Left I on the News  

"As the money runs out on the $30 billion American-financed reconstruction of Iraq, the officials in charge cannot say how many planned projects they will complete, and there is no clear source for hundreds of millions of dollars a year needed to operate the projects that have been finished, according to a report to Congress released on Sunday."

Just a thought, but hey, I'm just a blogger, not one of those geniuses who have managed to produce "electrical substations that were built at great cost but never connected to the country's electrical grid."

And hey, with what's left over, we can make a good start on rebuilding the Gulf Coast, once again assuming we let the people of the region do the work, and keep Halliburton out of the picture.

"U.N. human rights investigators warned on Monday that they would snub a long-sought invitation to visit U.S. detention facilities at Guantanamo Bay if they are barred access to terrorist suspects being held there.

"The Pentagon on Thursday invited three of the experts to visit the detention facilities at the U.S. military base in Cuba. But while the experts said they were happy the invitation finally came after more than three years of requests, they would not go if they cannot interview the prisoners.

"'It makes no sense (to go),' Manfred Nowak, special investigator on torture and other cruel treatment, told a press conference at U.N. headquarters in New York. 'You cannot do a fact-finding mission without talking to the detainees.'

"The U.S. Department of Defense declined to invite two experts with the United Nations Commission on Human Rights who also sought to go."

"'That's a farce, a farce that we hope that the Special Rapporteurs ... will definitely reject,' [Kenneth] Roth [the head of Human Rights Watch] told journalists."

Update: Rumsfeld says no:

"Spurning a request by U.N. human rights investigators, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said on Tuesday the United States will not allow them to meet with detainees at the Guantanamo prison for foreign terrorism suspects."

Not by the U.S. government, anyway. 40 Iraqis are dead and 20 wounded thanks to a "precision strike" on a "terrorist safe house." As you know without even reading the linked article, the latter two phrases come from the U.S. military, while the numbers come from Iraqi hospital sources; you don't expect the U.S. military (or the U.S. media) to actually inspect the damage and report the results, do you?

This particular article is oh-so-typical and oh-so-telling. Here's what the U.S. military says:

"The only air strike in that area (west of Qaim) of which I am aware is an attack on a terrorist safe house in Karabila that occurred before dawn this morning.

"A senior al Qaeda cell leader was the target of the strike. The timing of the attack and use of precision-guided munitions is intended to avoid civilian casualties."

You simply can't conduct an air war in an area where you don't even have troops on the ground, drop bombs on houses (which, remarkably enough, usually contain people), and make a credible claim that you are making any serious attempt to "avoid civilian casualties." And, big surprise, the result of this attack was 60 civilian casualties, many of them women and children. And, I safely predict, not one of them will be shown on American television, if indeed this story appears there at all. Given the fact that six U.S. soldiers were killed today, and that the media is still reporting on the U.S. military report of 26,000 civilian casualties caused by insurgents, it seems unlikely that those 60 Iraqi civilian casualties will even be mentioned.

By the way, is it a coincidence that this story of 26,000 civilian casualties suddenly appeared in the press just days after the death of the 2,000th American soldier? I'm no conspiracy theorist, but I doubt it.

Update: Repeating and expanding on something I wrote in the comments, watching a lot of TV today, I have seen coverage of the U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq today, and the 20 Iraqis killed by a suicide bombing in Basra, but only a single mention of these casualties, on PBS' NewsHour. It's not online, but paraphrasing from memory, it was one of those "conflicting stories, we'll never know the truth" pieces, made all the more strange by the fact that they actually had film from an AP photographer which showed ten dead bodies including one child (just to be clear, they said that's what the film showed, but you didn't really see the bodies clearly if at all on PBS). Did they think the photographer should have been ghoulish and shot film of all 40 bodies? I don't know, but evidently ten wasn't enough for PBS to believe the Iraqi doctor who reported 40. Even more revealing was the U.S. military spokesperson they got to comment. To no one's surprise, they "haven't had any reports" of civilian casualties; again, what a shocker that the U.S. pilots didn't return to base and check the "civilians killed" box. The "information" which triggered this attack was, also to no one's surprise, a "tip" from a neighbor. Who knows how reliable it might be; from the piece there appeared to be no evidence whatsoever that the U.S. had actually sent in an assessment team to figure out what the attack had actually accomplished. And, also as usual, the spokesperson chose to hide behind the "al Qaeda hides among civilians" excuse. Well, perhaps they do. What is the equation which says when it's ok to drop the bomb? 30 (alleged) al Qaeda next to 1 civilian? 1 (alleged) al Qaeda next to 30 civilians? And even if there were some kind of finite limit, how would you know how many civilians you were dealing with in a case like this? The answer, of course, is you wouldn't, and that it wasn't carelessness, but care-less-ness, that allows the U.S. to proceed in situations like this.

