Gee, Arlene, you sure do report a lot of bad news about the situation in Iraq.

Well, yes. There's a lot of bad news to report, though I notice it's slipped from the front pages of the papers. And the thing that bothers me most, I suppose, is that all this bad news seems... unnecessary.

Are you suggesting that there's an alternative? What would you do differently if you were occupying Iraq?

I guess that's the thing: I would NOT be occupying Iraq if I were a superpower. It's been done before, and it didn't work well that time, either: the colonial British did it, forced people to form a country who didn't have much in common, arbitrarily drew some borders, and mucked things up badly enough that the aftermath is still being felt today.

There is no 'undo' button for colonialism, or for war, or for occupation. These things create aftermaths that simmer for decades.

It's very difficult to create a just society from unjust beginnings.

Okay, specifically, what would you have done differently in the past few decades?

Gosh. If I were President Reagan, I wouldn't have sold Hussein chemical weapons. I wouldn't have extended his credit after learning that he gassed people within his borders. I probably wouldn't have allowed U.S. companies to sell weapons to both sides in the Iran-Iraq war.

If I were President Bush I and President Clinton, I probably wouldn't have been so chummy with Hussein that he thought the U.S. was winking at him when he invaded Kuwait. Changing that and providing a stern warning might have prevented full-scale war right there. If the U.S. chose to intervene on Kuwait's behalf, I probably would have insisted that Kuwait clean up its abysmal human rights record, since the idea of battling one despot for the freedom of another group of despots doesn't seem like a good investment of U.S. lives.

But some of my ideas are so humane that I probably wouldn't have done well in politics as any of those men anyway. I don't really believe that Americans should put dinner on the table by selling landmines to poor countries, often subsidized with American tax money, that blow up children. I would promote democracy through development assistance with other countries that invovled nutrition and medical programs, including scholarships for medical students that want to be doctors who are willing to serve both underserved communities in the U.S. and underserved communities abroad. I would be reluctant to form alliances with non-democracies, countries with poor human rights records, places without freedom of the press or of religion. I would want our country to enjoy a truly high standard of living, not based on how many TVs and VCRs and cars each home has, but based on how many children have enough to eat at night and how many people have health and medical care, while attempting to ensure that all people who work hard really do have a chance to earn rewards, rather than watch their retirement savings stolen by corporate pirates.

See what I mean? Too humane. Insufficiently oil-driven. Too... friendly. I believe in punishing despots and invaders -- I do -- and I believe in doing it through a strong body of international law, such as the International Criminal Court. If evil deeds go unpunished, it throws societies out of wack and sets the stage for future disputes. People who feel justice has been done are less likely to hold grudges. Yet our current policies, and the policies of other former colonial powers, just assumes that one decree that a dispute is over is enough, and that everyone can go about their business...

So many things could be better. So very many things. And if we forget that, we'll just keep doing the same stupid things our countries have been doing for years, and never learn, never get better, never really live in peace and prosperity without exploiting or killing or cheating. I think we could do so much better. And that's why this whole war and occupation are so discouraging. A better future -- a better PRESENT -- is possible. But it seems just out of reach.

In life, you can learn a lot of things accidently, by happenstance. You can learn from your mistakes (or not). But sometimes, you have to go out of your way to avoid learning something.

The U.S. is going out of its way not to learn how many civilians have died in Iraq, either during the war, or during the occupation by U.S. forces.

That's very odd to me.

As the growing number of civilian deaths in Iraq increases resentment against U.S. forces, surely there is something to be learned? (SF Gate) Something other than, 'the life of an occupied people is cheap,' which is something we already knew, sadly.

*

After an incident in Khaldiyah where resentment of the troops resulted in a mob torching the mayor's office, U.S. troops withdrew without making a positive impression. (Washington Post) One local said that it was not sympathy for the ousted regime but outrage that the soldiers shot teenagers and blew up shopfronts during their visit that upset the crowd.

*

How to know you've lowered your standards for success: when the military announces they've gone two whole days without an American casualty. (Washington Post)

Hussein, Iraq's evil dictator, used to drag people out of their homes late in the night, and hold them in one of his prisons without charging them or letting their families know what has become of them.

The United States, Iraq's aspiring liberator, is now dragging people out of their homes late in the night, and holding them in one of Saddam Hussein's prisons without charging them or letting their families know what has become of them. (SF Gate) No, really. This is supposed to be a recipe for success and appreciation. From the same article:

According to rights groups, none of several thousand detainees being held at 18 U.S. military jails throughout Iraq has been allowed to see a lawyer or meet with relatives, and none has yet been charged with a crime or brought to trial. They have essentially fallen into a black hole.

In their infinite wisdom, US forces even detained the President of Iraq's Red Crescent Society (the sibling organization of our Red Cross) for several hours, tied him up, and refused to provide him with water.

The U.S. is also trying to set up its own court system to try whoever it wants to try for whatever crimes it feels like charging, dishing out whatever punishments it feels like dishing. To make things look legitimate.

Don't we MAKE FUN of countries that pull this kind of joke on people?

*

Iraqis accuse American troops of hysteria in their violent efforts to find Hussein and his supporters.(BBC) (This article also notes that an Al-Jazeera reporter was captured and his tape confiscated after he filmed U.S. troops shooting at a civilian vehicle, but he has now been released -- without his videotape.)

*

Task Force 20 raided a villa in the belief, it is reported, that perhaps Saddam's youngest son Ali or even the former president himself was sheltering there. They found nothing and made no arrests, but troops guarding the scene shot and killed five people.

(From the BBC)

*

Interesting quote of the moment from an editorial from truthout.org:

Well, if we're going to talk about aiding the enemy: By cooking intelligence to promote a war that wasn't urgent, the administration has squandered our military strength. This provides a lot of aid and comfort to Osama bin Laden - who really did attack America - and Kim Jong Il - who really is building nukes.

I do find it interesting that many people who claimed to be concerned for the safety of those of us in the U.S. have NO PROBLEM with the idea of unguarded nuclear facilities being looted in Iraq, no problem with the idea that our intelligence reports to the president are either wildly inaccurate or wildly misused, no problem with the idea that weapons the administration claims exists are nowhere to be found, yet no one seems to be looking for them... Though there's no point in looking for weapons you KNOW don't exist... Which means...

*

There's lots more great stuff to read at truthout.org, as always.

*

Not to bring up our LAST wildly unsucessful attempt at saving a country from it's wicked rulers and then improving the citizens' lives, but things still aren't going well in Afghanistan. (Washington Post) In fact, Taliban 'guerrillas' are "roaming around freely" in public quite a bit, and threatening people in ways that undermine the country's stability. (truthout.org)

Wouldn't it be nice to get some practice at helping a country and leaving people much better off before we try it again elsewhere?

The feeding frenzy over the Defense Department's ill-conceived notion of letting people invest in terrorism futures was pretty entertaining today. (SF Gate). The idea of gambling against and for various unpleasant events happening, and using the investment patterns to predict or prevent terrorism, was too much even for Republicans, whose very harsh comments got heavy play today.

The afternoon economics shows didn't seem too surprised by the idea, having already decided that the stock market's wisdom is a great thing. However, one consultant did voice the idea that, even if you believe that wise investors can give a good indication of when terrorism would occur, the fact that the Pentagon would be using that information to prevent terrorism would keep investors from making any money... And I kept waiting for the punch line. And waiting. And waiting.

No, Poindexter is not enough of a punch line on his own.

Quote of the day:

"Can we be sure that terrorism and weapons of mass destruction will join together? Let us say one thing: If we are wrong, we will have destroyed a threat that at its least is responsible for inhuman carnage and suffering. That is something I am confident history will forgive." -Tony Blair, July 17, 2003 (Washington Post)

My my.

As S. asked when I read him this quote, "So do they think that the fact Hussein was a tyrant would have been enough to bring our countries into war?"

Obviously not.

*

"Even if there were no weapons of mass destruction, we removed the tyrant from Iraq." -- Tony Blair. (spiegel.de)


*

Do you remember the principal of American justice, that one is innocent until proven guilty? Bush doesn't.

QUESTION: Do you have concerns that they'll get justice, the people detained there?

BUSH: "No, the only thing I know for certain is that these are bad people.

...

QUESTION: Mr. President, do you realize that many people hearing you say that we know these are bad people in Guantanamo Bay will merely fuel their doubts that the United States regards them as innocent until proven guilty and [due] a fair, free and open trial?

