October 31, 2004
Chicken-Hawk Nation
Dennis Hastert: did not serve. Tom DeLay: did not serve. House Whip Roy Blunt: did not serve. Bill Frist: did not serve. Rudy Giuliani: did not serve. George Pataki: did not serve. Mitch McConnell: did not serve. Rick Santorum: did not serve. Trent Lott: did not serve. Dick Cheney: did not serve. John Ashcroft: did not serve. Jeb Bush: did not serve. Karl Rove: did not serve. Paul Wolfowitz: did not serve. Richard Perle: did not serve. Douglas Feith: did not serve. Eliot Abrams: did not serve. Christopher Cox: did not serve. Newt Gingrich: did not serve. Don Rumsfeld: served in Navy (1954-57) George W. Bush: six-year Nat'l Guard commitment. Gerald Ford: Navy, WWII Phil Gramm: did not serve. John McCain: Silver Star, Bronze Star, Legion of Merit, Purple Heart and Distinguished Flying Cross. Bob Dole: an honorable veteran. Chuck Hagel: two Purple Hearts and a Bronze Star, Vietnam. Duke Cunningham: nominated for Medal of Honor, Navy Cross, Silver Stars, Air Medals, Purple Hearts. Jeff Sessions: Army Reserves, 1973-1986 JC Watts: did not serve. Tom Ridge: Bronze Star for Valor in Vietnam. Antonin Scalia: did not serve. Clarence Thomas: did not serve
Sean Hannity: did not serve. Rush Limbaugh: did not serve. Bill O'Reilly: did not serve. Michael Savage: did not serve. George Will: did not serve. Chris Matthews: did not serve. Paul Gigot: did not serve. Bill Bennett: did not serve. Pat Buchanan: did not serve. Bill Kristol: did not serve. Kenneth Starr: did not serve. Michael Medved: did not serve.
[Source: Monterey County Weekly, Sept. 16-22, 2004]
Posted by Eddie Tews at 11:21 AM
| Comments (1)
About eighteen months ago, this blog considered the justification for the Iraq war that was at that time all the rage -- viz., that even though none of the Bush Administration's pre-war justifications had proven valid, the invasion was still justified, as the overthrow of Saddam's regime meant the saving of many Iraqi lives -- and found it seriously wanting, even on its own terms.
Looking back now, that post seems fairly tame: "somewhere in the neighbourhood of 2,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed directly", "if the United States needs to forcibly put down the disquieted masses", "if a war against the U.S. occupation breaks out".
The Bush regime, in demonstrating that it won't ever set its standards too high, also trotted out the, "We're not as bad as Saddam," jargon as the Abu Ghraib scandal began to unfold.
Now, The Lancet has published the results of a house-to-house survey in Iraq, finding 100,000 more Iraqis "died since the start of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq than would have been expected otherwise".
"...violence was recorded as the primary cause of death and was mainly attributed to coalition forces -- with about 95 percent of those deaths caused by bombs or fire from helicopter gunships."
It's not known how many Iraqis Saddam killed in his quarter-century in office, but some estimates have ranged up to 300,000 -- about 12,000 per year. His most heinous crimes, of course, committed while he was on friendly terms with the Reagan and Bush I Administrations.
So Bush II has managed to rack up one-third of Saddam's quarter-century total in just eighteen months' time.
It's well worth noting, too, that the Lancet survey studied the fifteen months prior to the war, and the eighteen months following the war. But UNICEF estimated, in 1998, that the U.S.-UK sanctions regime was killing 90,000 children per year. So in addition to the 100,000 deaths of mostly women and children; the Bush Administration, by not only initiating the war, but also in failing to address urgent sanitation, medical, and infrastructure needs; is responsible for the deaths of an additional 135,000 children.
But 235,000 is a conservative estimate: public health conditions in Iraq have actually worsened since the war, to the extent that UNICEF now estimates that "acute malnutrition or wasting, measured by a child's weight for height, has nearly doubled from four per cent a year ago, to almost eight per cent."
The Administration is so chastened by this news that it's now preparing to "whack" the city of Fallujah.
Ah, but they're better off dead, right? It's okay, isn't it, to summarily execute suspected "terrorists" and "insurgents"? Yeah, apparently so. However, "Most individuals reportedly killed by coalition forces were women and children."
Ah, but it's okay to whack nigger women and little nigger children, right? Yeah, apparently so.
October 29, 2004
Hey, Hey, USA, How Many Kids Did You Kill Today?
About eighteen months ago, this blog considered the justification for the Iraq war that was at that time all the rage -- viz., that even though none of the Bush Administration's pre-war justifications had proven valid, the invasion was still justified, as the overthrow of Saddam's regime meant the saving of many Iraqi lives -- and found it seriously wanting, even on its own terms.
Looking back now, that post seems fairly tame: "somewhere in the neighbourhood of 2,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed directly", "if the United States needs to forcibly put down the disquieted masses", "if a war against the U.S. occupation breaks out".
The Bush regime, in demonstrating that it won't ever set its standards too high, also trotted out the, "We're not as bad as Saddam," jargon as the Abu Ghraib scandal began to unfold.
Now, The Lancet has published the results of a house-to-house survey in Iraq, finding 100,000 more Iraqis "died since the start of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq than would have been expected otherwise".
"...violence was recorded as the primary cause of death and was mainly attributed to coalition forces -- with about 95 percent of those deaths caused by bombs or fire from helicopter gunships."
It's not known how many Iraqis Saddam killed in his quarter-century in office, but some estimates have ranged up to 300,000 -- about 12,000 per year. His most heinous crimes, of course, committed while he was on friendly terms with the Reagan and Bush I Administrations.
So Bush II has managed to rack up one-third of Saddam's quarter-century total in just eighteen months' time.
It's well worth noting, too, that the Lancet survey studied the fifteen months prior to the war, and the eighteen months following the war. But UNICEF estimated, in 1998, that the U.S.-UK sanctions regime was killing 90,000 children per year. So in addition to the 100,000 deaths of mostly women and children; the Bush Administration, by not only initiating the war, but also in failing to address urgent sanitation, medical, and infrastructure needs; is responsible for the deaths of an additional 135,000 children.
But 235,000 is a conservative estimate: public health conditions in Iraq have actually worsened since the war, to the extent that UNICEF now estimates that "acute malnutrition or wasting, measured by a child's weight for height, has nearly doubled from four per cent a year ago, to almost eight per cent."
The Administration is so chastened by this news that it's now preparing to "whack" the city of Fallujah.
Ah, but they're better off dead, right? It's okay, isn't it, to summarily execute suspected "terrorists" and "insurgents"? Yeah, apparently so. However, "Most individuals reportedly killed by coalition forces were women and children."
Ah, but it's okay to whack nigger women and little nigger children, right? Yeah, apparently so.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 03:24 PM
| Comments (1)
Non-Iraqi prisoners captured by U.S. forces on the Iraq battlefield are not entitled to the protections afforded by the Geneva Conventions, according to a recent legal opinion from the Justice Department.
The opinion allows U.S. military forces and CIA operatives to handle the foreign fighters captured in Iraq in the same way they are handling al Qaeda and Taliban fighters captured in Afghanistan and elsewhere.
In confirming the legal opinion first reported in The New York Times, Justice Department officials said the guidance is consistent with their previous position taken regarding battlefield detainees in Afghanistan.
"This administration has made it clear from the outset that members of al Qaeda and other terrorist groups do not necessarily enjoy the protections of the Geneva Conventions," a senior Justice Department official said. "Al Qaeda members and other foreign terrorists in Iraq illegally would not be entitled to the Geneva Convention protections. That's consistent with our opinion on Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan."
Never mind, if you must, that by any definition imaginable the "Multinational Force" in Iraq is comprised of "foreign terrorists".
What happened to all of the, "This is not America," whinging which accompanied the Abu Ghraib photos? What happened to the, "This shows the nature of the enemy we are fighting," hot air which accompanies each new beheading?
And just what is torturing "enemy combatants" supposed to achieve? We already know it's of no useful intelligence value. We can't but assume that it will make it that much more unlikely that any American soldiers or civilians caputed somewhere in the world will be treated humanely.
So, besides being antithetical to any sort of moral compulsion, what is the fucking point of it all? Pure racist sadism? Are Ashcroft and Rumsfeld jerking off to all the photos of naked A-rabs piled up in mounds? This is, really, the only explanation that makes any sort of sense.
U.S. officials have acknowledged some prisoners were moved out of Iraq but refused to say where they were taken.
Safely out of the Supreme Court's Guantanamo-seeing eyes, presumably.
October 27, 2004
Still "Abusing" Prisoners
Non-Iraqi prisoners captured by U.S. forces on the Iraq battlefield are not entitled to the protections afforded by the Geneva Conventions, according to a recent legal opinion from the Justice Department.
The opinion allows U.S. military forces and CIA operatives to handle the foreign fighters captured in Iraq in the same way they are handling al Qaeda and Taliban fighters captured in Afghanistan and elsewhere.
In confirming the legal opinion first reported in The New York Times, Justice Department officials said the guidance is consistent with their previous position taken regarding battlefield detainees in Afghanistan.
"This administration has made it clear from the outset that members of al Qaeda and other terrorist groups do not necessarily enjoy the protections of the Geneva Conventions," a senior Justice Department official said. "Al Qaeda members and other foreign terrorists in Iraq illegally would not be entitled to the Geneva Convention protections. That's consistent with our opinion on Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan."
