In an article frighteningly titled Iraqi Students and Faculty Face Task of Purging Baathists in the New York Times, changes of heart about Bush's plans for Iraq's self-governance are revealed. They are not good. After explaining that the US State Department is now in charge of university appointments (no, really), the article continues:

The leaders of the country's main political groups said they learned at a meeting on Friday that the United States and Britain had withdrawn their support for the formation of an interim Iraqi government to help run the country until national elections can be held.

The Iraqis have been working for weeks on a plan to convene an assembly, composed of former exiles and local civic leaders, to take over some Iraqi ministries and to represent the country in international forums like the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries.

But officials in Washington and London apparently consider the situation in Iraq, where government has ground to a halt and most people feel unsafe, too unsettled to be left in the hands of Iraqi political leaders.

A draft resolution presented by the occupying powers to the United Nations would instead grant the United States and Britain expansive powers to run the country. It would also lift economic sanctions on Iraq, freeing up its oil revenues for use by the United States and Britain in rebuilding the country.

Let's see, what was that chant? It's not about the oil, it's not about the oil, we are liberating them, it's not about the oil? Doesn't sound all that convincing right now, does it?

While I have been slacking off in my writing due to allergies and good weather, others have not. This is a compilation of news stories relating to the war in Iraq and wars around the world with links to original source material. This citizen-posted collection includes articles about corporate interests in the Middle East, the Carlyle Groups' willingness to sign a Saudi government contract discriminating against Jews, attacks on Palestinians and Jewish people, militarization in Africa, and more.

As the news media refers to 'post-war Iraq' and 'the end of the conflict,' I am reminded that there are always conflicts around the world, but that the U.S. media does not consider them worthy of reporting about.

*

I find the story of an American soldier being relieved of duty when she refused to take over an Iraqi TV station especially interesting.

*

It turns out that even Republicans don't like the appearance of political favoritism in the Administration's award of Iraq rebuilding contracts. I would not have guessed.

But GOP Rep. Henry Hyde of Illinois, usually a firm Bush ally and chairman of the House International Relations Committee, said he is concerned with the "lack of transparency" that has surrounded the reconstruction program for postwar Iraq....

"I understand, for example, that the very charter of the Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Affairs is still classified as national security information," Hyde said in asking for a General Accounting Office review of the Iraq situation.

Saying he is particularly concerned about reports of continuing lawlessness, Hyde asked the GAO to "monitor the reconstruction effort in detail, concentrating on the efforts to provide security and interim relief to the people of Iraq and on the rebuilding of its economy and political system."

"The committee expects the full cooperation of every element of the executive branch in the GAO's efforts," he added.

Which means that he does NOT actually expect the full cooperation of the executive branch, if he had to say that.

*

In another interesting effort to limit democracy in Iraq, the US outlawed the Baath party. Okay, sure, the same people can run under other parties, right? Well, not if the former Baathists are dead."The number of former Baath officials killed since the war ended is difficult to pin down. Drawing on anecdotal evidence, however, former exile groups and Iraqis familiar with some of the killings say it could reach several hundred in Baghdad alone."

So our forces are "in control" of the country, but extra judicial killings BY THE HUNDREDS are occurring in the capitol?

Not quite as random a link: photos of Basra, Iraq and it's lovely buildings. There are more photos in the Iraq Peace Team's photo gallery. (Oooh, look at this shrine.)

There are many lovely photos, but also many scenes of terrible tragedy: images of the women and children who died i the Ameriyah bomb shelter; images of babies born with severe deformaties after Gulf War I for unaccounted for reasons (DU comes to mind)... There are scenes of both beauty and horror. Just like life, which it is. But it's especially bad, knowing that the horror is so UNNECESSARY.

*

If I haven't said this yet, it's great that Hussein's regime is gone. But what is going up in its place, an occupation by foreign corporate interests, does not seem like enough compensation for the vast suffering experienced by civilians in Iraq at the U.S.' hands. Don't they deserve better?

*

Bush has complained about the repressive government killing its own people, but now the U.S.' plans for installing a real, democratic justice system seem to be a little too close to what was just removed. "According to Human Rights Watch, they even want to be able to impose the death penalty.".

Let freedom ring?!?

Semi-random image: a photo of a soldier in Spain being really nice. I really like the idea of it. It moved me when I saw it.

So the Administration has issued it's rules for trying all those enemy combatants it keep shielding from international law and rights. It's interesting: among other things, any defense lawyers must take an oath to give up their right to confidential communications with their clients, plus swear to comply with a complete gag order, which could keep everyone - the prisoner's relatives, countries, human rights groups, international courts - in the dark.

Oh, and there's no evidence rule, so rumor can be introduced as evidence! Remember the Anita Hill hearings, where a senator adverse to Ms. Hill raised allegations about an undocumented rumor that was printed in a newspaper, which later said its article was groundless? Yep. That all over again, but with the death penalty.

There are other terrible aspects of it, which the article linked above discusses. I mean, secret evidence that the defense lawyers can't see? Our government was supposed to model this process on our court system, not on the kangaroo courts of the despots our country has historically propped up. Eeek!!

*

Loyalty Day?!?! GW actually declared May Day as Loyalty Day!?!?!!?!?

[pause]

I just checked, and I'm still in the United States, but some FREAKS left over from the cold war apparently escaped from Russian History and are now running this country.

I thought it was a joke at first. OH MY GAWD. Sure, there have been historical revisionists who started loyalty day in the 1930s to try to steal May Day's thunder, but... in this day and age, we should feel much more secure about ourselves.

I've read some sad editorials forwarded to me by friends, in which columnists on the right side of the political spectrum complain that liberals are paranoid Chicken Littles who exagerrate the dangers of the Bush Administration's many actions against American civil liberties and freedoms. 'How can they say such things? How can they claim that our political leaders are a threat to anything? How terrible they are!'

And finally, I read this: Ann Coulter, right-wing cable TV commentator, provides this gem: "With Bush rounding up al-Qaida and clearing out the terrorist swamps, the greatest danger now facing the nation is that liberals could somehow return to the White House."

I look forward to hearing all those commentators who insist that it's wrong to talk of the threat our political system poses to our way of life THRASH this woman for her hysterics.

I'm waiting! I'll wait patiently. Even though I know that the complaints made of the left are considered to be charming in the right, at least so far as the right is concerned.

*

A woman who was not on the top list of wanted Iraqis, but whose surrender is being played up by the press, Dr. Taha of Iraq is alleged to have worked with botulism and anthrax. Proof of her evil deeds? "At that time, she was reported to have ordered, and received, biological specimens from US companies."

Darn her! How dare she use money to aquire weapons agents from hard-working American companies eager to sell them to her! The shock! The awe! The horror!

*

(I haven't decided if this better or worse than finding out that retired Iraqi scientists, when asked if they had worked on a nuclear weapons program, said of course they did: they sent away to the Patent Office in Geneva to buy copies of the U.S.' patented H-bomb plans, just like everyone else!!!)

*

The UK's supporters of the Iraq invasion and Bush Administration generally are complaining about Anti-Americanism. Instead of considered the criticisms they've heard, they're saying things like, 'well, people here are just jealous because Americans are just so great, rich, good-looking, and hip. And they can't deal with that.'

I think this is the peril of listening to one's own propaganda: that kind of detachment from reality, and the truly undemocratic and un-nice things that the U.S. does, can only make one sound stupid at press conferences.

Of COURSE there are legitimate complaints about U.S. policy. Lots of them. Especially all the times the U.S. has installed a puppet government, trained people in torture, propped up despotic regimes, violated human rights and standards of decency, and generally decided that non-Americans don't deserve the freedoms that Americans enjoy.

Our darling little friends in the soon-to-be-irrelevant (when Rumsfeld next lets his tongue slip) country of Britain would do well to note this.

*

Direct info on all those contracts let in Iraq for the 'rebuilding their country without their consent' effort can be found at the website of the the United States Agency for International Development's Iraq page. There are all sorts of details on where the money is going.

I'm not sure I really understand some of the categories. One company got an award for a "local governance" contract, which includes "strengthening of management skills and capacity of local administrations and civic institutions to improve delivery of essential municipal services such as water, health, public sanitation and economic governance; includes training programs in communications, conflict resolution, leadership skills and political analysis."

Political analysis? Political analysis? Like, how to interpret the Supreme Court's decision in Bush v. Gore? The mind reels.