BUSH: Let me just say, these were illegal combatants. They were picked up off the battlefield aiding and abetting the Taliban. I'm not trying to try them in front of your cameras or in your newspaper. (CNN)

Of course, many of the so-called 'illegal combatants' were actually picked up in Pakistan, far from any battlefield, going about their daily business. And some of the 'illegal combatants' are just 13 years old. Some 'illegal combatants' were 70 years old (who were released -- there may be others still in custody of that age).

*

Heard about the suicide attempts by these illegal combatants recently? (unknownnews.com). I didn't think so.

*

There is skepticism, disgust, and celebration over the deaths of Hussein's sons on a comment board(BBC). Some, especially Americans, hail their killings; others ask why they couldn't have been arrested and tried; others doubt that they are Hussein's sons at all.


*

I hope I am not the only one who sees something wrong with this title: "Stocks Rise on Earns, Saddam Sons' Deaths" (Yahoo!/Reuters).

I forgot to add this summary of Darn good intelligence and the Bush Administration's many inconsistencies in defending its decision to emphasize Iraq's nuclear ambitions. (Washington Post) For those of you who haven't heard enough about those 16 words.

... senior administration officials acknowledged over the weekend that Tenet argued personally to White House officials, including deputy national security adviser Stephen Hadley, that the allegation should not be used in the October speech, four months before the State of the Union address.

[I still have a hard time blaming other countries for having nuclear ambitions. I mean, WE the U.S. did, right? And every country that gets them is suddenly treated with considerably more respect from us, right? Knowing that, it's hard to take our government's many "do as we say, not as we do" lectures to other countries seriously. If the U.S. won't sign a landmine treaty or destroy its anthrax collection or stop using radioactive materials in battle, why should anyone else? (There are reasons, of course, but they fail to be as convincing as they could if the U.S. had some sort of moral authority in such matters.)]

But back on topic: Bush Aide Steven Hadley is now taking the blame for the discredited uranium assertion (Yahoo! news).

...deputy national security adviser, said he should have deleted the reference from the January speech because the CIA had asked him to remove similar language from an October speech by the president... He said he had failed to recall the CIA objections, which were included in two memos and a telephone conversation with Tenet in the days before Bush outlined his case against Iraq in an Oct. 7, 2002 speech in Cincinnati.

Hadley said the CIA memos which had been sent to him were found over the weekend. White House officials had previously said they had not been informed of CIA doubts over the claim.

How many people will the Administration offer up as sacrifice? Stay tuned!

*

Dr. David Kelly, who had spoken to the BBC about the UK's case for war, was found dead on July 20th (BBC) with a slashed wrist and a package of pain killers. He had admitted to having had an 'unauthorized' conversation with the BBC, who had refused to name sources for stories that were damaging to the government.

He's the first 'fall guy' to turn up dead over the WMD issue.

Perhaps I shouldn't say first. It implies too much. Hmmm.

While the Blair government has accused the BBC of improprieties, the BBC apparently has a tape recording of Mr. Kelly making statements damaging to the Blair government (Guardian UK).

Add this to your "Why do they hate us?" file: a photo of a U.S. soldier drinking Coke and watching over Iraqi prisoners with bags tied over their heads (SFGate.

For your "Why does Turkey hate us?" file: a discussion of how the U.S. interrogated Turkish soldiers for 60 hours, which has caused a souring of relations with Turkey.(BBC)

*

This is only marginally on-topic, but the special 'Land of The Free' issue of the Stranger. No, it's not about the U.S. -- "It's America's Independence Day, and to celebrate, we're dedicating this issue to the greatest, most freedom-filled nation on Earth: Canada!" The essays associated with the issue, some of which are pure humor, others opinion, point out some differences about our nations that have influenced our differing paths, including our differences over attacking Iraq.

I especially find interesting the observation that the U.S. has formed a national religion, making things such as the flag sacred, which is apparently unfathomable in Canada. They also very strictly believe in the separation between church and state, and their leaders never pray in public.

Wow.

This issue also includes articles with titles like, "Canada's Biggest Idiots Are Your Biggest Stars"

For those of you who haven't reread Orwell lately

The always excellent This Modern World excerpts a report by a man who was interrogated by the FBI for reading an anti-Fox-news editorial in his local cafe (atlanta.creativeloafing.com). Seriously.

HE WAS READING IN A CAFE WHILE GETTING HIS COFFEE. Apparently, some of his fellow coffee drinkers are freaks, but that doesn't excuse this.

*

Also featured in TMW, a link to the blog Skippy the Bush Kangaroo, which, in turn, has references to many other good blogs.

Hey, this Internet thing is becoming useful after all!

The Democratic National Committee has a new game on their website: George W. Bush Credibility Twister. Ouch!

I’ve been coming up with flawed analogies, comparing certain authorities occupying the White House with abusive husbands/fathers. It may be wrong of me to do so. But it seems like all the relatives keep trying to get him into group counseling at the UN, but he’s too convinced that everyone else’s concerns are too petty to be bothered with. He oversimplifies so that everything that benefits him is good, and anything that doesn’t is evil. He tries to make his immediate family feel frightened to justify violence against others who have not previously posed any threat. He is offended whenever his authority is questioned, even when he’s wrong. He tries to dominate his country/family through fear (and considering the Patriot Act, it’s working). He won’t admit to making mistakes: if his actions harm the innocent, he blames others for ‘making’ him do it. (Hussein ‘forcing’ us to bomb Iraqi civilians being a sadly recurring example.) Some writers have remarked that Bush treats Congress like an unwanted stepchild (prospect.org). But I’ll stray from this theme and just talk about his promotion of fear in the American people.

*

The idea of Bush ruling us through fear, an idea usually used in discussions about nasty and oppressive foreign dictators, is increasingly common in web searches. The difference may be that, instead of merely making us fear HIM, he’s attempting to make us fear everyone BUT him.

A short Nation article analyzing Bush’s speeches relative to those of other presidents (truthout.org)(thanks, D!) talks about how Bush is trying to make the U.S. feel helpless, fearful, and dependent upon him.

To create a dependency dynamic between him and the electorate, Bush describes the nation as being in a perpetual state of crisis and then attempts to convince the electorate that it is powerless and that he is the only one with the strength to deal with it. He attempts to persuade people they must transfer power to him….

John Brady Kiesling’s resignation letter over Bush’s Iraq policy asked if oderint dum metuant (more or less, ‘they can hate so long as they fear [us]’), which is directed at those we are, in turn, supposed to be afraid of, and acting in preventative self defense (!!) against. Other writers have noted that fear is close enough to respect for this Administration (pigdog.org).

This can’t lead anywhere good.

The examples of previous presidents in the Nation article dwelling on the strength of the American people to overcome problems together, rather than on our immense vulnerability and helplessness, is striking.

*

My favorite Get Your War On cartoon about Iraq (mnftiu.com) is about how the Iraqi people “ought to be the freest ****ing people on the face of the earth. They better be freeer than me. They better be so ****ing free they can fly.” It goes on to insist on a permanent, multi-mile long buffet line for the children of Iraq.

I have to admit that I suspect the multi-mile buffet line would go over better than the various showings of force (BBC) that U.S. and British forces have made in Iraq. The UK also made showings of force when they occuped Iraq and invented its borders to their liking years ago, and that didn't exactly turn out very well, did it? (A colleague noted that the British seem keen to repeat their past colonial mistakes, not admitting that part of the reason we're in our current situation is because of their meddling in the region previously...)

Not surprisingly, the Bush Administration and Pentagon do not like criticism they've heard from soldiers speaking to the press. So, many of those soldiers are being reprimanded by the Pentagon.(SFGate.com)

"It was the end of the world," said one officer Thursday. "It went all the way up to President Bush and back down again on top of us. At least six of us here will lose our careers."

The article goes on to note that there is the usual, recently established double standard: you have plenty of freedom to say that things are great, but no freedom to say that the Bush Administration or its policies are NOT great.

While you may be thinking, sure, but they have up their rights to have opinions when they joined the military and agreed to, um, well, fight for our right to freedom of speech, keep in mind the same speech double standard is being used against civilians. Want to be part of a rally at the airport for the arrival of Bush? You'd better be pro-Bush, or you're not allowed to speak freely, as this protester (Refuse & Resist) and others learned. Pro-Bush views can be expressed in the airport; anti-Bush views cannot.

Hmmm.

(This reminds me of the item I published earlier about how the same folks who said terrible things about Clinton think that criticizing the current president is treason. Oh, to hold them to their own standards!!)

Less than $200 million of reconstruction projects have been completed in Afghanistan (theworld.org), compared with $15 BILLION in estimated need. Western nations aren't living up to their rebuilding committments. The locals were expecting to be better off after supporting the effort to throw out the Taliban. They aren't yet, and are wondering if the promised
improvements in other aspects of their lives will ever come...

