Left I on the News  

"Taking swift and personal responsibility for federal relief efforts in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, President Bush on Wednesday..."

As for "personal", all I can say is, lucky thing for the survivors it isn't true, 'cause they'd be goners if it were.

"At least nine articles in the Times-Picayune from 2004 and 2005 specifically cite the cost of Iraq as a reason for the lack of hurricane- and flood-control dollars."

As I have written on more than one occasion, the so-called "War on Terror" has cost every man, woman, and child in the United States $1,000 and climbing. The citizens of New Orleans, who were denied $2 million for urgent levee repair in June, 2004, have ponied up $500 million to deal out death and destruction to tens of thousands of innocent people in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The greater Houston area has 55,000 hotel rooms, room for at a minimum 110,000 people and, in reality, even more. I can't find any current data, but in 1992, the occupancy rate for Houston hotels was 65%, meaning that there would be more than enough hotel rooms in the Houston area alone, not to mention the area between New Orleans and Houston and in every other direction, to accomodate all the Superdome refugees in a place where they could stay semi-permanently until a more permanent solution was available.

But, what do I know?

So here's my bet for any reader to lay down some money -- is there anyone who thinks that, 93 days after this disaster, that three different cable channels will each be broadcasting an hour or more of coverage every night about it? Fat chance.

Yes, folks, this is for real.

Update: For a more elaborate use of this picture, see this post above.

"Tierney, of the Institute of World Politics, identified five groups: ANSWER, Not in Our Name, Code Pink, United for Peace and Justice, and MoveOn.org. He said these groups 'come from the Workers World Party' and are an 'umbrella' for smaller groups, such as the 'Communist Party of Kansas City' and the 'Socialist Revolutionary Movement of the Upper Mississippi.' Of the last two, he said, 'I'm just making these up.'"

"'Government is not a solution to our problem, government is the problem.' -- Ronald Reagan

"That is the key sentence in Ronald Reagan's first inaugural address, which was titled Putting America Back To Work. We can only hope that Hurricane Katrina demonstates once and for all that callous conservatism is not the solution. Callous conservatism is the problem.

"A long line of callous conservatives have been accusing liberals of being soft hearted do gooders because they have genuine concern for the common welfare of the American people. On a long string of issues from Social Security to wetlands to mundane tasks like building levees, conservatives have been riding on Reagan's coat-tails to insist that government is not the solution to our problems.

"It is time to drive a stake through the heart of that canard. If it takes a hurricane to wake up the American people, I will not be apologetic for pointing out the obvious. Red state voters have no one but themselves to blame for the excess hardship that will be caused by years of callous neglect from the Bush administration.

"For all of the naysayers who wish to accuse me of playing politics with a natural disaster, I will simply point to how President Bush shamelessly politicized 9/11. If telling the truth is playing politics, then we need more of it, not less."

"The governor of Louisiana says everyone needs to leave New Orleans due to flooding from Hurricane Katrina. 'We've sent buses in. We will be either loading them by boat, helicopter, anything that is necessary,' Gov. Kathleen Blanco said."

New Orleans' joie de vivre will lift city up from Katrina

"Nearly 650 841 950 Iraqi Shi'ites died in a stampede on a Tigris River bridge in Baghdad on Wednesday, panicked by rumours a suicide bomber was about to blow himself up, an Interior Ministry official told Reuters."

"In order to rescue all these people stranded on their roofs, we'd need an air force of helicopters."

- unnamed government official in New Orleans, heard on TV

Tomorrow's Washington Post touches on the subject in an article headlined "War Strains Military's Ability to Help." They even found one Guard leader to break ranks and admit, however timidly, that there might be a problem:

"National Guard officials in the states acknowledged that the scale of the destruction is stretching the limits of available manpower while placing another extraordinary demand on their troops -- most of whom have already served tours in Iraq or Afghanistan or in homeland defense missions since 2001.

"More than 6,000 Guard members were mobilized in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida when the storm struck on Monday, with the number rising to 8,000 yesterday and hundreds more expected to be called to active duty, National Guard officials said yesterday.

"'Missing the personnel is the big thing in this particular event. We need our people,' said Lt. Andy Thaggard, a spokesman for the Mississippi National Guard, which has a brigade of more than 4,000 troops in central Iraq. Louisiana also has about 3,000 Guard troops in Baghdad."

"Recruiting and retention problems are worsening the strain on Guard forces in hurricane-ravaged states. Alabama's Army National Guard has a strength of 11,000 troops -- or 78 percent of the authorized number. 'We're just losing too many out the back door,' Arnold said."

"A poll released yesterday found...42 percent of respondents held strict creationist views, agreeing that 'living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time.'

"In contrast, 48 percent said they believed that humans had evolved over time. But of those, 18 percent said that evolution was 'guided by a supreme being,' and 26 percent said that evolution occurred through natural selection. In all, 64 percent said they were open to the idea of teaching creationism in addition to evolution, while 38 percent favored replacing evolution with creationism."

"A federal immigration judge on Monday said he will order Luis Posada Carriles deported to Venezuela if he denies the Cuban exile militant protection in the United States. A Department of Homeland Security prosecutor did not object to Judge William Abbott's decision on the first day of Posada's asylum trial at a federal detention center here."

"The Secretary General of the Organization of American States (OAS) Jose Miguel Insulza said on Monday the United States should extradite alleged terrorist organizer Luis Posada Carriles to Venezuela to face charges."

Yesterday, ANSWER and others organized 15 rallies across the United States and Canada to demand the extradition of Posada Carriles to Venezuela. Keep up the pressure!

"Families of Israeli Arabs shot dead on a bus in Galilee are not considered terrorism victims because their killer was Jewish, the defence ministry says.

"Under Israeli law, only attacks by 'enemies of Israel' are considered terrorism, the ministry said.

"The ruling means families of the four victims will not be entitled to the lifelong monthly payments given to Israeli victims of Palestinian attacks.

"Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, called the shooting 'a despicable act by a bloodthirsty terrorist'."

KTVU also reported that a unit of the California National Guard is just about to ship out...to Iraq. Asked to comment on this, Rep. Nancy Pelosi had a lot to say about how this was a consequence of Bush getting us into this mess, but not a word to say about what to do about it. She even said that "our security" would be diminished if the troops were brought home right now. I doubt the families of the dead in Mississippi and Louisiana would agree.

"Here's to our soldiers. Let's bring them home safe."

- Mike Dirnt, member of Green Day, accepting one of the group's seven awards at the MTV Video Music Awards yesterday

Hume was happy to point out that "Sheehan doesn't speak for most Americans" (of course she never claimed to), but just seconds before he made that point, Fox's own poll appeared on the screen showing that 37% of Americans want troops withdrawn from Iraq immediately. Now that isn't "most" Americans, but it's a heck of a lot of them (110 million to be exact)!

But the wounded can speak for themselves:

"Paralyzed Iraq veteran Tomas Young [speaking yesterday at Camp Casey, Crawford, Texas] called on President Bush to meet with him to explain why his best hope to walk again, stem cell research, was not being pursued. Tomas was wounded in Iraq the same day that Casey Sheehan was killed."

[Updated with a better picture from Alaska Gyrl in Crawford via BradBlog, which illustrates that Sheehan isn't the only one who would like to ask George Bush some questions]

"I want the folks there on the Gulf Coast to know that the federal government is prepared to help you when the storm passes. When the storm passes, the federal government has got assets and resources that we'll be deploying to help you. In the meantime, America will pray - pray for the health and safety of all our citizens."

- George Bush, White House resident

On behalf of the residents of Louisiana, Mississippi, and the other affected areas, may I say, "Thanks an effing lot, George."

By the way, I don't sit in front of the TV all day, but in the times I have had the opportunity to monitor TV coverage, I have yet to see George Bush, "leader" of the free world, at all. No doubt he's as far away from the danger as possible, as is his usual practice.

There's a camp in Crawford, women in grief
No way for them to find any relief
Their sons are dead and they've come to see
The man who made their destiny
He's squirming there on his vacation
Trying to look like he's leading the nation
But folks are vying for that position
They've got guts and they've got a mission
You can open your ears and hear everybody say
That every day is mother's day

Well things were getting a little gritty
So the president went to Salt Lake City
And a sleepy little town in Idaho
But the mothers are on him wherever he goes
He just can't get 'em outta his hair
Wherever he is, they're right there
Calling him out for the liar he is
Saying don't kill more kids for your oil biz
Saying George, give up and just go away
'Cause every day is mother's day

And when George goes back to Washington
He'll have no place left to run
With rocking chairs to greet the dawn
And mothers camped on the White House lawn
Heeding the call of Julia Ward
A moral and mighty, motherly horde
The future is coming and the future looks hard
For W and his house of cards
The mothers are coming and they're here to stay
Every day is mother's day

Meanwhile, in New Orleans, while those who are able fled the city, those who weren't got precisely no help from the government to do so. It's worth recalling what happened last year, when a hurricane hit Cuba and then headed for New Orleans. In Cuba, 1.3 million people, more than 10% of the population, were evacuated from the path of the hurricane in an orderly operation organized by the government; not a single person died. In New Orleans, then as now, citizens were recommended to leave, but got precisely zero help from the government to do so.

Suburban Guerrilla finds CNN news reader Soledad O'Brien insulting those who couldn't leave:

"Well-paid anchor twit Soledad O’Brien interviews Sen. Mary Landrieu.

"She keeps making snippy comments about the 20% of the New Orleans citizens who didn’t leave: 'Are they just complacent?' You know, in that smarmy, fake concern they like to simulate.

"Landrieu pointed out that some people couldn’t leave – they had no transportation, no money, no place to go."

"Exit strategy"? Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the top military commander in Iraq, when asked this month about the plans for the future use of the four "semi-permanent" bases the U.S. is building for a total of 72,000 troops, dismissed the question: "You're talking years away." "And," I and Cindy Sheehan will add to what the General said, "thousands upon thousands of more dead Iraqis and Americans."

On September 24, it's time to make the U.S. rethink that "strategy."

I write about this today not only because of Posada Carriles' hearing, but also because at CounterPunch, the President of the Cuban National Assembly, Ricardo Alarcon, provides us with an excellent summary of those seven years of injustice, seven years of terror, seven years of hell, that those men have suffered at the hands of the United States. Seven years of solitary confinement, seven years of not being able to meet with their families, or their attorneys, or to properly prepare their case or their appeal, seven years of not even being able to see the evidence against them. If you are unfamiliar with the case, or even if you are familiar, Alarcon's article still provides an eye-opening picture of U.S. "justice."

"'There's a base in the party that would give the president no power to go to war with Iraq,' Biden acknowledged in an interview. But he said 'the vast majority' of Democrats believe that the consequences of leaving Iraq unattended justify continued American involvement."

"A CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll in early August found that 33% of all respondents, a record high, agreed with the statement that 'the U.S. should withdraw all of its troops from Iraq.' Among Democrats, 52% favored total withdrawal, 26% favored the withdrawal of some troops and 20% favored maintaining the current number of troops or sending more.

The title of this post refers to clueless Democrats. As the last paragraph makes clear, it isn't Democrats per se who are clueless. but the elected ones who serve as leaders, and the public face, of their party.

"In short, war redefines our moral universe. Killing and glory become synonymous. This corruption is so profound that it cannot be washed away with a flight home. For many, war creates a new way of being.

"Here, at home, behind the empty chatter and bombast of patriotic talk, there is a yawning indifference among many about what is really happening in Iraq. The hollow language of abstractions and cliches, used by the war makers and often aped by those in the media, allows much of the nation to feel good about war.