As a side effect of the so-called Patriot Act, the courts are handling numerous cases where Americans and others are accused of providing material support to terrorist organizations.

One major problem with this law is that the U.S. changes its mind about who "terrorists" are all the time.

That's one of the reasons those Infinite Jest 'American Crusade' trading cards so great: they point out that the U.S. position on who is good and who is evil changes very regularly. For example, Afghan terrorism against the USSR was good (so good, the U.S. funded it!), but against the US is EVIL. Same people, same weapons, same tactics, but a totally different classification.

There is no moral compass -- just political expediency. Heck, the US could be busted under this law for its past support of Saddam Hussein. But it chooses not to look at it that way...

*

I keep hearing that the U.S. attack on Iraq was not about the oil, was not about the oil, if we say it often enough we'll believe it, not about the oil...

And then comes this: the US proposed a resolution that it be put in charge of Iraq's oil and oil revenues. Oh, sure, it will expire when Iraq gets a representative government. But the US controls when that will happen, and the US admits it could take years. Read this:

The resolution... would shift control of Iraq's oil from the United Nations to the United States and its military allies, with an international advisory board having oversight responsibilities but little effective power. A transitional Iraqi government, which U.S. authorities have said they hope to establish within weeks, would be granted a consultative role.

The proposal would give the United States far greater authority over Iraq's lucrative oil industry than administration officials have previously acknowledged...

Under the system proposed by the Bush administration, new proceeds of Iraq's oil revenues and at least $3 billion in the current U.N.-controlled escrow fund would be placed in an Iraqi Assistance Fund held by the Central Bank of Iraq, which is currently being managed by Peter McPherson, a former deputy treasury secretary and Bank of America executive.

The United States and its allies would have the sole power to spend the money on relief, reconstruction and disarmament operations and to pay "for other purposes benefiting the people of Iraq." The "funds in the Iraqi Assistance Fund shall be disbursed at the direction of the (U.S.-led coalition), in consultation with the Iraqi Interim Authority," the resolution states.

It adds that Iraq's oil profits shall remain in the assistance fund "until such time as a new Iraqi government is properly constituted and capable of discharging its responsibilities." According to some estimates, it may take years for such a government to be established.

My comment: [expletive expletive expletive]! How is that not about the oil??

A colleague asked why it isn't a good thing that this account is being set up to serve domestic purposes. I explained it this way: I fail to see the propriety in me burning down my neighbor's house, seizing my neighbor's money and income, and then deciding how to care for the family without actually speaking to them (or speaking only to members of the family most likely to agree to what I want). I don't think it would be right to next assign their care to my friends, rather than their own friends or usual providers, and generously pay my friends out of their household funds for what I belive their needs should be, all at prices I negotiate for my own purposes. The situation creates an inherent conflict of interest, even without knowing that many of the contracts to my friends in this analogy were signed prior to my incursion on my neighbor's household!!

*

The BBC asked its readers for their opinions as to whether sanctions should be lifted in Iraq. There's a range of opinions, and quite a few questions. One opinion I like:

According to Bush/Blair there are chemical and biological weapons in Iraq. This was the pretence for the war. Under international law the sanctions cannot be removed until the weapons are destroyed. If US/Britain are looking for the lifting of sanctions, then they must believe that there are no weapons of mass destruction. What then was the real reason for the war?

The U.S. should not be able to have it both ways. Weapons are either there or not, and the U.S. should disclose this essential information.

Notable are the US/UK people's concerns about how terrible the sanctions are, and how the Iraqi people are suffering under them. Where have you folks been for the last decade or so? Was starving and dying for want of basic medicines less terrible when Saddam was in power?

*

The Western nations have concerns about Iraq becoming a highly conservative, extremely religious state, which might mean the country could wind up with a radical disposition. There's an obvious solution to this: make sure there really is equal opportunity in the formation of the representative government by making sure Iraqi women are included. Iraqi women, many of whom received great educations, make up 55% of the population. Many are religious in their beliefs and secular in their lifestyle. Religious women with secular experiences are unlikely to vote for extremist positions that would disadvantage their group.

If you look at the efforts to create a new government in Afghanistan, where women once held government positions and were represented throughout the workforce, you see how excluding women in the planning caused the entire process to go awry. The current Afghan government is heavy on warlords and light on everyone else, including women. Obviously, this mistake should not be made again. The US' inclusion of women on their Iraqi most wanted list is not sufficiently inclusive!! :-)

According to a report posted on Indymedia, last month two high school students were interrogated by the Secret Service for comments they made critical of the President. The Oakland High students are 16 years old, but their teacher perceived their comments as threatening to the President.

The students were each subjected to intimidating interrogation for 45 minutes to an hour each and were told they had no rights because of what they had supposedly said.

When one of the students asked if he had to talk to the agents now, could he talk to them later with a lawyer present, the student said one of the agents told him, "We own you, if you don't talk to us now, and we find out you haven't told us everything, we'll put you MF's in federal prison. This is the beginning of the end for you."

Their families were also threatened with deportation.

Is the hair on the back of your neck standing up yet?

*

Halliburton's Iraq contracts are broader than was originally disclosed to Congress. The Army Corps of Engineers said that Halliburton's "subsidiary, KBR (Kellogg, Brown & Root), actually had been authorized under the original contract to operate and distribute oil produced in Iraq, but the Corps of Engineers played down that aspect of the deal in its initial communications with Congress and the media." Gee, thanks Corps! The article notes that, if the Iraqi's can't organize their bureaucracy quickly enough, "the U.S. contractor could well be permitted to export Iraqi oil so that the country could generate revenues to help in the rebuilding process..."

So the contractor that pumps the oil can use the money it sells by distributing it to pay itself to rebuild Iraq, without any Iraqi input!! How convenient!!

Key paragraph, and the first time I've heard the p-word in this context:

The United States is developing a plan to privatize Iraqi oil fields, according to administration officials, but progress on that initiative may be slow until Iraq gets a government in place and order is restored.

*

Not only have the brilliant folks at Infinte Jest updated the American Crusade trading cards and provided good links to other worthwhile items, they've also pointed out that the deck of 'Iraqi's most wanted leaders' that the media has been hyping has not, in fact, been distributed to soldiers -- just to the media! (Their source link is no longer valid, but it's a fascinating point.)

Also for our humor section, The Onion's Iraq War Archive, titled "Operation Piss Off the Planet."

Quote of the moment: "We managed to preserve the treasure-house of Iraq, in the shape of their oil." -- Air Marshal Brian Burridge, commander of UK forces.

*

The online World Tribune reports that Rumsfeld is asking Middle Eastern nations to avoid purchasing French weapons, instead sending that business to U.S. suppliers.

"He didn't tell anybody not to buy French weapons," an official said. "What he did was intimate is that France no longer represents the U.S. interest for stability in the Gulf region. I think the rest was very much understood...."

Officials and industry sources said the Defense Department has expressed opposition to any major French weapons or upgrade project in Gulf Cooperation Council states. They said Rumsfeld has warned that France, in wake of its alliance with the deposed regime, can no longer be regarded as a positive force in the Persian Gulf region.

So let's review the ideas put forth by the U.S. Administration:
a) weapons promote stability
b) in particular, U.S. weapons promote stability
c) French weapons don't.

and

1) The French relationship with Iraq, presumably including oil contracts to take effect once Iraq came into compliance with UN mandates, was bad for the region
2) The US relationship, including bombing Iraq, occupying Iraq without a UN mandate, and having a history of extending credit and selling chemical weapons to Saddam Hussein, is GOOD for the region.

Damn, I'm going to need one of those Ross Perot color diagrams to keep in touch with the bizarre reality that this Administration is trying to sell.

I'm sure the chart will be much clearer when all the defense contractors who are also Bush campaign donors can be cross-referenced.

*

The Bush Administration wants 'special arrangements' made to try the former Iraqi leadership.

This will be a hard sell: with the very legitimacy of the U.S. actions still under cloud, how can a war victor set up a court, edit the local laws to its pleasure (in this case, by removing provisions consistent with Islamic punishments), and then claim to have set up a legitimate system?