Not to bring up that pesky PREVIOUS, yesterday's news war, but the U.S. Administration's complete failure to succeed at 'nation building' there doesn't bode so well for the war-of-the-week nation.

*

Spin, spin, spin! British official John Sawyers claims that the shortages now plaguing Iraq are a result of improved democracy!! (theworld.org - wma file). No, really. His spin on this is that Baghdad was hoarding power unfairly so they had a constant supply, while other areas suffered shortages, so Baghdad's shortages are now more fair, because everyone has interrupted service.

When I think of democracy and fairness, I think of widespread shortages, don't you?

His explanation for water shortages adds classism: he implies that reporters are speaking with 'privileged' people who are accustomed to a regular water supply, and so they aren't representative. What a way to deflect a question!

How dare Iraqis of any class want CLEAN WATER from their liberators! (!?!)

I'm changing the title of this blog from "War is more than the absence of peace" back to an earlier title, "Peace is more than the absence of war." Not that we are in peace time -- there are many conflicts raging around the world, even if they aren't raging just next door. But that doesn't mean we won't all ultimately be effected. Peace and war are often regional in obvious scope, but much wider in their subtle, sadder scopes.

The title switch seems appropriate in the aftermath of the premature declaration of war's end and the ongoing unhappiness of so many people, in the occupied and among the occupiers.

Ending the bombing is not enough.

There are so many articles about the Bush Administration’s attempts to deflect criticism for using knowingly false information to justify attacking Iraq, I don’t need to write about it. Other people have been mentioning it more effectively than I can.

One writer sees Bush as the CEO who keeps having to "restate" profits (Washington Post), just like in so many recent corporate scandals.

There is a great article called Core of weapons case crumbling (BBC) by correspondent Paul Reynolds, which starts with: "Of the nine main conclusions in the British government document "Iraq's weapons of mass destruction", not one has been shown to be conclusively true."

One analyst wants to know why Powell dumped the Niger evidence, when three days earlier the President chose to include it (New York Times), since it had been called into doubt months earlier.

Nicholas Kristof complains of a broader pattern of dishonesty in the Administration's announcements about intelligence, (CNN) and notes that he's not the only one. "But Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, a group of retired spooks, issued an open letter to President Bush yesterday reflecting the view of many in the intel community that the central culprit is Vice President Dick Cheney. The open letter called for Mr. Cheney's resignation."

My my.

Kristof also has been told by attendees of Defense Intelligence Agency town halls that they're being asked to dumb down their intelligence reports.

The current issue of Time Magazine has a cover story called "Untruth and Consequences: How flawed was the case for going to war against Saddam?" and wonders aloud what else was incorrect in the State of the Union.

*

I'm bothered by the brazenness of it all. It's basically, 'we lied, but you can't do anything to stop us.' Where Clinton's lies about his own sex life were supposed to be a major threat to democracy, Bush's outright lies to lead our nation to war, his no-bid contracts to his campaign donors, his secret energy task force meetings, and his current scheme to expand the war are supposed to be sacrosanct and good. Unlike with Clinton, it is unpatriotic to question his actions.

I've never had more sympathy for the parties that opposed the rise of dictators, who watched their nation spiral downward in propaganda and lies while the majority was either unheard or in a blissfully ignorant state...

*

An angle I hadn’t considered with the new governing council of American-picked Iraqis (Washington Post): “U.S. officials also say they believe that putting responsibility for government operations on the council could help deflect public anger over the tardy resumption of basic services from the occupation authority."

Why that hadn’t occurred to me…

*

Somehow, a set of cards criticizing the Bush Administration's 'Hidden Agenda' was filed in the "offbeat news" section of CNN. But the Administration's original Iraqi most wanted cards didn't. Does that imply that the most wanted cards were NORMAL, somehow??

Here's something very worthwhile: an audio history of Iraq, from the folks at The World (a co-production of the BBC and Public Radio International). It covers how Iraq's borders were created by foreign powers, how the British installed a king, the rise of Saddam Hussein, and Gulf War I. It was recorded prior to the more recent attack on Iraq. I found it to be a valuable refresher for how we got here. It should give pause to those who consider installing a government that suits outside, rather than internal interests. (Should. But...)

*

Iraq is a lot like the former Yugoslavia in the respect that separate people with very different customs and beliefs were lumped together geographically and politically by external forces that didn't have the people's best interests at heart. It seems that many of the world's hot spots have a history of such forced associations, which are an unfortunate holdover from the colonial period. Until the people in such nations are allowed to choose their own political associations and agree on borders, we'll be cleaning up the mess made by colonists for YEARS.

*

I was discussing my earlier published list of what does and does not quality as "news" in the commercial U.S. media, and S extended this idea to history. He noted that so many of the embedded journalists believed that this was their big shot at fame, because they were witnessing "history." By which they actually just mean war. S remarked that a farmer plowing a field is never history. And that is sad.

S had cable TV when I first moved in with him, and he aptly renamed "the History Channel" The War Channel, because that was all that station deemed worthy of reporting on. You couldn't flip past it without watching bombs falling on Dresden AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN... It was very sad.

*

I believe journalists are subject to the same biases as our school textbooks. I mocked it at the time, but there is a consistent dogma to American History courses that, through repetition, hopes to drill certain unnatural values into the minds of democratic, peace-loving people. Those ideas are: War is important; rich people are important; generals and officers are important.

Only through harsh repetition can democratic, peace-loving people reflexively believe and say that most things we consider to be good are NOT "history." Not advances in medicine or hygiene; not art; not improvements in life quality; not liberation from oppression (unless it's violent liberation and rich people and generals were involved); not the advent of schooling for children, or the invention of the wonderful Arabic number system, or the invention of multi-story buildings, formal gardens, literature, poetry, the 40 hour work week, dentistry, jazz...

A better definition of history is needed. Now.

I propose a more comprehensive definition: 1) events that contribute to the advancement of humankind in knowledge, health, quality of life, communication, art, science, mutual understanding, and joy; 2) events that contribute to the regression of any or all of the above, and which people must find new methods to reverse so as to bring about a return to humankind's advancement. In both cases, history may be evaluated qualitatively.

All those other events, relating to the coronation of monarchs, passing of wealthy robber barons, and such, could be demoted from being 'history' and just referred to as time line placeholders.

The Washington Post has an even more dramatic Macromedia Flash 6 compilation of photographers, their work, and their words in "Eyes on the War". The photographers are from many different agencies and had many different experiences.

Some interviews indicate that embedding was a good political move by the military: after viewing a vehicle containing dead children shot by nervous gate guards, one photographer observes that she knows she would ordinarily have been appalled, but that having heard rumors of suicide bombers with her own ears, she believed that killing this family was justified.

The photographs also include images of the sort routinely censored in U.S. papers, which tried to show the war as "clean" and bloodless. Not that you need to spend your days looking at burned children and bodies littering the ground, but certainly our leaders should. And we should all know what the actual effects of war are.

*

S viewed the photos and audio with me, and was horrified, as any healthy person should be. We had a discussion about how these images wouldn't exist if only military photographers were present, especially those of harmed civilians. While some photographers may be there to make a name for themselves by documenting "history" unfolding, they are serving a valuable function by recording the many aspects of war with their different perspectives on it.

I wouldn't want to go as a journalist. Perhaps as a person with several huge cargo planes full of food and medicine, but not as someone who could only record what was before me, without being able to act on what I saw.

*

The Bush Administration finally admits that it shouldn't have used false information about Iraq attempting to buy nuclear materials. (Washington Post) The Administration found it increasingly difficult to defend forged evidence that had been debunked by the International Atomic Energy Agency, the CIA, a diplomat they'd sent on a special assignment to investigate (who recently went public), and the results of a widely publicized analysis in England.

This is a surprising concession to reality. I'm still taken aback.

*

Short bits: an opinion piece on how the rebuilding effort is fading from the press limelight (some news magazines are leading with features on... cholesterol?), and the difficulties U.S. soldiers are facing in their unfamiliar new peace keeping role (both from the Washington Post).

Not everything a man longs for is within his reach, for gusts of wind can blow against a ship's desires.
-Iraqi poet Tayyeb Mutanabbi

That lovely quote is from The Washington's Post's War In Iraq pages, within the brilliant photojournalism feature Photos, Day by Day. (It launches a Javascript that in turn launches a multimedia program in a new window. If this link doesn't work, go back to the prior one and look down the left hand column.)

*

Part of the reason I think the photojournalism feature is brilliant is that it has scenes of Baghdad and life for ordinary civilians during 2001-2002. Such photos (and acknowledgments of both civilian anti-Americanism during sanctions and images of suffering children) were largely censored in the Western press after Gulf War I.