"This Friday, coinciding with the 234th anniversary of the birth of Simon Rodriguez [one of Bolivar's tutors], Venezuela was declared a territory free of illiteracy and is the second country after Cuba to attain that condition in Latin America...teach[ing[ close to 1.5 million Venezuelans to read and write in a little over two years."

"Firmly in power and his revolution now in overdrive, President Hugo Chavez is moving fast to transform Venezuela's economy by bucking free-market planning with what he calls 21st-century socialism: founding state companies, seizing abandoned private factories and establishing thousands of cooperatives and worker-run businesses.

"The populist government is reorganizing the country's colossal oil industry, taking a bigger share from private multinationals. Planners are reorganizing the banking system, placing stringent restrictions on lending while creating state banks. Venezuela is also developing a state-to-state barter system to trade items as varied as cattle, oil and cement as far away as Argentina and as near as Cuba, its closest ally.

"'It's impossible for capitalism to achieve our goals, nor is it possible to search for an intermediate way,' Mr. Chavez said a few months ago, laying out his plans. 'I invite all Venezuelans to march together on the path of socialism of the new century.'"

"The San Jose, California Technical [sic] Museum has awarded one of its annual prizes in the health category to the team of specialists who worked on obtaining the Cuban vaccine against Haemophilus infuenzae Type B, the bacteria that causes meningitis, pneumonia and other infections in under-fives.

"The award ceremony is scheduled for November 9 at the museum itself, but Dr. Vicente Verez Bencomo, the principal author of this important achievement, cannot attend it because the U.S. government has refused him a visa, arguing that his presence would be prejudicial to that country’s interests."

"[Dr. Verez Bencomo] said that it could be an attempt to minimize the impact of the vaccine in the context of U.S. public opinion."

The Tech Museum (Granma can be forgiven for thinking that "Tech" is short for "Technical," but in this case, it isn't short for anything) is the prestigious science museum in San Jose, CA. Their awards program is "an international Awards program that honors innovators from around the world who are applying technology to benefit humanity" (as opposed to, say, applying technology to building more effective earth-penetrating nuclear weapons). I'm not a doctor, but the work Dr. Verez Bencomo is being honored for sounds (pdf link) incredibly important:

"Dr. Verez-Bencomo led a project to develop a synthetic polysaccharide conjugate vaccine against Haemophilus influenza type B (Hib), a bacteria that can cause meningitis and pneumonia. Hib infections are estimated to be responsible for 200,000-700,000 childhood deaths annually around the world. Highly effective Hib vaccines made from purified bacterial polysaccharides have been available and widely used for several years in the U.S. and Europe. These vaccines are expensive, limiting their incorporation into vaccination programs in developing nations. Dr. Verez-Bencomo's group developed a completely synthetic version of the Hib antigen that is equally effective immunologically, can be more readily manufactured at lower cost, and may be safer to use than current commercial Hib vaccines. Over 1 million doses of the vaccine have been safely delivered into Cuban children. This work may be a template for future synthetic vaccine production."

"The National Security Agency has kept secret since 2001 a finding by an agency historian that during the Tonkin Gulf episode, which helped precipitate the Vietnam War, N.S.A. officers deliberately distorted critical intelligence to cover up their mistakes."

A statistical fluke that the first and only dead Iraqi children we've seen on CNN were killed by insurgents? Hardly.