Imagine, if you will, this precedent having been established by the victors of other disputes. For example, after the U.S.' puppet, the Shah, was deposed in Iran, can you imagine the U.S. accepting the legitimacy of any court that would convict the Shah and U.S. agents who supported him and trained his people in torture? I can't. The U.S. is still dodging subpoenas aimed at Kissinger for his role in Pinochet's successful coup, so clearly these transitional processes are only important when the U.S. wants them to be.

Might makes right! Woo hoo! Go team! [cough cough cough]

*

Several eyewitnesses saw American soldiers encouraging looters to loot the University in Baghdad. The soldiers fired at the University and waved the looters on.

Ooops. A Belgian court wants to try the U.S. military authorities for this. The U.S., which only believes in foreign courts for non-US war crimes, is irate.

On the bright side, the museum workers did hide many artifacts, and rumors of organized looting have been confirmed by the U.S. government: "US Attorney General John Ashcroft has said there is evidence that organised criminals were behind the looting of select, high value items, possibly stolen to order for international clients." So the perception of locals who reported their suspicions has been vindicated. (Thank you, locals!)

*

The BBC printed some good quotes from the 'Dear Raed' weblog, which provided an inside glimpse on the impact of Baghdad residents such as the author up until the U.S. knocked out the power and phone lines. The author has contact with the outside world again, and is updating through friends.

Let me tell you one thing first. War sucks big time. Don’t let yourself ever be talked into having one waged in the name of your freedom. Somehow when the bombs start dropping or you hear the sound of machine guns at the end of your street you don’t think about your “imminent liberation” anymore.

*

In the humor department: British satirist Ali G. annoys James Baker in an interview which Mr. Baker had assumed was conventional. Hee hee.

Sorry for the light entries: I'm having problems with one of my hands, which is making typing difficult.

*

To avoid having to share power in Iraq, the Bush Administration is planning to divvy up Iraq into 3 parts, each run by an ally. They are hard enough up for allies that Poland (country of half my ancestry) made the cut.

No offense, but Poland?? POLAND?

Ahem. Anyway, dividing the country into areas each occupied by a different military force and preparing an 'interim government' based on self-serving purposes, all outside of international law and without the UN's participation, is unwise at best.

*

Not to bring up enemy combatants again, but why not: have I mentioned that kids under the age of 16 are being held as enemy combatants by the U.S.? There are three whose ages have gotten out, the youngest being 13.

Thirteen.

In a prison, with no access to parents, lawyers, or hope of getting out.

I'm a bit more settled in now, and am amazed at how quickly the news programs here have switched to the 'scare of the week,' SARS. While I was in Canada, there was widespread outrage that the W.H.O. had suggested not traveling to Toronto. An article in the paper there noted that you are more likely to be struck by lightning, die of animal bites, or strangle yourself in your sleep than you are to die of SARS in Toronto. Nevertheless, the media seems dedicated to inspiring a full-on panic.

I suppose that's their new job? Anyway, back to war and peace.

*
So-called "unlawful combatants" are still indefinitely detained. (Remember them?) "The U.S. government can sweep people up from all over the world and detain them indefinitely." NO WAR IS REQUIRED.

"It just says a foreigner held outside the U.S. has no access to our courts."

The sovereignty aspect of the ruling is fraught with danger, he said, since the United States can negotiate a lease anywhere in the world, leaving technical sovereignty with another country.

"We have taken the view there's got to be great deference to the executive in this area, but there has to be some judicial review," Wilner said. "You can't act as both jailer and judge. If there is no judicial review, the executive never needs to balance or justify its actions. It can hold absolutely innocent people forever."

On the bright side, "The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights of the Organization of American States has issued a preliminary injunction ordering the United States to hold tribunals to determine detainees' status."

*

This from a Common Dreams essay:

As the Nuremberg International Military Tribunal noted years ago: "War is essentially an evil thing ... To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime, it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."

Aaah. I just returned from a vacation away from all computers AND from the American press.

Go Canucks!!

Unfortunately, the Canadian press has a wicked sense of humor: periodically, it reprints right-wing tripe from just below the 49th parallel. Sometimes, it also comes up with tripe of its own, between reports on hockey, hockey, SARS, and hockey.

My favorite item was a homegrown editorial by Daniel Pipes in the National Post called, you won't believe this, Strongman first, democracy later. Mr. Pipes proposes that, were elections held tomorrow, Iraq would elect someone we don't like. Therefore, Iraqis shouldn't be allowed to hold elections until they WILL pick someone we like, and in the meantime, should be ruled by a strongman who we like.

No, I'm serious. He writes this. He makes it a bit flowery, so we forget that the glories of democracy are exactly what he proposes to deny the Iraqis until they come around to "our" way of thinking.

Since when is obedience liberation?

*

From what I understand from the news summaries up north, a few exciting things happened in my absence on the war front. The first was that a variety of documents were found, which only tarnish countries the Bush Administration wants tarnished.

Gee, how convenient!

The other is that some anonymous Iraqi scientist has announced that Hussein had ALL KINDS of forbidden WMDs, but conveniently destroyed them and obliterated ALL evidence of their existence, so we basically have just his word to go on that the entire war was justified!

Gee, how convenient also!

Meanwhile, there was no publicity surrounding the fact that Dick Cheney's old company, Halliburton, has subsidiaries that profit from work in countries that allegedly sponsor terrorism, such as Iran, Iraq and Libya. Nor that his company has paid fines for defrauding the U.S. government on contracts. Nor that Halliburton sold nuclear detonators to Iraq in violation of U.S. sanctions.

So we're supposed to be mad that the French and Russians have lucrative POTENTIAL oil contracts with Iraq, but we're not supposed to be mad that Cheney's company profits now from ACTUAL work done with those countries, including work that was ILLEGAL.

I would ask what this Administration is smoking, but a) I don't really want to know (it's likely a nasty petroleum product!), and b) it doesn't matter what they smoke if the mainstream media continually fails to inform the public of what's really going on. In the absence of context or other facts, people WILL be mad at the French and Russians for their potential profits rather than the unknowns of Cheney's actual profits.

*

I'm hoping there were lots of essays in the papers while I was away, refuting the smug warmongers who, having failed to find weapons of mass destruction or an army worthy of threatening its neighbors and the world, still claims "victory" after belatedly redefining the attack on Iraq's entire purpose. The quick fall of Iraq shows it wasn't a threat; the non-use of weapons of mass destruction which justified this war means that either Saddam Hussein is much nicer and more restrained than has been charged, or that he never had them in the first place.

So the U.S. won the war, but lost all its moral capital. And ultimately, this means that the peace protesters were right.

Somehow, I doubt this is being emphasized to the extent it should be.

*

Meanwhile, the U.S. is increasing local love for Americans by parading prisoners around Baghdad naked and shooting into a crowd of Iraqi civilians protesting the previous U.S. attack on a protest. This time 2 protesters were killed, 18 were injured, and the U.S. is admitting it happened, but trying to suggest that the people in the hospital might have been shot by someone else.

And here at home, the U.S. government can't seem to think of new ways to protect us from the terrorism its actions cause, instead choosing to strip freedoms from Americans because it can. "Patriot Act II would authorize the government to create a DNA database of 'suspected terrorists,' strip citizenship from any American who supports even the legal activities of any group the attorney general labels ?terrorist,? and nullify court-approved orders that limit political surveillance by state and local law enforcement." Gone is innocent until proven guilty, privacy, and irrevocable citizenship.

I don't think this means that the terrorists have won. I think this means that we have a very, very bad government in place here, and that we urgently need a democractic regime change.

More comments and links when I catch up on my reading.

Sorry that blogger has started to eat my archives. I don't seem to have the power to stop it at the moment, but I am trying to do some archiving of my own, so I can republish the eaten entries elsewhere on my main site later.

*

I'm going to take just over a week off from all forms of computing, and while tempted to leave an impenetrably long message to tide you over, I'll try to keep it short and disorderly.

The SARS virus has taken over the front page news in most publications I see. But the impact of the U.S. military's action in Iraq is still being widely felt, just as the impact of the U.S. miliatary's actions in in Afghanistan is still being felt. (Remember Afghanistan?) Sure, the U.S. collapsed the existing order, resulting in destroyed world cultural treasures, ransacked orphanages and hospitals, and a free-for-all microcosm of the current U.S. administration's 'right makes right' view. Sure there are massive protests in Nasiriya and Baghdad, with people carrying signs in English that say "Bush = Saddam", or generally protesting the foreign military presence there. But "it's over" and we can all stop paying attention and go back to the joint Chevron/McDonalds/drive-thru Starbucks in our SUVs and go on with our lives now, right?