"But it is also a way of muzzling the voices of those returning from Iraq if they attempt to tell us the truth about war. And when these men and women do find the moral courage to speak, they often find that many turn away in disgust or attack them for shattering the bubble. The myth of war -- that we are righteous and our nation is always good -- is too enjoyable, and too profitable, to be easily punctured by reality.

"When the noisy club-goers woke up Cotnoir and his family, I suspect he was as dead to their humanity as he probably was to the humanity of most Iraqis. Now he is being vilified [for firing a shotgun and wounding two people]. But it is we who are guilty, guilty for sending him and tens of thousands of others to a war that did not have to be fought, guilty for turning away from the truth of war to wallow in myth, guilty because we create killers, and when they come home maimed and broken, we condemn them."

"Insurgents in Al- Anbar province, the center of guerrilla resistance in Iraq, have fought the U.S. military to a stalemate.

"After repeated major combat offensives in Al-Fallujah and Ar-Ramadi, and after losing hundreds of soldiers and Marines in Al-Anbar during the past two years -- including 75 since June 1 -- many American officers and enlisted men assigned to Al-Anbar have stopped talking about winning a military victory in Iraq's Sunni Muslim heartland."

Trying to explain the success of the resistance, Lasseter lets the military speak for themselves:

"Military officials offered three primary reasons that guerrillas have held and gained ground: the enemy's growing sophistication, insufficient numbers of U.S. troops and the lack of trained and reliable Iraqi security forces."

Despite those flaws, another must-read article.

"Fifteen members of a Palestinian family stood near what used to be their home in the town of Al-Khader.

"The day before, bulldozers driven by Israelis flattened their house. Now it was a pile of rubble, with food and other household items lining the ground around it.

"It was July 28, a hot Thursday, recalled Chris Towne, 23, of Danbury, who was in Al-Khader with some 20 members of a group that supports everyday Palestinians called Holy Land Trust of Bethlehem.

"Al-Khader is a little town surrounded by vineyards, fig and olive trees, south of Bethlehem City on the West Bank of Palestine.

"Towne and others learned the family were farmers who lived near a settlement [Ed. note: the article doesn't say but one presumes this was the 'crime' for which their home was being demolished]. They had two donkeys to harvest crops like grape leaves and apples.

"'Though they knew we were Americans, and that the Israeli weapons and the Caterpillar bulldozers came from America, they showed us their best hospitality by the rubble of their former home [Towne said]."

"Three families, a total of 24 people, were made homeless.

"The Israelis came, pointed guns at the people, and didn't even give them time to collect their possessions."

Incidentally, Ali Abunimah of Electronic Intifada, speaking on Flashpoints! tonight (his segment starts at 33:00; this point is made at 47:30 into the show), had some interesting information about the four just-abandoned West Bank settlements. Unlike the Gaza settlements, they are not being turned over to the Palestinians who actually own the land, but will rather become Israeli military outposts. So although they were abandoned by the settlers, the idea that they were actually abandoned by the Israelis is not true.

And the second point made by Francona was that the additional troops which are being sent to Iraq are the elite 82nd Airborne, the "quick reaction" force which the U.S. "needs" to react to crises around the globe. And the fact that they are forced to send this elite force to Iraq for the mission of protecting the Iraqi election tells you just how far they're scraping the bottom of the barrel for troops to maintain their war in Iraq.

Meanwhile "justice" in the case of Luis Posada Carriles continues to inch along; the U.S. has still not deported him to Venezuela to face the justice he deserves. And George Bush can repeat with a straight face his famous line, "If you harbor a terrorist, you're just as guilty as the terrorist," and not be called on it by the "journalists" of America.

"It is time to pull out now. As you said, no one needs to die for others who have died. Everybody has their sacrifices. And we do not need to sacrifice more people."

- Spec. Jeans Cruz, one of the American soldiers who captured Saddam Hussein, now retired and now unemployed (both Cruz and Hussein), on Keith Olbermann's Countdown show

George Bush has claimed repeatedly that he doesn't need to meet with Cindy Sheehan because he has already met with her, and it's a line that his supporters repeat frequently as well. Just one little itty bitty problem. Today, trying to counter Sheehan's influence while in Idaho, Bush met with Dawn Rowe (as seen and interviewed on CNN; doesn't appear to be online at the moment). Rowe's husband was killed in Iraq, and this was the second time Bush has met with her. Want to meet with George Bush? All you have to do is to agree with him. Anyone else? Go stand in the street. Or a ditch. Preferably a long way away.

Bush's meeting with Rowe occured in private; in public, he was promoting Tammy Pruett, who has had five sons and a husband serving in Iraq (fortunately for her and them, and unfortunately for Bush's attempted comparison with Sheehan, all of them are alive). Bush, in one of those precious lack of self-awareness moments, intoned, "America lives in freedom because of families like the Pruetts." Well, leaving aside the obvious fact that serving in Iraq doesn't have the slightest thing to do with our living in freedom, what can one say but, "Definitely not because of families like yours, George. Had that little talk with Barbara and Jenna yet?"

Update: Interestingly enough, I have this on tape from this afternoon when it was broadcast on CNN, but I can find absolutely no mention of this meeting in writing, either on the CNN website or elsewhere. I didn't imagine her though; here's an article about her husband's death in which we learn that Dawn thinks his death was "meant to be."

Second update: An Idaho paper is now the one and only place I can find a written record of Rowe's meeting with Bush. And in a second article from that paper, we learn why Rowe made the trip from California to meet with Bush - it's because she was mad that her sister-in-law (the dead Marine's sister) had attended a peace vigil protesting the war! Here's more about Diana Rowe Pauls and the Cindy Sheehan connection:

"Rowe Pauls said she 'held her tongue' for almost a year until she saw Cindy Sheehan, whose son Casey was killed in Iraq last year, camping out near Bush's home in Crawford, Texas.

"'When I saw Cindy Sheehan and the Gold Star Families for Peace and veterans from Iraq, veterans from Vietnam and current active military all beginning to speak out publicly with the same questions and concerns that I had, I wanted to start asking those questions publicly as well,' Rowe-Pauls said.

"To make some peace with her mother, Rowe Pauls said she's agreed to not use her brother's name in future protests of the war."

Incidentally, when members of Cindy Sheehan's family announced their opposition to Sheehan's stance, the media made a big deal of it and gave them lots of coverage. Do you suppose they'll be giving the same coverage to Diana Rowe Pauls? I doubt it.

Further update: If you can stand it, listen to the clips of Bush speaking in Idaho on this morning's Democracy Now!. Bush is just his usual blustering self, but listening to the audience applauding and hooting and hollering in response to Bush's call for killing the "terrorists" and "confront emerging threats before they full materialize" (i.e., endless war against the world), just two words came to mind: blood lust. Truly scary.

[First posted 8/20/05, 10:30 a.m.; updated] Updated with new cartoons. Post links to additional editorial cartoons in the comments and I'll add them to the album.

Update, 8/25: Webshots, where I had these cartoons posted, has removed them for copyright infringement. Although I believe posting these qualifies as "fair use", posting them on Webshots violated their policy. If anyone has any other suggestions for a similar (free!) place to post them, let me know, or if anyone wants to volunteer a web page somewhere, let me know as well (I'm going to email the "meetwithcindy.org" folks to see if they're amenable).

"'He looked like he had turned 80,' his wife, Violette, told The Times. 'He was frail and too tired to walk, even inside the small meeting room. He had to lean against his American military escort to move a step down.

"'Much of his thick hair and moustache had shed and greyed,' she added, tears running down her cheeks.

"She said that he had lost more than 30lb (14kg). Doctors had pulled out most of his decaying teeth to make way for dentures. He was taking more than a dozen pills a day to control high blood pressure, diabetes and heart problems."

Other Iraqis that Left I on the News has dubbed missing persons -- Gen. Amer al-Saadi, Dr. Rihab Taha and Dr. Huda Ammash -- about whom there were rumors back in July that their release was being contemplated, are still also being held in solitary confinement as best we know. None of them has been charged with any crime either.

As for their jailer, George Bush, he's getting fitter by the day. I mean, he's got a life to get on with, you know.

"The American Legion, which has 2.7 million members, has declared war on antiwar protestors, and the media could be next. Speaking at its national convention in Honolulu, the group's national commander called for an end to all 'public protests' and 'media events' against the war, constitutional protections be damned.

"'The American Legion will stand against anyone and any group that would demoralize our troops, or worse, endanger their lives by encouraging terrorists to continue their cowardly attacks against freedom-loving peoples,' Thomas Cadmus, national commander, told delegates at the group's national convention in Honolulu.

"The delegates vowed to use whatever means necessary to 'ensure the united backing of the American people to support our troops and the global war on terrorism.'"

(From Editor & Publisher via Atrios)

Yes, Paula, it could have "worked." The U.S. could indeed have killed someone who has never harmed a single U.S. citizen, never even threatened a single U.S. citizen as far as I know, and never kept his troops occupying a piece of U.S. territory against the will of the U.S. He has called the U.S., or more exactly the U.S. government, names though. Surely that's enough justification to warrant his assassination.

And while we're on the subject, can we please dispense with the vulgar "take him out" language that not only came out of the mouth of Pat Robertson yesterday, but out of the mouth of Paula Zahn last night, and Wolf Blitzer today, not to mention countless other right-wing (and not-so-right-wing) TV and radio talk-show hosts, politicians, and others referring to Hugo Chavez, Saddam Hussein, Fidel Castro, or some other bogeyman-du-jour? Wouldn't it be nice to live in a country where such language stays in the mouth of Tony Soprano, where it belongs?

(Hat tip to Suburban Guerilla)

"Early this morning, groups of armed settlers roamed the West Bank with intent to vandalize and terrorize Palestinian villages. Witnesses say settlers entered the village of Fendakumiya (this and all place names are transcribed phonetically, and no doubt poorly, by me; my apologies), writing on and altering vehicles and firing machine guns in the air. Settlers threw stones and bottles at Palestinian homes and cars in the villages of Kuchin and Madma. In Qalqilya, a settler opened fire on a Palestinian farmer, shooting him in the shoulder. Other incidents were reported in Jit, Bazariya, Sebastiya, and other small villages. In Borqa, settlers reportedly broke into a Palestinian home, locked the residents out, destroyed furniture, and smashed windows. In Jenin, settlers attacked Palestinian journalists covering the intended pullout of the Somor settlement. Last week, an Israeli killed four Palestinian workers near the Shiloh settlement; no word yet on his arrest or punishment."

Jewish readers, I hate to say this, but these people are acting in your name, just like Pat Robertson is acting in the name of Christians everywhere, unless you and other Jews (or Christians in the case of Robertson) denounce these acts publicly and make clear that they do not speak or act for you. Because if you stay silent, they are.

Outrageously, CNN is now reporting a preposterous denial by Pat Robertson of something that millions of people have now seen for themselves:

"Conservative religious broadcaster Pat Robertson said Wednesday that his remarks about the removal of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez were taken out of context and that he never called for the killing of the Latin American leader.

"'I didn't say 'assassination.' I said our special forces should 'take him out.' And 'take him out' can be a number of things, including kidnapping; there are a number of ways to take out a dictator from power besides killing him. I was misinterpreted by the AP [Associated Press], but that happens all the time,' Robertson said on 'The 700 Club' program."

(Hat tip to Politics in the Zeros).

Update: CNN is now reporting (this story has now replaced the earlier one online) that Robertson has "apologized" for calling for the assassination of Chavez, which presumably renders inoperative his claim that he was "misinterpreted." So he's a sinner, a liar, and a "flip-flopper."

I guess the crowd is still in the process of amassing! For the record, there are three pictures on the web page. None of them shows a single human being!

(For more on the pro-Bush "crowds" which are garnering such attention, see this previous post.)