By one of those strokes of historical coincidence, the above story appears on the very same page (in the San Jose Mercury News) as this story about the rebuilding of the Frauenkirche in Dresden, Germany. And of course that brings us back to the destruction of that church during the firebombing of Dresden in February, 1945, in which 35,000 German civilians (the New York Times says "at least 25,000"; the 35,000 comes from the BBC, while this article gives a figure of 70,000-135,000) were intentionally killed by the U.S. and U.K. Of course that in turn pales before the 100,000 Japanese civilians intentionally killed in a single night during the firebombing of Tokyo. But more than a hundred other German and Japanese cities were destroyed in the same way. All told, approximately 600,000 German civilians were killed by "strategic bombing" conducted primarily by the British with support from US forces, while more than 500,000 Japanese civilians were killed by American firebombs and atomic bombs. And, we note, all of them quite deliberately, not as some kind of "collateral damage."

And in Iraq itself? Let me remind readers of this post, in which I discussed the evidence that the U.S. government deliberately (and illegally) destroyed the Iraqi water system in the Gulf War, and "planned a strategy for preventing Iraq from reconstructing that system (via the sanctions), and knew in advance that 'this could lead to increased incidences, if not epidemics of disease.'" Disease which did, in fact, kill a half million Iraqi children.

Intentionally killing civilians in wartime? The U.S. and U.K. have lapped the field many times over.

"Israel uses artillery shelling more sparingly than airstrikes because it is less accurate and poses a higher risk of harming Palestinian civilians."

Part II:

"The Security Council issued a statement Friday reminding [a particular country] that, according to the U.N. charter, member states must refrain from threatening to use force against each other."

"On July 11, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice said, 'If there were doubts about the underlying intelligence . . . those doubts were not communicated to the president, the vice president or me.'

"Within days of Rice's statement, her deputy, Stephen Hadley, was forced to admit that he had -- months before the State of the Union -- received two memos and a telephone call from CIA Director George Tenet himself warning that the evidence about the claim was weak.

"When questioned again by the media, Rice said: 'I either didn't see the memo, or I don't remember seeing the memo.'"

And we know these doubts were a central concern of the Vice President and his office, contrary to Rice's claim that they were uninformed (Based on what does she make that statement, one wonders? Was she privy to every piece of paper that crossed Dick Cheney's or Scooter Libby's desk?). Because, as Wilson reminds us in this article, "in mid-March, just days before the war, [Wilson] said in a TV interview with CNN that [he] believed the administration knew more about the Niger allegations than it was saying." And just days after that, "senior officials in the vice president's office ordered a 'work-up' on [Wilson], to collect information that could be used in a smear campaign if it became necessary." [And, prophetically or simply with accurate knowledge, Wilson continued, "Those and other sources tell me the person who probably directed that campaign is I. Lewis 'Scooter' Libby, the vice president's chief of staff and a leading neoconservative. I believe he is also quite possibly the person responsible for exposing my wife's identity.]

And why was that significant? Wilson puts his finger right on it:

"What is most important about these revelations is that the vice president's office would have had no reason to attack me unless officials there knew I was telling the truth and could cast doubt on an allegation that was key to their case for war. You don't need to discredit someone whose story won't pan out."

And, as in so many other situations, the key in this case is not just what they did (exposing Valerie Wilson/Plame and attacking Joe Wilson), but what they didn't do. An Administration (and, I might add, a media) really interested in the truth would have launched an investigation not into Wilson, or his wife, but would have instead sent more people to Niger to try to find evidence that they felt Wilson had missed that would prove their case. They would have sent people to Italy to investigate the famous documents, and tried to prove that although they might seem to have been forgeries on their face, they were actually genuine documents. They didn't do any of that, of course, because they knew very well the documents were forgeries and that Wilson was telling the truth, and that there were not just "doubts about the underlying intelligence," in Rice's words, but that for all intents and purposes there was no underlying intelligence.

"The U.S. military is reducing the number of its forward operating bases in north-central Iraq and transferring responsibility for security to Iraqi Army units whenever practical, says a senior officer who has worked there for nearly a year.

"Army Major General Joseph Taluto [said] that the number of bases has dropped from 27 to 17 during his tenure."

Sadly, just two three days later the number is already up to 2012 2016, and who knows how many more Iraqis. That's why, for some of us, "no" means "NO" and "now" means "NOW". Not next year. Not next month. Not next week. NOW.

Impractical? And just what is so "practical" about sticking around for another 12 months of carnage, or another month, or another week? Is the situation going to be any different? If the last 12 months are a guide, the answer is, not bloody likely. John Kerry is now "boldly" calling for 20,000 troops to be withdrawn after the December elections in Iraq. Why not after the October referendum on the Constitution? Why not after last January's elections? No, it's always some time in the future, and when we get there, there will be some reason, some "latest upsurge in violence," which requires the troops to stay just a little longer, or even an increase in troop levels, like this latest election.