Well, no. There's a reason that some local folks are still getting naked for peace. As one of the organizers said, "It's really not about the war in Iraq, it's about the fact that the conditions that breed war are still here." (--Alan Moore of Musicians & Fine Artists for World Peace.)

The pre-emptive attack doctrine is still wrong.

The media is still representing corporate interests over journalistic accuracy. (S listened to protest coverage on the radio earlier this week. A protest in Baghdad was described in one report as a tribute to freedom which featured prayer; a second report on another station described the specific, anti-occupation banners being displayed. What gives?) Most Americans have a very fuzzy understanding of U.S. foreign policy or of events occurring elsewhere in the world. Our collective ignorance can at least be partially attributed to the cheap fluff info-tainment which is provided to us in place of real reporting.

The military is still shirking responsibility for its actions by simply saying that it 'has no information' on any incident it doesn't want to take responsibility for, and the domestic media doesn't question it. (Thankfully, others do. My current favorite is still the BBC, which directly contradicted military announcements passed on unquestioningly by the American press, because their correspondents are eye witnesses to very different scenarios.) The military will apparently be in Iraq for a while, and needs to be responsible for what it has taken on.

The U.S.' relationships with its allies are still devastated.

I could go on and on. (I suppose I already have: see my comments on what we should demand from our country now as continuing steps on the long road to a peaceful and just society.) But because I need to be on my way to the airport in just a few hours, let me just say that the system is still quite broken, and we need to fix it.

A few suggestions (because someone asked me):

Stay informed. Subscribe to alternative media sources.

Join an organization that is actively advocating for positions you believe in. Support their work to make it more effective.

Stay active. Every peace demonstration in this country has cracked the lie that our country is unified in its to bomb our way to a less violent and more orderly world.

Another world is possible, and we pledge to make it real.

*

I'll be back online in May. Take care.

Where has all the democracy gone?

The BBC asked it's readers who should run Iraq? The answers are informative and entertaining. My two faborite excerpts:

The Iraqis will rule Iraq, BUT the framework will be from the West. The Shia leadership will want a "church" state similar to Iran... It would be like saying that Iraq can choose any government it wants including a new tyrannical dictatorship. I think not! The Shias must learn to compromise as part of a representative style democracy or federation.

Well, yes, that was from an American. The horror of allowing democracy to run so freely that the Iraqi's can choose any government they want! The horror! How about this one:

The British have the most experience creating the administrative and legal structures required in Iraq in its transition to a democracy. They have a great deal of colonial office experience to offer.

I assume this was suggested because that whole colonial thing worked out so well? We should set up an administration so that people, when they're ready, will need to violently overthrow it??

People are scary. Which is why democracy is also scary, sometimes. Because people with opinions like this vote. (You should check out the others. Some are...unique and interesting.)

*

SF locals: you know that guy who marches around with the sign, about impeaching presidents in all n zygotropic galaxies? He's been attending peace demonstrations all around the bay area. He even went out to the action at Chevron's headquarters in San Ramon: I saw him easing into the frame behing a television spokeshead.

I also saw his sign this morning. He's apparently been touched by the violence done to his fellow sign-carriers: his current message deals with police brutality.

*

The NY Times had a good article on troubles in Mosul on the 15th, where 10 or so civilians were killed by U.S. forces while demonstrating against the newly installed governor. To maintain order, the U.S. military is cruising around in armored vehicles and making noisy, low passes over the civilian areas, terrorizing the populace.

Read the end of this article, where a soldier notices that the locals don't appear to be greateful for the U.S. presence.

*

Right wingers here are always saying that this war is being fought to protect MY right to protest. What happens when a war of liberation winds up resulting in U.S. soldiers shooting the people they just liberated when THEY protest? I'm sure there's some rhetoric just waiting in the wings to cover this. I can't wait.

Break time!

This was written by a friend of a friend in his weblog.

Oh, and about pollsters (see above)? I heard an interview with the most respected pollster in my region. The interviewer asked him how they come up with such large support for the war - 67% was it? The pollster replied that they have four categories; strongly in support of the war, somewhat in support, somewhat oppose and strongly oppose. They take the first three categories together as supporting the war to some extent.

The interviewer couldn't quite get his question out. He tried to ask couldn't you just as easily group the last [three] as being opposed to the war to some extent.

The pollster did not respond.

[I'd provide a link to the exact entry, but blogspot is having indexing problems this month.]

"Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship.

"...voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

-quote from Hermann Goering, Nazi war criminal (convicted at Nuremberg), 1946
[Additional information at snopes.]

*

From a BBC article entitled 'Banned weapons: where are they?' the adverse consequences of the U.S. & U.K. forces NOT finding weapons of mass destruction are discussed in detail.

But if they are not found there will be recriminations. The war was justified on the grounds that Iraq had not complied with UN resolutions to declare and destroy them....

The chief UN weapons inspector, Hans Blix, remains open-minded about whether Iraq had such weapons, but is highly critical of Britain and the US. He accused them of planning the war "well in advance" and of "fabricating" evidence against Iraq.

The article debunks the false alarms, forged Nigerian documents, and soldier-panics that were all cleared up later. But this interesting:

So the United States and Britain have started to look for evidence on the ground.

They are currently unwilling to let the UN do the job.

Because their reputations and credibility about other alleged threats are on the line, of course.

*

I can't help but flinch: "Bush administration officials have been clear in saying that as the war winds down and they begin their campaign to bring political reform to Iraq and the Middle East, a critical step will be opening the region's markets to trade and investment. Okay, it makes me flinch and shudder.

It's not that the protectionist nations of the region couldn't use job growth and more diverse opportunities, because I'm sure they could. It's that this proposal is being put forward by someone who gave only his campaign donors a chance at bidding reconstruction projects of a sovereign nation. People who are so deeply engaged in graft should NOT be promoting their model in other nations!

Al Jazeera is the source of many fine items of reporting today. The top item, judging by how many times I've heard this discussed in other media today, is the U.S.' interest in having other debtors forgive Iraq's debts. What, debt relief for Iraq? How does that make sense when we won't give debt relief to countless impoverished countries who can't develop their resources due to staggering debt? Well...

By having Iraqi debt forgiven...US building costs may be met by Iraqi oil sales and the US taxpayer may not end up spending much more than they are already being asked to pay for the invasion so far....

"In exchange for debt relief, France, Germany, Russia and others are very likely to ask for contracts to rebuild the country and sell Iraqi oil, as well as a voice in economic policy," points out Robert Hormats, vice chairman of Goldman Sachs International and a former State Department official in the Carter Administration....

So far, the billions of dollars in contracts to rebuild Iraq are going to US companies. And at least initially, US officials are planning to make all decisions about Iraq's economy, with help from local advisers. If that doesn't change, it will be difficult to persuade other countries to drop their debts ....

Although it is not legally binding, the House of Representatives last week approved an amendment to bar French, Russian, German and Syrian companies from gaining any reconstruction contracts in postwar Iraq.

This is a very timely article. Through at least three other news sources today, I heard various U.S. spokespeople expressing concern that Iraq's oil wealth may not cover the cost of the huge contracts Bush has unilaterally let for rebuilding to his campaign donor contractors. The difference between those features and this one is that the full version of this article is aghast at the idea of U.S. oil exploitation, while the U.S. sources quoted all seemed to think it was a SWELL idea.

Ah, the magic of domestic bias!

Other features worthy of note in A-J today: will the US have to MAKE a smoking gun?, and an update on the international weekend protests (SF got an honorable mention!).

*

As a former librarian, my heart bleeds over not only the civilian lives lost, but over the destruction of the national library."The library, in central Baghdad, housed several rare volumes, including entire royal court records and files from the period when Iraq was part of the Ottoman Empire.... A nearby Islamic library has also gone in up in flames, he said, destroying valuable literature including one of the oldest surviving copies of the Koran."

Not to be unduly cynical, but this doesn't sound...right. While I have only lived through relatively minor disasters, such as the 'Great Quake of 1989' here in SF, I don't recall anyone rushing to burn down our libraries or loot and destroy our antiquities. (Which are largely from elswhere, admittedly, since the work of the ancient native peoples were not well preserved by those who came later.) It doesn't sound like something that local people DO. Even if invaded, I can't imagine burning the history of my own people.