The New York Times article about the response to Pat Robertson's call for Hugo Chavez to be assassinated is headlined: "Robertson Is Pilloried for Assassination Call". Well, the Venezuelan Ambassador, Bernardo Alvarez, did say that "His statement demands the strongest condemnation by the White House." Let's see how that worked out, and what the Times calls being "pilloried." Donald Rumsfeld has no criticism of Robertson whatsoever, merely saying "He's a private citizen. Private citizens say all kinds of things all the time." Robertson is indeed a private citizen, albeit one who is influential enough that his comments are newsworthy (eventually!) to every news organization. Of course, if Robertson were an Arab-American, who had called for the assassination of, say, Tony Blair, I think it's fair to say he would have already been visited by the FBI, if not already rotting in the cell adjacent to the one housing Jose Padilla.

That was the Department of Defense reaction. The State Department was equally tough on Robertson, saying his remarks were "inappropriate." No, wearing a light suit to a "black-tie optional" affair is "inappropriate"; Robertson's comments are an "outrage", if not indeed criminal. As for the White House, who Alvarez called on to condemn Robertson's remarks? As of this writing...dead silence. No doubt they are adhering to George Bush's favorite saying: "All options are on the table."

Update: My local Fox network outlet, KTVU, reports that Robertson's comments were "immediately denounced" by the Administration. If, by "immediately" you mean the next day, and by "denounced" you mean "rebuked as mildly as possible" and by "Administration" you mean "anyone but the White House."

Further update: The AP illustrates to the rest of the press how this story should have been reported, with an accurate headline ("U.S. Dodges Robertson Comments on Chavez"), and accurate observations about the reaction (emphasis added):

"State Department spokesman Sean McCormack called Robertson's remarks about Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez 'inappropriate,' but stopped short of condemning them.

"Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said the Pentagon isn't in the business of killing foreign leaders, but he also did not denounce Robertson or his remarks."

Nobody enjoys being invaded

"In the Mercury News article 'Ghostly war zone' (Page 1A, Aug. 20), I was amused by the condescending description of Afghan resistance fighters as being 'poor, backward, and steeped in a centuries-old tradition of resisting foreigners.'

"So at last we know why the Afghans resent U.S. troops occupying their country. It's because they're poor, backward and steeped in tradition. I wonder how 'steeped' anyone else would be if foreign troops occupied their homeland? The article concedes that there is outrage at U.S. troops who 'inadvertently violate cultural taboos.' It doesn't mention that they also 'inadvertently' kill innocent Afghans.

Lee Marshall
Palo Alto

But Brown's characterization of Robertson and his statements are a matter of judgement. CNN's State Department correspondent Andrea Koppel's comments were U.S. propaganda, straight out of the mouths of CondoLIEzza Rice, Rumsfeld, Bush, and Cheney, except they weren't, they were out of the mouth of Andrea Koppel:

"Chavez is broadcasting that message [of the Bolivarian revolution] throughout the region on a new Venezuela satellite TV network dedicated to promoting anti-U.S. propaganda."

But Koppel wasn't finished:

"These days, Chavez is using more than rhetoric. He's spending Venezuela's vast oil wealth to support other leftist leaders in the hemisphere, like in Bolivia, undermining U.S. efforts to spread democracy. He's courting oil-hungry countries like China and sworn U.S. enemies like Iran."

As far as "undermining U.S. efforts to spread democracy," the less said about that slander the better. I might pop a vein in my forehead if I get started on that one.

Shall I describe Koppel's comments as "wacky"? How about "disgusting"? And, even more importantly, downright dangerous, because it is precisely the accumulation of little "clues" like these from the corporate media that poisons the mind of the American public, and makes them susceptible to calls from the U.S. government to invade other countries or overthrow their leaders to protect our "national security" in ways that more overt statements from people like Pat Robertson can never do.

(Hat tip to Mike from the invaluable Cursor)

"The Pentagon plans to deploy two additional battalions to Iraq amid rising insurgent attacks ahead of an anticipated referendum on a constitution, US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said today.

"Military officials also are looking at ways to adjust the rotation of forces to beef up the US troop presence on the ground for the elections from its current level of about 138,000 troops.

"Pentagon officials have said they expect the total number to rise to about the level they were at during Iraq's January 30 elections - some 159,000 troops."

George Bush is on vacation in Idaho from his vacation in Texas. For those whose family members are dead or at risk of death in Iraq, there is no vacation:

"Monday, 200 people turned up for a protest in Donnelly, a town of 130 inhabitants a few miles from the Tamarack Resort, where Bush is spending two nights on vacation. Another protest took place here Tuesday. It was organized by the Idaho Peace Coalition."

"President Bush probably breathed a sigh of relief when he landed in Idaho last night. But no matter where he goes, he's going to find a Cindy Sheehan in every community across the United States. The name is going to be different, but the message is going to be the same."

- Laura McCarthy, whose son is in Iraq

"Nothing is going to justify my husband's death. Why are we there? What is President Bush trying to get out of this? Why must my son be fatherless?"

- Melanie House, whose husband was killed in Iraq.

No justice, no peace!

Update: 200 people demonstrated against the war in a town of 130; even though a substantial portion of the Washington Post article describes the numerous protests against Bush, the headline reads "Bush Says Activist Doesn't Speak for Kin of Casualties." Meanwhile, in Sacramento, a town of 407,000, a whopping 30 Bush supporters showed up to support the anti-Cindy tour. The USA Today headline? "Bush backers amass to counter 'Peace Mom'." Amass? "To accumulate or assemble a large quantity of"? That's the smallest "large quantity" I've ever seen.

Another update: Sorry George, you're going to have to stop saying that "you met with Cindy already" and using that as an excuse for not meeting with the folks outside your gate in Crawford:

"Another mother protesting in Crawford, Karen Meredith of Mountain View, Calif., said the president was 'fooling himself' and that he had met with a small fraction of families of slain soldiers.

"As an example, said Meredith, whose son, Army Lt. Ken Ballard, was killed in 2004, Bush had not met with her. 'I'm in his backyard, so I'd love to come over and have a lemonade with him, because many families feel the same way that we do.'"

"Cuba and Venezuela have sealed a commitment over the next 10 years to restore the sight of millions of Latin Americans who lack the economic resources for an operation, as part of the extension of the Mission Miracle program throughout the region.

"Christened the Sandino Commitment, the program proposes to attend to 600,000 patients per year in the Cuban facilities involved in the mission and in Venezuelan health centers to be brought into the humanitarian project, including military hospitals."

Incidentally, I cannot find any evidence that a single American news organization has covered this development.

"Our department doesn't do that kind of thing. It's against the law."

"We have got Jim Wolfensohn, the former head of the World Bank, on the ground, helping President Abbas develop a government that responds to the will of the folks in Gaza. In other words, this is step one in the development of a democracy. [Ed. note: yes, step one, get advice from the noble white man, since the Arab savages aren't capable of ruling themselves without his help. And I take it those elections back in January, the ones won by Hamas, had nothing to do with democracy.]

"And so to answer your question, what must take place next is the establishment of a working government in Gaza, a government that responds to the people."

"Negotiators here described American officials as playing a major role in the draft. U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad shuttled among Iraqi leaders, pushing late Monday for the inclusion of Sunnis in talks, negotiators said. U.S. Embassy staff members worked from a Kurdish party headquarters to help type up the draft and translate changes from English to Arabic for Iraqi lawmakers, negotiators said.

Deborah Johns has already been the subject of thousands of news articles despite not having left Sacramento until yesterday on her "You Don't Speak For Me, Cindy" tour. Just as a side note, Johns is not a "Gold Star Mother"; her son is alive and well, about to start his third tour of duty in Iraq. Of course that doesn't invalidate her opposition to Sheehan and support for the war, but it is worth noting, especially as most coverage of her fails to take note of this fact.

The "caravan" which Johns is leading to Crawford is a fake and a fraud. Check out the schedule for the tour - it's basically a series of "press availabilities" in cities between Sacramento and Crawford, with little or nothing to do with actual public support. Here, for example, is a picture of a "rally" described on the Move America Forward website as "big crowd greets caravan":

With no advance press coverage whatsoever, and less than one day's notice, we had 60-75 people come together here in Cupertino (population 50,000 vs. 407,000 for Sacramento) the other night to show our support for Cindy Sheehan. I'm not saying there aren't plenty of people who don't agree with Deborah Johns. But her "caravan" is a massive P.R. exercise, and nothing more.

Update: I just caught CNN's coverage of Johns' appearance in San Francisco. From the looks of it, there were about six people present, easily outnumbered by the press. Man, I sure wish CNN would cover every demonstration I attended that had six people or more. Heck, I'd be happy if they'd cover the ones with 6000 or more!

More on this fake tour above.

And then today on Democracy Now!, Juan Cole, following in the footsteps of Tom Hayden in calling for a "responsible" (not "simplistic" in Cole's words) withdrawal from Iraq, does actually pick up on this point, but in a doppelganger sort of way. Cole's idea of "responsible" withdrawal is that American ground troops should be withdrawn, but that air power should remain, giving "close air support" (a phrase he uses three times during the interview) to "the new Iraqi army and to other allied forces on the ground." In other words, the U.S. should keep intervening and keep killing Iraqis, but do so in a way that doesn't endanger themselves nearly as much, and leave the face-to-face killing (which he seems to think is "unhelpful in the sense that it actually also is spreading around the guerrilla war") to Iraqi surrogates. To be noted is that this approach, since it would signficantly lessen American deaths, might strike a dangerous, even fatal, blow to the American antiwar movement, even while doing nothing to lessen the deaths of Iraqis (and might even increase that number).

Sometimes, "Now" means "Now". Attitudes like Cole's and Hayden's, that the United States, which invaded Iraq illegally, has to stay and compound that illegality, remind me of nothing less than the woman who was ordered to marry her rapist. Iraq has been raped by the United States. Whatever the future brings for Iraq, it's time for the U.S. to clear out.

Article 37: Freedom to establish political groups and organizations.

Article 36: The State guarantees: 1. Freedom of expression by all means.

Article Seven: 1. Any organization that follow a racist, terrorist, extremist, sectarian-cleaning ideology or circulates or justifies such beliefs is banned, especially Saddam's Baath Party in Iraq and its symbols under any name. And this should not be part of the political pluralism in Iraq.

The idea that "Ownership is a social function, to be exercised within the objectives of the Society and the plans of the State, according to stipulations of the law," which was part of the Iraqi Constituion in effect under Baath Party rule? Strangely missing under the proposed new one.

"The dials on the fuel pump are spinning, too, for school districts that face soaring costs just as 25 million children get back on the bus for a new school year.

"Most buses use diesel fuel, which has jumped about a dollar a gallon since last year. School districts now pay an average of $2.25 to $2.40 a gallon, a figure that keeps climbing because of summertime demand for fuel and the escalating price of crude oil.

"To offset the costs, districts are stripping money from classrooms, trimming bus routes, cutting field trips and raiding cash reserves. Some are considering charging fees for bus service or asking kids to walk longer distances to school."

Bake sale for the Pentagon? Not on the horizon.

West Bank targeted for evacuation today

Why the delay in reporting this shocking story about someone who is a major political and religious figure on the U.S.? My own anonymous source, who works in the newsroom of a major cable news organization, provides this insight in a private communication, describing the situation towards the end of that period before the coverage started to appear:

"I have learned that, before 7 PM Eastern, the head at that point of one of the newsrooms of a famous 24-hour news organization was aware of the report and had seen the video on the Media Matters web site; copy editors and others responsible for editorial content of the organizations 'product' had been quickly brought in; everyone agreed it was a great story, potentially quite explosive, and it would be awesome to be the first major news organization to 'break' it.

