following to soon be uttered to by His Holiness, John Ashcroft, for example: "We've scooped up all the niggers and reclassified them as 'Security Detainees'. Never fear, they still have rights. But the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are not among these rights. So, into the fucking ovens they go."
Is There A "Mr. Orwell" In The House?
Brig. General Janis Karpinski is in charge of the 4,400 "security detainees" (her phrase) "scooped up" (Donald H. Rumsfeld's phrase) in Iraq.
"It's not that they don't have rights," explains Karpinski, but because these detainees "have fewer rights" than prisoners of war, this new classification (which Rumsfeld "can't explain") gives the military the "a right to interview them" that it doesn't have with prisoners of war.
This semantic switcheroo, which we'll recall has also been used to deprive "illegal combatants" of the rights of prisoners of war, should come in handy in future as well.
Watch for something like the following to soon be uttered to by His Holiness, John Ashcroft, for example: "We've scooped up all the niggers and reclassified them as 'Security Detainees'. Never fear, they still have rights. But the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are not among these rights. So, into the fucking ovens they go."
Posted by Eddie Tews at 03:21 PM
| Comments (0)
Or quote of the year. Take your pick.
"...sometimes I overstate for emphasis..." -- Donald H. Rumsfeld
September 22, 2003
Quote Of The Moment #0017
Or quote of the year. Take your pick.
"...sometimes I overstate for emphasis..." -- Donald H. Rumsfeld
Posted by Eddie Tews at 05:56 PM
| Comments (0)
"For the past 23 years, I was not safe. But I was never in hiding or traveling with gunmen, which I must do now... There is no more official law to stop women from going to school and work; there is no law about dress code. But the reality is that even under the Taliban there was not the pressure on women in the rural areas there is now."
Quote Of The Moment #0016
"For the past 23 years, I was not safe. But I was never in hiding or traveling with gunmen, which I must do now... There is no more official law to stop women from going to school and work; there is no law about dress code. But the reality is that even under the Taliban there was not the pressure on women in the rural areas there is now."
Posted by Eddie Tews at 04:17 PM
| Comments (0)
"An increasing number of journalists in Baghdad now suspect that the US proconsul Paul Bremer and his hundreds of assistants ensconced in the heavily guarded former presidential palace, have lost touch with reality."
Understatement Of The Moment
"An increasing number of journalists in Baghdad now suspect that the US proconsul Paul Bremer and his hundreds of assistants ensconced in the heavily guarded former presidential palace, have lost touch with reality."
Posted by Eddie Tews at 09:53 AM
| Comments (0)
Donald H. Rumsfeld, in explaining why the Guantanamo inmates will be held, without trial, for the duration of the "War On Terror", says that "Our interest is in not trying them and letting them out. Our interest is in -- during this global war on terror [sic] -- keeping them off the streets, and so that's what's taking place."
If Rumsfeld expects them to be "let out" at the conclusion of trial, in other words, then he apparently expects them to be found innocent of charges brought.
Oh, well, that assuages concerns about the prosecution of the "War On Terror". If the worst accusation that can be offered is something as innocuous as innocent non-U.S. citizens taken from their countries and indefinitely imprisoned without trial (in conditions which have induced at least 29 suicide attempts to-date), there's really nothing to worry about, is there? Thanks for clearing that up, Donald H.!
September 17, 2003
"Disappeared"
Donald H. Rumsfeld, in explaining why the Guantanamo inmates will be held, without trial, for the duration of the "War On Terror", says that "Our interest is in not trying them and letting them out. Our interest is in -- during this global war on terror [sic] -- keeping them off the streets, and so that's what's taking place."
If Rumsfeld expects them to be "let out" at the conclusion of trial, in other words, then he apparently expects them to be found innocent of charges brought.
Oh, well, that assuages concerns about the prosecution of the "War On Terror". If the worst accusation that can be offered is something as innocuous as innocent non-U.S. citizens taken from their countries and indefinitely imprisoned without trial (in conditions which have induced at least 29 suicide attempts to-date), there's really nothing to worry about, is there? Thanks for clearing that up, Donald H.!
Posted by Eddie Tews at 05:49 PM
| Comments (0)
"The Army is accelerating downhill at the moment, and if the course isn't changed, we could damage it significantly or even break it in the next five years."
"Georgie & Donny, You Need To Take Better Care Of Your Toys."
"The Army is accelerating downhill at the moment, and if the course isn't changed, we could damage it significantly or even break it in the next five years."
Posted by Eddie Tews at 04:48 PM
| Comments (0)
"I came because of how stupid he is." -- A New Yorker protesting Ashcroft's PATRIOT Act road trip.
Quote Of The Moment #0015
"I came because of how stupid he is." -- A New Yorker protesting Ashcroft's PATRIOT Act road trip.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 04:21 PM
| Comments (0)
All concerning the U.S. House Of Reps' recent vote to allow American tourists to travel to Cuba.
• Supporters "said the proposal would advance freedom in the communist nation."
• Opponents "said it would only bolster Fidel Castro's dictatorship."
• The American people say it's none of Congress' motherfucking business what Americans do on their holidays, or in their free time generally. Until you can get your minds around that concept, fuck off with your regal proclamations of "liberty" and "freedom", assholes.
Fuck off with your "drug war" and your record incarceration rate. Fuck off with your "PATRIOT" Act. Fuck off with your worldwide wars of conquest and plunder. Fuck off with your taxation without representation. Fuck off with your "Total Information Awareness". Fuck off with your "Camp X-Ray" and your Gestapo "detentions". Fuck off with your pledge of fucking allegiance. Fuck off with your one-dollar-one-vote polity, and its 90% incumbency rate. Fuck off with your selling out of the public's airwaves and its natural resources. Fuck off with your wage slavery. Fuck off with your "national security" reflex. Fuck off with your Corporate Welfare and your trillion-dollar military. Fuck off with your twining of church and state.
Fuck off. Fuck off. Fuck off. Please, do us all a favour and fuck off.