Gulf War I was itself highly censored: the U.S. military supplied nearly all the footage broadcast by network news. But I had (wrongly) assumed that photos of ordinary Iraqi life after the war would soon be in the papers once the media's war hysteria died down.

Those photos did not appear. It took YEARS before I saw photos of ordinary life in Iraq. YEARS.

Was there a reason for that? I suspect so.

*

Photos that are not shown regularly in mainstream Western publications (a partial list):
-photos showing that people all over the world are just like us: including birthday parties, wedding festivities, children playing -- ESPECIALLY cute children playing -- games out of doors (especially games involving red rubber balls); families enjoying nature or picnics; people showing off family photos and prize winning home-grown veggies...

-traffic jams and high rises in African cities

-African cities in any way that would show they are large and populous

-female university students, especially those who are not white

-modern public schools in any nation offering more generous amenities than our crumbling school system does (rural foreign schools with dirt floors OK)

-good air quality in any foreign city that may have it (images of bad air quality in eastern Europe and Mexico city are acceptable; images of such lack of air quality in Houston and Los Angeles are not)

-clean, well-dressed people in native costume doing modern things (Japanese Geishas with cell phones are an exception only when the Japanese economy is outperforming the U.S. economy)

-the aftermath experienced by civilians of an American attack anywhere, at any time in history (rare exception: Vietnam)

-the actual effects on people of sophisticated American weapons systems

-the domestic conditions for poor Americans

-images of poor Americans with multiple jobs at their labors

-people protesting the policies of the U.S. in 'allied' nations

-people who are comfortably well off in a traditional, non-imported, non-consumerist lifestyle.

U.S. soldiers on police duty in Iraq are unhappy, and are now beginning to say so to the press.(Washington Post)

"U.S. officials need to get our [expletive] out of here," said the 43-year-old reservist from Pittsburgh, who arrived in Iraq with the 307th Military Police Company on May 24. "I say that seriously. We have no business being here. We will not change the culture they have in Iraq, in Baghdad. Baghdad is so corrupted. All we are here is potential people to be killed and sitting ducks."

Their concerns are reflected in an incident where an armed British police patrol in Majar al-Kabir ignited a multi-hour gunbattle in which 6 British soldiers were killed after running out of ammunition. (SF Gate) Locals believed the soldiers were violating an agreement to cease their intrusions into local areas.

Of course, Rumsfield insists things are fine in Iraq (Washington Post), and blames any and all resistance on "looters, criminals, remnants of Saddam Hussein's government, foreign terrorists and Iranian-backed Shiites." Rumsfeld also insisted that there is no 'guerilla' warfare going on in Iraq, contrary to the Pentagon's definition and reports from soliders in the field using that characterization.

One wonders if he's testing the waters, and some day soon, he'll announce that the sky is green, and see who publishes it.

*

Several children have been killed by U.S. forces in recent days, which is making the soldier's duties harder as the populace harbors increasing resentments over the deaths of innocents after Bush's decision that the war had ended. (There are few new reports regarding those who died in the bombing and their resentments, which is interesting. While widespread outrage was reported in Al Jazeera and some BBC articles, it has not been discussed again, as if all has been forgiven, or at least forgotten.)

U.S. forces shot a 12 year old boy on the roof of his house (Washington Post), and have not apologized to the boy's parents. an 11 year old boy was run over by a U.S. convoy while approaching to try to sell the soldier s goods. The convoy did not stop, leaving his body in the road. (BBC) And three children burned by flammable war materials were refused treatment by U.S. forces, despite the pleas of a U.S. sargeant moved to tears by their plight (Common Dreams/AP). They were turned down because their injuries were not immediately life threatening, but the distressing thing is that this was an opportunity to show concern for the plight of locals that was passed up. (The sargeant gave the parents everything he could from his first aid kit, but couldn't provide the full help that was needed, and can't believe the callousness of his superiors.)

*

Mainstream Iraq news resources to bookmark:
-The BBC's "After Saddam" page.
-New York Times: "After the War"
-San Francisco Chronicle "Iraq aftermath" (the San Francisco Chronicle's on0line presence is known as SF Gate).
-Washington Post's "World: Iraq".

Very short news item: the U.N. Terrorist Committee says it has found no evidence of a connection between Iraq and the al-Qaeda terror network (BBC).

As is traditional, the U.S. says it has lots of evidence that the committee is wrong, and that there is a connection. And won't show it to anyone. I know, you'd laugh if it wasn't so serious. I would, too.

"We are going to fight them and impose our will on them and we will capture or, if necessary, kill them until we have imposed law and order on this country."

That's a quote from Paul Bremer, chief US administrator in Iraq, on uncooperative, allegedly Baathist elements in Iraq, in article called US strikes at resistance (BBC) I say allegedly Baathist, because the U.S. has characterized every single Iraqi protest to anything the U.S. has done in Iraq as Baathist.

I'm beginning to suspect the U.S. Government's definition of Baathist as different from everyone else's.

*

At the moment, I'm reading Nelson Madela's brilliant autobiography. When the white supremacist Nationalist Party came into power after WWII, they passed a bunch of laws against Communism. But the catch was that the laws defined communists as anyone who wanted to change the policies of the government. That meant that anyone who objected to whites-only train cars, whites-only chairs, whites-only restaurants, or whites-only voting was suddenly defined as a "communist." The government hijacked the LANGUAGE first. And then they started taking away rights, one after another. Whenever anyone would organize a peaceful protest, they'd get locked up. When the international community asked what was going on, the government would just say 'rounding up communists,' and the anti-communist western nations would say, 'oh, that's great,' and wander off.

Because no one cared about what happened to "communists."

It took a while for other folks to notice that the National Government was not using the term as they were.

*

So when I see a news photo of an Iraqi with a sign that says "No Bush No Saddam," and read that "Baathists," the folks who were members of Saddam's political party, are the ONLY people in all of Iraq who object to the American occupation, I am skeptical.

*

Another note about Mandela: he was working actively with the African National Congress while working full time, running his own law practice. So no excuses, people: if he could run his own business during the weekdays and devote himself to challenging injustice on nights and weekends, you can, too.

(Well, yes, the successful fight for freedom for millions of his fellow Africans did cost him his marriages, and deprived him of time with his children. He did wrestle with the question of whether it is more important to serve one's family (or one's own group) or a wider group of mankind. He decided that it was his path to serve mankind. He noted that it is not necessarily a higher calling, but definitely is a different one. This is something for those to consider who say that the best way to serve your country is to have lots of kids and be a good parent. It's always a service to the community to be a good parent. But had Mandela chosen that route, his family and millions of others would still be horribly oppressed. Mandela's family benefited from what he did for society in big ways. Sometimes, society needs more than good parenting to improve the lot of all people. This seems obvious to me, but I keep having to argue this point.)

I know our government appears corrupt. If it's any comfort, it appears to be worse in Italy (SF Gate World Views). Read through to the bottom about commentary on the terrible fate that has befallen the American press: "The lesson from America is that, if news and public affairs are left purely to the market, it will most likely give the government what it wants."

*

It was the 100th anniversary of author George Orwell's birth this week. Democracy Now decided to host a theme show in Orwell's honor. It's called The Two Georges, Orwell and Bush: A Dramatic Reading of George Orwell’s Classic Work 1984 Interspersed With Recent News Clips From President Bush and Others.

Before you think both 'oh no, it's too true' and 'how contrived,' I suppose the big difference to me is that the press here is already reporting lies, so the idea of going back to revise them ('he who controls the past controls the future') is rather pointless. Just the same, Rumsfeld is immediately caught denying things Bush had said publicly. Ooops.

The Text of 1984 is available here (Mondo politico).

Things which do not merit mention in the American mainstream news press:

-people living sustainably and peacefully
-success gained without violence
-the existence of peaceful opposition to powerful institutions
-individuals who succeeded after being assisted by social welfare programs
-higher quality of life in other countries (in any and all areas: longer life expectancies especially, but also any superior social services, better air quality, lower crime rates, etc.)
-the social benefits provided by organized labor
-the activities of well-adjusted, ordinary people
-values which are more complex than fundamentalism, good vs. evil, or pure economics
-sufficient historical perspective to understand cause and effect relationships in international activities.

I think the glaring absence of these things in the media, where "reality" is defined for so many people, has given us a very unhealthy view of the world.

For those of you who remember the last list of U.S. promises to liberate people with bombs, promises which are largely unfulfilled, here are some links to keep abreast of the situation, and opportunities to donate some cash:

-The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) in Afghanistan, providing news on their projects as they switch from direct food aid to sustainable projects, such as providing seeds and fertilizer to jump start a revival of agriculture. They also check in on the folks at Guantanamo Bay, and bring complaints to the U.S. authorities to make their treatment in conformance with international law.