"Hours later, there still had been no actual, concrete move to include the story in the news 'products' of this organization, although by then several newsrooms at this very large news organization were aware of it, and the entire functioning and workflow of the place is such that news can be reported well-nigh instantaneously.

"But this item was treated differently from a train wreck or an airplane crash: it was immediately flagged as sensitive, invisible but very binding 'handle with care' stickers had been placed on it, and it had been 'kicked upstairs.' Down the stairs came a decision to give ROBERTSON a 'reasonable opportunity' -- I understand that was the phrase that was used -- to respond; to seek *permission* from his organization to use the video, instead of asserting a fair use right to the material; to seek independent confirmation that the report from this 'blog' (mediamatters.org) wasn't a phony or fabrication; to pass everything through a couple of layers of lawyers, executives and so on, and so forth.

"A journalist in the newsroom (yes, there are still a few left) was told by the supervisors that, yes, it was a great story and yes, it probably should have been put out in the news product right away and at any rate certainly by now; but that given the corporate structure that this once-well-regarded news organization was now under, that was impossible, everyone (meaning the four or six people involved in that conversation) had to remember that they were all *employees*. The term 'wage slave' was not used, but the fullness of its content was well communicated.

"It is now nearly six hours after Media Matters placed the original post on the Internet. Scores of emails have been flying around in this news organization and I'm certain between people in this news organization and others informing about this development, commenting on it, discussing how to cover it and so on.

"And not one word --NOT ONE!-- has yet been printed, posted or said by any major news organization."

Now take a look at the AP story as it appears, for example, in USA Today. One thing about it stands out. In the entire story, you will not find any "reaction quote" from any U.S. government employee or politician, distancing themselves from Robertson's remark, nor any Venezuelan representative reacting to it, nor even the simple observation which could be provided by AP itself that the action suggested by Robertson is illegal under both international and U.S. law (not to mention immoral under religious law). Instead, we get just Robertson's remarks standing unchallenged. Imagine if Hugo Chavez had called for the assassination of George Bush, or even of Pat Robertson. Do you suppose the news coverage would be similar?

And what about the "liberals" mentioned in the title of this post? Well, I don't want to tar all liberals with the same brush, I'm sure most of them are outraged by Robertson's comments. But at least one leading liberal (the co-chairperson of the Progressive Legislative Action Network (PLAN), a former fellow at the Center for American Progress, a writer for Working Assets and the Nation, and a twice-a-week guest on the Al Franken Show), David Sirota, had this to say:

"Pat Robertson's Unhelpful Call for Assassination

"Here's an interesting question: To an objective non-American looking at the situation from an outside vantage point, is there really much of a difference between a terrorist leader going on television and issuing a fatwa against American political leaders, and Pat Robertson going on television and essentially issuing a fatwa against democratically-elected leaders in other countries?

"It's an interesting question - and one that bodes poorly for America's image throughout the world. Here we are in Iraq, supposedly fighting against the fatwa-issuing terrorists and for democracy in Iraq (though that was never the reason for the war), and one of America's top conservative leaders issues a fatwa against a democratically elected leader in a neighboring country to the south.

"This isn't to say that Venezuela's Hugo Chavez is a great guy - but he was twice democratically elected in elections that were verified to be legitimate. Additionally, America currently relies heavily on Venezuela for oil.

"So, really, no matter how bad you think Hugo Chavez is, it's pretty fair to say that Pat Robertson's latest bout of wild-eyed extremism (and it is just one of many) is extraordinarily unhelpful almost any way you look at it."

As I've had the opportunity to say on a number of occasions recently in other contexts: feh.

Update: Checking various papers, they all seem to be carrying the AP story and nothing else. The New York Times correctly headlines the story: "Televangelist Calls for Assassination of Chavez." But both the Washington Post and the San Jose Mercury News use a different, and inaccurate, headline: "Televangelist calls for Chavez' death." It's especially inaccurate when it comes to Robertson, who has been praying for the death (or incapacitation) of Supreme Court judges, among other things. If I were a religious person, I might pray for George Bush or Dick Cheney to die to achieve some sort of "divine justice." I certainly wouldn't be calling for them to be assassinated, which is quite a different thing.

"You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he [Hugo Chavez] thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war...We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability."

- Pat Robertson, famous "Christian" minister, founder of the "Christian" Coalition of America

Here are some random notes from the show (words in italics are from the transcipt):

"But when [the weapons inspectors] departed in 1998, the U.S. lost its window into Iraq." - Well, I was glad to see they didn't repeat the big lie that "Saddam kicked out the inspectors." However they might have noted that the U.N. withdrew its inspectors because Bill Clinton had ordered the U.S. to start a four-day massive bombing campaign of Iraq. They might have also noted that the ostensible reason for that bombing campaign was to destroy WMD programs, but that we know now from the Duelfer report that there were no active WMD programs in Iraq in 1998, and that all the weapons had been destroyed in the early 90's.

Shots of the World Trade Center collapse were part of the show, even though they have nothing to do with Iraq.

Great clips from two of the most infamous liars in the administration [emphasis added]:

CONDOLEEZZA RICE, U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: High quality aluminum tubes that are only really suited for nuclear weapons programs, centrifuge programs.

CHENEY: I do know with absolutely certainty that he is using his procurement system to acquire the equipment he needs to enrich uranium to build a nuclear weapon.

"Had there been even a peep that the agency did not want that sentence in or that George Tenet did not want that sentence in that the director of central intelligence did not want that in, it would have been gone" (the smarmy CondoLIEzza Rice, describing the "uranium from Africa" quote in the State of the Union address). Here we have an editing problem. Host David Ensor did note "The 16-word indictment inserts a claim Tenet himself had kept out of the president's speech on the eve of the congressional vote for war," but that statement comes many minutes before Rice's claim, which is followed by this from Ensor: "When the White House blames Tenet, he takes public responsibility and so offers cover for the president." The White House may have been "blaming" Tenet, but they were lying through their teeth when they did so.

And, of course, it wouldn't be a corporate media show without the ultimate big lie, this from Ensor in the show's final word: "Much may also depend on how long it takes U.S. intelligence to rebuild its capabilities, and thus, its credibility." The U.S., its intelligence community and its government, have no credibility, and rebuilding intelligence capabilities aren't going to change that. Only a major change in direction for this country can accomplish that Sisyphean task.

"Cycling superstar Lance Armstrong pressed President Bush to boost federal spending on cancer research during a visit to his ranch, but the two did not discuss the Iraq war, which Armstrong opposes."

"Today, DNC Chairman Howard Dean, echoing the concerns of Democrats and Republicans across the country, called on President Bush to lay out - and stick to - a clear military plan for success in Iraq that includes heeding the advice of military commanders. 'When President Bush speaks later this week to members of the military and veterans, he should lay out a clear plan for future success in Iraq based on the informed advice of his military command.'"

Canellos' dishonesty is also reflected in the statement, echoed by others in the media, that "Bush's supporters...are already starting to counter her with other relatives of soldiers killed in Iraq who have remained supportive of the war." Well, that has a kernel of truth; so far there seems to be exactly one woman from Sacramento who has come forward/been pushed forward to represent that view, who claims to be about to start (it hasn't happened yet; so far it's all just P.R.) a caravan to Texas. Fair enough. But nowhere in Canellos' article, or in 99% of the other reporting I have seen on Sheehan, is there any indication that there are a half-dozen other Gold Star Mothers in Crawford right now, not just Cindy Sheehan, as well as a half-dozen other parents of soldiers currently serving in Iraq.

"Some of Bush's aides...maintain that one of the strengths of this White House is a willingness to resist 'what appears to be the easy PR route.'"

- from a Washington Post article about why Bush won't meet with Cindy Sheehan

The entire article is Mike Allen presenting the White House spin on the subject, which I won't bother with, but I can't resist noting one thing from the article -- a reference to Sheehan's "accusation that Bush 'killed' her son." Note the quotes around the word "killed". In all the articles referring to Saddam gassing the Kurds, have you ever once seen quotes around the word "gassing" to indicate that Saddam Hussein didn't personally gas the Kurds, but rather set into motion events which caused it to happen? The fact is that George Bush set into motion events which killed Casey Sheehan, every bit as much as Merck executives set into motion events which killed Robert Ernst or tobacco executives set into motion events which have killed millions of people. George Bush may not have pulled the trigger, but he was no mere accessory to murder. He's the real deal - a killer with blood on his hands.

"A Utah television station is refusing to air an anti-war ad featuring Cindy Sheehan, whose son's death in Iraq prompted a vigil outside President George W. Bush's Texas ranch.

"The anti-war ad began airing on other Salt Lake City-area stations Saturday, two days before Bush was scheduled to speak in Salt Lake City to the national convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars.

"However, a national sales representative for KTVX, a local ABC affiliate, rejected the ad in an e-mail to media buyers, writing that it was an 'inappropriate commercial advertisement for Salt Lake City.'

"Station General Manager David D'Antuono said the decision was not influenced by the station's owner, Clear Channel Communications Inc. [Ed. note - I'm sure.]"

"I got an email the other day and it said, 'Cindy if you didn't use so much profanity .... there's people on the fence that get offended.'

"And you know what I said? 'You know what? You know what, god damn it? How in the world is anybody still sitting on that fence?'

"If you fall on the side that is pro-George and pro-war, you get your ass over to Iraq, and take the place of somebody who wants to come home. And if you fall on the side that is against this war and against George Bush, stand up and speak out."

- Cindy Sheehan

"Police say Richards blamed 'mounting financial problems' for his decision to kill his family. They did not detail what those problems were, but acquaintances said the Richards had fallen on hard times."

"Wilkerson and Powell spent four days and nights in a CIA conference room with then-Director George Tenet and other top officials trying to ensure the accuracy of the presentation, Wilkerson says.

"'There was no way the Secretary of State was going to read off a script about serious matters of intelligence that could lead to war when the script was basically un-sourced,' Wilkerson says."

The serious question about this show, which I can't answer without seeing the show but, after reading CNN's preview, I have a pretty good guess, is what they have to say now about the reaction to that speech. Because, as I first wrote about back in January, 2004, many observers on the left (among them Rahul Mahajan, Phyllis Bennis, Robert Fisk, Ali Abunimah, Stephen Zunes, and myself - links in the original post) saw right through that speech from day one, yet among the politicians and "chattering classes," the reaction was universal support. Not only was there a total lack of criticism of the nonsense spouted by Powell at the U.N. that day among either politicians or commentators, but editorial after editorial in major papers and politician after politician cited Powell's speech as the turning point which convinced them to throw their support behind the war. Will CNN call attention to the duplicity and complicity of these people in Powell's charade? My guess is no, but I'll watch the show to be sure.

Update: Greg Mitchell at Editor & Publisher reviews the gushing media response to Powell's speech.

""I think today a pluralistic society should have access to a broad range of fact, of science, including faith."

- Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, Harvard Medical School graduate, advocating the teaching of "intelligent design" in schools.

Science vs. non-science (a.k.a. nonsense*):

* Do I think faith is nonsense? No. Do I think faith pretending to be "fact" or "science" is nonsense? You bet I do.

The two major antiwar coalitions that have initiated and organized for a massive antiwar March on Washington for September 24 have agreed to organize a joint rally followed by a joint march. Both coalitions will organize under their own banners, slogans and with their own literature for the September 24 demonstration. The joint rally will begin at 11:30 am at the Ellipse in the front of the White House. We urge everyone around the country to unite and come out for the largest possible antiwar demonstration on September 24.

Jay Leno, interviewing 'George Bush': "President Bush, what do you think of the TV show Over There? It's a fictional account of the war in Iraq."

'George Bush': "Heck, I get that from Rumsfeld every day!"