Never mind, if you must, that by any definition imaginable the "Multinational Force" in Iraq is comprised of "foreign terrorists".
What happened to all of the, "This is not America," whinging which accompanied the Abu Ghraib photos? What happened to the, "This shows the nature of the enemy we are fighting," hot air which accompanies each new beheading?
And just what is torturing "enemy combatants" supposed to achieve? We already know it's of no useful intelligence value. We can't but assume that it will make it that much more unlikely that any American soldiers or civilians caputed somewhere in the world will be treated humanely.
So, besides being antithetical to any sort of moral compulsion, what is the fucking point of it all? Pure racist sadism? Are Ashcroft and Rumsfeld jerking off to all the photos of naked A-rabs piled up in mounds? This is, really, the only explanation that makes any sort of sense.
U.S. officials have acknowledged some prisoners were moved out of Iraq but refused to say where they were taken.
Safely out of the Supreme Court's Guantanamo-seeing eyes, presumably.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 10:01 AM
| Comments (0)
"If Israel fires one missile at Bushehr atomic power plant, it should permanently forget about Dimona nuclear center, where it produces and keeps its nuclear weapons, and Israel would be responsible for the terrifying consequence of this move."
So said an Iranian General a few months ago.
But the Israelis are still planning to hit Iran:
Increasingly concerned about Iran's nuclear program, Israel is weighing its options on a military strike to prevent the Islamic republic from gaining the capability to build atomic weapons, according to policymakers, military officials, analysts and diplomats.
One of Ariel Sharon's advisers gives an indication of the timeline: "There may be a few months when the international community can still act and place upon Iran the kind of pressure that would compel it to stop its program. But there's not much time -- there's not much time."
Meanwhile, there are rumours flying to the effect that the United States will "strike at" (to use Bush's terminology) Iran in the week before the U.S. elections.
Either way (and surely, the October Surprise "option" seems highly unlikely), it's a recipe for disaster.
Israel's dismissal of the apparent double-standard vis a vis its own nuclear programme is predictably Orwellian:
Israeli officials insist that their country's presumed nuclear status enhances regional stability by serving as a deterrent but that Iran's possession of atomic weapons would almost certainly trigger an arms race with rival Muslim states.
No comment necessary. But already by the mid-'90s, the late Israeli dissident Professor Israel Shahak was warning that "Israeli intervention in the Gulf may lead to a war -- even a war in which nuclear weapons are used -- against Iran, from which untold calamities will ensue."
Now just how much safer can the Bush Administration and its allies make the world? Stay tuned...
October 25, 2004
How Many Seconds To Midnight?
"If Israel fires one missile at Bushehr atomic power plant, it should permanently forget about Dimona nuclear center, where it produces and keeps its nuclear weapons, and Israel would be responsible for the terrifying consequence of this move."
So said an Iranian General a few months ago.
But the Israelis are still planning to hit Iran:
Increasingly concerned about Iran's nuclear program, Israel is weighing its options on a military strike to prevent the Islamic republic from gaining the capability to build atomic weapons, according to policymakers, military officials, analysts and diplomats.
One of Ariel Sharon's advisers gives an indication of the timeline: "There may be a few months when the international community can still act and place upon Iran the kind of pressure that would compel it to stop its program. But there's not much time -- there's not much time."
Meanwhile, there are rumours flying to the effect that the United States will "strike at" (to use Bush's terminology) Iran in the week before the U.S. elections.
Either way (and surely, the October Surprise "option" seems highly unlikely), it's a recipe for disaster.
Israel's dismissal of the apparent double-standard vis a vis its own nuclear programme is predictably Orwellian:
Israeli officials insist that their country's presumed nuclear status enhances regional stability by serving as a deterrent but that Iran's possession of atomic weapons would almost certainly trigger an arms race with rival Muslim states.
No comment necessary. But already by the mid-'90s, the late Israeli dissident Professor Israel Shahak was warning that "Israeli intervention in the Gulf may lead to a war -- even a war in which nuclear weapons are used -- against Iran, from which untold calamities will ensue."
Now just how much safer can the Bush Administration and its allies make the world? Stay tuned...
Posted by Eddie Tews at 07:05 PM
| Comments (0)
Same country, two different worlds:
One of the basic mistakes the "Coalition" made was misdescribing those who decided to take up arms against the "Coalition" and now the current interim Iraqi government. The resistance is basically from groups that were marginalized and disenfranchised by the political process in Iraq when the United States decided to impose its exile friends from abroad without giving a role to ordinary Iraqis after liberation. -- Sharif Ali bin Hussein, heir to Iraq's long-deposed king
I don't think the resistance is spreading. There are a lot of places in Iraq that have bought into the political process. And they're participating. That's a form of nationalism also. I don't buy the idea that the resistance is nationalistic. Someone may jump up and attack and say that this is for Iraq. That doesn't make it so. -- U.S. Army Brig. Gen. John DeFreitas, deputy chief of staff for intelligence in Baghdad
We Had To "Cleanse" The City In Order To Save It
Same country, two different worlds:
One of the basic mistakes the "Coalition" made was misdescribing those who decided to take up arms against the "Coalition" and now the current interim Iraqi government. The resistance is basically from groups that were marginalized and disenfranchised by the political process in Iraq when the United States decided to impose its exile friends from abroad without giving a role to ordinary Iraqis after liberation. -- Sharif Ali bin Hussein, heir to Iraq's long-deposed king
I don't think the resistance is spreading. There are a lot of places in Iraq that have bought into the political process. And they're participating. That's a form of nationalism also. I don't buy the idea that the resistance is nationalistic. Someone may jump up and attack and say that this is for Iraq. That doesn't make it so. -- U.S. Army Brig. Gen. John DeFreitas, deputy chief of staff for intelligence in Baghdad
Posted by Eddie Tews at 06:10 PM
| Comments (1)
Another friend of Nick's was horrifically wounded when his Humvee stopped on an IED. He didn't even have time to instinctively raise his arm and protect his face. Shrapnel ripped through his right eye, obliterating it to gooey shreds, and penetrated his brain. He has been in a coma since March. His mother spends every day with him in the hospital; his wife is devastated, and their 1˝ year old daughter doesn't know her daddy. But my son's friend is a fighter and so is making steady, incremental progress toward consciousness. He has a long hard struggle ahead of him, one that he need never have faced -- and his family has had to fight every step of the way to get him the treatment he needs. So much for supporting the troops.
I go visit him every week and it breaks my heart to see the burned faces, the missing limbs, the limps, the vacant stares one encounters in an acute-care military hospital. In front of the hospital there is a cannon, and every afternoon they blast that sucker off. You should see all the poor guys hit the pavement. Though many requests have been made to discontinue the practice for the sake of the returning wounded, the general in charge refuses. Boom.
October 21, 2004
Quote Of The Moment #0078
Another friend of Nick's was horrifically wounded when his Humvee stopped on an IED. He didn't even have time to instinctively raise his arm and protect his face. Shrapnel ripped through his right eye, obliterating it to gooey shreds, and penetrated his brain. He has been in a coma since March. His mother spends every day with him in the hospital; his wife is devastated, and their 1˝ year old daughter doesn't know her daddy. But my son's friend is a fighter and so is making steady, incremental progress toward consciousness. He has a long hard struggle ahead of him, one that he need never have faced -- and his family has had to fight every step of the way to get him the treatment he needs. So much for supporting the troops.
I go visit him every week and it breaks my heart to see the burned faces, the missing limbs, the limps, the vacant stares one encounters in an acute-care military hospital. In front of the hospital there is a cannon, and every afternoon they blast that sucker off. You should see all the poor guys hit the pavement. Though many requests have been made to discontinue the practice for the sake of the returning wounded, the general in charge refuses. Boom.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 10:59 PM
| Comments (0)
It's the moment you've all been waiting for! It's Not Counting Niggers' official Presidential endorsement.
Even small policy differences, the argument goes, can have a drastic effect on people's lives. Ergo, though while it may help one feel more righteous, voting for a third-party candidate is actually pretty irresponsible. It's a compelling argument. But if one is to take that line, we must then determine which "evil" is the "lesser evil". So let's have a look.
As regards foreign policy, there doesn't appear to be any difference whatever. In fact, Kerry/Edwards have, if anything, staked out a position further to the right than the Bush Administration on the subjects of Palestinian rights ("[John Kerry's] Pro-Israel voting record is second to none," crows the Senator), and of the "Preemption Doctrine". At least the Bush Administration thinks the United States ought to lie about the "threat" posed by countries it wants to wipe off the map. Kerry just thinks wiping Third World countries off the map is the "right authority" for the President to have -- existential "threat" or no -- should the desire arise.
Kerry says he has a "plan" to bring the United States' traditional allies on board to help "win" the war in Iraq. This is highly doubtful, if we can believe statements to the contrary made by the Allies themselves. But to the extent that it is true, this is not good news for the Third World: an isolated, stalemated, bogged down U.S. military is far preferable, from the potential victims' standpoint, that a revitalised NATO rampaging throughout the Middle East and South America.
As regards domestic issues, Kerry is clearly less extreme than Bush (though his trumpeting, during the debates, of his role in the passing of Welfare Reform isn't exactly the stuff that dreams are made of). But simply saying so doesn't take into account the mitigating effect of domestic protest. This is the big X-factor, and while we can hope that self-identified liberals and progressives won't return to their Clinton-era quiescence, do we really have any reason to believe that it will be the case?