-The Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA). Pull down the menu at the top under 'projects' to see their good works ranging from building and running hospitals and orphanages to reviving long abandoned irrigation projects, providing disaster relief, and generally being great. RAWA provided many of the videos, shot stealthily from beneath burqas, which provided evidence of the Taliban's atrocities to the foreign press.

-BBC's Country Profile: Afghanistan, a very short history with some good trivia.

-Adopt-A-Minefield, a group working to clear minefields from Afghanistan, where about 300 people are maimed or killed each month. Inexplicably, this site doesn't work properly under my browser. The author of the profane and brilliant Get Your War On supports the work of Mine Detection & Dog Center Team #5 through this organization.

-International Campaign to Ban Landmines. I believe this is a longer, older campaign than A-A-M, comprised of more than 1100 smaller groups that share the goal of eliminating landmines and aiding the victims of such mines. Their site is substantive: for example, you can read the list of countries that has not agreed to ban the manufacture, stockpiling, and use of landmines, which just happens to include the U.S.A.

*

Speaking of the profane and brilliant strip, Get Your War On page 25 is up. And the author is right: truly enough, I had to look up Karimov's short profile at Human Rights Watch to get one of the jokes. (From my reading elsewhere, I know that Uzbekistan's increasingly repressive government is currently a close friend of the U.S. It has something to do with oil pipelines. Violent repression of peaceful people and all opposition are giving rise to fundamentalist extremists who are organized enough to resist him. Sound familiar?)

Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (www.fair.org) analyzed U.S. war coverage, and learned that viewers "were 25 times as likely to see a pro-war guest as one who was anti-war during the first three weeks of the invasion of Iraq." (NYC Indymedia). Among other things, the FAIR analysis shows that the media were only too happy to provide the military and U.S. government airtime to support its positions, while not providing any where near proportionate opportunities for anti-war voices to speak relative to actual American anti-war sentiment. In addition, the tiny number of anti-war opinions were reduced to sound bites. "Not a single show in the study conducted a sit-down interview with a person identified as being against the war." The coverage was also slanted toward folks in the war business, obscuring the fact that international law, human rights, and many other significant issues are involved. If nothing else, read the article for the Dan Rather quote.

There is a lot of other great stuff at the FAIR, including an item that Former General Wesley Clark says he was asked by the White House to implicate Iraq on the very day of the September 11th attacks, but the White House would not provide him with any evidence; and another in which they point out that U.S. conservatives who hotly criticized U.S. military intervention in Kosovo and said their criticism was 'patriotic' under Clinton now insist that any questioning of the commander-in-chief is treason. (Perhaps they should all be tried retroactively, based only on their own standards?)

The United States is not preserving evidence of mass murders by Saddam Hussein's regime. Hundreds of thousands of people were killed by the Iraqi government and its friends during peacetime, and evidence of these crimes is being destroyed. (NPR Audio) If justice is going to be done, there need to be trials, evidence, proof, and the families of victims need to know what became of their missing relatives. After more than two months of trying to get a hold of its many other problems, the U.S. is finally turning its attentions to the big picture of war crimes against the Iraqi people.

Some lists that have come to light confirming the details of hundreds of state-organized executions, which need to be investigated and authenticated.

But in the meantime the mass graves are not being guarded; desperate relatives are poking through the mass graves they know of on their own; forensic evidence is being lost or moved; and the task of gathering evidence against the regime is falling on non-profit and non-governmental organizations, such as Human Rights Watch. Technical expertise is needed. The evidence won't stay there forever. If we're serious about bringing criminals to justice (rather than just a wholesale, collective punishment of anyone who enjoyed any privileges or successes under the Hussein regime), this has to be done right the first time.

But Arlene, didn't you oppose the war?

Goodness yes. I still oppose the war. I believe in the rule of law, which includes an assumption of innocence until guilt is proven, fair trial, and serious punishment. If the U.S.' incredibly well-funded 'intelligence' machine couldn't work up enough evidence to persuade the U.N. security council of a crime, rushing to bomb a country and execute its leaders is uncalled for. [Duh.] If Hussein is allged to have committed even a fraction of the crimes he is accused of, it should be relatively simple to put together a case and convict him and his minions.

Bombing the citizens of his country who had suffered so much is not an appropriate punishment for a man who had no compulsion about killing those same people, is it? No. Bombing his survivors is not just.

Well, don't you think that the U.S.' success in the war solves this problem? Isn't this justice?

So far as I know, Hussein, who I'm rather sure is a criminal, could be on a beach somewhere, drinking frosty drinks with fellow 'undisclosed location' comrades bin Laden and Cheney. (When was the last time we saw Cheney?) Meanwhile, there may have been 5,800 Iraqi civilian casualties (Iraqometer). I don't perceive this situation as just. Even if he died in the bombing along with so many civilians and kids, that still isn't quite "just" -- he hasn't been publicly and definitely held accountable for his actions. He hasn't been forced to face his victims in defeat. He hasn't even been made an example of. He hasn't had to sit in a jail cell, contemplating his crimes, for years and years.

Instead, his victims are maimed; the people of Iraq are suffering from irregular services, chaos, looting, and violence; looters have destroyed government offices which may have held damning documentary evidence of atrocities; and Hussein is either free or anonymously dead, an ambiguity which his supporters are enjoying to their own advantage.

To me, that's the proverbial 'winning the battle but losing the war.'

Speaking of losing things, aren't you going to bring up weapons of mass destruction, and our great success there?

Oh, shut up. Those aren't important.

Ha! I knew you'd be sensitive about that! Our government said they had proof that WMDs were in Iraq in huge volumes, and information about where the WMDs in Iraq were hidden. (SF Indymedia) Very precise. All sorts of details. And yet, searches based on the intelligence they had turned up nothing but false alarms.

Sadly, it appears not only that the intelligence information the U.S. relied on was dubious (BBC), but that the Bush Administration doesn't want to learn from its mistakes. Those mistakes apparently included getting information from defectors and exiles who had interests that do not necessarily mesh with our own. If we want to be safer from terrorism, we need to change the kind of information we rely on, to, oh say, GOOD information. The Bush Administration should not fear good information.

The Baghdad Indymedia Center, Al MuaJaha, The Iraqi Witness, is up and running in multiple languages.

A way to win hearts and minds: having U.S. soldiers search schoolgirls in Baghdad. I'm sure that gives all parents a warm fuzzy feeling. Sure. Right.

*

Something I hadn't considered: there are plenty of international opinions not only are reviving the 'Iraq-as-Vietnam' analogy, but are also comparing this unhappy occupation with that of Korea. (Both links: Washington Post)

Americans theoretically have a right to travel freely throughout the U.S. Under the Bush Administration, this right is becoming more and more theoretical: the Feds have developed a "no-fly" list of Americans they don't want to be able to fly. Theoretically associated with the so-called War or Terror, the Feds can't actually explain what the list is, or why someone is on it.

For example, men named David Nelson are being hassled every time they fly (Yahoo news). Why? Because the Feds apparently can't tell one David Nelson from another, and so are simply throwing impediments to travel in front of all of them.

Do you feel safer knowing that the federal government can't even figure out which David Nelson it's concerned about? Or work up a description of him?

Me neither.

I've heard some entertaining stories about the ridiculousness of airport security (NPR audio), and some that were just sad: a frequent flier grandmother who is stopped every trip because her name is SIMILAR to a man who is listed on the no-fly list. Calls to multiple federal agencies demonstrated only that no one can help her, because no one is accountable for the list. No one on this list an restore their rights, because they aren't necessarily listed for any reason that can be explained. Garbage in, garbage out.

Meanwhile, anti-war activists find themselves on the no-fly list, (Common Dreams) and are bringing suit after their requests for explanations led nowhere. Some of their security problems aren't even based on their actual name being on the list, but merely on the fact that their names are spelled similarly to those on the list or, according to deputies, because their names sounded Hispanic. (Progressive.org)

A Transportation Security Administration spokesman acknowledges that it has "no guidelines defining who is put on the list.... The TSA also has no procedures for people to clear their names and get off the list." (In These Times) More:

Asked if the TSA has a second list, one not of the “threats to aviation” who would never be allowed to get on a plane, but rather of political activists who are to be singled out for intense scrutiny and interrogation, Steigman said, “I don’t know. I’ll have to look into that.”
A day later, he came back with a curiously candid, if rather alarming, answer. “I checked with our security people,” he said, “and they said there is no second list.” Then, after a pause, he added, “Of course, that could mean one of two things: Either there is no second list, or there is a list, and they’re not going to talk about it for security reasons.”