"We got word a few hours ago that Cindy's mother had a stroke. We don't know how serious the stroke is and cannot tell you whether she is in stable condition or not. Cindy and her sister left a hour ago to take a plane to LA from Waco. Our thoughts and prayers are with her and her immediate family.

"We are still here. Over 300 people are on the grounds right now. Over 200 mothers are marching right now. Its Thursday. We will have thousands here by Saturday. We need your help in sending this message to President Bush: Get out sons and daughters, mothers and fathers, neighbors and schoolteachers, husbands and wives out of Iraq.

"This stand will continue. The Iraq Veterans Against the War are still here. The Veterans for Peace are still here. Military Families Speak Out are all still here. Goldstar Families, founded by Cindy and her sister, are still here. And you're still here. Come to Crawford. Stand with us."

But, strangely enough, it seems to be unchallenged "wisdom" among not only those Republicans and Democrats but among the "punditocracy" as well, that if Iraq succeeds in writing a new Constitution (and I assume they will), and if they succeed in holding a new election (and I assume they will), that somehow "democracy" will result, even though an entire class of people (and not just convicted war criminals) has been forbidden from participating in that process.

"The United States should set a target date of Dec. 31, 2006, to complete the military mission in Iraq and have all U.S. forces removed from the nation, U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold said Wednesday."

"'I'm not proposing a hard deadline,' he said. 'I'm proposing a target date, with flexibility.'"

Last night CNN's Anderson Cooper 360 did a show about Cindy Sheehan. Of course it would be too much to ask that they do a show just about Cindy Sheehan, who is, after all, an active news maker. So they managed to fit in segments of White House spin about how "emotional" Bush is when he meets with families and clips of Bush claiming that he "grieves for every death," scurrilous non-attributed claims about how "'some' [my quotes] call her a savvy political radical and a pawn for the left," clips of Bill O'Reilly claiming that Sheehan bears responsibility for deaths of American soldiers in Iraq and that her behavior "borders on treasonous," interviews with people, including military families, who support the war, and on and on. All pretty much par for the course on American TV when dealing with someone who is challenging the establishment. But this was the straw that broke the camel's back for me - after Sheehan talks about withdrawing the troops, here's what Cooper has to say:

"You know, Senator Joe Biden, who has been critical of President Bush for quite some time, he doesn't say we should pull-out. He says, in fact, it would be a mistake to pull-out. John Kerry says that it would be a mistake, as well."

The other thing I "loved" about the interview, which is something which Cooper is hardly the first to say, was this:

"You've associated yourself with groups, Moveon.org, other protesters. Ben Cohen has funded some of the efforts here.

"Do you worry about tainting your message by linking yourself with far-left groups or very liberal groups?"

Feh.

Update: Should there be any doubt about characterizing MoveOn.org as a "far-left" group, Norman Solomon provides clear and convincing evidence how far that is from the truth. Among other things which you can read about in Solomon's latest piece, you'll learn that MoveOn.org, who was perhaps the principle organizer of last night's vigils, characterizes them as intended to "to acknowledge the sacrifices made by Cindy Sheehan, her son, Casey and the more than 1,800 brave American men and women who have given their lives in Iraq--and their moms and families," without the slightest indication that the main reason people were gathering was not just to support Cindy Sheehan per se but to support her demand - that troops should be withdrawn from Iraq "before one more mother's son is lost," as one of the photographed signs on MoveOn's website shows.

"The United States wants to ensure that President Fidel Castro of Cuba and President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela do not steer other Latin American countries away from democracy."

Now I'm happy to argue that Cuba is a democratic country. There are elections (not multiparty elections, but not one-party elections either, as most people think; in fact all Cubans running for office must run as individuals and not as representatives of any party), there are legislatures debating and making laws, and, when really important decisions need to be made, meetings are held all over the country for months at a time to involve the people in the decision-making process. But I'll agree to disagree with any reader who chooses to say Cuba isn't a democracy. But Venezuela? The implication that Venezuela is not only not a democracy, but not a "Western-style" democracy, is absurd. Hugo Chavez has been legitimately elected President more often than George Bush (who, some would argue, has never been legitimately elected, but that's another story), and there have been referenda, there are opposition parties and a media dominated by the right-wing, and so on. Yet despite all that, AP insinuates that Venezuela is not a democracy and is involved with "steering other countries" away from democracy.

Again, feh.

And if I've heard the word "heartbreaking" once, I've heard it a dozen times. I challenge readers to come up with any story in the last decade (hell, make it 50 years) in which the word "heartbreaking" was applied to a Palestinian being evicted from their home, or watching their home be bulldozed, or standing over the body of their dead child, killed by the IDF.

"The only way in which the Americans, the best-equipped ground force in the world, have managed to score major victories against the resistance is through the massive use of aerial power, in the form of attack planes and helicopter gunships. Is there any chance at all that the U.S. is not only training Iraqi pilots, but also preparing to leave attack planes, helicopters, and cruise missiles behind for the Iraqi government to use on that mythical day when American forces leave? Are you kidding? And let them fall into the "wrong hands" when that government falls the week after the Americans leave? Not on your life. Which tells you that the entire plan for the U.S. to train Iraqi forces and then leave is a complete sham. It's not going to happen."

"A U.S. military press release said gunmen attacked a U.S. patrol in central Baghdad early Tuesday morning and that helicopters fired back, resulting in 'an undetermined number of civilian casualties.' The press release said the incident was under investigation and that the U.S.-led coalition 'regrets any loss of life or injuries sustained by the civilians in the area.'"

"The report from the investigation, made public in Britain by ITV News, suggested that Jean Charles de Menezes, 27, the Brazilian, was already being restrained by the police on a subway train in south London on July 22 when he was shot eight times.

The report, from an inquiry by the Independent Police Complaints Commission, includes accounts by witnesses, interviews with police officers and film from the surveillance system. The findings indicated that contrary to earlier reports by the police, Mr. Menezes seemed to be unaware that he was being followed from his home and into the Stockwell subway station, that he was not wearing a heavy jacket that could have concealed explosives and that he did not run from the police or jump over the subway station's ticket turnstile."

"I predict that sooner or later that 'heavy jacket' is going to turn out to be just a normal jacket that a million people in Britain were wearing that day. The police have a vested interest in slanting the facts to make it appear they had SOME justification for thinking the man was wearing some kind of suicide bomb (although, it should be pointed out, as far as I know NO such bomb has ever been set off in Britain)."

The game's afoot! I passed out flyers for the upcoming march and rally September 24 in San Francisco. Half the people already knew about it, and almost everyone was planning on going. Sept. 24 is going to be big. The teeter-totter is definitely starting to tip - George Bush and his war are going down!

Big news in my campaign to get Lance Armstrong to meet with Cindy Sheehan. It turns out that I was able to find the email address of Frankie Andreu, Lance's former teammate, many-time Tour de France finisher, and, most recently, Tour de France commentator. Here's Frankie's reply:

"As per your request I will forward the note on to Lance. I hope he reads your letter to him and he meets with Mrs. Sheehan."

Update: A reader got a response from the Lance Armstrong Foundation, whose most relevant section reads:

"I have also noted the high number of requests for Lance to meet Cindy Sheehan. Please note that I have read all of these requests and directed them to Lance's management agency and scheduler. Thank you for the suggestion."

"In Gaza alone more than 23,000 people have lost their homes to Israeli bulldozers and bombs since September 2000 -- often at a moment's notice on the grounds that they 'threatened Israel's security.' The vast majority of the destroyed homes were located too close to an IDF military outpost or illegal settlement to be allowed to continue standing. The victims received no compensation for their losses and had no place waiting for them to relocate."

"Where were the cameramen in May 2004 in Rafah when refugees twice over lost their homes again in a single night's raid, able to retrieve nothing of what they owned? Where were they when bulldozers and tanks tore up paved streets with steel blades, wrecked the sewage and water pipes, cut electricity lines, and demolished a park and a zoo; when snipers shot two children, a brother and sister, feeding their pigeons on the roof of their home? When the occupying army fired a tank shell into a group of peaceful demonstrators killing 14 of them including two children?

"Where were the 900 international journalists in April 2002 after the Jenin refugee camp was laid to waste in the matter of a week in a show of pure Israeli hubris and sadism? Where were the 900 international journalists last fall when the Jabalya refugee camp in Gaza lay under an Israeli siege and more than 100 civilians were killed? Where were they for five years while the entire physical infrastructure of the Gaza Strip was being destroyed?"

Something else happened in Venezuela yesterday too - more than 17,000 delegates from 144 (!) countries adjourned after meeting for nine days at the 16th World Festival of Youth and Students. The conference issued ringing denunciations of U.S. imperialism and took stands on a host of progressive issues. As far as I can determine, not a single Western news source outside of left-wing media even mentioned the conference.

AMY GOODMAN: Tom Hayden, just one question on the issue of withdrawal, for clarification. In terms of a timetable, again, just reiterate what it is that you're saying. There are those who are saying now, withdraw now. What is your stance?

TOM HAYDEN: We went around and around on this. We think we're being stuck by the President and by the media on this issue of now, because it implies, like, in five minutes. It's absurd. The whole point about now is now make a decision to get out.

Earlier tonight I was at an ANSWER meeting, watching a video filmed by Gloria La Riva at a rally at "Camp Casey" in Crawford, Texas on Saturday. At that rally, Cindy Sheehan delivered a rousing speech to 600 or so supporters, culminating in a call for troops to be withdrawn "now." And for Sheehan, "now" means "now" - before one more American soldier is killed, before one more Iraqi is killed by an American, before one more mother joins her in a lifetime of grief. The crowd, who responded to Sheehan's cry of "out now" with a series of loud "nows" of their own, clearly agreed.

Let me briefly talk about "why now?" before I return to answer Tom Hayden's question of "how now?" I've explained my reasoning in words before, as in the linked post below, so let me try an analogy. When you have a bull in a china shop breaking all the china, the proper response is not to ask the bull to repair the damage! The first thing to do is to get the bull out of the shop (not "make a decision" to get the bull out sometime in the future!). After you do that, you worry about repairing the damage, and getting the bull's owner to pay for them.

Now let me turn to the other question - is it "absurd" to think that "now" means "now"? Hayden uses the figure of five minutes. Yes, all American troops cannot be physically off the soil of Iraq five minutes from now. But here's something they could do five minutes from now, or five seconds from now - stop firing! Cease all offensive actions, all bombing, and tank firings, and so on. Interestingly enough, that simple proposal is not one of the five points in Hayden's petition.

Now after that, how quickly could 140,000 or so American troops leave Iraq? Let me pose a simple, if somewhat morbid, question. What if a nuclear bomb exploded over Iraq tomorrow, and a mushroom cloud of dangerous radiation was spreading over the whole country? How soon do you suppose the U.S. could get its troops out of harm's way? (Assume they're not concerned about the Iraqis - oh wait, it's not an assumption) Do you suppose they would be talking about "months"? I shouldn't think so. The fact is, every single member of the coalition forces, and every single mercenary in their employ, could be living in Kuwait in a tent by the end of this week, if they chose to do so. Sure, it would take a few weeks, or maybe a few months, to ferry them all home by boat or plane, although surely all those coalition partners and others like Russia could pitch in with their own ships and planes to help the task. Let's ask another question -- how long did it take 140,000 (or whatever the number was) of American and British soldiers to enter Iraq? Days is the answer, not months. And it's not "absurd" to think they could leave in exactly the same time. Cindy Sheehan, who hasn't been politically active for her whole life like Tom Hayden, understands that completely. It's too bad Tom Hayden doesn't, and chooses to call those of us who do "absurd".

"This is part of a long series of Israeli concessions and withdrawals since the Oslo agreement."