I do recall that conquerors of old were eager to destroy the records of their conquests. The Spaniards, when they came to the New World, gained access to the elaborate written codexes of the Mayans, burned them, and then insisted that the locals were savages because they had no books. The 1940s German government rewrote its textbooks to eliminate the contributions of those they wished to exterminate. Domestically, ancient Egyptian kings periodically defaced the work of their predecessors, changing the names on carved monuments of great achievements to their own. But I don't recall EVER reading of people destroying their OWN records of their ancestors' OWN achievements.

[I've read allegations that the looters are not all 'local' to the towns they are looting. But this has not yet been fully explained.]

*

Am I supposed to be surprised that the Bush Administration has declared Syria to be a terrorist state? Well, no. The British, ever trying to balance the extremes of Rumsfeld & Co., had to publicly declare their sincere belief that Syria is not next 'on the list' of countries to invade. I can't wait for Rumsfeld's next undoing of THAT statement...

*

Last item for the night: the US has no plans to clean up depleted uranium residues it left in Iraq, stating that recent studies cancel out the negative studies from the previous Gulf War. "The UN Environment Programme study, published in March 2003, found DU in air and groundwater in Bosnia-Herzegovina seven years after the weapons were fired." But they're CERTAIN that doesn't cause health risks. Perhaps they didn't see the 60 Minutes expose I watched a few years ago, or the articles which said that DU manufacturers were using 'dirty' products to manufacture what CAN, at least theoretically, be a relatively "clean" form of radioactive ammunition.

Here's a discussion of a UK Gulf War veteran who has suffered a steep decline from being a marathon runner to having serious mobility problems:

Ray Bristow was tested in Canada for DU. He is open-minded about its role in his condition.

But he says: "I remained in Saudi Arabia throughout the war. I never once went into Iraq or Kuwait, where these munitions were used.

"But the tests showed, in layman's terms, that I have been exposed to over 100 times an individual's safe annual exposure to depleted uranium."

I didn't write Sunday: I was too busy biking 100 kilometers about 62 miles) in the rain for fun.


Late breaking clippings from Saturday: a BBC description of some weekend anti-war protests; photos reflecting the toll the war has taken on Iraqi civilians; local SF photographer Basetree's anti-war rally photos, including a moment of levity: [fresh] orange alert!

A few more links:

• postcards from a NY peace protest;
  
• The International Task Force of the American Library Association's Social
  Responsibilities Round Table's a comprehensive list of
  alternative resources and information on the War in Iraq
  
• Michael Moore's April 7th message (he didn't provide a permanent link, so you may have to go looking for it), about how well he's done after speaking out against war at the Oscars, and how the backlash against him that pundits predicted is wildly wrong.
  
• A Washington Post article questioning US claims of forbidden nuclear materials("American troops who suggested they uncovered evidence of an active nuclear weapons program in Iraq unwittingly may have stumbled across known stocks of low-grade uranium, officials said Thursday.")
  

And The Must See Item of the day: Photos showing the staging of the statue pull-down publicity photos. It's fascinating to observe that there is almost no one present at the 'celebration'. The comments about the cast of extras is also quite interesting.

Allow me to catch up on my clippings before editorializing.

Do U.S. forces have something against journalists? Attacks on the Palestine Hotel, where all foreign media reporters stay, Al Jazeerah, and Abu Dhabi TV imply either bad intent, or that US forces are just shooting up everything. Either way, it's not pretty.

Two cameramen - who worked for the Reuters news agency and Spain's Telecinco - died when a US tank shell hit their hotel. A third journalist was killed when a missile hit the offices of al-Jazeera TV....

The 15th floor of the Palestine hotel - where most of the foreign media is based - was hit by a tank shell at about 1200 local time (0800 GMT).

"One of the tanks had its barrel pointed up at the building. We went inside and there was an almighty crash, a huge explosion that shook the hotel," reported Sky TV's David Chater.

US military officials expressed regret at the incident, and said one of their tanks had fired on the hotel in response to incoming sniper and rocket fire.

"A tank was receiving small arms fire... from the hotel and engaged the target with one tank round," General Buford Blount, commander of the U.S. 3rd Infantry Division in Baghdad, told Reuters.

But BBC correspondents and other journalists who were in the building at the time said they heard no fire coming from the hotel.

Reuters said Ukrainian cameraman Taras Protsyuk died and a reporter, a photographer, and a technician were wounded when the shell hit the building....

In a separate incident, al-Jazeera said its correspondent Tareq Ayoub died and a cameraman was injured when two missiles hit its office, virtually destroying it.

Reporting from Iraq is fraught with danger

US military officials said the building was struck by mistake.

"It is something we all regret. But I don't believe that it is possible that it was deliberate," US State Department spokesman Nabil Khoury told the network.

But the Reporters Without Borders pressure group said al-Jazeera had been careful to inform the Americans of the exact location of its offices and demanded an inquiry into the attack.

Abu Dhabi television said its Baghdad bureau was also hit by US bombing.

Reporters for the local paper also raise the possibility that the attacks, especially on Al Jazeera, were intentional.

*

A posting by a member of the Iraq Peace Team entited 'There will be No Victors in this War,' reminds us of the terrible human cost of this invasion. Then she passes on some information she's heard there in Baghdad.

Last night I heard that the U.S. military is bringing not only embedded press with them when they enter, but also 3,000 Iraqis who very well might become "embedded dancers" frolicking in the streets to demonstrate how jubilant Iraqis are to be "liberated." Should this happen, we only hope that there will be a few journalist who will document the truth. The feeling here is anything but joyous and jubilant.

Last night in my journal I wrote, "How could either of our countries allow so much power to be given to one person?" I was thinking of the respective leaders of each country. I place the greater burden on the U.S. because we claim to have a democracy. Again I will say with such a heaviness of heart, there will be no victors in this war. Tragically we in the states have forced this war on the Iraqi people, a people who only want peace. Dear God, I don't know how I'll bear it if we in the States now take on a triumphal attitude and declare ourselves victors and liberators of the Iraqi people.

While I had marveled at the acknowledgement in the press that the images of a Hussein statue being pulled down was 'aided' (they didn't use the word staged) by Marines, it will be interesting to learn whether or not the people in the images were of Baghdad residents, or of people brought in from elsewhere.

*

Here's an interesting article about The Moral Questions of War from a medical journal, which spells out requirements for a just war that I have not seen elsewhere:

Some argue that war can never be morally justified, and Benjamin Franklin, one of America's founding fathers, believed: "There never was a good war or a bad peace." International law accepts the notion of a just war, but it's worth remembering the seven conditions of such a war. The cause must be just. A lawful authority must decide to resort to force. The intention of the war must accord with international law. The use of force must be a last resort. The probability of success should be high. (This condition seems to favour the powerful. Norman Cousins observed that: "The possibility of war increases in direct proportion to the effectiveness of the instruments of war.") The cost benefit ratio should be positive. The means used must conform with international humanitarian law.

If these seven items are correct, this war doesn't qualify. The UN disapproved this course; the intention of 'regime change' is illegal (as opposed to disarmament, which was legal and approved by the UN); the use of force was used in place of successful inspections, and so was not being used as a last resort, but rather as a first choice.

The conditions listed above, based on a 17th century theologian are one of many lists of conditions. I see lists available on the web of other lengths, including a shorter one attributed to Thomas Aquinas that requires a) just cause, b) war is the last resort; and c) there's a reasonable chance of success at the goal, which is to bring peace. Again, 'regime change by force' isn't recognized as a just cause, and because inspections were working, the last resort argument fails.

I note that the Vatican says conditions for a just war have not been met, despite various web pages purporting to use Catholic theory that rationalize war by chosing biblical text in which saints fail to advise soldiers to lay down their arms. (Proving points by their absence is such fun!)

*

This has to be the most amazing quote I read yesterday:

"Free people are free to make mistakes and commit crimes and do bad things."

-Donald Rumsfeld, on the collapse of order in Baghdad, resulting in widespread looting, even of hospitals.

So much for our obligation under international war to protect noncombatants and maintain order in the absence of the authority we have overthrown...

So Baghdad was taken, and then Baghdad fell into chaos. A little reported fact from this same article: "Russian President Vladimir Putin says under no circumstances should a new colonialism be allowed to establish itself in Iraq. Speaking at a summit in St Petersburg with the leaders of France and Germany, he says Iraq's fate must be in the hands of the Iraqi people."