And Americans will continue to kill, and be killed.

Bush also had this to say: "Scooter has worked tirelessly on behalf of the American people." Sorry, no. Someone who was part of the cabal who first fabricated evidence to justify the invasion of Iraq, and then participated in the trashing of Joseph Wilson in order to preserve the coverup of that fabrication, was most definitely not working "on behalf of the American people," he was working against the interests of the American people. Tens of thousands of Iraqis, Americans, and others, dead or wounded as a result of actions like these, are testimony to Scooter's "work."

What was also notable was what Bush didn't say. Because, more than two years ago, on Sept. 30, 2003, here's what Bush did say:

"If there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of...I want to know the truth. If anybody has got any information inside our administration or outside our administration, it would be helpful if they came forward with the information so we can find out whether or not these allegations are true and get on about the business...I don't know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information. If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it."

But he didn't.

"The argument that those who have died will have died in vain is sophistry of the cruelest kind. We do not say when children are killed by drunken drivers that they died in vain. We honor their memories by organizing to ensure that the same thing doesn't happen to others. The way we support the troops -- as human beings, not occupiers -- and honor the memories of those who have already died is to bring them all home, and do it now."

- Stan Goff

Congratulations! And I still say that a play based on her writing could be a powerful experience. One of these days somebody is going to take me up on it.

"In scale, the skimming operation probably ranks as one of the greatest financial crimes of all time. Iraqi insiders knew it as the 'Saddam Bribery System' - kickbacks and surcharges on the United Nations' oil-for-food program that netted Saddam Hussein $1.8 billion in the final years of his regime.

"Exxon Mobil Corp. and Royal Dutch Shell Plc posted almost $19 billion in combined profits after energy prices surged to unprecedented highs amid disruptions caused by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita."

"Yesterday in another hand-picked audience propaganda speech in front of military spouses, George Bush said: 'This war will require more sacrifice, more time and more resolve.'

"Besides asking him for What Noble Cause did he kill 2000 of our wonderful and brave young people, I would also like to ask George what he is sacrificing. Is he even sacrificing a good night's sleep? Is he sacrificing his future with his child? He is not sacrificing anything."

- Cindy Sheehan

"Non-combat related? That means they're accidents. Forget 'em. Accidents don't count. And you know, if the peaceniks in the antiwar machine get their way and this war turns out to have been a big mistake, that just means every death was an accident, and therefore, nobody died. Keep that in perspective."

- Stephen Colbert on the Colbert Report

"You and your kind have demoralized our women and men in combat, which in my opinion, does impact how quickly we can bring them home."

Back in this country, there is a large "counter recruitment" movement trying to discourage people from enlisting. Is that having any effect? Maybe, but I suspect that 99% of the decreased enlistment in the armed forces and reserves and National Guard is a result of two things: potential recruits know that there is a reasonable chance they'll return from Iraq dead or wounded, and they know the war was started under completely false pretenses. Once again, hardly the responsibility or fault of antiwar protesters.

"Support the troops, bring them home," isn't just a slogan. It's the truth, because it's the only way to really "support the troops" and see that they don't come home in a box, or in a wheelchair.

If you're involved with an antiwar (or peace, as you prefer) group in your area, please suggest that they have a look at the draft ad on the PPJC page linked above, and seriously consider spreading the campaign across the country.

Resign. Now.

Update: MoveOn seems to have their own list of events, some of which are identical to the ones at the AFSC website, and some of which are not.

Second update: Here's a picture of the event I went to. As you can see the organizer (a friend of mine) took my advice to have large signs with few words, absolutely required in this case since this was one corner of an intersection with 7 lanes (3 each way plus a left-turn lane) of traffic in each direction, i.e., it's a long way from one corner to the diagonally opposite corner. Picking up on the thread from the comments, although the large sign called out the 2000 dead (Americans), which was the occasion of the event, smaller signs did take note of dead Iraqis as well as injured Americans (one of whose mothers was at the event). A group of about 40 people (it was impossible to get them all in the picture without risking my life standing in the middle of the very busy intersection) spent two hours holding up signs, and received an almost continuous stream of honking in return from passing cars (there are no pedestrians anywhere in this or most cities in California).