As it is, it took the Democrats to straight-arm Welfare Reform and NAFTA and GATT through the Congress. The late David Brower, the dean of the American environmental movement, stated in 1996 that the Clinton Administration's environmental record was worse than the Reagan-Bush record. The prison population skyrocketed during the Clinton years, while military spending remained anchored at 50% of the budget -- but the availability of abortion services and the percentage of unionized workers declined. The economic boom was built on a mirage of debt and speculation -- and at any rate, wages remained stagnant for all but the super-rich.
In short, the New Deal was under ferocious assault, yet barely a peep was heard.
Now then, not only is the Bush agenda running up against constraints imposed by resistance from abroad, at home, and, lately, in the judiciary; but the junta also appears to be unravelling from within.
Rare is the month that passes without a former member of either of the two Bush Administrations, a veteran of the intelligence services, or a military big-wig issuing a scathing denunciation -- often at book-length -- of the Bushoids. None of which, frankly, would have found purchase were the Iraqi Resistance not bollixing the "Multinational Force" ten ways from Sunday in the sands of Iraq. But it is, and so they have -- and now even the grunts on the ground are openly disobeying their superiors.
The upshot? A few months back, Capitol Hill Blue "revealed" what was perfectly obvious to anyone who's looked at a picture of him, or listened to him speak: the President is highly medicated. "President George W. Bush is taking powerful anti-depressant drugs to control his erratic behavior, depression, and paranoia," is how they put it. Regent Cheney, himself prone to outbursts (and severely delusional), is facing incoming fire over his Halliburton ties. Tom DeLay (a spawn every bit as malevolent as -- and possibly even more powerful than -- his brethren in the Executive Branch) is time and again being called out for his ethical improprieties. Colin Powell apparently wants nothing to do with a second Bush Administration -- and besides, everyone now knows he's a bald-faced liar. Ashcroft -- who couldn't even win elective office against a deceased opponent -- is probably the most despised man in the Administration. Rumsfeld's name has been forever besmirched. McClellan can't buy a vowell from the White House Press Corps.
And the wracking may be only just beginning. No American President since Eisenhower has completed a full eight-year Presidency without being waylaid by scandal during his second term. The opportunities for Bush to add another notch to this impressive record are many: the Valerie Plame case, Abu Ghraib, rigged voting machines, the Sibel Edmonds case, the Medicare Bill hijinks, Cheney's Energy Task Force, and others. A second Bush Administration could well be too busy putting out fires to be able to concentrate on destroying the world.
So in choosing a "lesser evil", we have to rely on speculation. How severely and how timely the Bush Administration meltdown? How crippling the inevitable scandals? How robust the opposition to Bush's, as opposed to Kerry's, policies? Reading these tea leaves is nothing like an exact science. But, sez here, a second Bush Administration is probably less damaging than a Kerry Administration.
Voting is no substitute for activism. And voting for the "lesser evil" may not, in the long run, be a very wise course of action. But if you are planning to cast a "lesser evil" vote, it probably should oughta be for The Superbrain.
October 20, 2004
Re-Select Dubya
It's the moment you've all been waiting for! It's Not Counting Niggers' official Presidential endorsement.
Even small policy differences, the argument goes, can have a drastic effect on people's lives. Ergo, though while it may help one feel more righteous, voting for a third-party candidate is actually pretty irresponsible. It's a compelling argument. But if one is to take that line, we must then determine which "evil" is the "lesser evil". So let's have a look.
As regards foreign policy, there doesn't appear to be any difference whatever. In fact, Kerry/Edwards have, if anything, staked out a position further to the right than the Bush Administration on the subjects of Palestinian rights ("[John Kerry's] Pro-Israel voting record is second to none," crows the Senator), and of the "Preemption Doctrine". At least the Bush Administration thinks the United States ought to lie about the "threat" posed by countries it wants to wipe off the map. Kerry just thinks wiping Third World countries off the map is the "right authority" for the President to have -- existential "threat" or no -- should the desire arise.
Kerry says he has a "plan" to bring the United States' traditional allies on board to help "win" the war in Iraq. This is highly doubtful, if we can believe statements to the contrary made by the Allies themselves. But to the extent that it is true, this is not good news for the Third World: an isolated, stalemated, bogged down U.S. military is far preferable, from the potential victims' standpoint, that a revitalised NATO rampaging throughout the Middle East and South America.
As regards domestic issues, Kerry is clearly less extreme than Bush (though his trumpeting, during the debates, of his role in the passing of Welfare Reform isn't exactly the stuff that dreams are made of). But simply saying so doesn't take into account the mitigating effect of domestic protest. This is the big X-factor, and while we can hope that self-identified liberals and progressives won't return to their Clinton-era quiescence, do we really have any reason to believe that it will be the case?
As it is, it took the Democrats to straight-arm Welfare Reform and NAFTA and GATT through the Congress. The late David Brower, the dean of the American environmental movement, stated in 1996 that the Clinton Administration's environmental record was worse than the Reagan-Bush record. The prison population skyrocketed during the Clinton years, while military spending remained anchored at 50% of the budget -- but the availability of abortion services and the percentage of unionized workers declined. The economic boom was built on a mirage of debt and speculation -- and at any rate, wages remained stagnant for all but the super-rich.
In short, the New Deal was under ferocious assault, yet barely a peep was heard.
Now then, not only is the Bush agenda running up against constraints imposed by resistance from abroad, at home, and, lately, in the judiciary; but the junta also appears to be unravelling from within.
Rare is the month that passes without a former member of either of the two Bush Administrations, a veteran of the intelligence services, or a military big-wig issuing a scathing denunciation -- often at book-length -- of the Bushoids. None of which, frankly, would have found purchase were the Iraqi Resistance not bollixing the "Multinational Force" ten ways from Sunday in the sands of Iraq. But it is, and so they have -- and now even the grunts on the ground are openly disobeying their superiors.
The upshot? A few months back, Capitol Hill Blue "revealed" what was perfectly obvious to anyone who's looked at a picture of him, or listened to him speak: the President is highly medicated. "President George W. Bush is taking powerful anti-depressant drugs to control his erratic behavior, depression, and paranoia," is how they put it. Regent Cheney, himself prone to outbursts (and severely delusional), is facing incoming fire over his Halliburton ties. Tom DeLay (a spawn every bit as malevolent as -- and possibly even more powerful than -- his brethren in the Executive Branch) is time and again being called out for his ethical improprieties. Colin Powell apparently wants nothing to do with a second Bush Administration -- and besides, everyone now knows he's a bald-faced liar. Ashcroft -- who couldn't even win elective office against a deceased opponent -- is probably the most despised man in the Administration. Rumsfeld's name has been forever besmirched. McClellan can't buy a vowell from the White House Press Corps.
And the wracking may be only just beginning. No American President since Eisenhower has completed a full eight-year Presidency without being waylaid by scandal during his second term. The opportunities for Bush to add another notch to this impressive record are many: the Valerie Plame case, Abu Ghraib, rigged voting machines, the Sibel Edmonds case, the Medicare Bill hijinks, Cheney's Energy Task Force, and others. A second Bush Administration could well be too busy putting out fires to be able to concentrate on destroying the world.
So in choosing a "lesser evil", we have to rely on speculation. How severely and how timely the Bush Administration meltdown? How crippling the inevitable scandals? How robust the opposition to Bush's, as opposed to Kerry's, policies? Reading these tea leaves is nothing like an exact science. But, sez here, a second Bush Administration is probably less damaging than a Kerry Administration.
Voting is no substitute for activism. And voting for the "lesser evil" may not, in the long run, be a very wise course of action. But if you are planning to cast a "lesser evil" vote, it probably should oughta be for The Superbrain.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 11:39 AM
| Comments (3)
October 18, 2004
Worth Thousands Of Words
Posted by Eddie Tews at 11:59 AM
| Comments (1)
Well, not quite yet. But while the story of the refusal of 17 soldiers in Iraq to carry out what they considered a "suicide mission" is spreading like a wildfire, most accounts have left out one soldier's mother's words that, "Her son e-mailed her earlier this week to ask what the penalty would be if he became physical with a commanding officer, she said."
As far as the disobedience itself is concerned, one soldier put the rationale as follows:
We had some contaminated fuel. We went out on this mission, and they turned us back, and our captain got mad and was gonna send us out on another mission. We refused to go because our vehicles were in awful shape. The place they wanted to send us was dangerous. We had to go without guns. All of us refused to go. We're not risking our lives like that. They had us in this tent, and they had guns pointed all around us, and the guns were loaded. We're not allowed to go nowhere.
So, what, again, is the logic of equating supporting the war with supporting the troops? This is not a rhetorical question. This blog is viewed by lots of people who disagree with its views -- if you're one, please do speak up regarding this issue.
October 17, 2004
And So The Fragging Begins
Well, not quite yet. But while the story of the refusal of 17 soldiers in Iraq to carry out what they considered a "suicide mission" is spreading like a wildfire, most accounts have left out one soldier's mother's words that, "Her son e-mailed her earlier this week to ask what the penalty would be if he became physical with a commanding officer, she said."
As far as the disobedience itself is concerned, one soldier put the rationale as follows:
We had some contaminated fuel. We went out on this mission, and they turned us back, and our captain got mad and was gonna send us out on another mission. We refused to go because our vehicles were in awful shape. The place they wanted to send us was dangerous. We had to go without guns. All of us refused to go. We're not risking our lives like that. They had us in this tent, and they had guns pointed all around us, and the guns were loaded. We're not allowed to go nowhere.