*

A peace protest in London drew 20,000 people to register the fact that, just because the US is winning, doesn't mean the war has been legitimate.

"It doesn't matter how many people turn out, it's about registering a protest that a principle has been violated, international law has been violated and everyone who cares must register a protest."

The Stop The War Coalition spokesman had other, very relevant comments:

"I don't really believe the fighting is over - I think the invasion is sliding into a colonial occupation," he said.

"Every day for the last week, innocent Iraqis have been shot by US and UK troops.

"Unfortunately the people in the Pentagon have made it clear that they want to extend this war into a list of other countries that they want to take on - including Syria and Jordan and Iran.
"We are demonstrating because we don't want that to happen."...

On Saturday, protests against the war also took place in around 40 other countries, including New Zealand, Japan, South Korea, Italy, Greece and France.

*

Iraqometer currently lists 1,400 Iraqi civilian casualties, and a cost per U.S. taxpayer of $1,125.

After days of working 12+ hours and fitful sleep, I'll have time to catch up here tonight!

There's a lot of news. Some of it is amazing. I'll leave you with this quote:

"Free people are free to make mistakes and commit crimes and do bad things."
-Donald Rumsfeld, on the collapse of order in Baghdad, resulting in widespread looting, even of hospitals.

This isn't new, but I still enjoy Peter Freundlich's commentary on the "logic" behind this war.

All right, let me see if I understand the logic of this correctly. We are going to ignore the United Nations in order to make clear to Saddam Hussein that the United Nations cannot be ignored. We're going to wage war to preserve the UN's ability to avert war. The paramount principle is that the UN's word must be taken seriously, and if we have to subvert its word to guarantee that it is, then by gum, we will. Peace is too important not to take up arms to defend. Am I getting this right?

Further, if the only way to bring democracy to Iraq is to vitiate the democracy of the Security Council, then we are honor-bound to do that too, because democracy, as we define it, is too important to be stopped by a little thing like democracy as they define it.

It continues. Do follow the link and read the whole thing.

*

Unbelieveably awful: Oakland police injured peaceful protesters with wood and rubber bullets at the Port of Oakland yesterday. They also injured longshoremen who were standing nearby, and who criticized the obviously excessive force employed.

*

According to the big dictionary that my partner has handy, pacifism is defined as follows:
pacifism:
1. opposition to war or violence of any kind.
2. the principle or policy of establishing and maintaining universal peace or such relations among all nations that all differences may be adjusted without without recourse to war.
3. non-resistance to aggression.

I am unfamiliar with the third definition. I guess Tibet would fall into that category, though they offered some symbolic resistance when initially invaded by China.

I consider myself a pacifist, but also believe in defending myself in non-lethal ways. Definition 3 really doesn't fit into my personal definition.

*

Definition three is ALL a correspondent is obsessed with. I received an article subtitled "pacifists protect tyrants and incite wars," which is one of the least plausible things I have received recently.

It actually cites Fox News. No. Really. I rudely accused the author of studying comedy. I mean, Fox News?!?!? I feel bad about making that accusation, but the premise is so incredible.

Quote: "History will record with severity the huge social, human and political cost of the activism of the erroneously named 'pacifists'."

Okay, everyone reading this was required to take a history course at some point, correct? How many times have you read chapters devoted to how pacifists have undermined world peace by being non-violent? Did you answer never? A cookie for you.

This article has amazing quotes, such as: "During the decade of 1970, the handing over by U.S. government of several Southeast Asian nations to communists -who unleashed indescribable massacres of millions of innocent civilians, such as in Cambodia- was in most part precipitated by pressures on behalf of 'pacifists'."

This indicates great confusion. I hate to be the one to point this out, but it's rather obvious that the US government _did not own_ Southeast Asia. All 50 states are in non-Asian areas. There are a couple of territories, which are still there, and which are not communist. Since you can't give what you don't have, it's pretty clear that the U.S. was not handing Southeast Asian nations out like candy at Halloween to commies. Duh.

A close reading of the article indicates that, while massacres by leftists are heinous, massacres by right-wingers (the Shah, Pinochet, Contras, etc.) are apparently peachy, because they merit no mention at all. Being killed by right-wingers: good. Being killed by left-wingers: bad. I had never looked upon death in such a politically qualitative way, but there it is.

My favorite aspect of the article really is the idea that pacifists incite wars. Because it's so completely wacky. Let's look at the current war.

1. Who armed Saddam Hussein?
a. militarists
b. pacifists
2. Who sold Hussein components to build weapons of mass destruction?
a. militarists, including Cheney's company Halliburton
b. pacifists
3. Who tried to get Iraq a greater line of credit despite evidence of chemical weapons use, in an attempt to ensure Iraq's victory over Iran?
a. militarists
b. pacifists
4. Whose support of arms and credit allowed Hussein to kill his domestic rivals and consolidate his power?
a. militarists
b. pacifists.

It's unfair for me to set up a "straw man" like this, making fun of the author's complete blind spot for all militarism (and US militarism in particular). But it's terribly satisfying, in a low and vulgar way.

Opposition to the use of violence does not create violence. Weapons sales and fundamentalism and extreme political dogmas and greed and fear create violence, especially when combined. Sitting on the sidewalk, eating an apricot and praying for peace is not going to make your neighbors burst from their homes with submachine guns and go on killing sprees.

At least, not on my planet. Which is earth.

Blogger, my blog publisher/enabler, is having some technical difficulties. I may be able to upload this, but I can't publish to my food page. Which is a shame, because I have a really long entry that failed to go through twice this evening.

So I'm going to save some wacky pro-war mail commentary I've received for tomorrow night. You'll have to remove your logic cap to enjoy it, however. It's rather 'out there.'

Oh no: this injured young girl in Iraq looks like one of my little nieces. I can't tell you how sad it is to see this man, crying over his niece, who looks like mine.

Iraq is full of people, just like us. Baghdad is full of people, just like us.

*

I just heard on Bill Moyer's show Now that some newspapers in Texas have been accused of being anti-war. The reason: they printed pictures of Iraqi casualties.

They showed what is happening.

They showed photos of war.

And it turns out that real photos of war could be interpreted as a condemnation of war.

Go figure.

*

Perception is everything. I remember hearing that the first photos of the earth from space caused political upheaval, because they show earth the way it really looks. The imaginary borders, and the odd colors and symbols we use on our maps and globes aren't really there. The planet really is one planet. The land really is just land, not their land or our land. The huge barriers inked across our minds aren't actually marked on the earth.

The fact that people in authority were alarmed by this revelation is fascinating to me. I try to actively remember that perceptions are carefully cultivated, so we see our own, customized edition of reality.

Civilian casualties mount in Hilla.

At least several dozen civilians are believed to have been killed in the area in the past few days, and the wards at Hilla's hospital are filled with hundreds of bleeding, moaning patients.

But the ones who may be remembered long after the war sweeps past this place are those who appeared to have been maimed by cluster bombs -- the tiny, unpredictable munitions notorious for the toll they took on civilians in the conflicts in Afghanistan, Kosovo and the 1991 Persian Gulf War.

[Just an aside here: how many of you remember reading reports of Kosovars being injured by our weapons? Or seeing photos of that in the papers? Me neither.]

The Pentagon admitted for the first time Wednesday that American forces are now using cluster bombs in the Iraq conflict...

Reporters who have visited Hilla's hospital since then have left with the strong impression that cluster munitions may have been responsible for many of the injuries there -- shrapnel driven into eyes, legs, breasts, brains and backs.

Residents of surrounding hamlets described a rain of the tiny explosives, which detonated either in the air, upon impact on buildings and -- most chillingly -- later on when they were bumped into on the ground by people or animals....

Pointing at six other beds occupied by youngsters with bloodstained bandages and bruises, she cried, "What did these little children do to the Americans? What did they do to Bush?"

This article continues to describe an attack against a civilian bus, which decapitated most of the occupants. The U.S. is trying to cast doubt on how these injuries took place. The reporter notes that the reports about houses being bombed are "vague," because the victims didn't get a good look at the bombs.