Three Soundbites
All concerning the U.S. House Of Reps' recent vote to allow American tourists to travel to Cuba.
• Supporters "said the proposal would advance freedom in the communist nation."
• Opponents "said it would only bolster Fidel Castro's dictatorship."
• The American people say it's none of Congress' motherfucking business what Americans do on their holidays, or in their free time generally. Until you can get your minds around that concept, fuck off with your regal proclamations of "liberty" and "freedom", assholes.
Fuck off with your "drug war" and your record incarceration rate. Fuck off with your "PATRIOT" Act. Fuck off with your worldwide wars of conquest and plunder. Fuck off with your taxation without representation. Fuck off with your "Total Information Awareness". Fuck off with your "Camp X-Ray" and your Gestapo "detentions". Fuck off with your pledge of fucking allegiance. Fuck off with your one-dollar-one-vote polity, and its 90% incumbency rate. Fuck off with your selling out of the public's airwaves and its natural resources. Fuck off with your wage slavery. Fuck off with your "national security" reflex. Fuck off with your Corporate Welfare and your trillion-dollar military. Fuck off with your twining of church and state.
Fuck off. Fuck off. Fuck off. Please, do us all a favour and fuck off.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 03:43 PM
| Comments (1)
The United States' official reaction to former MP Michael Meacher's remarks concerning September 11 and the "War On Terror" were, predictably, hostile and embittered:
Mr. Meacher's fantastic allegations -- especially his assertion that the U.S. government knowingly stood by while terrorists killed some 3,000 innocents in New York, Pennsylvania, and Virginia -- would be monstrous, and monstrously offensive, if they came from someone serious or credible.
But cigarettes, the "most important cause of premature death in developed countries" kill about 500,000 innocent Americans per year. That's a September 11 every two days, for as far as the eye can see. 100,000 innocent Americans per year die for want of access to health care. Traffic accidents claim about 40,000 innocent American lives each year. Roughly 6,000 innocent Americans are killed in the workplace each year. Innocent New Yorkers were exposed to "brutal" air conditions following the September 11 attacks -- but the EPA, under orders from the White House, insisted the air was safe to breathe. On the other coast, "L.A. is so toxic that a child born in the city of angels will inhale more cancer-causing pollutants in the first two weeks of life than the EPA...considers safe for a lifetime." The full toll upon innocent Americans from eating genetically modified and pesticide-laden foods, not to mention "mad" cows is as yet unknown -- but don't hold your breath waiting for benign results. One could probably think of examples like these all the day long -- to say nothing of the nation's disgraceful record of under-educating, overworking, impoverishing, and imprisoning its beleaguered proles.
In the absence of a proclamation of a grandiose "war" by the Bush Administration upon Big Tobacco, Big Auto, Big Ag, Big Oil, et al. (indeed, given the outright collusion of Big Government with these industries), one can only conclude that the Administration could give a fuck how many innocents are killed unnecessarily in the U.S. of A..
So there really shouldn't be any doubt the government wouldn't have any second thoughts knowingly standing by while terrorists killed 3,000 innocents. But did it do so?
Certainly the evidence and the unanswered questions -- from the "lucky coincidences", to the President's "movements and actions" on September 11, to the information available to intelligence agences (and the Administration itself) warning of imminent attacks, to the Cheney Energy Task Force's maps of Iraqi oilfields, to the subsequent appointments of oil industry insiders to top posts in Afghanistan, to Rumsfeld's "sweep it all up" memo, to the conflicts of interest, to the stifling of an independent investigation into the attacks -- is at the very least compelling.
For what it's worth, this blogger has flipped back (primarily thinking such a conspiracy would be dastardly difficult to cover up) and forth on the question. More "forth" than "back" these days.
But the first suspicions, birthed well before the evidence noted above started coming to light, and based simply on the illogicality of the Administration's reaction to the attacks, continue to gnaw.
The lies and double-standards concerning the attacks -- and the motives behind them -- in relation to the United States' very well-documented record in engaging in and sponsoring acts of terrorism much more numerous and devastating that anything attributable to bin Laden and co., as well as its continued "harboring" of known terrorists were one thing. Regrettable, but not surprising -- and not really illogical on their own terms. (That is to say, if you ignore the absurdity of declaring "war" on a concept or a sub-state organisation, and if "terrorism" by definition precludes the activities of the United States and its "allies", then, the current "War On Terror" makes perfect logical sense.)
Even the choice of targeting Afghanistan -- though none of the September 11 attackers, nor any of their funding, originated there -- had a kind of logic to it (if largely Orwellian), in that bin Laden was holed up there at the time. (Alas, refusing the Taliban's offers of extradition; ordering aid to the starving population cut off; bombing innocent civilians, including with uranium munitions and cluster bombs; allying with the murderous and hated "Northern Alliance"; and funding warlords didn't make much sense on the terms -- "infinite justice", for example -- that the Administration was touting.)
That said, the Administration's immediate reaction just didn't make much sense at all. It reacted as though September 11 had occurred in a vacuum -- that on September 10 everything was peachy, and on September 12 we were suddenly "at war" with the "terrorists" -- a war that, conveniently, was instantly scheduled to last the duration of our lifetimes.
The Administration is still more less holding to this line, prefacing its every action, no matter how vile or unrelated, with the line that, "September 11 has shewn that we are no longer insulated from attack..." Meaning, of course, upon American soil.
But given the World Trade Center bombing of 1993 (which, except for a minor miscalculation by the perpetrators, would have produced a far deadlier toll than did the September 11 attacks) coupled with bin Laden's repeated threats and the information concerning an imminent attack noted above, how could the Administration possibly have believed, on September 10, that the U.S. mainland was "safe"? Moreover, given the bin Laden-ites' record of attacking America's and its allies' "interests" -- the 1998 embassy bombings, the assassination of Sadat, the bombing of the Beirut barracks, the USS Cole attack, etc. (not to mention their U.S.-sponsored shenanigans in Afghanistan and Bosnia) -- the Administration line seems even more illogical.