So, what, again, is the logic of equating supporting the war with supporting the troops? This is not a rhetorical question. This blog is viewed by lots of people who disagree with its views -- if you're one, please do speak up regarding this issue.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 10:51 AM
| Comments (2)
We have a fundamental difference of opinion. I think government-run health will lead to poor-quality health, will lead to rationing, will lead to less choice.
Once a health-care program ends up in a line item in the federal government budget, it leads to more controls.
And just look at other countries that have tried to have federally controlled health care. They have poor-quality health care.
Our health-care system is the envy of the world because we believe in making sure that the decisions are made by doctors and patients, not by officials in the nation's capital.
So said George Bush during the third and final Presidential debate.
Okay. But if that's your "opinion", how if we apply the same logic to, I dunno, say, warfare?
Rather than letting some fat-assed chicken-hawked "officials" in "the nation's capital" make military decisions, let those doing the work make such decisions.
More importantly, so long as we're "privatising" more and more of warfare's "services", how if we do it correctly -- according to market theory?
In other words, rather than taxpayers footing the bill for private companies' operations in-theater, let the companies themselves "assume the risk" of doing business. That's the miracle of the market, right?
Halliburton wants to go to war in Iraq? Good, let Halliburton buy the fucking military machinery and materiel at "market prices". Let Halliburton hire the entire necessary soldiery at "market prices". Let Halliburton pony up a coupla hundred billion dollars to carry out the war's operations. Let Halliburton pay for so-called "externalities" (e.g., cleaning up environmental side-affects of manufacturing weapons and of making war). Let Halliburton pay "market rates" for access to the public's airwaves, that it may demonise a hapless leader in order to find willing takers for its plan to devastate a defenceless citizenry.
Let Halliburton lobby the United Nations for permission to invade sovereign countries. Let Halliburton assemble a "coalition of the willing" -- willing individuals considering the job to be worth the pay, not national soldiers compelled to go fight and die even when their home government's participation in a "coalition" is opposed by 90% of its population. Let Halliburton's CEO stand trial for war crimes. Let Halliburton pay reparations to the aggrieved country.
Once Halliburton has done all of this -- and rebuilt the Iraqi oil sector with its own money; while successfully "pacifying" the ungrateful niggers it's "liberated" from their homes, schools, occupations, and lives -- then, sure, let Halliburton reap whatever profits remain to be taken out of the Iraqi "market".
It is, after all, the American Way™.
October 14, 2004
Go The Distance
We have a fundamental difference of opinion. I think government-run health will lead to poor-quality health, will lead to rationing, will lead to less choice.
Once a health-care program ends up in a line item in the federal government budget, it leads to more controls.
And just look at other countries that have tried to have federally controlled health care. They have poor-quality health care.
Our health-care system is the envy of the world because we believe in making sure that the decisions are made by doctors and patients, not by officials in the nation's capital.
So said George Bush during the third and final Presidential debate.
Okay. But if that's your "opinion", how if we apply the same logic to, I dunno, say, warfare?
Rather than letting some fat-assed chicken-hawked "officials" in "the nation's capital" make military decisions, let those doing the work make such decisions.
More importantly, so long as we're "privatising" more and more of warfare's "services", how if we do it correctly -- according to market theory?
In other words, rather than taxpayers footing the bill for private companies' operations in-theater, let the companies themselves "assume the risk" of doing business. That's the miracle of the market, right?
Halliburton wants to go to war in Iraq? Good, let Halliburton buy the fucking military machinery and materiel at "market prices". Let Halliburton hire the entire necessary soldiery at "market prices". Let Halliburton pony up a coupla hundred billion dollars to carry out the war's operations. Let Halliburton pay for so-called "externalities" (e.g., cleaning up environmental side-affects of manufacturing weapons and of making war). Let Halliburton pay "market rates" for access to the public's airwaves, that it may demonise a hapless leader in order to find willing takers for its plan to devastate a defenceless citizenry.
Let Halliburton lobby the United Nations for permission to invade sovereign countries. Let Halliburton assemble a "coalition of the willing" -- willing individuals considering the job to be worth the pay, not national soldiers compelled to go fight and die even when their home government's participation in a "coalition" is opposed by 90% of its population. Let Halliburton's CEO stand trial for war crimes. Let Halliburton pay reparations to the aggrieved country.
Once Halliburton has done all of this -- and rebuilt the Iraqi oil sector with its own money; while successfully "pacifying" the ungrateful niggers it's "liberated" from their homes, schools, occupations, and lives -- then, sure, let Halliburton reap whatever profits remain to be taken out of the Iraqi "market".
It is, after all, the American Way™.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 05:55 PM
| Comments (0)
A combined force of 800 U.S. soldiers and Iraqi security forces launched simultaneous raids yesterday near Baqouba, about 35 miles northeast of the capital.
"We're expecting a bit of an increase in activity in Ramadan. So we're just trying to clean the area out as a preventive measure," said Capt. Marshall Jackson, spokesman for the Army's 1st Infantry Division, responsible for the Baqouba region.
Yeah, see, they're fine with the current level of "activity"; which is why there haven't been any attempts before now to "clean the area out", or to "remind the town that we have teeth and claws and we will use them", or to "pacify" certain cities, or conduct "precision strikes", or any suchlike. But, a "bit of an increase" in "activity", well, we can't have that.
Good Point
A combined force of 800 U.S. soldiers and Iraqi security forces launched simultaneous raids yesterday near Baqouba, about 35 miles northeast of the capital.
"We're expecting a bit of an increase in activity in Ramadan. So we're just trying to clean the area out as a preventive measure," said Capt. Marshall Jackson, spokesman for the Army's 1st Infantry Division, responsible for the Baqouba region.
Yeah, see, they're fine with the current level of "activity"; which is why there haven't been any attempts before now to "clean the area out", or to "remind the town that we have teeth and claws and we will use them", or to "pacify" certain cities, or conduct "precision strikes", or any suchlike. But, a "bit of an increase" in "activity", well, we can't have that.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 05:22 PM
| Comments (0)
Two California National Guard soldiers have filed suits that contend the military's controversial "stop-loss" program to involuntarily extend enlistments is illegal when applied to National Guard soldiers, about 40,000 of whom are deployed in the U.S. occupation of Iraq. [...]
Lt. Col. Michael Jones, chief of recruiting and retention at National Guard headquarters in Washington, said the two soldiers represent the views of a tiny minority of those whose terms of service have been involuntarily extended.
"It is only two individuals out of 200,000 who are taking this action," said Jones, who also said he doubted any veteran soldiers would be surprised or caught off-guard by the involuntary call to duty.
"It's like a doctor who smokes and later claims that he didn't know that cigarettes cause cancer," Jones said. "Every veteran knows he faces possible active duty."
Very charming (even if he doesn't, apparently, understand the difference between an initial "call to duty" and "stop-loss" extensions of tours of duty).
But it'd be easy enough to determine how "tiny" the "minority" is: make tour extensions completely voluntary.
This might be especially appropriate given Dubya's insistent manner during the St. Louis debate:
I hear there's rumors on the Internets [sic] that we're going to have a draft. We're not going to have a draft, period. The all-volunteer army works.
* * *
Do you believe homosexuality is a choice?
BUSH: You know, Bob, I don't know. I just don't know.
One way for him to find out: ask homosexuals themselves whether or not it's a choice. But, uh, you'd kinda have to be a rocket scientist to come to that realisation.
October 13, 2004
One Way To Find Out
Two California National Guard soldiers have filed suits that contend the military's controversial "stop-loss" program to involuntarily extend enlistments is illegal when applied to National Guard soldiers, about 40,000 of whom are deployed in the U.S. occupation of Iraq. [...]
Lt. Col. Michael Jones, chief of recruiting and retention at National Guard headquarters in Washington, said the two soldiers represent the views of a tiny minority of those whose terms of service have been involuntarily extended.
"It is only two individuals out of 200,000 who are taking this action," said Jones, who also said he doubted any veteran soldiers would be surprised or caught off-guard by the involuntary call to duty.
"It's like a doctor who smokes and later claims that he didn't know that cigarettes cause cancer," Jones said. "Every veteran knows he faces possible active duty."
Very charming (even if he doesn't, apparently, understand the difference between an initial "call to duty" and "stop-loss" extensions of tours of duty).
But it'd be easy enough to determine how "tiny" the "minority" is: make tour extensions completely voluntary.
This might be especially appropriate given Dubya's insistent manner during the St. Louis debate:
I hear there's rumors on the Internets [sic] that we're going to have a draft. We're not going to have a draft, period. The all-volunteer army works.
Do you believe homosexuality is a choice?
BUSH: You know, Bob, I don't know. I just don't know.
One way for him to find out: ask homosexuals themselves whether or not it's a choice. But, uh, you'd kinda have to be a rocket scientist to come to that realisation.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 03:43 PM
| Comments (0)
With a weak back-to-school season behind them, the nation's retailers are focused on the holidays and what steps they need to take to get consumers excited about shopping again.
Maybe they should stage another terrorist attack. Who can ever forget the excitement-for-shopping generated by the 9/11 attacks?
Are You Excitable?
With a weak back-to-school season behind them, the nation's retailers are focused on the holidays and what steps they need to take to get consumers excited about shopping again.
Maybe they should stage another terrorist attack. Who can ever forget the excitement-for-shopping generated by the 9/11 attacks?