Meanwhile, at least one delayed passenger observed the loose-leaf binder used by his interrogators, which contained a list of political and peace organizations, such as Greenpeace and the Green Party. (An additional article and more than a dozen additional links at this Indybay article (Indymedia).)

Secret lists and unaccountable government agencies that are unwilling or unable to fix their own mistakes don't make for good security. Stopping grandmothers at airports will not keep us safe.

As the kids say now, "Duh!"

Today's radio program Marketplace announces that Private Jessica Lynch, who claims not to recall her time in an Iraqi hospital from which she was "rescued" by U.S. special forces, now has a Hollywood agent.

*moan*

In other moan-inspiring news, the U.S. military is setting up a court in Iraq intended to try others for crimes against the U.S. military. I'm sure it will be perceived to be as fair and just as it deserves to be.

According the S.F. Chronicle/Associated press, Halliburton's no-bid, competition free oil production contract has doubled in cost, and "The expanded role awarded to Vice President Dick Cheney's former company cost taxpayers $184.7 million as of last week, up from $76.7 million a month ago, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers confirmed this week."

*

At least we're not alone: 60% of people polled in an international survey have a fairly unfavorable or very unfavorable opinion of George W. Bush (BBC).

*

Well, the GOP is trying to improve their image. The New York Times reported that the GOP plans to make the most of the September 11th memorial not only by holding its convention there (which I knew), but by laying the cornerstone to the still-being-designed monument to the September 11th victims.

Then the New York Times un-reported it.

It was in the print edition and on-line.

Then it was in the print edition, but the title changed for the on-line version, unless you performed an archive search, in which case it still came up with the original title.

Now it's just in the print edition.

But various people took pictures or scans of the article while it was still up, and so now they want to know: what gives?

Different Strings analysis
This Modern World analysis

*

According to this story in the Charlotte Observer, "A third of the American public believes U.S. forces found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, according to a recent poll, and 22 percent said Iraq actually used chemical or biological weapons.". Even though those things didn't happen.

Ouch.

The poll notes that this misperception is strongest among those who supported the war. (Go figure.)

A friend had complained that he heard many sensationalistic stories during the war about all sorts of SUSPICIOUS materials that were found, but which were never mentioned again after testing proved they weren't WMDs. And the ABSENCE of WMDs is only now becoming news... So those who don't pay attention could have interpreted poor reporting to be evidence of guilt. And they must be really confused when Bush announces that evidence will EVENTUALLY be found, wondering why he doesn't just turn to all the evidence they think they heard something about... But that doesn't make this any better, does it?

So, I'm supposed to take Bush seriously when he talks about how important the public protests in the street are in Iran, about how the Iranian people are speaking, about how the people of Iran are speaking loudly and demanding a change in their government... Even though he said it it was irrelevant when hundreds of thousands of AMERICANS did the same exact thing?

I see.

The U.S. rounded up 390 or so Iraqis in Thuluya, including kids and elderly men, in a raid that killed at least 3 Iraqis (Washington Post). US forces are occupying people's homes in the town, which they suspect is a bed of anti-US activity (referred to merely as pro-Saddam activity, though no evidence of that has been offered). 27 to 70 Iraqi fighters were killed by the U.S. elsewhere in clampdowns by the U.S., some of whom were foreign fighters (Associated Press/SF Chronicle).

Writer and commentator Molly Ivins speculated that the war would be short, but the peace would be "from hell," and I hope she bet money on that.

*

One of my friends complained that there are all sorts of allegations published in the press about mass graves which may be victims of Hussein's evil regime, but then raise questions (why were the victims all tidily and properly buried in caskets if they were mass-murdered in secret?) and then fail to follow up with the site turns out to be a cemetary from the Iran-Iraq war.

Finally, 10 bodies have been dug up from a mass grave which witnesses said should contain 115 bodies of deserting soldiers and prisoners. (Washington Post) The witness insist that they saw fresh bodies piled up in the area, where the digging has taken place. The article says this site is the first of its kind, because some of the remains are recent, which is worth noting for my friend right there.

But where are the other 105 bodies? The witnesses have no idea. And then, raising more questions, they have experts saying that all remains turn skeletal in the climate in this area, but then turn around and suggest that people recognized their relatives and claimed the bodies and took off quickly.

I know I work in law and am perhaps more obsessed with evidence standards than many, but it seems ridiculous to me that, if a government wants to try someone as bad as Hussein was reputed to be for war crimes, they 1) can't find enough victims and 2) everyone can find their dead skeletal relatives EXCEPT the investigators. It's just mystifying.

Speaking of avoiding justice, even the head of the U.N. thinks immunity for all U.S. soldiers on peacekeeping missions is a bad idea. (BBC) War crimes are war crimes, right? Don't we all deserve equal justice under the law? The U.S. is so desperate to avoid prosecution at the International Criminal Court, you have to wonder what our fine leaders have planned. The US did get another exemption from prosecution (Washington Post), which makes me wonder what they have in mind.

Aside from avoiding the charges currently pending by Iran. Iran brought suit against the U.S. for supplying WMDs to Iraq for its attacks on Iran, a case that has been stalled for years. Now Iran wants an apology for U.S.' role in helping to set up Al-Quaida (Engineering News Record). They aren't holding their breath. But I'd love to hear Bush's supporters stumble while trying to explain this one away. 'Well, Sadda m is an evil man NOW, but... well... um..."

The U.S. is planning its execution chamber for the prisoners of war at Guantanamo Bay. The rules for the kangaroo courts the U.S. government has laid out have been discussed in the legal papers I read. They suck. I can't even tell you how badly. Defense lawyers won't get any confidential time with their clients and aren't even allowed to see the evidence against their clients. They may not be able to see most of the evidence in trial. And they need a security clearance. And can't investigate. And can't ever talk about what happened. And likely can't ever be paid, which is the least of the problems with the system, but still.

Military tribunals, secrecy, no opportunity for a real defense... Didn't we used to make fun of countries that had such pathetic and unjust systems? Didn't we mock the Soviets for this during the Cold War??

The BBC has provided a new update on the status of Iraq's cultural treasures, investigated by one of its correspondents. The article points out that Hussein's attempts to co-opt history involved imposing Baath party members in the museum administration, making it an attractive target for oppressed citizens who didn't necessarily view the ancient treasures of their people as the ancient treasures of their people. Perhaps the U.S. soldiers, who exchanged fire with Iraqi soldiers who holed up at the museum briefly, saw it the same way: the way the soldiers secured the oil ministry while ignoring the museum workers' pleas for assistance is still unpleasantly inexplicable.

"The claim that 170,000 items were destroyed or looted has long been abandoned, and reduced considerably. Also, many items have been recovered. Museum staff say that only 33 major items, and around 2,100 minor items, are missing, while 15 major items in the galleries were seriously damaged. These include the famous 4,500-year-old-harp from Ur, with its fabulous golden bull's head...."

2,100 "minor" items is still a lot to lose. A loss that was unnecessary, if the ministry of oil hadn't been so darned important to the U.S... And the full collection hasn't been fully recatalogued, so missing items are still being identified.

Targeted thefts of some of the most valuable items support the theory that some of the looting was either professional and/or an inside job.

That so much has been recovered and hidden by the dedicated staff is some of the first good news I've heard. The article talks about the careful planning that the museum staff went through, evaluating what should be hidden because it could be carried, and what should be left because heavy equipment would be needed to steal. The correspondent was even able to inspect the locked (and unlocked) storerooms.

If I were the museum employees in the lawless weeks after the U.S. 'took control' of Baghdad, I'd claim I'd been cleaned out, too, since U.S. soldiers still refused to guard the place. It's a good looter deterrent to claim to have nothing to loot, and was good thinking on the curator's part.

Sadly, Vice President Haji Abdul Qadir of Afghanistan has been killed. (BBC) Remember Afghanistan? Remember how the U.S. solved all their problems by bombing the Taliban out (along with a few wedding parties and farmers and Red Cross warehouses)? Sounds great, doesn't it? So tidy! So successful! Peace just keeps on happen...

It's hard for the Afghans to even get into the news here. They're YESTERDAY's war. Over and done with. A reminder that we're not very good at this superhero business, since we never really save the day -- though we're there with lots of special effects for the fighting scenes.

Afghanistan needs our help. We destabilized their country by removing one terrible regime, put a group of wanna-be-terrible-regimes in a power sharing arrangement, made some promises, and left. We can do better than that!!