"Israeli warplanes and artillery pounded an area of northern Gaza on Wednesday in response to Palestinian militants firing a rocket into Israel's southern town of Sderot...The violence has threatened to unravel an eight-month-old ceasefire."

"The flare-up of violence followed followed Israel's killing of a top Islamic Jihad militant in the occupied West Bank on Monday."

And today, in a totally predictable reaction, a Palestinian suicide bomber killed at least 5 and wounded more than 20 in Israel. And in a totally predictable response to that, the lackey Abbas blamed his fellow Palestinians (rather than blaming the Israelis for breaking the truce in the first place), and the Israelis criticized Abbas, rather than taking responsibility for being the ones to break the truce.

However, it turns out that in Massachusetts, a group called Home From Iraq Now (about whom I know nothing) has gone the same route, and is not only trying to qualify an initiative for the next Massachusetts election, but also encouring people around the country to follow their example, using an initiative which was drafted by Constitutional law experts. Left I on the News wishes the best of luck in their efforts to HFIN, and encourages groups around the country to take up the same fight.

A corollary to this effort, for those into lobbying, would be to try to repeal the Montgomery Amendment which stripped Governors of the right to stop deployment of their state Guards under most circumstances. However, that direction requires relying on Congress, with a resulting chance of success of exactly nil. The initiative approach, as I explained back in March, gives the people the chance to vote on the war, and not just in some advisory way but in a legally binding way. As such, I consider it an extremely productive course of action.

Lt. Col. Boylan and I can argue about what constitutes a "milestone," and I fully agree with his statement that ""The 2,000th Soldier, Sailor, Airman, or Marine that is killed in action is just as important as the first that died." Where we part company, and strongly, is his scurrilous parting remark: "[2,000] is an artificial mark on the wall set by individuals or groups with specific agendas and ulterior motives." I'll admit to an "agenda" -- stopping this senseless, illegal, immoral war and the deaths of Americans and Iraqis that have resulted, and will continue to result. But here's the definition of "ulterior": "Lying beyond what is evident, revealed, or avowed, especially being concealed intentionally so as to deceive: an ulterior motive." And that is a complete and utter lie when applied to opponents of the war. Every reason I, and the antiwar movement, want to call attention to this symbolic (but still very real for one family) death is right out on the table -- we want to emphasize the cost of this war in order to to put a stop to it. As the American Friends Service Committee slogan goes for what will now be tomorrow's round of demonstrations: "Not one more death. Not one more dollar."

On the other hand, "ulterior motives" are precisely what brought about the invasion of Iraq; even the Bush administration now admits, as exemplified by Condoliezza Rice's recent comments, that the talk about WMD and ties to al Qaeda was a complete smokescreen -- an "ulterior motive" if there ever was one, to conceal the real motives for the war.

"Pulmonary embolism due to blunt force injuries... Strangulation... Asphyxia due to smothering and chest compression... Blunt force injuries and asphyxia."

Cheney Plan Exempts CIA From Bill Barring Abuse of Detainees
The Bush administration has proposed exempting employees of the Central Intelligence Agency from a legislative measure endorsed earlier this month by 90 members of the Senate that would bar cruel and degrading treatment of any prisoners in U.S. custody.

Not in Our Name!

"President Bush said Monday that Baghdad is still a safe enough place to hold Saddam Hussein's mass-murder trial, even though one of the lawyers involved was killed last week." (Source)

The Troops Out Now coalition has called for a National Strike Against Poverty, Racism, and War to be held on December 1, the 50th anniversary of Parks' action. There could be no finer way to honor the memory of Rosa Parks than to carry on the work she started more than 50 years ago, and one way to do that would be to plan or join an activity in your area on that day.

Update: You can listen to Rosa Parks herself, speaking in March 1956 about the events in question, on this morning's Democracy Now!which features a rebroadcast of a 49-year old show from the Pacifica Radio archives.