Posted by Eddie Tews at 03:34 PM
| Comments (0)
You know, Josh Burkeen is our rep down here in the southeast area. ... He was telling me lesbianism is so rampant in some of the schools in southeast Oklahoma that they'll only let one girl go to the bathroom. Now think about it. Think about that issue. How is it that that's happened to us? -- Tom Coburn, Oklahoma Republican Senate candidate
Quote Of The Moment #0077
You know, Josh Burkeen is our rep down here in the southeast area. ... He was telling me lesbianism is so rampant in some of the schools in southeast Oklahoma that they'll only let one girl go to the bathroom. Now think about it. Think about that issue. How is it that that's happened to us? -- Tom Coburn, Oklahoma Republican Senate candidate
Posted by Eddie Tews at 12:24 PM
| Comments (0)
"I don't see how you can lead this country in a time of war, in a time of uncertainty, if you change your mind because of politics." -- George W. Bush, during last week's debate
But:
The Bush administration plans to delay major assaults on rebel-held cities in Iraq until after U.S. elections in November, say administration officials, mindful that large-scale military offensives could affect the U.S. presidential race.
Although American commanders in Iraq have been buoyed by recent successes in insurgent-held towns such as Samarra and Tall Afar, administration and Pentagon officials say they will not try to retake cities such as Fallouja and Ramadi -- where the insurgents' grip is strongest and U.S. military casualties could be the highest -- until after Americans vote in what is likely to be an extremely close election.
"When this election's over, you'll see us move very vigorously," said one senior administration official involved in strategic planning, speaking on condition of anonymity.
"Once you're past the election, it changes the political ramifications" of a large-scale offensive, the official said. "We're not on hold right now. We're just not as aggressive."
October 12, 2004
Do As He Says, Not As He Does
"I don't see how you can lead this country in a time of war, in a time of uncertainty, if you change your mind because of politics." -- George W. Bush, during last week's debate
But:
The Bush administration plans to delay major assaults on rebel-held cities in Iraq until after U.S. elections in November, say administration officials, mindful that large-scale military offensives could affect the U.S. presidential race.
Although American commanders in Iraq have been buoyed by recent successes in insurgent-held towns such as Samarra and Tall Afar, administration and Pentagon officials say they will not try to retake cities such as Fallouja and Ramadi -- where the insurgents' grip is strongest and U.S. military casualties could be the highest -- until after Americans vote in what is likely to be an extremely close election.
"When this election's over, you'll see us move very vigorously," said one senior administration official involved in strategic planning, speaking on condition of anonymity.
"Once you're past the election, it changes the political ramifications" of a large-scale offensive, the official said. "We're not on hold right now. We're just not as aggressive."
Posted by Eddie Tews at 01:17 PM
| Comments (0)
Let's start off with the obligatory proviso, when discussing Saddam's weapons programmes, that even if Saddam had maintained WMD stocks, facilities, and programmes up until the Spring of 2003 -- which the Bush Administration knew full well, before the invasion, was not the case -- it would not have justified the Administration's brutally barbaric attack upon the country's population and infrastructure (including with its own banned weapons -- Depleted Uranium, Cluster Bombs, and Napalm).
That out of the way, we can get down to cases.
About a year ago, we were afforded a hearty chortle when, in an attempt at explaining away the dearth of WMD in Iraq, we were told that Saddam had "put in place a double-deception program aimed at convincing the world and his own people that he was more of a threat than he actually was."
The point of the "double-deception", we were told, was to deter an attack from the United States. The "bluff" was so elaborate, we were told, that Saddam had even issued "pre-war...communications collected by U.S. intelligence agencies indicating that Iraqi commanders...were given the authority to launch weapons of mass destruction against U.S. troops as they advanced north from Kuwait."
Saddam, we were told, "may have misled the world", and "is thought to have...made ambiguous statements about his WMD programme as an elaborate bluff that backfired." [Emphases added.] No examples of these misleading and/or ambiguous statements were offered.
Fast-forward to today, and the release of the final status report acknowledging once and for all what Iraqi defectors and UN Inspectors had been telling us for some years -- Saddam abandoned his WMD programmes in the early '90s.
But, what about Colin Powell's fabulous presentation? What about the absolute certainty -- not only of the weapons' existence, but of their quantities and locations -- of the Bush Administration? Never mind that.
As he was a year ago, sneaky Saddam is to blame -- for pulling the wool over the world's eyes, "deceiving" us into "believing" that he was sitting on his massive pile of WMD. But now we are told that his deceptions weren't in attempt to deter a U.S. invasion, but rather to deter an Iranian invasion. (Either way, notice how we're now told that his supposed weapons would only have been used for deterrence?) And instead of intercepted communications, we now have knowledge of Saddam's "deceptions" thanks to interrogations of Saddam and his top commanders.
While "the report does not state explicitly whether Saddam himself has acknowledged that he engaged in a deception operation about these weapons before the war," we are now told (by the New York Times and Los Angeles Times respectively) that Saddam "hid behind ambiguities and evasions about whether Iraq possessed unconventional weapons," and that, "Although Saddam often denied U.S. assertions that he possessed WMD in defiance of UN resolutions, for years he also persisted in making cryptic public statements to perpetuate the myth that he possessed the banned weapons."
Alas, just like last year, no examples are given. So here's a request to everybody out there in readerland: If you know of any examples of Saddam's "double-deceptions" and "bluffing" (including especially any cited in the 1,000 page Duelfer report, which yours truly has not yet had time to peruse), could you pretty please with sugar on top link them up using the comments form? Would also like to see some evidence -- or even any speculation, prior to today -- that Saddam was in any way worried about an Iranian invasion.
This smells as ratty now as it did last year.
Speaking of stinking, the LA Times asks, unironically: "If Saddam understood he had no stockpiles of chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons; why did he limit the activities of the United Nations inside Iraq, violate UN Security Council resolutions, and defy the outside world?" Surely the LA Times (as well as its mainstream media kinfolk) are by now well aware that, as Glen Rangwala put it in 2002:
In its October 1997 report, UNSCOM stated that "the majority of [weapons] inspections were conducted in Iraq without let or hindrance." (Annex I, para. 33.) Even up to its final inspection report on 15 December 1998, UNSCOM was recording how "the majority of the inspections of facilities and sites under the ongoing monitoring system were carried out with Iraq's cooperation." Non-cooperation was recorded in only 5 out of 427 inspections in the round before inspectors were withdrawn on the request of the US; those 5 instances resulted in minor delays, not inspection refusals.
So enough of the "Saddam wouldn't let us in" crap, okay? And, you know, given that it's now been proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that Saddam's WMD were destroyed shortly after the first Gulf War, enough of the "he repeatedly violated Security Council Resolutions ordering him to disarm" crap, too. Okay?
Similarly, we are solemnly told that:
On the one hand, Duelfer says, Saddam recognized the need to disarm to achieve relief from UN sanctions. On the other, he felt the need to retain such weapons as a deterrent.
"The regime never resolved the contradiction inherent in this approach," Duelfer says.
Uh, he "never resolved" the "contradiction"? How about, he abandoned his WMD programmes in the early '90s, and never attempted to re-start them -- even though "relief from UN sanctions" was not forthcoming? Even after the United States was caught using UNSCOM to help spy on the regime. Even after the Americans ordered inspectors withdrawn and started bombing. Looks pretty "resolute" from this angle.
Moving on to His Highness. Dubya's reaction to the report is as follows:
The Duelfer report showed that Saddam was systematically gaming the system, using the UN oil for food program to try to influence countries and companies in an effort to undermine sanctions. He was doing so with the intent of restarting his weapons program once the world looked away.
Is this the best you can do, George? We're supposed to believe that, even if the sanctions (which would have been lifted in 1998 had the Clinton Administration not chosen to play political games with Iraqis' lives) had collapsed as the French and the Russians salivated over securing business in Iraq's oil sector, the world would have "looked away"? That the United States would not have maintained its illegal, unilateral "no-fly zones" and several-times-weekly bombing runs? That periodic inspections -- and the spectre of renewed sanctions -- could not have been continued indefinitely? (Not saying that the shrill attention paid to Saddam's supposed WMD arsenal while ignoring all others' wasn't supremely hypocritical. Just that Saddam's "systematic gaming" of "the system" could easily have been subverted, even had sanctions been lifted.) Update, 10/25/04: The UN itself is now taking the piss out of the Bush Administration and the Duelfer Report over this very issue.
Saddam has plenty of crimes to be held answerable for. But these do not include maintaining his WMD programmes after the first Gulf War; nor, finally, restricting access in violation of Security Council Resolutions; nor making attempts at various sorts of "deceptions", "double-deceptions", and "bluffs".
UN inspectors, Iraqi defectors, and Saddam himself told us many times over that the weapons were long gone. The deceivers are those who, armed with this knowledge, chose to lie about it.
These deceivers have plenty of crimes to answer for as well, and it's long past time the mainstream media began making this case.
What you can do: Find examples of Saddam's "ambiguous" and "cryptic" statements regarding his WMD programmes! If none can be found, e-mail the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times, demanding that they either provide examples of such statements from their archives, or issue retractions of their ass-kissing regurgitations of State Propaganda.
Update, 10/10/04: Time magazine has jumped onboard as well:
Saddam Hussein showed himself to be a master practitioner of the big bluff. Everyone outside Iraq [sic] and just about everyone inside believed that he harbored a secret stockpile of weapons of mass destruction. So imagine the shock his generals received in late 2002 when U.S. forces were massing on the country's borders for an imminent invasion, and Saddam suddenly informed them that Iraq had no biological or chemical or nuclear weapons at all. ... The dictator's cunning policy of deception had deceived the wrong side. [...]