Retiring UN weapons inspector Hans Blix is complaining about the U.S.' negative attitude about the UN. (BBC) "According to Mr Blix, as the US build-up for an invasion of Iraq intensified, US administration officials had leaned on his weapons inspectors to use more damning language in their reports on Iraq." Blix also criticized the intelligence provided to him on alleged WMDs, which turned up nothing.

It's interesting that several weapons inspectors have become firm critics of the U.S. As did the last U.N. human rights chief, who also had to deal with the current administration. Hmmmm.

The tiny news item I read some weeks ago about changing the way Americans look at the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to win concessions from the Palestinians is apparently in full force. Even NPR has stopped referring to the occupied territories as such. There is no mention of the U.N. resolutions against Israel. The occupied territories are now just "the West Bank" and "the Gaza strip." The word 'illegal' is only applied to certain Israeli settlements not approved by the government, but not those settlements that were.

And, while the UN guaranteed the right of Palestinian return years ago, I'm glad I read it: the media keeps simply implying that the return of refugees is an unreasonable and far-out demand.

What is worse: the manipulation, or the cynical expectation that the manipulation will continue indefinitely?

How did it get to be so late in the evening?? Ah, well, a few short notes.

There are several great items at the always excellent blog This Modern World. Current features include debates over misrepresentations about WMDs, threats from the Bush Administration against Head Start employees who speak about their plight, and a link to an article suggesting that Colin Powell really had difficulty delivering his presentation to the UN with a straight face. Also: a link to the very long Al Franken v. Bill O'Reilly book talk. Which was sort of worth seeing.

*

An aside: during Bill O'Reilly's speech before Franken spoke, O'Reilly said that now he REALLY wants WMDs to be found in Iraq. For the Good of the Country. NOT the good of the Bush Administration -- he insists he is not an idealogue. No, he fears the US will lose its credibility if no WMDs are found.

I'm not sure the US HAS enough credibility to lose on this issue: most of the world opposed this war and their governments seemed pretty confident in noting that we likely entered Iraq under false pretenses. But let's say, hypothetically, that there are none. Is it the US that loses credibility, or the Bush Administration? If the Bush Administration, oh say, LIED, wouldn't it be good for the country to learn that, and to act appropriately to impeach? I kept hearing that the Clinton impeachment for lying over oral sex was for the good of the country. Surely lying about intelligence information and dragging our nation into war requires a proportional response. Perhaps impeaching Bush hundreds of times would do it?

*

The news in brief: the Washington Post reports that Ashcroft Wants Stronger Patriot Act, because he just can't apply the death penalty to enough people.

Alrighty then.

Here's a charming sample from the article:

Ashcroft acknowledged that authorities had subjected some illegal immigrants detained after the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon to harsh jail conditions for long periods of time before the FBI cleared them of links to terrorism. That was a central finding of the critical report issued Monday by the Justice Department's inspector general, Glenn A. Fine....

[This relates to the 762 foreign nationals taken into custody.] While none has been publicly charged with terrorism, they spent an average of 80 days in jail before the FBI completed its investigation, and many went weeks before being charged with immigration violations or seeing attorneys. About515 were eventually deported.

*

The BBC reports that there is a not-so-secret September 2002 Pentagon intelligence report [which] concluded that there was "no reliable information" that Iraq had biological or chemical weapons. A few searches on the BBC or Guardian sites will bring you a lot more of the same. TMW also cites Australian articles wherein Aussie intelligence claimed to know the allegations were false.

Hooo boy.

Also of note: the US still doesn't want UN nuclear inspectors to interact with people in Tuwaitha , where a nuclear facility was left unguarded by the US, and radioactive containers were looted for food and water storage by locals. The U.S. says it is responsible for people's health, yet there has been no announcement that it has taken on this responsibility through action.

*

Hans Blix, the chief UN weapons inspector who the Bush Administration does not want back in Iraq, had some interesting things to say to the BBC in this article:

Blix has noted that US intelligence on weapons sites, which his inspection team followed up on and came up empty handed. "I thought - my God, if this is the best intelligence they have and we find nothing, what about the rest?"

According to the BBC, the U.S. is using heavy metal 'music' and American children's songs to break the will of their captives in Iraq. Among the music selected to demoralize the captives: Barney, the big purple dinosaur's songs, plus Metallica.

I ask you: how must it feel to know that your songs are being used to browbeat prisoners of war? How must it feel to hear the repeat playing of yours songs day and night described at torture by Amnesty International?

I fear the inevitable Metallica interview that will follow.

The SF Chronicle's World Views column is great today, as it so often is. It covers both the pressure that Blair is under to explain why all intelligence used to justify the war against Iraq was completely wrong, and then touches on the G8 protests, with unfavorable comments and some amusing accusations that the residents of Geneva loved the feeling of importance that huge demonstrations gave their community.

I can't say I trust the reports about the G8 "riots," however. Since last October, I have regularly attended peaceful anti-war protests in the city center made up of more than a hundred thousand of people, plus smaller protests in local neighborhoods. And after each protest, I have reviewed the media coverage of the protest I just attended.

It was as if the reporters were reporting on a completely different event. Television coverage was especially bizarre: the evening news would feature a reporter standing in a public square that I had left more than 8 hours before, as if there was something there to see. The reporter would then relate a story about violence that had occurred in an area some significant distance from the protest, hours after the protest had ended. The reporter would then say that the protest had been marred by this distant, time-separated violence.

I was waiting for a report saying that the tides were responsible for a pet drowning in an inland bathtub as the next story.

I have seen images and videos of police attacking peaceful, seated protesters. The only video of that which has ever made the news was the police-made video of officers swapping pepper spray into kids eyes with Q-tips, which is being used against the police in court. My local paper printed some good photos of police attacking peaceful demonstrators when the U.S. attacked Iraq this year, but it was something of an exception to the local press' police of reporting political demonstrations primarily as obstacles to the commute.

So while I'm sure there are violent folk among the demonstrators at the G-8, I'm convinced of that fact primarily because I've read editorials by demonstrators who are there, bemoaning way violent protesters and violent police always seem to feed from each other.

So the U.S. Federal Communications Commission, which regulates popular media, has relaxed restrictions on media monopolies, which will likely resort in more national megacorporations controlling more local media outlets.

Here in the U.S. corporate media represents its own interests so thoroughly under the guise of free press, that most people can't even tell that their coverage is self-serving. News stories promoting the latest movie MUST just be a service, and not free advertising for a sibling company. Business news must be of general interest to workers, while labor news... Well, perhaps there just isn't any? Celebrity gossip must be important, or it wouldn't be replacing world news, would it?

Ouch ouch ouch.

Meanwhile, thousands of people are protesting the G8 meeting in Evian, France, but today's Yahoo news photos are primarily devoted to the Miss Universe pageant. Let's see, which will have a bigger influence on my life: global trade or Miss U? Yahoo believes it's Miss U. And their main news page doesn't mention the protests at all, but does have a photo of lifestyle maven Martha Stewart and speculation about her upcoming indictment.

Go figure.

*

In a short news summary where the G8 was mentioned in part of a larger article about a massive international poll on attitudes toward the U.S. and other topics, there was a quick comment: "Kohut said the anti-globalization forces that have protested in America and overseas don't seem to be making inroads. He said the survey found there is 'great acceptance of a connected world with most people saying trade and growing business ties are good for them and their countries.'"

I was completely taken aback by this statement, because their questions apparently had NOTHING to do with what anti-globalization protests are about. Not that we'd know, since the mainstream media refuses to report on anything more than broken windows and spray paint whenever there is a protest against any establishment institutions. But let me try to make a short summary of MY understanding of why the G8 is being protested.

-exploitation of the poor for sweatshop labor.
-exportation of jobs overseas to avoid paying decent wages.
-environmental obligation dodging.
-corruption.
-a lack of human and humane services in developing AND developed nations.
-violence toward labor organizers.
-back breaking debt for developing nations.
-privatization of public resources against the public's will.
-censorship of views that favor public services, environmental stewardship, and fairness.
-censorship of protests.
-violence toward peaceful protesters, both of the exploited and exploiter nations.

I thought I'd mention this, since you likely won't hear this anywhere mainstream. (The Indymedia G8 site is good for many viewpoints, especially if you are multilingual. I recommend it, and UK Indymedia highly.)

Blair's presentation of Iraq's alleged WMD evidence is being probed in England, while manipulation of alleged WMD intelligence is being investigated in the U.S.. BBC articles are questioning the legitimacy of WMD claims more directly than in the past.

It's great that the BBC is asking these questions, because it's a big white elephant in the middle of the room that the U.S. press appears afraid to remark upon.