The reaction was also practically inconsistent with the, "We wuz blindsided!" mantra. If, as the Administration would have us believe, the attacks were a completely out-of-the-blue surprise, how is it that the Administration was suddenly so materially prepared to engage in a "war on terror"? How could the Administration possibly have undertaken a major theater war half a world away, starting from scratch on September 12, in less than a month? Logistically impossible, no? (If, however, it had begun planning an invasion the previous summer, and if both American and British troops and materiel had been deployed to the region for long-planned war games, perhaps not so impossible....) Additionally, how could the PATRIOT Act have been conceived and drafted wholly from scratch, and then put through congress in just a few weeks' time?
Mix these inconsistencies -- and the monumental increase in terror thereby engendered -- with the Administration's over-the-top self-righteousness and the hard evidence of "coincidental" malfeasance, and you've got a recipe for...yeah, gnawing suspicions.
Many on the left have argued that September 11 was a "gift" for the Administration -- allowing it to undertake programmes it desperately wanted to, but otherwise never could, have undertaken. Perhaps the explanation for the Administration's actions is as "harmless" as that. But this analysis doesn't seem, to this blogger at any rate, to hold up to either logical or evidentiary scrutiny.
In a sense, it doesn't matter: the "War On Terror", as practised by the Bush Administration, is insanely criminal and deserving of the strongest possible opposition whether or not the Administration was complicit in the September 11 attacks. Any "war on terror" which doesn't include among its target the terrorists living large in this nation's capital is (to use Meacher's word) "bogus".
But in another sense, it could matter. If "smoking" evidence of Bush Administration complicity does in time surface, it would surely spell the end of the Administraion's ideologues' utterly despicable dreams and schemes -- dreams and schemes, it might be worth noting, that the ideologues themselves acknowledged could never be put into place in the absence of "some catastrophic and catalysing event, like a new Pearl Harbor."
"Shit flows downstream", the saying goes. We shall see. (But in the meantime, let's keep fucking off the Bush Administration in every way our imaginations and energies allow, okay?)
September 16, 2003
Monstrous Offences
The United States' official reaction to former MP Michael Meacher's remarks concerning September 11 and the "War On Terror" were, predictably, hostile and embittered:
Mr. Meacher's fantastic allegations -- especially his assertion that the U.S. government knowingly stood by while terrorists killed some 3,000 innocents in New York, Pennsylvania, and Virginia -- would be monstrous, and monstrously offensive, if they came from someone serious or credible.
But cigarettes, the "most important cause of premature death in developed countries" kill about 500,000 innocent Americans per year. That's a September 11 every two days, for as far as the eye can see. 100,000 innocent Americans per year die for want of access to health care. Traffic accidents claim about 40,000 innocent American lives each year. Roughly 6,000 innocent Americans are killed in the workplace each year. Innocent New Yorkers were exposed to "brutal" air conditions following the September 11 attacks -- but the EPA, under orders from the White House, insisted the air was safe to breathe. On the other coast, "L.A. is so toxic that a child born in the city of angels will inhale more cancer-causing pollutants in the first two weeks of life than the EPA...considers safe for a lifetime." The full toll upon innocent Americans from eating genetically modified and pesticide-laden foods, not to mention "mad" cows is as yet unknown -- but don't hold your breath waiting for benign results. One could probably think of examples like these all the day long -- to say nothing of the nation's disgraceful record of under-educating, overworking, impoverishing, and imprisoning its beleaguered proles.
In the absence of a proclamation of a grandiose "war" by the Bush Administration upon Big Tobacco, Big Auto, Big Ag, Big Oil, et al. (indeed, given the outright collusion of Big Government with these industries), one can only conclude that the Administration could give a fuck how many innocents are killed unnecessarily in the U.S. of A..
So there really shouldn't be any doubt the government wouldn't have any second thoughts knowingly standing by while terrorists killed 3,000 innocents. But did it do so?
Certainly the evidence and the unanswered questions -- from the "lucky coincidences", to the President's "movements and actions" on September 11, to the information available to intelligence agences (and the Administration itself) warning of imminent attacks, to the Cheney Energy Task Force's maps of Iraqi oilfields, to the subsequent appointments of oil industry insiders to top posts in Afghanistan, to Rumsfeld's "sweep it all up" memo, to the conflicts of interest, to the stifling of an independent investigation into the attacks -- is at the very least compelling.
For what it's worth, this blogger has flipped back (primarily thinking such a conspiracy would be dastardly difficult to cover up) and forth on the question. More "forth" than "back" these days.
But the first suspicions, birthed well before the evidence noted above started coming to light, and based simply on the illogicality of the Administration's reaction to the attacks, continue to gnaw.
The lies and double-standards concerning the attacks -- and the motives behind them -- in relation to the United States' very well-documented record in engaging in and sponsoring acts of terrorism much more numerous and devastating that anything attributable to bin Laden and co., as well as its continued "harboring" of known terrorists were one thing. Regrettable, but not surprising -- and not really illogical on their own terms. (That is to say, if you ignore the absurdity of declaring "war" on a concept or a sub-state organisation, and if "terrorism" by definition precludes the activities of the United States and its "allies", then, the current "War On Terror" makes perfect logical sense.)
Even the choice of targeting Afghanistan -- though none of the September 11 attackers, nor any of their funding, originated there -- had a kind of logic to it (if largely Orwellian), in that bin Laden was holed up there at the time. (Alas, refusing the Taliban's offers of extradition; ordering aid to the starving population cut off; bombing innocent civilians, including with uranium munitions and cluster bombs; allying with the murderous and hated "Northern Alliance"; and funding warlords didn't make much sense on the terms -- "infinite justice", for example -- that the Administration was touting.)
That said, the Administration's immediate reaction just didn't make much sense at all. It reacted as though September 11 had occurred in a vacuum -- that on September 10 everything was peachy, and on September 12 we were suddenly "at war" with the "terrorists" -- a war that, conveniently, was instantly scheduled to last the duration of our lifetimes.