The greatest mystery, though, was his long game of deception: if Saddam had destroyed his WMD to escape from sanctions, why did he work so hard from 1991 until he was overthrown in 2003 to perpetuate the belief he still had them?
Again, not a single example of Saddam's "big bluffs" or "long game of deception" is offered. And, uh, "everyone outside Iraq"? Is that why 90% of the World's population opposed the war?
Update, 10/12/04: The Los Angeles Times isn't finished yet:
The former official admitted that the CIA never understood that Saddam was bluffing about his long-abandoned weapons chiefly to deter neighboring Iran, Iraq's longtime enemy.
Yet a few paragraphs later, David Kay is quoted thusly:
[Tariq Aziz] said every time they raised it with Saddam, he said 'Don't worry about Iran because if it turns out to be what we think, the Israelis or the Americans will take care of them.' In other words, he was relying on us to deal with his enemy.
Moving along:
In the end, Saddam's bluff backfired. And Washington's failure to read the bluff has had a huge impact on both countries.
Saddam's mistake "was one of the more monumental miscalculations of history," the former official said. "Even larger than ours of not understanding what he was doing. ... We're used to people going out of their way to pretend they don't have bad stuff. But we hadn't before encountered someone who went out of his way to pretend he did. I know he said he didn't [have banned weapons], but all his actions said he did."
Got that? Five days ago, we were told that Saddam had "persisted in making cryptic public statements to perpetuate the myth that he possessed the banned weapons." Today, we're told that it was his actions that "said he did" have them.
You know, like, agreeing to allow UN inspectors back into the country, with unlimited access. Like compiling, in just a few weeks' time, the 12,000-page accounting of his weapons programmes (which was then promptly stolen by the United States, "on grounds that Washington had the best photocopying capabilities"). Like agreeing to the destruction of the Al Samoud missiles.
Well, those weren't among the LA Times' examples. Uh, oh yeah...the Times didn't give any examples of Saddam's evasive "actions", just as it hadn't given any examples of his "cryptic public statements".
October 07, 2004
Back To Fantasyland
Let's start off with the obligatory proviso, when discussing Saddam's weapons programmes, that even if Saddam had maintained WMD stocks, facilities, and programmes up until the Spring of 2003 -- which the Bush Administration knew full well, before the invasion, was not the case -- it would not have justified the Administration's brutally barbaric attack upon the country's population and infrastructure (including with its own banned weapons -- Depleted Uranium, Cluster Bombs, and Napalm).
That out of the way, we can get down to cases.
About a year ago, we were afforded a hearty chortle when, in an attempt at explaining away the dearth of WMD in Iraq, we were told that Saddam had "put in place a double-deception program aimed at convincing the world and his own people that he was more of a threat than he actually was."
The point of the "double-deception", we were told, was to deter an attack from the United States. The "bluff" was so elaborate, we were told, that Saddam had even issued "pre-war...communications collected by U.S. intelligence agencies indicating that Iraqi commanders...were given the authority to launch weapons of mass destruction against U.S. troops as they advanced north from Kuwait."
Saddam, we were told, "may have misled the world", and "is thought to have...made ambiguous statements about his WMD programme as an elaborate bluff that backfired." [Emphases added.] No examples of these misleading and/or ambiguous statements were offered.
Fast-forward to today, and the release of the final status report acknowledging once and for all what Iraqi defectors and UN Inspectors had been telling us for some years -- Saddam abandoned his WMD programmes in the early '90s.
But, what about Colin Powell's fabulous presentation? What about the absolute certainty -- not only of the weapons' existence, but of their quantities and locations -- of the Bush Administration? Never mind that.
As he was a year ago, sneaky Saddam is to blame -- for pulling the wool over the world's eyes, "deceiving" us into "believing" that he was sitting on his massive pile of WMD. But now we are told that his deceptions weren't in attempt to deter a U.S. invasion, but rather to deter an Iranian invasion. (Either way, notice how we're now told that his supposed weapons would only have been used for deterrence?) And instead of intercepted communications, we now have knowledge of Saddam's "deceptions" thanks to interrogations of Saddam and his top commanders.
While "the report does not state explicitly whether Saddam himself has acknowledged that he engaged in a deception operation about these weapons before the war," we are now told (by the New York Times and Los Angeles Times respectively) that Saddam "hid behind ambiguities and evasions about whether Iraq possessed unconventional weapons," and that, "Although Saddam often denied U.S. assertions that he possessed WMD in defiance of UN resolutions, for years he also persisted in making cryptic public statements to perpetuate the myth that he possessed the banned weapons."
Alas, just like last year, no examples are given. So here's a request to everybody out there in readerland: If you know of any examples of Saddam's "double-deceptions" and "bluffing" (including especially any cited in the 1,000 page Duelfer report, which yours truly has not yet had time to peruse), could you pretty please with sugar on top link them up using the comments form? Would also like to see some evidence -- or even any speculation, prior to today -- that Saddam was in any way worried about an Iranian invasion.
This smells as ratty now as it did last year.
Speaking of stinking, the LA Times asks, unironically: "If Saddam understood he had no stockpiles of chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons; why did he limit the activities of the United Nations inside Iraq, violate UN Security Council resolutions, and defy the outside world?" Surely the LA Times (as well as its mainstream media kinfolk) are by now well aware that, as Glen Rangwala put it in 2002:
In its October 1997 report, UNSCOM stated that "the majority of [weapons] inspections were conducted in Iraq without let or hindrance." (Annex I, para. 33.) Even up to its final inspection report on 15 December 1998, UNSCOM was recording how "the majority of the inspections of facilities and sites under the ongoing monitoring system were carried out with Iraq's cooperation." Non-cooperation was recorded in only 5 out of 427 inspections in the round before inspectors were withdrawn on the request of the US; those 5 instances resulted in minor delays, not inspection refusals.
So enough of the "Saddam wouldn't let us in" crap, okay? And, you know, given that it's now been proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that Saddam's WMD were destroyed shortly after the first Gulf War, enough of the "he repeatedly violated Security Council Resolutions ordering him to disarm" crap, too. Okay?
Similarly, we are solemnly told that:
On the one hand, Duelfer says, Saddam recognized the need to disarm to achieve relief from UN sanctions. On the other, he felt the need to retain such weapons as a deterrent.
"The regime never resolved the contradiction inherent in this approach," Duelfer says.
Uh, he "never resolved" the "contradiction"? How about, he abandoned his WMD programmes in the early '90s, and never attempted to re-start them -- even though "relief from UN sanctions" was not forthcoming? Even after the United States was caught using UNSCOM to help spy on the regime. Even after the Americans ordered inspectors withdrawn and started bombing. Looks pretty "resolute" from this angle.
Moving on to His Highness. Dubya's reaction to the report is as follows:
The Duelfer report showed that Saddam was systematically gaming the system, using the UN oil for food program to try to influence countries and companies in an effort to undermine sanctions. He was doing so with the intent of restarting his weapons program once the world looked away.
Is this the best you can do, George? We're supposed to believe that, even if the sanctions (which would have been lifted in 1998 had the Clinton Administration not chosen to play political games with Iraqis' lives) had collapsed as the French and the Russians salivated over securing business in Iraq's oil sector, the world would have "looked away"? That the United States would not have maintained its illegal, unilateral "no-fly zones" and several-times-weekly bombing runs? That periodic inspections -- and the spectre of renewed sanctions -- could not have been continued indefinitely? (Not saying that the shrill attention paid to Saddam's supposed WMD arsenal while ignoring all others' wasn't supremely hypocritical. Just that Saddam's "systematic gaming" of "the system" could easily have been subverted, even had sanctions been lifted.) Update, 10/25/04: The UN itself is now taking the piss out of the Bush Administration and the Duelfer Report over this very issue.
Saddam has plenty of crimes to be held answerable for. But these do not include maintaining his WMD programmes after the first Gulf War; nor, finally, restricting access in violation of Security Council Resolutions; nor making attempts at various sorts of "deceptions", "double-deceptions", and "bluffs".
UN inspectors, Iraqi defectors, and Saddam himself told us many times over that the weapons were long gone. The deceivers are those who, armed with this knowledge, chose to lie about it.
These deceivers have plenty of crimes to answer for as well, and it's long past time the mainstream media began making this case.
What you can do: Find examples of Saddam's "ambiguous" and "cryptic" statements regarding his WMD programmes! If none can be found, e-mail the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times, demanding that they either provide examples of such statements from their archives, or issue retractions of their ass-kissing regurgitations of State Propaganda.
Update, 10/10/04: Time magazine has jumped onboard as well:
Saddam Hussein showed himself to be a master practitioner of the big bluff. Everyone outside Iraq [sic] and just about everyone inside believed that he harbored a secret stockpile of weapons of mass destruction. So imagine the shock his generals received in late 2002 when U.S. forces were massing on the country's borders for an imminent invasion, and Saddam suddenly informed them that Iraq had no biological or chemical or nuclear weapons at all. ... The dictator's cunning policy of deception had deceived the wrong side. [...]
The greatest mystery, though, was his long game of deception: if Saddam had destroyed his WMD to escape from sanctions, why did he work so hard from 1991 until he was overthrown in 2003 to perpetuate the belief he still had them?
Again, not a single example of Saddam's "big bluffs" or "long game of deception" is offered. And, uh, "everyone outside Iraq"? Is that why 90% of the World's population opposed the war?