According to the Washington Post, Iraqis aren't pleased with the U.S.' plans to skip forming an interim government in favor of an advisory council. Bremer, the U.S. Occupation Authority head, says "We think it's important for the Iraqi people to be seen to be involved in some very important decisions that are going to have to be made in the weeks and months ahead, and we have felt the best way to get that forward quickly is to broaden our consultations, to step up the pace of our consultations, and to arrive at a decision about the political council rather quickly." The article then goes on to say that, since the U.S. was given the authority to run Iraq, they don't really need to make good on their promise about setting up a democratic government yet.

Oh-oh.

*

Chirac makes it clear that he hasn't changed his mind about Bush's attack on Iraq."We consider that all military action not endorsed by the international community, through, in particular, the Security Council, was both illegitimate and illegal, is illegitimate and illegal. And we have not changed our view on that," according to the BBC.

The archives should be back to normal now. More tomorrow.

My archives are going to be invisible for a few minutes - don't be alarmed. (Or at least, more alarmed than I am.)

The G8 summit begins Sunday in the spa town of Evian on Lake Geneva. The BBC reports on the extreme, defensive, unsightly militarization of the area for security concerns and to prevent the 100,000 expected protesters from disrupting the meeting in this article.

Associated with this article are two external links: one to the official G8 meeting site, and the other a trilingual logistics and planning page for the international protesters!

I LOVE the Internet!

The occupation is not going as smoothly as the Bush Administration hoped. US soldiers are facing increasing hostility, says the NY Times. After suffering an attack, U.S. soldiers conducted forced house searches, which comprised female modesty and outraged local men, leading to widespread rioting and the burning of local municipal buildings. Ooops.

*

Also an oops: a British soldier took some film to his local developer in Staffordshire which may depict him and his fellows abusing Iraqi prisoners of war. If the photos are real (and not staged by bored soldiers at home for amusement), this clever fellow has provided the evidence of his crimes.

When are people going to learn to document their crimes with Polaroids? Sheesh!

I'm still preoccupied with American paranoia. It's pathetic. If the Denver, Colorado police department labeled Quakers and other peace organizations as "criminal extremists" and compiled illegal dossiers on their peaceful activities after September 11th, something is severly out of whack in their heads.

As I wondered about this, I noticed billboards at the bus stop for home alarm systems, suggesting that right at this moment, someone is breaking into your home. Next to it was an add for anti-bacterial detergent, implying that germs on your clothes could hurt you. S reported that the last time he had the TV on, a newscaster was ranting about a threat of catching Lyme Disease if you step outside of your house.

Perhaps Michael Moore's theory about the media fanning the flames of hysteria here are correct.

*

Iran is rather annoyed at Bush's rhetoric campaign against them. The BBC quotes the Ayatollah Khamenei: ""We have to do this and that so they will remove us from the axis of evil. What kind of talk is this? Who do they think they are?"

While the U.S. media will undoubtedly lapse back into their, "why do they hate us?" blather, it appears that Time Magazine has an answer in an article called The Oily Americans - Why the world doesn't trust the U.S. about petroleum: A history of meddling. I had known that the U.S. overthrew the government of Iran, though that has never really been admitted. I had read inferences that this was because of the U.S.' previous penchant for anti-communist hysteria. That worked for me. But this article sheds some additional light: Mohammed Mossadegh nationalized the Anglo-Iranian Oil Co. in part because it wouldn't give Iran even 50% of its revenues from extracting Iranian oil. The U.S. and Britain then tag teamed Iran, instituting an oil boycott, and then things got weird:

The CIA's fingerprints were everywhere. Operatives paid off Iranian newspaper editors to print pro-Shah and anti-Mossadegh stories. They produced their own stories and editorial cartoons and published fabricated interviews. They secured the cooperation of the Iranian military. They spread antigovernment rumors. They prepared phony documents to show secret agreements between Mossadegh and the local Communist Party. They masqueraded as communists, threatened conservative Muslim clerics and even staged a sham fire-bombing of the home of a religious leader. They incited rioters to set fire to a pro-Mossadegh newspaper...

And then the U.S. got Britain's control over Iran's oil back for them, shared some with American oil companies, and got really angry when the Iranians threw out the puppet government and took their oil back.

All those complaints about how undeveloped Iran is may have SOMETHING to do with the prohibition of our government against doing business with Iran, as punishment for throwing off its foreign oil exporters.

Oil. Why didn't I even think of it before...

The same article also has some choice words about Afghanistan, and the perception of oil issues. It's an interesting read.

Very spooky quote of the day:

Most of the rights that you enjoy go way beyond what the Constitution requires.
-Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, March 2003, Cleveland

*

I wish more of the June 2 issue of The Nation was available on line. Eric Foner has an excellent short piece called "Dare Call It Treason," pointing out that every war in American history with the exception of World War II inspired significant dissent (yes, including the American Revolution), and each time the government and those who elect themselves its agents vehemently attempted to suppress protest. Foner also notes that history, while always used as a tool, suddenly becomes a partisan weapon, with war promoters citing favorable historical allegiances and parallels to support their position, while cursing anyone who finds unfavorable parallels. (The author caught hell for pointing out that the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor would be justified under Bush's pre-emptive strike doctrine. Oops. Darn that history!)

Also very worthy of a read is Alisa Solomon's "The Big Chill," a catalogue of attacks on dissent and free speech in the post-September 11th, 'only traitors question their government' climate in the U.S. The very spooky quote above comes from her piece. The catalogue is alarming, when seen all in once place: isolated incidents seem less like freak occurrences, and more like the predictable side effects of a society living in a profound insecurity.

*

It seems to me that the U.S. has a long history of rampant paranoia during times of crisis and opportunity. Salem Witch Hunts. McCarthyism. Xenophobia. Homophobia. Preoccupation with "the Fall" caused by eating from the Tree of Knowledge. (Favorite bumper sticker on this topic: "Eve was framed.") Fear of change in anything other than consumer products.

How can Americans be less afraid? If ignorance is bliss, we're a very HAPPY people. But still paranoid. Still dragging minorities to their deaths, still murdering people perceived to be gay by men afraid of other men's allure, still mad at France for helping to liberate us from the British yet not wanting to be JUST LIKE US. Afraid to learn other languages. Convinced that the world has nothing to offer that we don't already know. Convinced that we only do good in the outside world, and pretending not to hear any reports to the contrary.

In late 2001, I was completely mystified by two things. The first was that people and the press asked repeatedly, 'why do people elsewhere in the world hate us?' The second was, whenever this question was answered, every single possible answer was shot down vehemently. It went something like this:


Q. How can anyone not like Americans?
A. Well, that was that time that we overthrew someone's government, and killed all their young people with death squads.
Q. You beast! How could you say that we did such a thing!!
A. Because we did? Over and over?
Q. You are a very sick person. We can do no wrong.
A. That belief isn't helping, either.
Q. Help, police!

This was about as productive as the corporate press' conversation with itself:

Press: How could anyone dislike Americans? We are perfect in every way. There is nothing in history that demonstrates otherwise. Obviously, anyone who dislikes us is completely insane and warped with evil. Unlike all others, WE truly are God's chosen people, and so everything we do is fine. Rest assured that all is well. Please resume shopping, and support our efforts to pass tax cuts for the ultra-wealthy. Thank you and good night.

There's a sort of cultural isolationism that I think feeds this fear: the U.S. against the world. Inexplicably, a caller on the radio who was promoting the war against Iraq claimed that others in the world could not understand American motivations, because they had never suffered anything like the September 11th attacks!!!!!!!!!! She had apparently either never heard of the nearly constant terrorism that exists elsewhere in the world (even to white people in Northern Ireland!), or simply thought it was of a very low quality and not worthy of her sympathy.

You have to wonder how she could rationalize that. Did everyone else in the world who had suffered violence deserve it? Is our collective graps on others' lives so slim that we think the world should work that way?

Innocent lives should NEVER be taken for any reason. But they are, every day. Each loss is a sad one. Each loss is a life, not a lesser or greater life, a lesser or greater tragedy because some is or isn't a citizen of the U.S. There has to be a way to teach people to see others as human, and not as Others. Progress has been made in this area before, and further progress should be possible. But how?

*

Robert Scheer's piece on Private Lynch's faked rescue, now entitled Saving Private Lynch: Take 2, is now available at the Nation website.

Also a very worthy read by Scheer: The WMD Follies, on the lie that led us to war with Iraq, and the "long-held hawkish Republican dream of a 'winnable nuclear war...' In such a scenario, nukes can be preemptively used against a much weaker enemy--millions of dead civilians, widespread environmental devastation and centuries of political blowback be damned."