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.)