Update, 10/12/04: The Los Angeles Times isn't finished yet:
The former official admitted that the CIA never understood that Saddam was bluffing about his long-abandoned weapons chiefly to deter neighboring Iran, Iraq's longtime enemy.
Yet a few paragraphs later, David Kay is quoted thusly:
[Tariq Aziz] said every time they raised it with Saddam, he said 'Don't worry about Iran because if it turns out to be what we think, the Israelis or the Americans will take care of them.' In other words, he was relying on us to deal with his enemy.
Moving along:
In the end, Saddam's bluff backfired. And Washington's failure to read the bluff has had a huge impact on both countries.
Saddam's mistake "was one of the more monumental miscalculations of history," the former official said. "Even larger than ours of not understanding what he was doing. ... We're used to people going out of their way to pretend they don't have bad stuff. But we hadn't before encountered someone who went out of his way to pretend he did. I know he said he didn't [have banned weapons], but all his actions said he did."
Got that? Five days ago, we were told that Saddam had "persisted in making cryptic public statements to perpetuate the myth that he possessed the banned weapons." Today, we're told that it was his actions that "said he did" have them.
You know, like, agreeing to allow UN inspectors back into the country, with unlimited access. Like compiling, in just a few weeks' time, the 12,000-page accounting of his weapons programmes (which was then promptly stolen by the United States, "on grounds that Washington had the best photocopying capabilities"). Like agreeing to the destruction of the Al Samoud missiles.
Well, those weren't among the LA Times' examples. Uh, oh yeah...the Times didn't give any examples of Saddam's evasive "actions", just as it hadn't given any examples of his "cryptic public statements".
Posted by Eddie Tews at 05:38 PM
| Comments (0)
Seeing dead bodies for the first time. People blown in half. Little kids with no legs. It was overwhelming, the sights, sounds, fear. I was over there from Jan'03 to Aug'03. I hated every minute. It was a daily battle to keep my spirits up. I hate the army and my job. I am supposed to get out next February but will now be unable to because the asshole in the White House decided that now would be a great time to put a stop-loss in effect for the army. So I get to do a second tour in Iraq and be away from those I love again because some guy has the audacity to put others' lives on the line for his personal war.
October 06, 2004
Quote Of The Moment #0076
Seeing dead bodies for the first time. People blown in half. Little kids with no legs. It was overwhelming, the sights, sounds, fear. I was over there from Jan'03 to Aug'03. I hated every minute. It was a daily battle to keep my spirits up. I hate the army and my job. I am supposed to get out next February but will now be unable to because the asshole in the White House decided that now would be a great time to put a stop-loss in effect for the army. So I get to do a second tour in Iraq and be away from those I love again because some guy has the audacity to put others' lives on the line for his personal war.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 04:31 PM
| Comments (0)
AT&T is testing Linux software as a replacement for Microsoft's Windows operating system, which runs the 70,000 personal computers used by its employees. [...]
Microsoft, which is growing more slowly than Linux in the market for server computers, is now under pressure in personal computers, where it has a 95 percent market share. [...]
"It translates into pricing pressure" on Microsoft, said Brendan Barnicle, an analyst at Pacific Crest Securities in Portland who owns Microsoft shares and rates them "outperform". Microsoft gets about 80 percent profit on each Windows PC sale. [Emphases added.]
Gee, there's nothing like a 95 percent market share to allow free rein to price your product highly enough to gain 80 percent profit. Meanwhile, Microsoft is leaning on its home state to come through with all manner of Microsoft-friendly (but taxpayer-unfriendly) nuggets.
"If you don't want to create jobs or intellectual property, then there is a tendency to develop open source," sez Chairman Bill. He failed to add that if you want to violate Free Market principles left and right, you tend to develop a state-sponsored monopoly.
Free Market Miracle #0008
AT&T is testing Linux software as a replacement for Microsoft's Windows operating system, which runs the 70,000 personal computers used by its employees. [...]
Microsoft, which is growing more slowly than Linux in the market for server computers, is now under pressure in personal computers, where it has a 95 percent market share. [...]
"It translates into pricing pressure" on Microsoft, said Brendan Barnicle, an analyst at Pacific Crest Securities in Portland who owns Microsoft shares and rates them "outperform". Microsoft gets about 80 percent profit on each Windows PC sale. [Emphases added.]
Gee, there's nothing like a 95 percent market share to allow free rein to price your product highly enough to gain 80 percent profit. Meanwhile, Microsoft is leaning on its home state to come through with all manner of Microsoft-friendly (but taxpayer-unfriendly) nuggets.
"If you don't want to create jobs or intellectual property, then there is a tendency to develop open source," sez Chairman Bill. He failed to add that if you want to violate Free Market principles left and right, you tend to develop a state-sponsored monopoly.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 04:29 PM
| Comments (0)
Boeing and Airbus would probably see their state aid ruled illegal under global subsidy rules should the U.S. press ahead with a complaint at the World Trade Organization (WTO), a European Commission memo says.
WTO litigation may bring "mutually assured embarrassment", says the memo obtained by Bloomberg News that details a meeting with the U.S. on Sept. 16. It's "possible, perhaps likely, that [a WTO] panel may find that they both received WTO-incompatible subsidies" and "both have sinned and should stop".
We've covered this ground before. But the idea that state intervention in the economy is a "sin" is an interesting take on it. Here's more:
"Everybody in this is a sinner and has a long record of sinning, " said Konstantinos Adamantopoulos, a trade lawyer with Hammonds in Brussels. "If both are right, then they'd both see their forms of subsidy disappear."
By "everybody", of course, he means Boeing and Airbus, though taken literally, his statement is more less as accurate.
"Free Market" Capitalism does not work (on its own sick terms, viz., creating and sustaining profits for big business) and never has. Industries become and remain profitable only by constantly relying on the public dime (not only for subsidies and bailouts; but also imperialism, rigged "free trade" pacts, research and development, "intellectual property" laws and property "rights" laws and resource allocation generally, and so forth).
So if industries and their home governments would stop "sinning", then the global economy would collapse, and quickly.
The real sins -- apart from the "original sin" of Capitalism itself -- are that taxpayers have almost zero input into how their tax dollars are spent; and that, while the G-8 economies "sin" like they breathe, the Third World is decimated by IMF-mandated austerity programmes dreamt up by "free market" fundamentalists.
Free Market Miracle #0007
Boeing and Airbus would probably see their state aid ruled illegal under global subsidy rules should the U.S. press ahead with a complaint at the World Trade Organization (WTO), a European Commission memo says.
WTO litigation may bring "mutually assured embarrassment", says the memo obtained by Bloomberg News that details a meeting with the U.S. on Sept. 16. It's "possible, perhaps likely, that [a WTO] panel may find that they both received WTO-incompatible subsidies" and "both have sinned and should stop".
We've covered this ground before. But the idea that state intervention in the economy is a "sin" is an interesting take on it. Here's more:
"Everybody in this is a sinner and has a long record of sinning, " said Konstantinos Adamantopoulos, a trade lawyer with Hammonds in Brussels. "If both are right, then they'd both see their forms of subsidy disappear."
By "everybody", of course, he means Boeing and Airbus, though taken literally, his statement is more less as accurate.
"Free Market" Capitalism does not work (on its own sick terms, viz., creating and sustaining profits for big business) and never has. Industries become and remain profitable only by constantly relying on the public dime (not only for subsidies and bailouts; but also imperialism, rigged "free trade" pacts, research and development, "intellectual property" laws and property "rights" laws and resource allocation generally, and so forth).
So if industries and their home governments would stop "sinning", then the global economy would collapse, and quickly.
The real sins -- apart from the "original sin" of Capitalism itself -- are that taxpayers have almost zero input into how their tax dollars are spent; and that, while the G-8 economies "sin" like they breathe, the Third World is decimated by IMF-mandated austerity programmes dreamt up by "free market" fundamentalists.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 04:16 PM
| Comments (0)
...on the George Bush Presidency.
Last year, Michael Moore closed his Oscar acceptance speech by taunting the Dubya that, "any time you've got the Pope and the Dixie Chicks against you, your time is up."
How if you've got George Will and Thomas Friedman against you?
First, Will cautioned that the occupation of Iraq is likely to "swiftly become untenable", and that an "Iraqi version" of the Tet Offensive is in the offing.
Now, Friedman returns from sabbatical to excoriate the Bush Administration's handling of the occupation:
...each time the Bush team had to choose between doing the right thing in the war on terrorism or siding with its political base and ideology, it chose its base and ideology. More troops or radically lower taxes? Lower taxes. Fire an evangelical Christian U.S. general who smears Islam in a speech while wearing the uniform of the U.S. Army or not fire him so as not to anger the Christian right? Don't fire him. Apologize to the UN for not finding the WMD, and then make the case for why our allies should still join us in Iraq to establish a decent government there? Don't apologize -- for anything -- because Karl Rove says the "base" won't like it. Impose a "Patriot Tax" of 50 cents a gallon on gasoline to help pay for the war, shrink the deficit and reduce the amount of oil we consume so we send less money to Saudi Arabia? Never. Just tell Americans to go on guzzling. Fire the secretary of defense for the abuses at Abu Ghraib, to show the world how seriously we take this outrage -- or do nothing? Do nothing. Firing Mr. Rumsfeld might upset conservatives. Listen to the CIA? Only when it can confirm your ideology. When it disagrees -- impugn it or ignore it.
Friedman isn't exactly turning over an anti-interventionist leaf here. But at least he's got eyes to see with, which is a lot more than you can say for a too great many imperial apologists.