Seriously. The U.S. is dropping hundreds of thousands of bombs, shooting missiles, and firing from tanks, but whenever anyone is injured, the U.S. government suggests that it was SOMEONE ELSE's BOMB. This is completely implausible. The attempts of the U.S. regime to cast doubt that their massive bombing and shelling campaign is responsible for injuries defies all reason.

Intelligent life on this planet should be insulted.

*

Iraqometer has added two new categories. The 'cost per taxpayer' is on the lowest side of estimates I've read so far.

What does it mean when a large chorus of criticism from retired and current military officers angers the Bush Administration? General Myers (chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) calls the criticism of Rumsfeld's meddling, understaffing, and some poor scheduling decisions "bogus." Myers says the criticism was made by people who "either weren't there, don't know, or they're working another agenda."

Moreover, Myers added, "It is not helpful to have those kind of comments come out when we've got troops in combat because, first of all, they're false, they're absolutely wrong, they bear no resemblance to the truth, and it's just harmful to our troops that are out there fighting very bravely, very courageously."

(I think this is a nice addition to the earlier theme about the government not really having all that much respect for veterans.)

I find this interesting, because it sounds a bit paranoid to say that current and retired veterans/officers are both completely misguided AND may be "working another agenda," which is completely unspecified. What agenda might these conspiratorial veterans be working? Inquiring minds want to know!

Also, I like the continued myth that domestic criticisms are freely available to the soldiers in combat. Because the NY Times is being delivered to their tent doors, and they have enough time to read it all?

*

Reports expressed concern that a maternity hospital in Baghdad may have been 'bombed' by US forces.

In Baghdad, Red Crescent official Abdel-Hameed Salim told Reuters: "There were air raids. Some 25 people who work and live in the area were wounded. Three of our Red Crescent staff were also wounded." ...

Iraqi authorities said on Wednesday that at least 55 civilians had been killed by coalition forces in attacks on Baghdad and other cities in the past 24 hours.

At least 33 of the victims are reported to have died when US helicopter gunships strafed a residential neighbourhood in the city of Hilla on Tuesday....

[International Committee of the Red Cross] spokeswoman Nada Doumani said the team "witnessed a vehicle transporting bodies of men, women and children to the [Hilla] hospital and in the hospital they saw also some 300 injured people and it was very clear that this was the result of heavy fighting and bombings".

The Red Cross said the hospital was completely unable to cope....

The United States has admitted shooting dead seven women and children after their vehicle failed to stop at a checkpoint in Najaf on Monday, but said "the climate established by the Iraqi regime" had contributed to the incident.

Of course, that same bad climate wouldn't have caused these deaths in the absence of U.S. soldiers, but I think we're not supposed to know that.

*

Here are photos of more international protests for peace.

*

I should post more links to reporting by the Iraq Peace Team, a group of Canadian and American peace workers observing the impact of the war on the Iraqi people, and reporting it to all. They are featured in a Reuters story on the confusion of Baghdad residents over US intentions.

"People just ask why? They stress the point that they are not criminals and never wanted to attack the United States. It doesn't make logical sense to them," said Kathy Kelly, head of a group of activists who have been in Baghdad since October.

Speaking to Reuters by telephone, she said ordinary Iraqi's were struggling to understand Washington's talk of liberating Iraq, given the "viciousness" of the strikes, now in their seventh day...

"We met one woman last night who was so distraught, she had to be restrained," Breen said. "She had just lost one daughter and her three other children were in hospital. It is a fearful situation."

On Wednesday, a Reuters Television correspondent reported seeing 15 burned corpses in a poor residential part of Baghdad following a U.S. air raid....

"They have become like family to me and it is all the more inconceivable that we could be doing this to them," she said. "Especially now, it becomes increasingly hard to face these people who look so imploringly at me and just ask why this is happening.

"More than the bombs, I fear more for the soul of my own country and what we are doing as a nation. This is the time to turn around what is happening and change the course of history."

The Guardian Unlimited somehow was omitted from my weekly visit list. It is also the source of many great articles.

*

Wait a minute, I keep hearing that soldiers are fighting for my rights to free speech (which I admittedly don't believe anyway), but then how can this be possible? This Indymedia summary of a Reuters article is frightening: OREGON LAW WOULD JAIL WAR PROTESTERS AS TERRORISTS: "An Oregon anti-terrorism bill would jail street-blocking protesters for at least 25 years in a thinly veiled effort to discourage anti-war demonstrations, critics say.... lawmakers still expect a debate on the definition of terrorism and the value of free speech before a vote by the state senate judiciary committee, whose Chairman, Republican Senator John Minnis, wrote the proposed legislation. Dubbed Senate Bill 742, it identifies a terrorist as a person who "plans or participates in an act that is intended, by at least one of its participants, to disrupt" business, transportation, schools, government, or free assembly." There are links to the full article (which can be found at Findlaw and elsewhere).


*

How is Arundhati Roy so consistently great? This essay has so many good parts, I'm not sure which to quote to entice you to read the rest. But I'll choose this:

Finally [criticics of all that is American or British] should remember that right now, hundreds of thousands of British and American citizens are on the streets protesting the war. The Coalition of the Bullied and Bought consists of governments, not people. More than one third of America's citizens have survived the relentless propaganda they've been subjected to, and many thousands are actively fighting their own government. In the ultra-patriotic climate that prevails in the US, that's as brave as any Iraqi fighting for his or her homeland.

While the "Allies" wait in the desert for an uprising of Shia Muslims on the streets of Basra, the real uprising is taking place in hundreds of cities across the world. It has been the most spectacular display of public morality ever seen.

Most courageous of all, are the hundreds of thousands of American people on the streets of America's great cities - Washington, New York, Chicago, San Francisco. The fact is that the only institution in the world today that is more powerful than the American government, is American civil society. American citizens have a huge responsibility riding on their shoulders. How can we not salute and support those who not only acknowledge but act upon that responsibility? They are our allies, our friends.

Sites I now visit every day:
Text

• BBC News World Edition
  
• San Francisco's Independent Media Center, a collaborative news publishing project run by ordinary, yet very talented and dedicated, people
  
• Indymedia.org, the international Independent Media Center
  
• SFGate (San Francisco Chronicle Online), and its Day In Pictures Feature
  

Audio

BBC World News Live (audio, real player, other versions available)

Enemy Combatant Radio, a webcast of local news and a wild variety of music

Sites I visit every week or so:

• This Modern World, a web log by the author of the comic strip of the same name
  
• Truthout.org, because someone is always sending me a great article from this site about the war
  
• Der Spiegel (in German) with cover stories summarized in English
  
• German Indymedia (in German), along with Cleveland Indymedia, Mumbai Indymedia, and other locales from which I'm wildly unlikely to hear opinions reflected in the mainstream media
  
• Not quite weekly, but increasingly often: The New York Times Multimedia page
  
• Al Jazeera, the post-hacker link, to see what the rest of the world sees.
  

*

Last week there were huge demonstrations for peace around the world. Indymedia's figures:

Spain (many cities) - 1,000,000 - M26
Syria, Damascus - 500,000 to 1,000,000 - M25
Indonesia, Jakarta - 300,000 to 500,000 - M30
Morocco, Rabat - 200,000 - M30
Algeria, Algiers -200,000 - M27
India, Calcutta - 150,000 - M30
Iran, Tehran - 100,000s - M29
Pakistan, Peshawar - 100,000 - 200,000 - M29
Germany (across various cities) - 100,000 - 150,000 - M30
Yemen, Saana - 100,000 - M27
Spain, Rota - 60,000 - M30
Bangladesh, Bazar - 50,000 - M30
France, Paris - 50,000 - M29
Greece, Athens - 50,000 - 100,000 - M29
Lebanon, Tripoli - 40,000 - M28
Massachusetts, Boston - 30,000 - 50,000 - M29
South Korea - 30,000 - M29

How many of those did you see on TV?

*

Speaking of TV journalism, I wish I had attended the protest against Fox News' biased reporting. (I had to work that lunch hour.) It keeps getting worse:

Fox News had its own response to the demonstrators. The news ticker rimming Fox's headquarters on Sixth Avenue wasn't carrying war updates as the protest began. Instead, it poked fun at the demonstrators, chiding them.

"War protester auditions here today ... thanks for coming!" read one message. "Who won your right to show up here today?" another questioned. "Protesters or soldiers?"

Since we established our own darned right to free speech and assembly when we both protested againts and then fought against England for our independence, I would say both. Or, I would say, 'a lot of dead guys a really long time ago, who wouldn't watch Fox News.' But that might sound biased.