For the record, the Oslo Accords were signed in 1993. I can't find any definitive numbers for 1993. But I do know that, according to Jimmy Carter, at the time of the Camp David accords in 1978, there were a grand total of 4,000 Israeli settlers in the West Bank and Gaza, combined. Today there are more than 400,000. And although I can't pin down population changes since 1993, there have been at least 74 outposts built since then. Not to mention the construction of a wall which is stealing 10% of the West Bank's land and 50% of its water. Just another one of that "long series of concessions and withdrawals" Krauthammer was referring to.

"The A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition has secured a permit from the Metropolitan Police Department for the mass march on September 24 that will take the demonstration directly in front of the White House on Pennsylvania Ave. This is the first time in many years that a march permit has been secured allowing people to exercise their First Amendment right for a mass assembly march and protest on Pennsylvania Ave. right at the doorstep of the White House."

"Why should we hear about body bags and deaths and how many, what day it's gonna happen? It's not relevant. So why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that?''

- Barbara Bush, to Diane Sawyer, March 18, 2003 (from Helen Thomas via reader figee in the comments to an item below)

Here's point two of the petition:

"The U.S. government must set goals for ending the occupation and bringing all our troops home - in months, not years, beginning with an initial withdrawal of troops by the end of this year."

Much of the rest of the petition is of a piece with that. Let's take a look:

"First, as a confidence-building measure, the U.S. government must declare that it has no interest in permanent military bases or the control of Iraqi oil or other resources." Only someone with unjustified faith in the goodness of the U.S. government would care a fig what the U.S. government "declares." The U.S. government breaks treaties whenever it suits it, its invasion of Iraq in contravention of the United Nations Charter being perhaps the most relevant example. A "declaration" isn't even worth that much.

"Third, the U.S. government must request that the United Nations monitor the process of military disengagement and de-escalation, and organize a peaceful reconstruction effort." Unfortunately, since the U.N. has shown no inclination to get involved, and since other countries are decommitting forces to Iraq rather than committing them, the likelihood of this happening is small, and certainly is in direct contradiction to the "month, not years" proposal.

"Fourth, the U.S. government should appoint a peace envoy independent of the occupation authorities to underscore its commitment to an entirely different mission." Sure, how about John Bolton? Again, the PDA shows that its illusions in the U.S. government know no bounds. If you want a "peace envoy independent of the occupation authorities" (with what authority is entirely unclear), how about letting Switzerland appoint the person? Or Norway? Or anyone in the world except the U.S. government. Not that it would amount to anything anyway.

"Fifth, the peace envoy should encourage and cooperate in talks with Iraqi groups opposed to the occupation, including insurgents, to explore a political settlement. The settlement must include representation of opposition forces and parties, and power-sharing and the protection of women's rights as core principles of governance and economic and energy development." No "U.S.-appointed envoy", or anyone in the world other than the Iraqis themselves, has the slightest right to be telling the Iraqis that "representation of opposition forces" and "protection of women's rights" etc. must be included in any "settlement." Of course I am for those things. But what I am for doesn't matter. The U.S. should just get out now, period. It didn't have the right to determine Iraq's future in the first place, and having begun to do so (by overthrowing its government) doesn't give it a continuing right to do so; it has no more rights in Iraq than it ever did.

What a crock.

[Interestingly, as I'm writing this critique, I'm suddenly listening to Amy Goodman on Democracy Now! interviewing Tom Hayden pitching this nonsense. Unfortunately no one was on to debate these "principles" with Hayden. Goodman asked listeners to send their reactions to Hayden's proposals to mail@democracynow.org. Feel free to join me in doing so.]

Note: For more on this petition, see the post above.

"The campsite has close to a thousand white crosses, each representing GIs who, like Sheehan's son Casey, were killed in Iraq...Monday night, a pickup truck tore through the rows of white crosses."

"Will the Cindy Sheehan ad get the same treatment? We shall see. Feel free to note any showings in the comments section."

"In the main, the secret source is not a convenience for the news media or a shortcut for an easy story. He or she is the backbone of a free and independent press."

And even more curious are the examples the Times uses to illustrate that point:

"Think about the civil servant who sees a superior lying and breaking the law. Think about the employee who sees a manager whitewashing a report on a hazardous product."

What the Times doesn't understand is that it's not "all about them." We don't value a free press on their behalf, we value it on our behalf. That is, it is the ends, not the means, which is the goal of the protection. And those ends include the protection of people like Joe Wilson from government retribution just as much as the protection of anonymous sources like Daniel Ellsberg. It's worth recalling that the prelude to the Watergate scandal occured when G. Gordon Liddy and E. Howard Hunt broke into Ellsberg's psychiatrist's office hoping to find information they could use to discredit him. Can we assume if they had actually found something, that the New York Times thinks they would have been doing the public a service and fulfiilling their role of "free and independent press" by first publishing that information and then protecting their sources?

Alas, I have no idea how to get this message to Armstrong. After some searching around on the web, I came up with email addresses for the Lance Armstrong Foundation (media.relations@laf.org), and for Lance's coach Carmichael Training Systems (sales@trainright.com). The latter has already responded to me and suggested that the Foundation is the best bet, but no doubt there are other approaches as well. If anyone has any ideas, add them in the comments; if not, I suggest at the least emailing the Foundation to urge them to help achieve their goals by urging Lance to do what he can to stop the war and the wasteful spending that goes along with it.

Yes, Armstrong was wrong to say that the money is the "biggest downside" to the war; the deaths and serious injuries to tens of thousands of Iraqis, Americans, and others is surely more significant, and I suspect Armstrong would agree if asked about his wording. But, be that as it may, he is still someone who understands the damage the war is doing. Let's figure out how to get him to meet with Cindy Sheehan!

Note: updated above with a major development.

"George Bush took a 2 hour bike ride on Saturday, and when he got back, he was asked how he could go for a two hour bike ride when he doesn't have time to meet with me, and he said: "I have to go on with my life." WHAT!!!!!????? He has to get on with his life!!! I am so offended by that statement. Every person, war fan, or not, who has had a child killed in this mistake of an occupation should be highly offended by that remark. Who does he think he is? I wish I could EVER be able to get on with my life. Getting on with my life means a life without my dear, sweet boy. Getting on with my life means learning to live with a pain that is so intense that sometimes I feel like throwing up, or screaming until I pass out from sorrow. I wish a little bike ride could help me get on with my life."

- Cindy Sheehan, whose son was denied a chance to get on with his life by the illegal invasion of Iraq.

Besides attending million-dollar fundraisers, Here's what George Bush President "Hard[ly] Work[ing]" does with his precious time in lieu of meeting with the mother of a man who's death he is responsible for:

"Earlier Friday, Bush taped his Saturday radio address, received his regular briefing and went on a bike ride at the ranch, White House spokesman Trent Duffy said. The president was scheduled to attend a Little League baseball regional championship game Saturday evening in nearby Waco."

" I think it's important for me to be thoughtful and sensitive to those who have got something to say. But I think it's also important for me to go on with my life, to keep a balanced life...Part of my being is to be outside exercising. So I'm mindful of what goes on around me. On the other hand, I'm also mindful that I've got a life to live and will do so."

"'Normally we would storm a house killing everyone inside, whereas here we have to storm the house and keep everyone alive,' said one commander. 'It’s not an easy job.'"

"The theory of Intelligent Design maintains life on Earth is too complex to have developed through Evolution. Too complex? Oh no! You mean there are things we don't know? Of course there are. We have brains the size of peas. And I tell you, we keep dumbing down our schools, the concept of fudge will seem complicated. Not to mention innocent before guilty. Wasn't too long ago people thought a solar eclipse was a dragon eating the sun as it rode across the sky on the back of a giant turtle. But that was just my Uncle Bud draining a six pack on his riding mower."

"True, we liberated Iraq from Saddam Hussein, but not from us. Just as in 1898 we liberated Cuba from Spain, but not from us. Spanish tyranny was overthrown, but the US established a military base in Cuba, as we are doing in Iraq. US corporations moved into Cuba, just as Bechtel and Halliburton and the oil corporations are moving into Iraq. The US framed and imposed, with support from local accomplices, the constitution that would govern Cuba, just as it has drawn up, with help from local political groups, a constitution for Iraq. Not a liberation. An occupation."

"Others saw homes seized as part of buffer zones used to protect the 8,500 Israelis living -- in defiance of international law -- amid 1.3 million Palestinians in the territory Israel took during the 1967 Six-Day War."

In the meantime, congratulations to Dion Nissenbaum.

"By Thursday, President Bush could no longer ignore the grieving, angry mother from Northern California camped outside his ranch.

"'I sympathize with Mrs. Sheehan,' Bush told reporters Thursday after more than a week of intense media focus on his uninvited visitor."

The casual reader of Hutcheson's article, though, won't have a clue about any of this, but will be under the impression that the "compassionate conservative" Bush decided by himself to utter these words of sympathy. Nothing could be further from the truth, as the transcript shows.

Jim Morin, Miami Herald

"And I've thought long and hard about her position. I've heard her position from others, which is, get out of Iraq now."

"George Bush says I have his sympathy. I don't want his sympathy. I want answers."

- Cindy Sheehan, on Democracy Now! today.

...stand up, sit down, fight, fight, fight! That was a standard cheer back when I was in high school, and most likely it still is. I was reminded of that old cheer listening (ok, reading, I'm not a total masochist) to George Bush today, contradicting himself as usual. Here are three statements from today's speech:

• "As Iraqis stand up, we will stand down."
• "We're making progress training the Iraqis. More and more Iraqi units are becoming more and more capable of fighting off the terrorists."
• "No decision has been made yet on increasing troops or decreasing troops."

There's lots more nonsense in the speech; why bother analyzing the speech of someone who refers to the President of Iran as "this guy"? But there is one more subject Bush discussed that I want to return to - the Iraqi constitution. Bush says "the establishment of a democratic constitution is a critical step on the path to Iraqi self-reliance," and these days hardly a day goes by when someone doesn't refer to Iraq writing a constitution. Here's what I wrote back in September, 2003 on the subject:

For those who are confused about this, especially since most references in the press just mention "writing a Consitution" and omit the word "new", Iraq already has a Constitution. By contrast, Britain and Israel do not have Constitutions (yet we are constantly told that Israel is the "only democracy" in the Middle East - not that "Constitution" and "democracy" are synonomous).

Could it be that it is sections like these that the U.S. objects to? -

Article 16 [Ownership, Private Property]

(a) Ownership is a social function, to be exercised within the objectives of the Society and the plans of the State, according to stipulations of the law.
(b) Private ownership and economic individual liberty are guaranteed according to the law, and on the basis of not exercising them in a manner incompatible with the economic and general planning.

If you thought this need for a new Iraqi Constitution had anything to do with the desire to establish "democracy" in Iraq, think again.

Update: Not totally by coincidence, today on Democracy Now! (online here) there is a discussion of the Iraqi constitution inclulding extensive discussion of the previous constitution and its economic and social (women's rights, social welfare) aspects.

Additional update: From the comments, a link to the 1990 Iraqi Constitution.

George Bush just did a "press conference" in Crawford. The transcript isn't up here as I write this, although presumably it will be, but judging from the AP account of the event, no reporter bothered (or dared, your pick) to ask Bush when he would meet with Cindy Sheehan or, if he wouldn't, why he wouldn't.

According to AP, Bush said that immediate withdrawal "would send a terrible signal to the enemy." Yes, what a great reason to send another couple thousand people to their deaths - to avoid sending a "signal."

Update: Transcript is up, and no, no reporter asked Bush about meeting with Sheehan.

*CARLY'S POEM*
A Nation Rocked to sleep

by Carly Sheehan
Sister Casey KIA 04/04/04
Sadr City Baghdad
Have you ever heard the sound of a mother screaming for her son?
The torrential rains of a mother's weeping will never be done
They call him a hero, you should be glad that he's one, but
Have you ever heard the sound of a mother screaming for her son?