Methinks George is in trouble.
October 04, 2004
The Clock Is Ticking...
...on the George Bush Presidency.
Last year, Michael Moore closed his Oscar acceptance speech by taunting the Dubya that, "any time you've got the Pope and the Dixie Chicks against you, your time is up."
How if you've got George Will and Thomas Friedman against you?
First, Will cautioned that the occupation of Iraq is likely to "swiftly become untenable", and that an "Iraqi version" of the Tet Offensive is in the offing.
Now, Friedman returns from sabbatical to excoriate the Bush Administration's handling of the occupation:
...each time the Bush team had to choose between doing the right thing in the war on terrorism or siding with its political base and ideology, it chose its base and ideology. More troops or radically lower taxes? Lower taxes. Fire an evangelical Christian U.S. general who smears Islam in a speech while wearing the uniform of the U.S. Army or not fire him so as not to anger the Christian right? Don't fire him. Apologize to the UN for not finding the WMD, and then make the case for why our allies should still join us in Iraq to establish a decent government there? Don't apologize -- for anything -- because Karl Rove says the "base" won't like it. Impose a "Patriot Tax" of 50 cents a gallon on gasoline to help pay for the war, shrink the deficit and reduce the amount of oil we consume so we send less money to Saudi Arabia? Never. Just tell Americans to go on guzzling. Fire the secretary of defense for the abuses at Abu Ghraib, to show the world how seriously we take this outrage -- or do nothing? Do nothing. Firing Mr. Rumsfeld might upset conservatives. Listen to the CIA? Only when it can confirm your ideology. When it disagrees -- impugn it or ignore it.
Friedman isn't exactly turning over an anti-interventionist leaf here. But at least he's got eyes to see with, which is a lot more than you can say for a too great many imperial apologists.
Methinks George is in trouble.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 07:07 PM
| Comments (0)
Loyalty to the Shiite cleric burns fierce here in northeastern Baghdad, and especially in Sadr City, a vast slum of 2.2 million people, despite frequent American raids and almost nightly airstrikes. The American military has stepped up its campaign to rout the Mahdi Army, Mr. Sadr's militia, on its home turf here, to drive him to the bargaining table. But it is often impossible to distinguish between civilians and fighters.
A reporter, photographer and interpreter with The New York Times recently spent nearly 24 hours being guided through the battleground streets - and even to a guerrilla bachelor party - by one of Mr. Sadr's midlevel aides. It became apparent that the Mahdi Army here is less a discrete military organization than a populist movement that includes everyone from doctors to policemen to tribal sheiks, and whose ranks swell with impoverished men willing to die. [...]
"If the Americans didn't try entering Sadr City with their tanks, I can guarantee you not a single bullet would be fired," Muhammad said over a lunch of lamb kebab, a framed portrait of Mr. Sadr on the wall behind him. "Everyone here is part of the resistance." [...]
"We're willing to fight, and we won't let the Americans enter this city," he said, staring down the barrel of his rifle. That sentiment is widespread in Sadr City, where American patrols routinely encounter ambushes and roadside bombs.
So, we've known that the Resistance is comprised of "Anti-Iraqi forces". But if "everyone is part of the resistance", and if "it is often impossible to distinguish between civilians and fighters", maybe the Pentagon needs a more encompassing euphemism. "Anti-Iraqi Iraqis", perhaps?
By the way, another admission of War Crimes from the U.S. military (you'd think they'd at least read the Geneva Conventions, so they'd then know which actions not to acknowledge having undertaken): "A senior military official said the strikes were not aimed at civilians, but there was no guarantee that civilian casualties could be avoided."
If there's no guarantee that civilian casualties can be avoided, the action is explicitly forbidden by the Geneva Conventions (not to mention, one might have guessed, elementary human decency).
Well, the dead niggers' families can take solace in the likelihood that the mainstream media will surely hammer this point in the upcoming days, much as it always does when the military acknowledges commission of war crimes.
Antis Aplenty
Loyalty to the Shiite cleric burns fierce here in northeastern Baghdad, and especially in Sadr City, a vast slum of 2.2 million people, despite frequent American raids and almost nightly airstrikes. The American military has stepped up its campaign to rout the Mahdi Army, Mr. Sadr's militia, on its home turf here, to drive him to the bargaining table. But it is often impossible to distinguish between civilians and fighters.
A reporter, photographer and interpreter with The New York Times recently spent nearly 24 hours being guided through the battleground streets - and even to a guerrilla bachelor party - by one of Mr. Sadr's midlevel aides. It became apparent that the Mahdi Army here is less a discrete military organization than a populist movement that includes everyone from doctors to policemen to tribal sheiks, and whose ranks swell with impoverished men willing to die. [...]
"If the Americans didn't try entering Sadr City with their tanks, I can guarantee you not a single bullet would be fired," Muhammad said over a lunch of lamb kebab, a framed portrait of Mr. Sadr on the wall behind him. "Everyone here is part of the resistance." [...]
"We're willing to fight, and we won't let the Americans enter this city," he said, staring down the barrel of his rifle. That sentiment is widespread in Sadr City, where American patrols routinely encounter ambushes and roadside bombs.
So, we've known that the Resistance is comprised of "Anti-Iraqi forces". But if "everyone is part of the resistance", and if "it is often impossible to distinguish between civilians and fighters", maybe the Pentagon needs a more encompassing euphemism. "Anti-Iraqi Iraqis", perhaps?
By the way, another admission of War Crimes from the U.S. military (you'd think they'd at least read the Geneva Conventions, so they'd then know which actions not to acknowledge having undertaken): "A senior military official said the strikes were not aimed at civilians, but there was no guarantee that civilian casualties could be avoided."
If there's no guarantee that civilian casualties can be avoided, the action is explicitly forbidden by the Geneva Conventions (not to mention, one might have guessed, elementary human decency).
Well, the dead niggers' families can take solace in the likelihood that the mainstream media will surely hammer this point in the upcoming days, much as it always does when the military acknowledges commission of war crimes.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 09:33 AM
| Comments (0)
The Bush Administration frequently complains that the Western media never show us any of the good news coming out of Baghdad.
According to the now-widespread e-mail penned by The Wall Street Journal's Farnaz Fassihi, there's a reason they don't:
I am house bound. I leave when I have a very good reason to and a scheduled interview. I avoid going to people's homes and never walk in the streets. I can't go grocery shopping any more, can't eat in restaurants, can't strike a conversation with strangers, can't look for stories, can't drive in any thing but a full armored car, can't go to scenes of breaking news stories, can't be stuck in traffic, can't speak English outside, can't take a road trip, can't say I'm an American, can't linger at checkpoints, can't be curious about what people are saying, doing, feeling. And can't and can't. There has been one too many close calls, including a car bomb so near our house that it blew out all the windows. So now my most pressing concern every day is not to write a kick-ass story but to stay alive and make sure our Iraqi employees stay alive.
How to counter such negativism? Easy. Send Colin Powell out to give another of his patented "presentations", a la his February '03 gig before the United Nations.
Sure sure. He could, for example, show before-and-after pix of the humvee bombed by a U.S. helicopter, killing a bunch of Iraqis. But instead of them having been "killed" (that's "propaganda", you see), the absence of any kids in the "after" picture proves that the children are off attending class in schools rebuilt by the "Multinational Force".
Or Powellman could hold up a chart showing that the oil pipelines which are sabotaged every day are quickly patched back up.
And so on, and so forth.
Save us Powellman (as only you can)!
October 01, 2004
This Sounds Like A Job For Powellman
The Bush Administration frequently complains that the Western media never show us any of the good news coming out of Baghdad.
According to the now-widespread e-mail penned by The Wall Street Journal's Farnaz Fassihi, there's a reason they don't:
I am house bound. I leave when I have a very good reason to and a scheduled interview. I avoid going to people's homes and never walk in the streets. I can't go grocery shopping any more, can't eat in restaurants, can't strike a conversation with strangers, can't look for stories, can't drive in any thing but a full armored car, can't go to scenes of breaking news stories, can't be stuck in traffic, can't speak English outside, can't take a road trip, can't say I'm an American, can't linger at checkpoints, can't be curious about what people are saying, doing, feeling. And can't and can't. There has been one too many close calls, including a car bomb so near our house that it blew out all the windows. So now my most pressing concern every day is not to write a kick-ass story but to stay alive and make sure our Iraqi employees stay alive.
How to counter such negativism? Easy. Send Colin Powell out to give another of his patented "presentations", a la his February '03 gig before the United Nations.
Sure sure. He could, for example, show before-and-after pix of the humvee bombed by a U.S. helicopter, killing a bunch of Iraqis. But instead of them having been "killed" (that's "propaganda", you see), the absence of any kids in the "after" picture proves that the children are off attending class in schools rebuilt by the "Multinational Force".
Or Powellman could hold up a chart showing that the oil pipelines which are sabotaged every day are quickly patched back up.
And so on, and so forth.
Save us Powellman (as only you can)!
Posted by Eddie Tews at 11:49 PM
| Comments (2)
"I said it before the kidnapping and I repeat it today. You have to distinguish between terrorism and resistance. The guerrilla war is justified, but I am against the kidnapping of civilians." -- freed Italian hostage Simona Torretta
Quote Of The Moment #0075
"I said it before the kidnapping and I repeat it today. You have to distinguish between terrorism and resistance. The guerrilla war is justified, but I am against the kidnapping of civilians." -- freed Italian hostage Simona Torretta