The Administration is still more less holding to this line, prefacing its every action, no matter how vile or unrelated, with the line that, "September 11 has shewn that we are no longer insulated from attack..." Meaning, of course, upon American soil.
But given the World Trade Center bombing of 1993 (which, except for a minor miscalculation by the perpetrators, would have produced a far deadlier toll than did the September 11 attacks) coupled with bin Laden's repeated threats and the information concerning an imminent attack noted above, how could the Administration possibly have believed, on September 10, that the U.S. mainland was "safe"? Moreover, given the bin Laden-ites' record of attacking America's and its allies' "interests" -- the 1998 embassy bombings, the assassination of Sadat, the bombing of the Beirut barracks, the USS Cole attack, etc. (not to mention their U.S.-sponsored shenanigans in Afghanistan and Bosnia) -- the Administration line seems even more illogical.
The reaction was also practically inconsistent with the, "We wuz blindsided!" mantra. If, as the Administration would have us believe, the attacks were a completely out-of-the-blue surprise, how is it that the Administration was suddenly so materially prepared to engage in a "war on terror"? How could the Administration possibly have undertaken a major theater war half a world away, starting from scratch on September 12, in less than a month? Logistically impossible, no? (If, however, it had begun planning an invasion the previous summer, and if both American and British troops and materiel had been deployed to the region for long-planned war games, perhaps not so impossible....) Additionally, how could the PATRIOT Act have been conceived and drafted wholly from scratch, and then put through congress in just a few weeks' time?
Mix these inconsistencies -- and the monumental increase in terror thereby engendered -- with the Administration's over-the-top self-righteousness and the hard evidence of "coincidental" malfeasance, and you've got a recipe for...yeah, gnawing suspicions.
Many on the left have argued that September 11 was a "gift" for the Administration -- allowing it to undertake programmes it desperately wanted to, but otherwise never could, have undertaken. Perhaps the explanation for the Administration's actions is as "harmless" as that. But this analysis doesn't seem, to this blogger at any rate, to hold up to either logical or evidentiary scrutiny.
In a sense, it doesn't matter: the "War On Terror", as practised by the Bush Administration, is insanely criminal and deserving of the strongest possible opposition whether or not the Administration was complicit in the September 11 attacks. Any "war on terror" which doesn't include among its target the terrorists living large in this nation's capital is (to use Meacher's word) "bogus".
But in another sense, it could matter. If "smoking" evidence of Bush Administration complicity does in time surface, it would surely spell the end of the Administraion's ideologues' utterly despicable dreams and schemes -- dreams and schemes, it might be worth noting, that the ideologues themselves acknowledged could never be put into place in the absence of "some catastrophic and catalysing event, like a new Pearl Harbor."
"Shit flows downstream", the saying goes. We shall see. (But in the meantime, let's keep fucking off the Bush Administration in every way our imaginations and energies allow, okay?)
Posted by Eddie Tews at 12:05 PM
| Comments (1)
"It's over with now. It's done, it's history, and we can put it behind us." -- Dick Cheney, on the events September 11.
Uh, can we quote you on that, Dick?
September 15, 2003
Quote Of The Moment #0014
"It's over with now. It's done, it's history, and we can put it behind us." -- Dick Cheney, on the events September 11.
Uh, can we quote you on that, Dick?
Posted by Eddie Tews at 10:20 AM
| Comments (0)
Two of the few honest columnists have, in their latest offerings, weighed in with strikingly dire predictions of the consequences of the Bush Administration's exploitation of September 11.
Robert Fisk concluses his thusly: "We have done all this in the name of the dead of 11 September. Not since the Second World War have we seen folly on this scale. And it has scarcely begun."
And Paul Krugman his: "In other words, if you thought the last two years were bad, just wait: it's about to get worse. A lot worse."
Both well worth reading, of course. (As is Krugman's Buzzflash interview.) But more importantly, they should serve as reminders (not that any were really needed) that it's nothing like time to relax.
September 12, 2003
Curves Ahead
Two of the few honest columnists have, in their latest offerings, weighed in with strikingly dire predictions of the consequences of the Bush Administration's exploitation of September 11.
Robert Fisk concluses his thusly: "We have done all this in the name of the dead of 11 September. Not since the Second World War have we seen folly on this scale. And it has scarcely begun."
And Paul Krugman his: "In other words, if you thought the last two years were bad, just wait: it's about to get worse. A lot worse."
Both well worth reading, of course. (As is Krugman's Buzzflash interview.) But more importantly, they should serve as reminders (not that any were really needed) that it's nothing like time to relax.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 01:57 PM
| Comments (0)
My husband is currently serving in Iraq. I, too, thought this was a just war at the beginning. My view has changed, and not because of how badly it is going. My view changed when I read into the history of the Iran/Iraq war and what hand the American government played in it and I was VERY surprised. Another reason I changed my view is how much information started filtering out on lies the Administration has told and continues to try to maintain. Problem is, they have told so many they can't seem to keep their story straight anymore.
September 10, 2003
Quote Of The Moment #0013
My husband is currently serving in Iraq. I, too, thought this was a just war at the beginning. My view has changed, and not because of how badly it is going. My view changed when I read into the history of the Iran/Iraq war and what hand the American government played in it and I was VERY surprised. Another reason I changed my view is how much information started filtering out on lies the Administration has told and continues to try to maintain. Problem is, they have told so many they can't seem to keep their story straight anymore.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 07:05 PM
| Comments (1)
A new essay by Chalmers Johnson (author of the prescient and indispensable Blowback: The Costs And Consequences Of American Empire) offers an enlightening overview of the dissolution of the Roman Republic into the Roman Empire.
Noting the similarities to the current moment in history, Chalmers concludes that, "Roman history suggests that the short, happy life of the American republic is in serious trouble -- and that conversion to a military empire is, to say the least, not the best answer."