Have you ever heard the sound of a father holding back his cries?
He must be brave because his boy died for another man's lies
The only grief he allows himself are long, deep sighs
Have you ever heard the sound of a father holding back his cries?

Have you ever heard the sound of taps played at your brother's grave?
They say that he died so that the flag will continue to wave
But I believe he died because they had oil to save
Have you ever heard the sound of taps played at your brother's grave?

Have you ever heard the sound of a nation being rocked to sleep?
The leaders want to keep you numb so the pain won't be so deep
But if we the people let them continue another mother will weep
Have you ever heard the sound of a nation being rocked to sleep?

One of Buchanan's main points is this, which actually was the headline over his column in my paper: "Does not the existence of these natural laws imply the existence of a lawmaker?" No Pat, it does not. Natural "laws" are not "laws" like Congressional laws. They apply in all jurisdictions, and can't be repealed.

As with all proponents of creationism, or "intelligent design", Buchanan seems to think that order implies a creator. Since the big bang was an explosion, order can't have come out of it, according to Buchanan. Personally, when I walk outside at night and look up at the sky, "order" isn't exactly the word that comes to mind, and it turns out that what Buchanan is referring to is that planets revolve around the sun "with mathematical precision." Of course, that's the completely predictable outcome of the force (or "law", if you prefer) of gravity. The fact that Buchanan doesn't understand exactly how that happens is completely irrelevant. Indeed, Buchanan himself notes that "For most of man's existence, we did not understand the laws of gravity, the laws of physics, the laws of chemistry," and also that "only in the last century did we understand that molecules can be broken down into atoms and subatomic particles, and the force that holds them together," but he doesn't seem to understand that that's precisely the point. It's true that scientists can't explain everything, although they can understand and explain a heck of a lot more than they could understand a hundred years ago, or a thousand years ago. Before the force of gravity was understood, perhaps some superstitious person thought that it was God who was causing the planets to revolve around the Sun. But that didn't make it so.

How dumb is Pat Buchanan? Here's the most priceless paragraph:

"As for that picture on the wall of the biology class, showing a reptile crawling ashore, then moving on four legs, then dragging his knuckles, then straightening up, then walking on two legs, then becoming the man of today -- is that really how it happened? Or is that a theory, a belief, an act of faith of the Darwinists?"

To a certain extent, some of Buchanan's arguments would seem to devolve into the unknowable question of why is there gravity, or a strong force, or a weak force, or an electromagnetic force, or matter composed of elemental particles? And if you say, "it's all an outgrowth of string theory", or something else, that doesn't answer the question, it just changes the question to "why does the universe behave according to string theory," or the "unified field theory," or whatever else your ultimate answer is. And the answer to those questions is that scientists don't know, don't pretend to know, and will never know, because the answer is unknowable, just like the question Buchanan raises, which is what happened before the big bang - where did it all come from?

And this brings us to the "disingenuous" part of the title of this post. Because scientists for ages have accepted the fact that if you would like to believe that it was "God" who created gravity, or electromagnetism, or the material of the Universe, that's fine, because those aren't questions that science is going to answer. Science describes the universe, and explains how things got to be the way they are and makes predictions about the way things will happen in the future (e.g., what will happen when you mix two chemicals or fire a rocket into space), but it can't and won't explain why E=mc-squared.

But here's the thing - this isn't what the debate about "intelligent design" is all about! "Intelligent design" is about the theory of natural selection -- commonly known as the theory of evolution -- (or "Darwinism" or "Darwinian fundamentalism", to pick two phrases from Buchanan's article which indicate Buchanan's attempt to imply that the theory of natural selection is a "belief" or even a "faith" rather than a scientific theory). What this debate is about, in the end, is Buchanan's assertion that the "unproven belief system" (that's the theory of natural selection, one of the foundations of modern science) has as "one purpose...to destroy their faith." Yeah sure, that's what Charles Darwin was up to on the Beagle - working on undermining Christianity.

"Intelligent design" isn't about the fact that planets revolve around the sun, it's about the fact that creatures have eyes, and poor Pat Buchanan and others of his ilk don't care to understand enough science to understand how such a complex structure could evolve in the absence of a mysterious force they choose to call "God". No doubt they think God causes crystals to appear "magically" out of solutions too; I'm sure their prehistoric ancestors thought so. But it isn't magic, it's science. For Pat, and the students he wants to miseducate, I'd recommend a little less time with the Bible, and a little more time with Stephen Jay Gould (he might even learn about the theory of punctuated equilibrium and why there aren't "intermediate forms...everywhere"). Perhaps if they tried to actually learn something, instead of pontificating about things they don't know about, they might get somewhere, and stop wasting our time with this nonsense.

"The old saw has it that truth is the first casualty of war. In this war the truth was murdered in cold blood well before the war ever began, and it continues to die the death of a thousand cuts every day."

- Joseph Galloway, military correspondent for Knight-Ridder newspapers.

But so what if she hadn't? Polls show rather clearly that millions of Americans have changed their minds on the wisdom of the invasion of Iraq; surely Cindy Sheehan, or anyone else, has the right to be one of them. Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds," and the key word in that sentence is "foolish". There's nothing wrong with consistency of course; this blog maintains (I hope!) a consistent anti-imperialist, anti-capitalist position. But where consistency becomes "foolish" is when your previous position is contradicted by new evidence. Clear and convincing evidence that not only weren't there WMD in Iraq, but also that there never was any serious evidence that there were WMD in Iraq (cf the "Downing Street Memos", for example) is now in the hands of all Americans, and more than 2000 Americans and tens of thousands of others are dead, and tens or hundreds of thousands of people are seriously wounded, thanks to the invasion of Iraq. Surely any intelligent person has the right, and in fact the obligation, to weigh that new evidence and reconsider their position, even if they had been a gung-ho supporter of the war. Only in George Bush's America, with an intellectual lightweight (ok, a complete moron) named George Bush in charge, is clinging to a position in the face of contradictory evidence, whether it be the value of remaining in Iraq or the existence of global warming or dozens of other things, considered a virtue, something to be admired.

And that's where the end of Emerson's quote comes in, the part that few people know about: "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines." Well, I'm not sure that "statesmen" really applies to George Bush, but "little" certainly does.

And in the United States, believe it or not! Just three weeks ago, a U.N. commission ruled that "the detention of five Cubans found guilty of espionage in the United States is arbitrary and in violation of international law." Coverage of that development in the American press was essentially nil. But today, a U.S. Court of Appeals, after thinking about it for a full year in the usual manner of "swift" American "justice", has agreed. This just in in an email from the Free The Five organization:

"Today, August 9, after more than one year of weighing the evidence, the 11th Circuit Court of a Appeals vacated the trial court's ruling against the Cuban Five and ordered a new trial with a change of venue. This is a sensational victory for the Five, the Cuban people, and the international people's movement that supports them! The Five will now receive a new trial in a place other than Miami. This blow to the U.S. government undeniably was made possible by the hard work and growing support of progressive, justice-loving people in the U.S. and all over the world.

"The National Committee to Free the Cuban Five is holding a telephone press conference today with the Five's attorney, Leonard Weinglass, the coordinator of the National Committee to Free the Cuban Five, Gloria La Riva, A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition Coordinator, Brian Becker, and other activists and legal experts to discuss this landmark victory. We will send more information as soon as we have it. In the meantime, call 323-464-1636 with questions.

"The Five are one big step closer to freedom. Let's continue the struggle and ensure total victory. Free the Cuban Five! U.S. Hands Off Cuba!

"Volveran! They will return!"

Update: You can listen to Leonard Weinglass and Gloria La Riva discuss developments in the case on tonight's Flashpoints! show here; on the same show, a live interview with Cindy Sheehan, who reveals that she was stood up by a number of networks which had scheduled interviews with her but cancelled without apparently even notifying her.

"A British cow that died in an Oxfordshire field in 1937 has emerged as the source of Saddam Hussain's 'weapons of mass destruction' programme that led to the Iraq war. [Ed. note: this is hardly what "led to the Iraq war", but this is from the Times of London, after all]

"An ear from the cow was sent to an English laboratory, where scientists discovered anthrax spores that were later used in secret biological warfare tests by Winston Churchill [the anthrax was used in biological weapons tests on the Scottish island of Gruinard in 1942, which had to be quarantined for 48 years].

"The culture was sent to the United States, which exported samples to Iraq during Saddam's war against Iran in the 1980s. Inspectors have found that this batch of anthrax was the dictator's choice in his attempts to create biological weapons." (Source via Antiwar.com)

"Martin Hugh-Jones, who co-ordinates the World Health Organisation’s Working Group on Anthrax Research and Control, said: 'We have traced it back and it would have come in on some contaminated bones from Southern Rhodesia.

"'England was importing sun-dried bones from dead animals in the colonies. They would be shipped to London and used to make soap. When they got the fat out, (the bones) were meant to be sterilised and ground as bone meal and fed to cattle. The sterilisation was not always complete. It was the major cause of anthrax for almost 100 years.'"

Does anybody remember why it is that Bush went to Crawford for four weeks? Scott McClellan brushed off detractors with this folksy argument:

"Spending time outside of Washington always gives the president a fresh perspective of what's on the minds of the American people. It's a time, really, for him to shed the coat and tie and meet with folks out in the heartland and hear what's on their minds."

Hey, that's funny, there's someone just outside the ranch who'd love see him!

Update: The New York Times does briefly mention the visa denial.

"THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. Like me, many across this great land are taking lengthy vacations this month, to escape the roasting hot weather made possible by my bold policy of global climate enhancement. However, it has been brought to my attention that a relatively small number of families are not enjoying the summer nearly as much as I am, because their fathers, mothers, brothers, sons and/or daughters have been wounded and/or killed in the War of Heroic Action against Terrorism for the Future of a United Christian Kulture -- or, as my NSC counterterrorism experts sometimes call it: WHATtheFUCK?

"All of us here in Crawford mourn the loss of these brave but ultimately expendable men and women -- although if Cindy Sheehan thinks I'm going to let her anywhere near my house, she's out of her freaking mind. However, I will now honor the sacrifices made by our slaughtered troops and their annoying families with this brief moment of presidential silence. (Pauses briefly.)"

"In a classified briefing to senior Pentagon officials last month, the top American commander in the Middle East outlined a plan that would gradually reduce American forces in Iraq by perhaps 20,000 to 30,000 troops by next spring, three senior military officers and Defense Department officials said Saturday."

"General Abizaid has also warned that it is possible that the Pentagon might have to keep the current levels of about 138,000 American soldiers in Iraq throughout 2006 if security and political trends are unfavorable for a withdrawal."

Curiously enough, there is one definite statement about troop levels in the article:

"The number of troops will temporarily increase this December to provide security for Iraqi elections."

"People like Zawahiri have an ideology that is dark, dim, backwards; they don't trust -- they don't appreciate women; if you don't agree to their narrow view of a religion you'll be whipped in the public square."

"Flogging and amputation of limbs are used extensively in Saudi Arabia as judicial punishments. They are prescribed by Saudi Arabian law despite the fact that such punishments contravene the UN Convention against Torture. They are applied to many offences, ranging from alcohol and “sexual offences” to theft, and can be handed down by courts with little regard to fair trial procedures.

"Men, women and children are flogged in prisons as well as in public squares throughout the country. Flogging has almost unlimited scope of application and there appears to be no upper limit on the number of lashes judges can impose despite the severe physical and psychological consequences.

"The most lashes in a single case recorded by Amnesty International is 4,000."

"The use of camera phones has triggered scuffles at weddings and girls schools after handsets were used to film and distribute pictures of unveiled women, newspapers have reported. Under Saudi Arabia's strict Islamic rules, women must cover their heads in public."