*

While visiting The Fatal Second Banana: Vice Presidents and How They Suck, I realized that the author has a rather entertaining web log. It includes a well expressed commentary on why every single person in the military is NOT, in fact, defending our freedom. This seems especially obvious in instances in which we are attacking countries which have never, in fact, attacked us, yet it still needs to be said.

I support our troops, in that I want them to come home alive, have good health care, and live in decent housing.

Other people support our troops by wanting to send them into harm's way in distant countries that have never attacked us, where they are unwelcome.

But we can use the same words, and the latter group has first dibs on the meaning of 'support' as reported in the media.

Politics corrupts language.

*

What timing: a colleague just forwarded this Iraq War Quiz by Stephen R. Shalom, which features a similar theme:

1. The anti-war movement supports our troops by urging that they be brought home immediately so they neither kill nor get killed in a unjust war. How has the Bush administration shown its support for our troops?

a. The Republican-controlled House Budget Committee voted to cut $25 billion in veterans benefits over the next 10 years.

b. The Bush administration proposed cutting $172 million from impact aid programs that provide school funding for children of military personnel.

c. The administration ordered the Dept. of Veterans Affairs to stop publicizing health benefits available to veterans.

d. All of the above.

Unfortunately, the correct answer is D. Visit Truthout to read its many, many excellent articles.

*

S mentioned to me yesterday that Peter Arnett has been fired AGAIN, this time for going on Iraqi television with his personal opinions that the war isn't going as smoothly as U.S. forces had planned. In the last Gulf War, he was fired for visiting a baby formula factory that had been bombed and reporting on it. That sounds benign, but the official U.S. line was that the factory was making chemical weapons, and the fact that he tasted the baby formula and brought packets of it from the ruins to hand out to locals was considered dangerous anti-propaganda. (See my earlier entry on this event).

While going on Iraqi TV was something he likely thought could get him some good interviews later, and which would benefit him under other circumstances, it was a gesture the U.S. propaganda war (which, apparently, we're also losing OUTSIDE of the U.S.) could not afford.

I suppose the U.S. government will eventually give up on having journalists stationed anywhere, and just have a military press office make announcements for the network news talking heads to read aloud. Much like last time.

*

Photos: unhappy civilians flee Basra; scenes from international protests on March 30th; and anti-war protesters without a permit are pepper-sprayed, just because.

There is a very sad article in the excellent Observer called This is the reality of war. We bomb. They suffer. I haven't read anything in a U.S. paper quite like this. Should I wonder why? Or are children U.S. bombs paralyze not news? (Or at least, not as worthy news as the latest playstation game, or who wore what at the Oscars?) No, don't answer that.

I took a nearly two-day vacation from reading war-related media, yet war still disturbs my dreams.

*

I was reading this May 2002 Time Magazine article on Bush's obsession with Iraq. It suggests that Bush has been planning this war since he was sworn in.

Rumsfeld has been so determined to find a rationale for an attack that on 10 separate occasions he asked the CIA to find evidence linking Iraq to the terror attacks of Sept. 11. The intelligence agency repeatedly came back empty-handed. The best hope for Iraqi ties to the attack - a report that lead hijacker Mohamed Atta met with an Iraqi intelligence official in the Czech Republic - was discredited last week....

But other Administration principals fear that Saddam is working his own U.N. angle for the return of weapons inspectors to Iraq, whose presence could make the U.S. look like a bully if it invades. "The White House's biggest fear is that U.N. weapons inspectors will be allowed to go in," says a top Senate foreign policy aide.

From the moment he took office, Bush has made noises about finishing the job his father started. Sept. 11 may have diverted his attention, but Iraq has never been far from his mind. By the end of 2001...the communications team was plotting how to sell an attack to the American public. The whole purpose of putting Iraq into Bush's State of the Union address, as part of the "axis of evil," was to begin the debate about a possible invasion.

Yes, that is from May 2002.

It's not so much the fact that Bush has been determined to start a war that bothers me about the tone of the article - my hopes for this Administration's intentions have always been low. It's the fact that the article never questions for a moment the idea of the United States unilaterally forcing a regime change. Perhaps it is an attempt at 'objectivity,' but there are serious ethical questions that should always be considered when OVERTHROWING the head of a sovereign nation, and none of those are raised at all.

*

From a colleague: Iraqometer.com, with its tallies of civilian casualties (currently at 580), WMDs found (gee, at zero, who would have thought), and with its cool graphics. Some of the best material is on the About page, including a scary quote from Bush Sr. as to why occupying Iraq is a terrible idea, and these stats:

Percentage of Americans who currently support this war: 72%

Percentage of Americans who believe Iraq attacked the World Trade Center: 51%

Percentage of Americans who cannot locate Iraq on a world map: 65%

How did all these stupid people wind up living in MY home country? What the heck went wrong?

*

Here's a good reason not to fly Delta: "the U.S. government is assembling dossiers on American citizens and then assigning them each their own Threat Assessment Color -- red, yellow or green. Under a pilot program, from March until June the dossiers are being collected as soon as anyone buys a ticket on Delta Airlines to fly via a handful of unspecified airports...

No citizen will be able to challenge a dossier, or even see it; or even to learn whether he or she has been labeled a yellow citizen or a green, much less why. Green citizens are to be waved through airline boarding with the usual scrutiny, red citizens to be detained as likely terrorists; the big question is yellow citizens, who will be searched more suspiciously but then allowed onto the plane -- with their "yellow" designation winging through cyberspace ahead of them, to who knows whom and with what effect.

More information at Boycottdelta.org.

*

From the 'oh, and I thought I was having enough nightmares' file, this item from the English-language edition of Der Spiegel:

According to a classified document leaked from the Pentagon last month, the Bush administration is planning a secret meeting in August at the "Strategic Command" headquarters in Omaha, Nebraska, and the topic on the agenda will be further development of the US nuclear program. The objective is to develop smaller, tactical nuclear weapons and neutron bombs, weapons to be deployed in preventive attacks against "rogue nations." According to Pentagon chief Rumsfeld, potential targets include North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Libya.

I joked at work about selling T-shirts with the US flag and the words "rogue nation" underneath, but... but... the very thought...

The article also quotes former president Carter in words I had not previously read: "Now a group of conservatives, under the cover of war, is attempting to pursue the ambitions it has harbored for years."

*

Last Thursday I heard a radio item on the every so excellent BBC World Service. The speaker said that Rumsfeld referred to the chemical weapons treaty as a "straightjacket" in February, and wants to use chemical weapons in Iraq. The US considers the weapons legal, but most of the world doesn't. The BBC host wondered if the US could possibly anticipate the 'hypocrisy' other countries would view the use of such agents by the US as, since it's chemical weapons that we claim were our motivation for rushing into Iraq in the first place.

I was in shock and awe. Would the US really use chemical weapons?

Do you really want me to answer that question? This is from, of all places I never personnally look, Fox Marketwire:

The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons oversees countries' moves to stop developing, stockpiling, transferring and using chemical weapons. The treaty even bans using these harmful agents during military operations. It specifies: "Each state party undertakes not to use riot-control agents as a method of warfare."

That provision came under hot debate during the 15 years it took to craft the treaty. It arose as an objection to the United States' reliance on tear gas to flush out Viet Cong fighters and kill them during the Vietnam War.

[I had no idea the U.S. did that. The chemical agent used was non-lethal, but the end result was quite lethal...]

Army Major General David Grange ordered his troops to use tear gas on hostile crowds of Serbs in Bosnia six years ago but complained that red tape prevented him from using it more often.

"We didn't kill anyone," Grange, who is retired, told The Associated Press. "It saved lives."

And now, the part that I fear earned this a mention in the BUSINESS section, rather than, say, news or world affairs or ethics:

A Pennsylvania State University institute prepared a 50-page report with Pentagon funding in October 2000 that explored a range of drugs - including Prozac, Valium and Zoloft - for use as "calmatives" for crowds.

The researchers found "use of non-lethal calmative techniques is achievable and desirable." Despite the endorsement, Marine Capt. Shawn Turner of the non-lethal weapons directorate said the military stopped "calmative" research because such drug-weapons could violate international law.

I'm sure pharmaceutical stocks rose one and a quarter percent upon this news. @#$%^&*!!