So, while we're on the subject of history repeating itself, let's have an all-too-cursory look at two historians' accounts of Vietnam and its consequences. This blog must stress that this exercise is for entertainment purposes only, and that any meaningful inferences will be drawn only by preverts [sic], conspiracy theorists, or pinko wreckers.
We turn first to Gabriel Kolko's Anatomy Of A War. First published in 1985, it's regarded by even the hawks as the definitive general history of the "conflict". In a chapter concerning the economic impact of the war on the United States can be found the following passages:
• Economic factors of imperialism cannot be divorced from the political context in which they operate, and immediate economic consequences may quickly subvert the long-range economic rationality of its action.
• Recognition of one's weaknesses is more difficult for a nation than for an individual, since states have conflicting interests and ample means of procrastinating. In 1965 the United States chose to do so, falling into an economic imbroglio...which only a quick victory could keep from evolving into a prolonged military and political struggle whose economic costs would greatly accelerate America's defeat.
• Most important in making the war budget a source of potential economic mishaps was McNamara's explicit premise in the annual Pentagon requests to Congress that the Revolution's level of military activity would not increase and that the war would be over by the end of June of each fiscal year! Since this meant too little money -- which was politically more palatable -- after 1966 the Pentagon returned to Congress annually for special supplementals for the war...
• By the end of 1965 Johnson was ignoring warnings from his Council of Economic Advisers that the war's cost would require a tax increase if a vast budget deficit was to be averted, but even then no one in Washington was fully aware of how high the costs might be. For political reasons the President chose to press for domestic reforms as well as for war...
• ...by the end of 1966, when Johnson realized that McNamara had underestimated [the war's costs] by $11 billion, the President had lost confidence in his defense secretary and was stuck with a major economic problem. When in the following January the executive asked Congress for a $12 billion supplemental for which it had no funding mechanism, it was clear that it had lost control of the war's costs and of the internal economy at one and the same time. In the process it had also deliberately misled Congress for the sake of its own political advantage.
• ...success in Vietnam was as remote as ever, and the economy entered into the most complex phase of its history since before World War Two.
• Time, above all, is America's most dangerous nemesis, for it will provoke countless difficulties which can only interesect and compound each other. At the beginning of 1968 the Johnson administration had yet to learn this lesson.
Moving right along, let's sample Noam Chomsky's 1970 take on the Pentagon Papers and other aspects of the war, For Reasons Of State. Recently re-released by The New Press, here are some selections from the Pantheon original's introduction:
• When the Presdient comments that "you have to let them have it when they jump on you," few of the critics of his infantile rhetoric emphasize the crucial point: they are "jumping on us" in their land, not in Kansas or Hawaii or even Thailand.
• One might think that it is self-defeating for official spokesmen to insist that only military targets are struck, when observers on the scene can prove the opposite. ... The government does not really hope to convince anyone by its arguments and claims, but only to sow confusion, relying on the natural tendency to trust authority and to avoid complicated and disturbing issues.
• Shortly after the Pentagon Papers appeared, Richard Harwood wrote in the Washington Post that a careful reader of the press could have known the facts all along, and he cited cases where the facts had been truthfully reported. He failed to add that the truth had been overwhelmed, in the same pages, by a flood of state propaganda.
• It has long been a deeply rooted premise in American political culture that the United States has the right to intervene in the internal affairs of others. Writing in 1947, A. A. Berle, a typical member of the American ruling elite, presented the "revolutionary" thesis that the world is entering a new stage in which the rights of peoples take precedence over the rights of sovereign governments. The United States must serve as the guarantor of the rights of peoples, intervening if necessary to defend these rights, acting with the same solicitude it has always shown to the nations protected from harm by the Monroe Doctrine... Why are we justified in taking on this exalted role, replacing even the United Nations if it proves ineffective? The reason is simple. Along with Great Britain, the United States is more representative of the people than other powers, and therefore naturally pursues the popular demand for world peace...
• With regard to the Vietnam war, there are the "optimists", who believe that with persistence we can win, and the "pessimists", who argue that the United States cannot, at reasonable cost, guarantee the rule of the regime of its choice in South Vietnam.These are the two positions that appear in the secret "Kissinger Papers", released by the Washington Post April 25, 1972. The pessimists expect "pacification success in 13.4 years", while the interpretation of the optimists "implies that it will take 8.3 years to pacify the 4.15 million contested and VC population of December 1968." As always, the pessimists differ from the optimists in their estimate of how long it will take to beat the Vietnamese resistance into submission -- nothing more.
• One mark of a culture in the firm grip of ideological controls is that what must be believed to justify state policy will be believed, regardless of the facts.
Everything Old Is New Again
A new essay by Chalmers Johnson (author of the prescient and indispensable Blowback: The Costs And Consequences Of American Empire) offers an enlightening overview of the dissolution of the Roman Republic into the Roman Empire.
Noting the similarities to the current moment in history, Chalmers concludes that, "Roman history suggests that the short, happy life of the American republic is in serious trouble -- and that conversion to a military empire is, to say the least, not the best answer."
So, while we're on the subject of history repeating itself, let's have an all-too-cursory look at two historians' accounts of Vietnam and its consequences. This blog must stress that this exercise is for entertainment purposes only, and that any meaningful inferences will be drawn only by preverts [sic], conspiracy theorists, or pinko wreckers.
We turn first to Gabriel Kolko's Anatomy Of A War. First published in 1985, it's regarded by even the hawks as the definitive general history of the "conflict". In a chapter concerning the economic impact of the war on the United States can be found the following passages:
• Economic factors of imperialism cannot be divorced from the political context in which they operate, and immediate economic consequences may quickly subvert the long-range economic rationality of its action.
• Recognition of one's weaknesses is more difficult for a nation than for an individual, since states have conflicting interests and ample means of procrastinating. In 1965 the United States chose to do so, falling into an economic imbroglio...which only a quick victory could keep from evolving into a prolonged military and political struggle whose economic costs would greatly accelerate America's defeat.