"A US delegation led by Vice President Dick Cheney called on King Abdullah yesterday, a visit intended to show the importance Washington attaches to close ties with oil power Saudi Arabia.

"Cheney, former president George H. W. Bush, and former secretary of state Colin L. Powell offered condolences on the death Monday of the new monarch's half brother, King Fahd."

"Talking to a truckload of troops, sitting in pre-dawn darkness Friday morning, Sgt. Marcio Vargas Estrada made the point to the men of his squad from 3-2's Lima Company.

"'If somebody shoots at you, you waste' him, said Estrada, 32, of Kearny, N.J. 'When you go back to Camp Lejeune, these will be the good old days, when you brought . . . death and destruction to -- what . . . is this place called?'

A Marine answered in the darkness: 'Haqlaniyah.'

Estrada continued: 'Haqlaniyah, yeah, that. And then we will take death and destruction to Hadithah. Hopefully, we'll stay until December so we can bring death and destruction to half of . . . Iraq.'

The flatbed truck erupted in a storm of 'Hoo-ahs.' (Source)[Original source no longer online; here's one that is]

"President Bush says he will not be intimidated by videotape threats from al-Qaida's second-in-command, Ayman al-Zawahiri, who is threatening more terrorist violence in London and more U.S. casualties in Iraq."

I wouldn't even bother posting about this if I hadn't seen an interview today with the father of one of the U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq in the last few days. Does George Bush even listen? Does he care? I can't believe he does. This man's son was sent to his death by Bush not only illegally, not only immorally, but for no good reason either. The father, quite reasonably, said, "I don't wish this feeling on anyone." But in fact, both he and George Bush do wish that feeling on thousands of others, because they both support continuing the war, and, in doing so, support the certain death of thousands more Americans, Iraqis, and others. Surely cognitive dissonance is the only thing preventing this man, and thousands of others just like him, from realizing that his son died in vain, died for nothing. Because no rational analysis could say otherwise.

But big brave George Bush? He's not intimidated, no sir. Maybe it's time he finished his service in the National Guard and put his life where his mouth is. Or at the least encouraged his unemployed family members to enlist.

"Venezuela is destabilizing the border area with Colombia by supplying weapons to the country's main leftist insurgency, a top State Department official said Wednesday."

"In an interview with The Associated Press, Nicholas Burns, the State Department's third-ranking official, said the United States is disturbed by what he described as Venezuela's 'massive' arms imports."

A dollar to the first reporter to ask George this question.

"Read one passage each night to your children to protect them from the brain-snatchers and dummy-fication zombies of America's news media of the living dead."

- Greg Palast, reviewing Norman Solomon's new book, War Made Easy - How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death

"We're at war with an enemy that attacked us on September the 11th, 2001."

- George Bush, not giving up, notwithstanding the fact that neither Iraqi resistance fighters (nor Saddam Hussein for that matter) nor the Taliban attacked the U.S. on Sept. 11, 2001.

AMY GOODMAN: So, you would return to fight a war that you think is unjust?

PAUL HACKETT: Well, I've not said it's unjust. I have said that it's been mismanaged by the administration. I have said it was a poor use of our military. I'm not quite sure the implication of the label of unjust, so I'm uncomfortable using that. I have been critical of it up and down, but to me, that's not inconsistent with my desire to want to serve and my desire to want to lead marines and be with them in the field.

AMY GOODMAN: Do you think that the U.S. should get out of Iraq?

PAUL HACKETT: I'm not there yet. I think that -- let me step back and say, when you say, ‘Should the U.S. get out of Iraq?’ Yes. Eventually, yes. The question is, are we going to do it tomorrow, or are we going to accomplish the bare minimum and allow the Iraqis to survive within their defined government and social structure? And right now, I don't think that any form of security force in Iraq is capable of providing that for the people. And, while it may seem difficult to comprehend on this side of the world, at this point, I believe that Iraq will spiral out of control. And even though it's in a terrible condition today as a result of the insurgency phasing into civil war, perhaps, I don't think it's currently today as bad as it will be if we were to pull out tomorrow. I think that the administration has got to permit the American military over there to fight that fight and train the I.S.F., the Iraqi Security Forces, in a manner acceptable to our military, which I argue they're not -- the administration is not allowing that, so that the I.S.F. can be up to speed and we can get out of there. I think that, as a citizen of the United States, setting aside, you know, my uniform and so forth, I think we need to turn up the heat on the administration and demand some sort of oversight, as citizens, as to what successes the administration is having in training the Iraqi Security Forces.

"We woke up this morning to the interesting news that Muhsin Abdul Hameed had also been detained! A member of the former Iraqi Governing Council, a rotating puppet president, and *The Sunni*. He is The Sunni they hold up to all Sunnis as an example of cooperation and collaboration. Well, he’s the religious Sunni. There is a tribal Sunni (supposedly to appease the Arab Sunni tribes) and that is Ghazi Al Yawir and there is the religious Sunni- Muhsin Abdul Hameed.

"The Americans are saying Muhsin was 'detained and interviewed', which makes one think his car was gently pulled over and he was asked a few questions. What actually happened was that his house was raided early morning, doors broken down, windows shattered and he and his three sons had bags placed over their heads and were dragged away. They showed the house, and his wife, today on Arabiya and the house was a disaster. The cabinets were broken, tables overturned, books and papers scattered, etc. An outraged Muhsin was on tv a few minutes ago talking about how the troops pushed him to the floor and how he had an American boot on his neck for twenty minutes."

"Sunni leader Adnan al-Dulaimi said U.S. soldiers handcuffed and blindfolded him. His grandson Mohemmed Adnan, 16, said one of the soldiers beat him and slammed his face against a wall."

"Adnan al-Dulaimi was dismissed July 24 as head of the Sunni Endowment, the government agency in charge of the upkeep of Sunni mosques and shrines, Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari's office said. It declined to speak further on the matter.

"'I think that the reason behind my dismissal is that they want to silence a voice that is speaking against unjustified practices against Sunnis such as arrests, torture in the prisons, and also for my calls to release innocent detainees and to save Iraq from sectarianism, insecurity and divisions,' al-Dulaimi told The Associated Press.

"'They wanted to keep me away from this important post from which I can defend our Sunni people,' al-Dulaimi said.

"Al-Dulaimi had been among a handful of Sunni Muslim clerics and officials who have urged fellow Sunnis to vote in the constitutional referendum slated for October and the general elections that will follow in December."

Of course, now that I've written this post, which actually includes the complete phrase, no doubt I'll get even more hits!

"Iraqi legislators accused Kuwait of stealing their oil as well as chipping away at their national territory on the border -- allegations similar to those used by Saddam Hussein to justify his invasion of Kuwait that began 15 years ago Tuesday."

"Iraq accused Kuwait of stealing its oil for the third day running Sunday, with one report saying it involved 300,000 barrels of crude a day taken from oil fields in the border area."

"The whole dispute started because Kuwait was slant-drilling. Using equipment bought from National Security Council chief Brent Scowcroft's old company, Kuwait was pumping out some $14-billion worth of oil from underneath Iraqi territory. Even the territory they were drilling from had originally been Iraq's. Slant-drilling is enough to get you shot in Texas, and it's certainly enough to start a war in the Mideast."

"I am angered and sickened by the bombings here in London on July 7, but I am equally angered by the unthinking reactions in the United States and Britain to those disgusting attacks.

"The usual self-congratulatory contrast between 'our' civilization and 'their' barbarism has set the stage for a cycle of moralistic inquiries into the motivations of suicide bombers and the supposed duty of 'good' Muslims to restrain 'bad' ones.

"Suicide bombing is merely a tactic used by those who lack other means of delivering explosives. What happened in London occurs every time a U.S. or British warplane unloads its bombs on an Iraqi village.

"But, you may say, our forces don't deliberately target civilians. Perhaps not. But they have consistently shown themselves to be indifferent to the civilian casualties produced by their operations.

"'Collateral damage' is the inevitable result of choosing to go to war. By choosing war in Iraq, we chose to kill tens of thousands of civilians. It does not matter to bereaved parents whether their child was killed deliberately, as the result of a utilitarian calculation of 'the greater good,' or of the callous indifference of officials from a distant power.

"American and British media have devoted hours to wondering what would drive a seemingly normal young Muslim to destroy himself and others. No one asked what would cause a seemingly normal young Christian or Jew to strap himself into a warplane and drop bombs on a village, knowing full well his bombs will kill civilians (and, of course, soldiers).

"Because 'our' way of killing is dressed up in smart uniforms and shiny weapons and cloaked in the language of grand causes, we place it on a different moral plane than 'theirs.'"

As an interesting and unintentional commentary on how the U.S. really views the "coalition", take a look at the website of the Multi-National Force - Iraq. Sounds very "coalitiony", doesn't it? Now click on the "Fallen Warriors" link. You'll be take here, to the "Defend America" site of the U.S. Department of Defense, where you'll find links to the names of dead American soldiers, Marines, Air Force, etc. But not a single name of any other member of the "coalition". Gone, but not forgotten? No, gone, and forgotten.

You can listen to the show here; I simply can't recommend it more highly. It's a keeper. (Also supposedly available via Podcast here, but it doesn't seem to show up on the iTunes Podcast library so you're on your own there).

Appointing John Bolton to the post of U.N. Ambassador, here's what George Bush had to say: "This post is too important to leave vacant any longer, especially during a war and a vital debate about U.N. reform." But the President taking off for a month-long vacation during that war (and not for the first time)? No problema.

Update: George Bush called the shuttle astronauts today, and said, exhibiting either a total lack of self-awareness or a snooty arrogance born of a life of privilege (or both), "We're all proud of you. Now get back to work." You mean they don't get a one-month vacation like you, George?

"But advocates of intelligent design also claim support from scientists. The Discovery Institute, a conservative think tank in Seattle that's the leading proponent for intelligent design, said it has compiled a list of more than 400 scientists, including 70 biologists, who are skeptical about evolution."

The title of this post asks the question made famous by John Kerry (with gender references changed): How do you ask someone to be the last person to die for a mistake? But the thing is - the invasion of Iraq wasn't a "mistake". The invasion of Iraq was a deliberate, conscious decision by the Bush administration, designed to advance a variety of goals - long-term control of oil, projection of U.S. power, maintaining the Republican Party (and George Bush) in control in the U.S., providing a source of profits to Halliburton and other large U.S. companies, sending a message to countries around the world that trying to maintain a foreign policy independent of the U.S. is unacceptable, defending Israel, George Bush revenging the alleged attempt on his "daddy" by "Saddam", etc., etc.

The reasons are many, and one can certainly debate which reasons are the most important. But, whatever the reason or reasons that were behind the invasion, one thing is certain - it wasn't a "mistake". Which makes the tens of thousands of deaths listed in the first paragraph of this post all the more tragic, and likewise makes every death which will occur in the years to come before the U.S. is forced out of Iraq equally tragic, if not more so. Because their deaths, those ones which will occur in the years to come, are entirely foreseeable. And also entirely preventable.

"14 percent of the U.S. population is evangelical Christian, compared to 40 percent of the military's active duty personnel. More than 60 percent of military chaplains are evangelicals."

"You also understand that freedom must be defended, and I appreciate the Scouts' long tradition of supporting the men and women of the United States military. "

"Your generation is growing up in an historic time, a time when freedom is on the march, and America is proud to lead the armies of liberation."

"I'm going to miss him a lot if he doesn't appear before cameras talking, saying dumb things. He's really a very funny person."

- Ricardo Alarcon, speaker of the Cuban Parliament, discussing the sudden resignation of long-time Cuba antagonist (and out-and-out liar) Roger Noriega from the State Department.