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. @#$%^&*!!

More on media complaints, on an article about the United Way of Florida cancelling Sarandon's speaking engagement for them because of her anti-war views.

Meanwhile, anti-war groups in the US say their advertisements are being blocked by the country's broadcasters.

CNN, Fox, MTV, and Comedy Central, turned down spots featuring celebrities like Susan Sarandon talking with "experts" about war issues, said one group, TrueMajority.org, while other groups also complained about being refused airtime.

*

In BBC correspondent Paul Wood's latest missive, "Resigned Baghdad struggles on", a sad tone:

The Americans may hope they will be welcomed as liberators, and that the Iraqi regime is not popular.

But it is the Americans who are not popular here.

It's a culmination of 12 years of crushing sanctions, two years of Israeli-Palestinian fighting in which the United States has been seen as supporting the Israeli side, and because it's widely believed that the US has come to Iraq to steal its oil....

The bombing in the Baghdad city market was another propaganda coup for the Iraqi regime.

I went to the scene and it was really quite terrible.

There were two huge holes in the ground, cars and trees were still on fire, and body parts thrown everywhere.

These images were shown on Iraqi television, and printed in Iraqi newspapers.

On the back page of one of the main Iraqi newspapers, there was a whole page of photographs showing a severed torso and a head cut in half.

These images have an enormous impact.

Whether or not the market was hit by an American missile, it is believed to be an American missile by the Iraqi population.

*

I wish I could have attended the vigil and funeral procession led by Interfaith Witness for Peace in the Middle East this morning in front of the Federal Building. "80 dissidents (including several priests and rabbis) were arrested for engaging in civil disobedience. All were reportedly released without charges after signing release of liability forms from the Department of Homeland Security."

Let me set a theme for today's posting: media manipulation of the news that the American people receive is a major problem.

Krugman's article, 'Channels of Influence' reveals that "Most of the pro-war demonstrations around the country have, however, been organized by stations owned by Clear Channel Communications, a behemoth based in San Antonio that controls more than 1,200 stations and increasingly dominates the airwaves."

Experienced Bushologists let out a collective "Aha!" when Clear Channel was revealed to be behind the pro-war rallies, because the company's top management has a history with George W. Bush. The vice chairman of Clear Channel is Tom Hicks, whose name may be familiar to readers of this column. When Mr. Bush was governor of Texas, Mr. Hicks was chairman of the University of Texas Investment Management Company, called Utimco, and Clear Channel's chairman, Lowry Mays, was on its board. Under Mr. Hicks, Utimco placed much of the university's endowment under the management of companies with strong Republican Party or Bush family ties. In 1998 Mr. Hicks purchased the Texas Rangers in a deal that made Mr. Bush a multimillionaire.

There's something happening here. What it is ain't exactly clear, but a good guess is that we're now seeing the next stage in the evolution of a new American oligarchy. As Jonathan Chait has written in The New Republic, in the Bush administration "government and business have melded into one big `us.' " On almost every aspect of domestic policy, business interests rule: "Scores of midlevel appointees . . now oversee industries for which they once worked." We should have realized that this is a two-way street: if politicians are busy doing favors for businesses that support them, why shouldn't we expect businesses to reciprocate by doing favors for those politicians - by, for example, organizing "grass roots" rallies on their behalf?

We used to mock government-run radio in other countries. But now that corporations are running the government AND the airwaves, no one is mocking. I'm certainly not laughing.

This harkens back to my post about the Biotic Baking Brigade member's recent comments on the pro-war slant of the media. To paraphrase again, he said that many progressive groups think that Big Media is being 'unfair' by omitting progressive views, but don't realize that Big Media is not concerned with fairness: it is concerned with consistently representing its own corporate/defense contractor/nuclear power generator/pop music owning/political interests.

That is not democratic. Capitalistic, yes, but not part of a "free" culture with "free" access to information.

*

I attended a lunch time protest at CNN's San Francisco Bureau at 50 California Street yesterday, to protest their gung-ho, blood-free coverage of the war.

At the protest, some non-corporate media resources were shared, including Electronic Iraq (a site with reports from those staying in Iraq, and peace groups) and IraqBodyCounty.net ("The B-2 bomber carries sixteen 2'000 lb. JDAM bombs. If all goes 100% as planned (the bomb does not fall outside of its specified margin of error of 13 meters, and the GPS guidance system is not foiled by a $50 radio jammer kit, easily purchased), then here is what one such bomb does: everyone within a 120 meter radius is killed; to be safe from serious shrapnel damage, a person must be at least 365 meters away; to be really safe from all effects of fragmentation, a person must be 1000 meters away, according to Admiral Stufflebeem. The B-2s will be used upon targets within Baghdad.")

The Chronicle's report on the protest preserves the cheer I'd forgotten to write down: "Independent journalism is dead and gone when the media is in bed with the Pentagon." And also provides the understatement of the day: "Media really has played an uncritical role that has not helped America make the most democratic decisions," said Global Exchange spokesman Ted Lewis.

It was great that Global Exchange, Media Alliance and Code Pink Women for Peace organized this gathering, brought bullhorns, and coordinated people to present a consistent and clearly articulated viewpoint.

*

Another good international news link: BBC Monitoring, " based in Caversham in southern England, selects and translates information from radio, television, press, news agencies and the Internet from 150 countries in more than 70 languages." They're the source of good world view summaries on BBC news.

Another good local, independent resource: Waterman's March 2003 photographs of anti-war signs. This page represents a good collection of images.

*

The civilian deaths in the marketplace that was hit by two missiles are 'unresolved.' The U.S., which admitted it was firing missiles into Baghdad at the time, is denying it's likely culpability. The Us has alleged that it must have been Iraq's anti-aircraft guns that shelled the area, but the BBC reports that explanation is "unlikely because we simply haven't heard any anti-aircraft fire in the city for the past four days".

*

Today: protests continue in New York against media and corporate profiteering from the war. Complaining about inadequate access to the media, one protester remarked:

"Nothing else gets attention," said protester Johannah Westmacott. "It's not news when people voice their opinions."

(This means I've succeeded in choosing items that fit the media theme!)

More photos of Anti-war rallies around the world.

*

More commentary on CNN and the inadequate media, this from an editorial posted to Indymedia Mumbai:

They're still talking about the impact on Airlines! God!!!!! FUCK!!!!!!!! STOP!!!!!!!!!! I cant take this any more!!!!!! This is the pinnacle of western civilization!!!!! 3 hours before the biggest war we're going to see in a long time, and they're talking about how its effecting the airline industry and wallowing in sadness!!! Do they even know what war is? Do they know what death is? What are they smoking? How do they numb themselves like this?....

I thought it'll be at least interesting 3 hours before armageddon, but apparently we're going to go down in a splattering of market forces. shit. ok, when do we come to the impact of war on people? shit - we've got the impact on the airline industry, on london markets, on asian markets, on vivendi, shit!!!! haha - he just said that in asia, public has been against war, but then proudly saying how all governments are supporting iraq - how indicative of the democracies in which we live, and he doesn't even get the irony...