• Most important in making the war budget a source of potential economic mishaps was McNamara's explicit premise in the annual Pentagon requests to Congress that the Revolution's level of military activity would not increase and that the war would be over by the end of June of each fiscal year! Since this meant too little money -- which was politically more palatable -- after 1966 the Pentagon returned to Congress annually for special supplementals for the war...
• By the end of 1965 Johnson was ignoring warnings from his Council of Economic Advisers that the war's cost would require a tax increase if a vast budget deficit was to be averted, but even then no one in Washington was fully aware of how high the costs might be. For political reasons the President chose to press for domestic reforms as well as for war...
• ...by the end of 1966, when Johnson realized that McNamara had underestimated [the war's costs] by $11 billion, the President had lost confidence in his defense secretary and was stuck with a major economic problem. When in the following January the executive asked Congress for a $12 billion supplemental for which it had no funding mechanism, it was clear that it had lost control of the war's costs and of the internal economy at one and the same time. In the process it had also deliberately misled Congress for the sake of its own political advantage.
• ...success in Vietnam was as remote as ever, and the economy entered into the most complex phase of its history since before World War Two.
• Time, above all, is America's most dangerous nemesis, for it will provoke countless difficulties which can only interesect and compound each other. At the beginning of 1968 the Johnson administration had yet to learn this lesson.
Moving right along, let's sample Noam Chomsky's 1970 take on the Pentagon Papers and other aspects of the war, For Reasons Of State. Recently re-released by The New Press, here are some selections from the Pantheon original's introduction:
• When the Presdient comments that "you have to let them have it when they jump on you," few of the critics of his infantile rhetoric emphasize the crucial point: they are "jumping on us" in their land, not in Kansas or Hawaii or even Thailand.
• One might think that it is self-defeating for official spokesmen to insist that only military targets are struck, when observers on the scene can prove the opposite. ... The government does not really hope to convince anyone by its arguments and claims, but only to sow confusion, relying on the natural tendency to trust authority and to avoid complicated and disturbing issues.
• Shortly after the Pentagon Papers appeared, Richard Harwood wrote in the Washington Post that a careful reader of the press could have known the facts all along, and he cited cases where the facts had been truthfully reported. He failed to add that the truth had been overwhelmed, in the same pages, by a flood of state propaganda.
• It has long been a deeply rooted premise in American political culture that the United States has the right to intervene in the internal affairs of others. Writing in 1947, A. A. Berle, a typical member of the American ruling elite, presented the "revolutionary" thesis that the world is entering a new stage in which the rights of peoples take precedence over the rights of sovereign governments. The United States must serve as the guarantor of the rights of peoples, intervening if necessary to defend these rights, acting with the same solicitude it has always shown to the nations protected from harm by the Monroe Doctrine... Why are we justified in taking on this exalted role, replacing even the United Nations if it proves ineffective? The reason is simple. Along with Great Britain, the United States is more representative of the people than other powers, and therefore naturally pursues the popular demand for world peace...
• With regard to the Vietnam war, there are the "optimists", who believe that with persistence we can win, and the "pessimists", who argue that the United States cannot, at reasonable cost, guarantee the rule of the regime of its choice in South Vietnam.These are the two positions that appear in the secret "Kissinger Papers", released by the Washington Post April 25, 1972. The pessimists expect "pacification success in 13.4 years", while the interpretation of the optimists "implies that it will take 8.3 years to pacify the 4.15 million contested and VC population of December 1968." As always, the pessimists differ from the optimists in their estimate of how long it will take to beat the Vietnamese resistance into submission -- nothing more.
• One mark of a culture in the firm grip of ideological controls is that what must be believed to justify state policy will be believed, regardless of the facts.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 05:29 PM
| Comments (0)
To its credit, the mainstream media has done a fairly decent job in noticing the incredibly incestuous relationship linking Iraq "reconstruction" contract recipients and members of the Bush Administration.
But the best general analysis of the phenomenon -- at least that this blogger has seen -- appeared last month in the latest ish of the brilliant (if relatively obscure) Left Business Observer: "Making A Killing In Iraq", by former investment banker Nomi Prins.
Alas, the piece is unavailable on the LBO website. But being as its just too important to not see the light of the Internet day, this blog has taken the liberty of OCRing and uploading it to the web. Enjoy.
But then do your duty and subscribe!
Keepin' It Real With The O-C-R
To its credit, the mainstream media has done a fairly decent job in noticing the incredibly incestuous relationship linking Iraq "reconstruction" contract recipients and members of the Bush Administration.
But the best general analysis of the phenomenon -- at least that this blogger has seen -- appeared last month in the latest ish of the brilliant (if relatively obscure) Left Business Observer: "Making A Killing In Iraq", by former investment banker Nomi Prins.
Alas, the piece is unavailable on the LBO website. But being as its just too important to not see the light of the Internet day, this blog has taken the liberty of OCRing and uploading it to the web. Enjoy.
But then do your duty and subscribe!
Posted by Eddie Tews at 01:05 PM
| Comments (0)
"There is no doubt in our mind that Saddam Hussein has an active chemical and biological warfare effort. The evidence is there -- the question is whether the inspectors are allowed to find it." -- Under-Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security John Bolton, November 2002.
"Whether he possessed them today or four years ago isn't really the issue. Until that regime was removed from power, that threat remained. That was the purpose of military action." -- Under-Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security John Bolton, September 2003
September 08, 2003
Quote Of The Moment #0012
"There is no doubt in our mind that Saddam Hussein has an active chemical and biological warfare effort. The evidence is there -- the question is whether the inspectors are allowed to find it." -- Under-Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security John Bolton, November 2002.
"Whether he possessed them today or four years ago isn't really the issue. Until that regime was removed from power, that threat remained. That was the purpose of military action." -- Under-Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security John Bolton, September 2003
Posted by Eddie Tews at 09:31 PM
| Comments (0)
A common response to criticisms of Bush Administration policies goes something like this: "I promise you that if you go to saudi arabia or jordan or the sudan or zimbabwe & spout anti government crap against any of those countries your ass would vanish from the face of this earth!!!"
