Why does popular protest work elsewhere in the world, but not in the U.S.?
t r u t h o u t - Mexico's Lopez Obrador Wins Round One: "People Power Rattling Politics of Latin America" by Danna Harman of The Christian Science Monitor (truthout.org, post dated 04/29/05). I'll provide a sample of this article since I'm reviewing and recommending it, but only to induce you to read the entire thing.

Mexico City - First came the indignation, then the street protests and the disapproving comments from foreign countries. It culminated last Sunday with an estimated 1.2 million Mexicans marching silently through center of the capital. But President Vicente Fox moved to defuse the political crisis Wednesday night by accepting the resignation of his attorney general, who had been leading the criminal case against popular Mexico City Mayor and 2006 presidential hopeful Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador.

Chalk up another victory for Latin American people power. In the 1990s, what politicians feared most was apathy. But lately, Latin Americans from Mexico City to Quito, Ecuador - much like the citizens of Ukraine and Lebanon - have been taking to the streets in unprecedented numbers. Civic protest is emerging as an increasingly effective - if controversial - political tool....

Since 1990, 10 South American leaders have had to step down before their terms ended, many eased out by mass protests against them, according to the Argentine think tank Nueva Mayoria. A popular uprising brought down Bolivian President Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada in 2003, and then almost toppled his replacement, President Carlos Mesa, earlier this year; Peru and Argentina have all seen their governments fall, with angry crowds thronging the capital. In Ecuador, Mr. Guti[e]rrez is the third president in a decade to be forced from office. And Haiti has seen several elected leaders brought down by mass protests.

Go read it all, and then figure out what is different - why it is possible for mass protest to work elsewhere.

Of course, you should know that authoritarians HATE these popular revolts - they think that the public is a mob, and that any mass action to exert pressure is mob rule, no matter how peaceful. They don't explicitly say that they prefer secret rule by elites, which is tidier because it isn't democratic or inclusive, but I am suspicious.

t r u t h o u t - Pressured by FOIA Demands, Pentagon Releases Coffin Photos (truthout.org/latimes.com, 04/29/05)

Explain this: t r u t h o u t - Iraq Gets Partial Cabinet, Chalabi Deputy PM (truthout.org/AP, 04/28/05):

Ahmad Chalabi, a Shiite Arab and former Pentagon favorite, will be one of four deputy prime ministers and acting oil minister.

Actually, don't explain this if your explanation includes the phrase "pact with Satan."

Duh. t r u t h o u t - Tenet Admits WMD 'Slam-Dunk' Remark "Dumbest Ever" (truthout.org/repost from cnn):

Former CIA Director George Tenet said he regretted assuring President Bush in 2002 that he had 'slam dunk' evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

'Those were the two dumbest words I ever said,' Tenet told about 1,300 people at a Kutztown University forum Wednesday.

It's different in England: In England, people are still concerned about the legality of invading Iraq, and some are using the word "impeachment" with regard to legal memoranda that were kept secret by the government on that same topic. UK Election 2005 | Iraq war legal advice published (news.bbc.co.uk, 04/28/05).

In the This Modern World by Tom Tomorrow: Life During Wartime (thismodernworld.com, 04/17/05) Tom Tomorrow excerpts transcripts from Meet the Press which describe how heavily guarded American media representatives are, how it costs $35,000 for a semi-secure ride to the airport, and how the government is paying a fraction of the value of destroyed homes in Fallujah...

For a big picture discussion of what Bush and his allies really want from the region, see this entry, immediately prior to the one above.

Really, there are no WMDs: US closes book on Iraq WMD hunt (news.bbc.co.uk, 04/26/05).

The qualifiers about how someone in Iraq MIGHT KNOW how to make WMDs under theoretically better conditions is just pathetic.

Also not a surprise: Top [US] brass cleared over Iraq abuse (news.bbc.co.uk, 04/23/05).

No surprise here: US troops cleared over shooting (news.bbc.co.uk, 04/25/05):

US military investigators have cleared American soldiers of any wrongdoing over the death of an Italian agent, who was shot at a checkpoint in Baghdad.

There are several follow up articles with the Italian saved-from-Iraqis-shot-by-US hostage saying she thinks this is bull, and you can find those on your own. They abound.

The funny thing, for people who read the whole article, is realizing that the military clears everyone of wrongdoing with a very special technique: they make up a rule ('shoot whoever you want' could be a theoretical example), and then say that anyone who was complying with THEIR OWN RULE could not POSSIBLY have engaged in any "wrongdoing," because "wrongdoing" can only be defined relative to their own rule.

This is one reason the US is terrified of international laws: they actually involve REAL rules.

Saying sorry is SO difficult: The New York Times: Rice Ordered Release of German Sent to Afghan Prison in Error (nytimes.com, 04/23/05). What is the appropriate apology for a man who was wrongly imprisoned for months, tortured, and photographed naked by the U.S. -- who took him from the Serbian-Macedonian border to AFGHANISTAN?

Note to the Administration: "Don't sue us" is not an apology.

History lost in dust of war-torn Iraq (news.bbc.co.uk, 04/25/05) talks about the massive damage looting has caused to the cultural antiquities of Iraq.

It points out the shame of people looting the sites made by their ancestors... but also notes that many of the looted items are turning up in such nations as Italy and The United States. Plus, it provides this quote from a representative of the British Museum:

"US military vehicles crushed 2,600-year-old brick pavements, archaeological fragments were scattered across the site, more then 12 trenches were driven into ancient deposits and military earth-moving projects contaminated the site for future generations of scientists."