The somewhat illogical implication of course being that since Americans can dissent without fear of violent state reprisal, then, they should refrain from doing so.
One journalist visiting from the Middle East offers a slightly more nuanced analysis: "Americans seem very cavalier about politics. Perhaps if they lived without free speech for a few years they would use it more often."
Up Is Down
A common response to criticisms of Bush Administration policies goes something like this: "I promise you that if you go to saudi arabia or jordan or the sudan or zimbabwe & spout anti government crap against any of those countries your ass would vanish from the face of this earth!!!"
The somewhat illogical implication of course being that since Americans can dissent without fear of violent state reprisal, then, they should refrain from doing so.
One journalist visiting from the Middle East offers a slightly more nuanced analysis: "Americans seem very cavalier about politics. Perhaps if they lived without free speech for a few years they would use it more often."
Posted by Eddie Tews at 08:49 PM
| Comments (0)
''It's not relevant. So why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that?'' -- Barbara Bush, referring to the number of Iraqis killed during the war.
Quote Of The Moment #0011
''It's not relevant. So why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that?'' -- Barbara Bush, referring to the number of Iraqis killed during the war.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 07:19 PM
| Comments (1)
We've all heard plenty of references to the global AIDS crisis. We all heard George Bush's specious pledge, in his most recent State Of The Union Address, to earmark bunches of money to combat the crisis.
But rarely (if ever) has it been so staggeringly humanised as in a recent Anderson Valley Advertiser interview with Mendocino-based AIDS activist Kathleen Martin.
After reeling off several heartbreaking and eye-opening anecdotes and statistics, Martin gets to the heart of the matter, relating a conversation she'd had with a South African businessman: "Look at it! You can't worry about any of these AIDS people, because they are less than one-tenth of one percent of the world's gross national product."
Similarly, while Al Gore held AIDS victims hostage to pharmaceuticals' "property rights" in order to bolster his election campagin war-chest, the Bush Administration has recently politicised the cause as well. In addition to taking the "property rights" baton from Al Gore in perfect stride, the Administration late last month cut off funding for an African/Asian AIDS programme, essentially because one of its participants offers abortion counseling and services. It appears that UNICEF will be the next victim of the Administration's Theocratic Hatchet.
In a related matter, Harry Magdoff, in an interview in the current number of Monthly Review, tells of having been asked by the Encyclopædia Britannica to write an article about European expansion:
I made it my business to tell the whole story, identify by names the specific African tribes, coalitions, and kingdoms which fought the intruding powers -- the Ashantis, the Fanti Confederation, the Opobo Kingdom, the Fulani, the Tauregs, the Mandingos, and so on. The Encyclopædia Britannica editors at first didn’t want to publish the names of the resisting peoples. Why? Because nowhere else in the encyclopædia are the names mentioned, so readers would not know what I was talking about.
Minor skirmishes in the "clash of civilisations"? Perhaps so, in the eyes of businessmen, drug manufacturers, and encylopædia publishers. But for the hundreds of millions of victims of the policies championed by these and other "representatives of the civilised world", maybe not.
What You Can Do: Martin's Zebra Foundation is trying to raise funding for a female condom -- prototypes of which, she relates in the interview, have met with immediate and enthusiastic support among African women. Those with a few extra dollars to hand could help make a big difference in heading off the building calamity so terrifyingly described in the interview.
Nigger Is The Nigger Of The World
We've all heard plenty of references to the global AIDS crisis. We all heard George Bush's specious pledge, in his most recent State Of The Union Address, to earmark bunches of money to combat the crisis.
But rarely (if ever) has it been so staggeringly humanised as in a recent Anderson Valley Advertiser interview with Mendocino-based AIDS activist Kathleen Martin.
After reeling off several heartbreaking and eye-opening anecdotes and statistics, Martin gets to the heart of the matter, relating a conversation she'd had with a South African businessman: "Look at it! You can't worry about any of these AIDS people, because they are less than one-tenth of one percent of the world's gross national product."
Similarly, while Al Gore held AIDS victims hostage to pharmaceuticals' "property rights" in order to bolster his election campagin war-chest, the Bush Administration has recently politicised the cause as well. In addition to taking the "property rights" baton from Al Gore in perfect stride, the Administration late last month cut off funding for an African/Asian AIDS programme, essentially because one of its participants offers abortion counseling and services. It appears that UNICEF will be the next victim of the Administration's Theocratic Hatchet.
In a related matter, Harry Magdoff, in an interview in the current number of Monthly Review, tells of having been asked by the Encyclopædia Britannica to write an article about European expansion:
I made it my business to tell the whole story, identify by names the specific African tribes, coalitions, and kingdoms which fought the intruding powers -- the Ashantis, the Fanti Confederation, the Opobo Kingdom, the Fulani, the Tauregs, the Mandingos, and so on. The Encyclopædia Britannica editors at first didn’t want to publish the names of the resisting peoples. Why? Because nowhere else in the encyclopædia are the names mentioned, so readers would not know what I was talking about.
Minor skirmishes in the "clash of civilisations"? Perhaps so, in the eyes of businessmen, drug manufacturers, and encylopædia publishers. But for the hundreds of millions of victims of the policies championed by these and other "representatives of the civilised world", maybe not.
What You Can Do: Martin's Zebra Foundation is trying to raise funding for a female condom -- prototypes of which, she relates in the interview, have met with immediate and enthusiastic support among African women. Those with a few extra dollars to hand could help make a big difference in heading off the building calamity so terrifyingly described in the interview.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 02:11 PM
| Comments (0)
From the Superbrain's September 7 address to the teevee nation: "Terrorists in Iraq have attacked representatives of the civilized world."
Anybody else getting visions of a door-to-door salesman? "Hello and god bless. My name is Dubya, and I represent the civilised world. If you have a few moments, I'd like to demonstrate a special $50-million U.S. war on terrorism assistance package. Don't be put off by the pricetag. I know it's steep. But we have a saying in Texas: 'You get what you pay for.' And what we're offering you here is darn good product. Now, let me show you what I mean..."