There is more. It is bad.

If you recall, the U.S. press initially reported looting, then recanted when the U.S. Administration said it could not have been that bad, and has been ambivalent about reporting it since. So this is a useful update.

The Washington Post delivers again: Eyes On Iraq: Second Impressions (flash slideshows with audio) (washingtonpost.com) provides the photographs and words from 11 photojournalists in Iraq. Each has a different perspective, based on their experiences; each provides interesting insights.

Highlights: Observations by several reporters that kidnappings and violence against Iraqis is underreported in favor of publicity for foreign kidnap victims; Ron Haviv's report on prison conditions, and the ongoing abuses still reported by recent prisoners, resulting in what locals describe as "you go in as an innocent man, and come out as an insurgent;" Anja Niedringhaus' report on a children's hospital's dismal conditions, and her surprise that foreign doctors and citizens are still attempting to help directly. None of these topics are emphasized in most American newspapers.

Even the optimists among these reporters, who believe that Iraq will soon be better off, provide comments which reflect the serious problems plaguing occupied Iraq. It's worth listening to all of these reports to get the diversity of opinion provided.

That which I have read jokes and comic strips about is true: 04/15/2005 | Bush administration eliminating 19-year-old international terrorism report (realcities.com):

WASHINGTON - The State Department decided to stop publishing an annual report on international terrorism after the government's top terrorism center concluded that there were more terrorist attacks in 2004 than in any year since 1985, the first year the publication covered.

Go read the entire article.

And then, if you like profane comics, read the 2nd and 3rd Get Your War On (Page 36) strips here. (mnftiu.cc)

You knew this: Iraqis 'suffer a lack of rights' (news.bbc.co.uk, 04/12/05). Particularly, lacks of rights guaranteed by international law for occupied nations.

It's a shame the U.S. only believes in international law when it's time to invade!

Iraq cannot produce enough drinking water to meet its needs. So how is the U.S. helping? Iraq blighted by poor services (news.bbc.co.uk,04/05/05).

The Americans have allocated $18.4bn dollars for reconstruction in Iraq, but Mr Misocni says more than 70% of the money his ministry was originally granted has now been reallocated to spending on defence and security.

Since the Iraqis don't have security, where is the money going?

Oh. To keep Americans safe. Americans, who should not BE there.

This approach will not get the water clean.

"The Americans brought the terrorists here. They weren't here before." This is from BBC NEWS | In pictures: Iraqi lives two years after Saddam, photos of Iraqis and commentary about what their situation is currently like. Many express optimism that a new government can help them, but nearly all also mention that there is no security, and corruption is now rampant, including among the police.

Where U.S. tax money is going: Fury at 'shoot for fun' memo (guardian.co.uk, 04/03/05). Private contractors doing the U.S.' dirty work abroad are embarrassing.

Dated 7 March and bearing the name of Blackwater's president, Gary Jackson, the electronic newsletter adds that terrorists 'need to get creamed, and it's fun, meaning satisfying, to do the shooting of such folk.'

The essential information that is lacking in the memo, but which would reveal much more about this sentiment expressed by a major mercenary agency, is what they define as a "terrorist."

The suspicion of many of us is that it is a) anyone who is not white, b) anyone who one is paid to shoot.

Speaking of laws that Bremer dissolved, read this: Squatters in ruins of Iraq build hopes on new government (guardian.co.uk, 04/04/05). It tells of how Iraqis who support the elected government wound up homeless and squatting in the ruins of Baghdad.

When the US-led invasion toppled the Ba'athist regime in April 2003, the system of price controls which kept rents artificially low evaporated.

Landlords across the country seized the opportunity to increase rents and to evict those who could not pay. Within weeks thousands of families were homeless and trekking to the capital in search of accommodation.

Yaay, capitalism?

Juan Cole is quoted in the BBC! Iraqi compromise fuels angry debate (news.bbc.co.uk, 04/06/05) discusses how the transitional laws put in place by the U.S. prevent majority rule from occurring in the someday "democratic" Iraq.

Under the U.S.'s rules, a 2/3 majority is required for all sorts of actions to pass, unlike in other democracies which require just 51%. So Iraq is held to a different standard than democracies in the rest of the world, and coincidentally, one of the minority parties that favors US involvement gets veto power over anti-US positions held by other groups.

It is an interesting case of social engineering and foreign intervention for many purposes. This article provides a good overview.

The occupation of Iraq by U.S. corporations: The BBC has a good article covering a few of the odd occupation orders issued by the U.S.' representative in Iraq that don't relate to the immediate well-being of the Iraqi people. US legal legacy for Iraqi economy (news.bbc.co.uk, 04/07/05) describes a few of the big items that the occupation saw fit to change, despite the limits on occupying powers in wartime. They are all economic, and all benefit U.S. and other multinational corporations. Excerpt:

Orders 37 and 49 slash top tax rates from 45% to 15% - one of the lowest rates in the world. Order 54 erases all duties on imports to Iraq. Order 39 allows 100% foreign ownership of Iraqi companies except in the oil, gas and banking sectors.

There are also quotes by pro-free-market-capitalist publications describing this arrangement as a "capitalist's dream."

The inherently undemocratic nature of having an occupying military authority issuing economic edicts favoring foreign control of local resources doesn't bother the cheerleaders, who believe that capitalism and democracy are inherently intertwined, even when only capitalism is in evidence.

Perhaps because the cheerleaders are foreign corporations.