Quote Of The Moment #0010
From the Superbrain's September 7 address to the teevee nation: "Terrorists in Iraq have attacked representatives of the civilized world."
Anybody else getting visions of a door-to-door salesman? "Hello and god bless. My name is Dubya, and I represent the civilised world. If you have a few moments, I'd like to demonstrate a special $50-million U.S. war on terrorism assistance package. Don't be put off by the pricetag. I know it's steep. But we have a saying in Texas: 'You get what you pay for.' And what we're offering you here is darn good product. Now, let me show you what I mean..."
Posted by Eddie Tews at 01:24 PM
| Comments (0)
"Tax relief is stimulating job creation all across the country," claims the Superbrain in acknowledging that "fell 437,000 jobs short of its own projections in August".
But it's all going to be okay, the White House explains, because the tax cuts "will ramp up business and consumer demand, ultimately leaving reluctant companies no choice but to hire more workers to meet that demand."
With friends like these, eh? Give them points for their honesty in expressing the state of employer/employee relations, at least.
Anyway, when will "reluctant companies" come face-to-face with this devastating reality? Bush is Johnny-on-the-spot in explaining this as well (a sawbuck to anybody that can successfully decode the logic here):
In order for job creation to grow, the economy must grow faster than productivity gains. Long-term it is good that we're more productive. It means higher wages for the American worker. It means we're more competitive overseas. Short-term, this economy needs to crank up faster than productivity increases in order for somebody to find a job.
Meanwhile, the Bush Administration's foreign policy -- which just a few short weeks ago was by acclaim considered the Crown Jewel in its '04 cap -- is in a shambles, as it has now been forced by those ungrateful Iraqis to go begging to the United Nations and the American Taxpayer to pull its irons out of the fire.
So, with Bush's approval ratings continuing their free-fall as Americans increasingly shift their worries to the ænemic economy, and with the military machine stretched too thin to drum up another war, what could Karl Rove possibly have up his sleeve?
Apart from the little matter of controlling the voting machines, it's not at all easy to say.
Well, there is that other little matter: the Democratic hopefuls are some lame-assed motherfuckers.
But, anyway, it's always nice to have two aces up your sleeve, is it not?
September 07, 2003
Fish Or Cut Bait?
"Tax relief is stimulating job creation all across the country," claims the Superbrain in acknowledging that "fell 437,000 jobs short of its own projections in August".
But it's all going to be okay, the White House explains, because the tax cuts "will ramp up business and consumer demand, ultimately leaving reluctant companies no choice but to hire more workers to meet that demand."
With friends like these, eh? Give them points for their honesty in expressing the state of employer/employee relations, at least.
Anyway, when will "reluctant companies" come face-to-face with this devastating reality? Bush is Johnny-on-the-spot in explaining this as well (a sawbuck to anybody that can successfully decode the logic here):
In order for job creation to grow, the economy must grow faster than productivity gains. Long-term it is good that we're more productive. It means higher wages for the American worker. It means we're more competitive overseas. Short-term, this economy needs to crank up faster than productivity increases in order for somebody to find a job.
Meanwhile, the Bush Administration's foreign policy -- which just a few short weeks ago was by acclaim considered the Crown Jewel in its '04 cap -- is in a shambles, as it has now been forced by those ungrateful Iraqis to go begging to the United Nations and the American Taxpayer to pull its irons out of the fire.
So, with Bush's approval ratings continuing their free-fall as Americans increasingly shift their worries to the ænemic economy, and with the military machine stretched too thin to drum up another war, what could Karl Rove possibly have up his sleeve?
Apart from the little matter of controlling the voting machines, it's not at all easy to say.
Well, there is that other little matter: the Democratic hopefuls are some lame-assed motherfuckers.
But, anyway, it's always nice to have two aces up your sleeve, is it not?
Posted by Eddie Tews at 08:40 PM
| Comments (0)
"Halliburton was one of three companies that submitted proposals to the Pentagon. At that time, of course, nobody could foresee that the U.S. would be fighting a war in Iraq in 2003, and there would be a huge demand for contracting services."
September 03, 2003
Conspiracy Theorists Take Note
"Halliburton was one of three companies that submitted proposals to the Pentagon. At that time, of course, nobody could foresee that the U.S. would be fighting a war in Iraq in 2003, and there would be a huge demand for contracting services."
Posted by Eddie Tews at 03:35 PM
| Comments (2)
"Sometimes it's hard for them to see the good we are doing here. You feel they don't appreciate it and don't know what freedom is."
Quote Of The Moment #0009
"Sometimes it's hard for them to see the good we are doing here. You feel they don't appreciate it and don't know what freedom is."
Posted by Eddie Tews at 01:18 PM
| Comments (1)
The Merry Antics Of Cowboy George & Uncle Osama!
Once...
"Osama bin Laden is a prime suspect and the people who house him, encourage him, provide food, comfort, or money are on notice. I want justice. And there is an old poster out West. As I recall it said: 'Wanted, Dead or Alive.'"
Then... "We don’t know where he is. And frankly, it's not about him."
And... "We don't know when, where, what."
But... "His priority is to use biological weapons. ... Osama's next step will be unbelievable."
So... We'll meet again, don't know where, don't know when But I know we'll meet again, some sunny day
Now, wasn't that funny?
September 02, 2003
Down-Home Comix Presents...
The Merry Antics Of Cowboy George & Uncle Osama!
Once...
"Osama bin Laden is a prime suspect and the people who house him, encourage him, provide food, comfort, or money are on notice. I want justice. And there is an old poster out West. As I recall it said: 'Wanted, Dead or Alive.'"Then... "We don’t know where he is. And frankly, it's not about him."
And... "We don't know when, where, what."
But... "His priority is to use biological weapons. ... Osama's next step will be unbelievable."
So... We'll meet again, don't know where, don't know when But I know we'll meet again, some sunny day
Now, wasn't that funny?