The U.N. issued a report which "implicates" the Syrian government in the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri. George Bush, who when his aides are "implicated" in crimes, says "no comment" until there are actual indictments and probably then convictions and probably then he'll still have no comment, demands that the U.N. take action against Syria. Journalist (and we use that term intentionally) Robert Parry points out some of the holes in the report, and writes this, which is something to keep in mind in all cases like this:

"This risk of investigators accepting questionable testimony from dubious sources is highest when the allegations are directed against countries or political leaders already held in disdain – as was the case with Iraq and is now the case with Syria. With almost everyone ready to believe the worst, few investigators or journalists are willing to endanger their reputations and careers by demanding a high level of proof. It's easier to go with the flow."

This may well be true, and it isn't something I oppose. Of course we can expect the U.S., the world's biggest meddler in the affairs of other countries, to make a big stink about this, although fortunately the news has emerged at a time when the U.S. government is preoccupied with other matters. Be that as it may, a careful reading of the story reveals that there's very little "there" there. In the Miami Herald story, for example, we read this:

The Herald independently obtained a copy of an [Ecuadorean military] intelligence report that focuses on the Venezuelan link.

The report's key assertion of guerrilla training could not be verified independently by The Herald. But a senior civilian government official here with access to intelligence information verified the existence of the report and described its contents as 'undeniable.'"

Then we are told that a "senior civilian government official" says the report is "undeniable." Who is that official? For all we know, it's the same official who wrote the report and the same one who leaked the report. The word of a "senior government official" that something is "undeniable" means less than nothing.

It gets worse:

"U.S. intelligence officials are known to be aware of the report and to believe that its allegations are true.

"Ecuador's intelligence agencies are considered relatively reliable because they had Israeli and U.S. training during a successful drive in the late 1980s to break up a leftist guerrilla group."

To its credit, the Herald did contact one of the Venezuelans who was allegedly involved with the training, to get this quote: "The training as described never took place. As far as I know, no one here is doing anything like that."

• 45% of Iraqis believe attacks against US and UK troops are justified
• 82% of Iraqis are "strongly opposed" to the presence of coalition troops
• Less than 1% of the Iraqi population believes coalition troops are responsible for any improvement in the country
• 67% of Iraqis feel less secure because of the occupation
• 43% of Iraqis believe conditions for peace and stability have worsened
• 72% do not have confidence in the multi-national forces.

Update: A day later, clicking on that link produces exactly one U.S. hit, for the Washington Times. Still no coverage of this news on TV, or in the major newspapers. The Washington Post actually does carry the news, but in a blog named World Opinion Roundup which, based on the URL (blogs.washingtonpost.com rather than www.washingtonpost.com), doesn't appear in the actual newspaper. I was amused by this strange line in the Roundup: "The poll gives new ammunition to conservative critics of the war." Really? Not all critics of the war, just the conservative ones? Curious.

Ward Sutton

(via David Swanson at After Downing Street)

"As Iraqis stand up, we will stand down."

"As the capabilities of the Republic of Korea grow, obviously they will assume more and more responsibility as they have been doing in recent years."

"The Pentagon wants to have 25,000 troops in South Korea by the end of 2008, compared to 37,500 last year, a reduction in forces that U.S. commanders say is made possible by the growing capability of South Korea's 690,000 troops."

And is Iraq Korea a fully sovereign nation even now? Consider this:

"Despite a desire by officials here to assume greater responsibility for the defense of their country, the United States and South Korea agreed Friday to leave a U.S. commander in charge of their combined armies in the event of a war on the Korean peninsula.

"With steady improvements made by South Korea's military and the nation's emergence as an economic power, South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun said recently that his country was ready to take on more control of its armed forces, and suggested altering the current arrangement that put South Korean forces under U.S. command during wartime. "

Here's my exit strategy for Iraq (and Korea, for that matter): "As the American people stand up (and say NO! to the occupation), American forces will be stood down." Stand up, America! Just say NO!

"The New York Times' Judith Miller belatedly gave prosecutors her notes of a key meeting in the CIA leak probe only after being shown White House records of it, and her boss declared Friday she appeared to have misled the newspaper about her role."

"One lawyer familiar with Miller's testimony said the reporter told prosecutors at first that she did not believe the June meeting would have involved Plame. Miller said that, because she had just returned from covering the Iraq war, she was probably giving Libby an update about her experiences there, the lawyer said."

Last week, there were stories in the press about the "White House Iraq Group." It wasn't clear (to me, anyway) whether this was just an informal name of a group of co-thinkers in the White House, or an actual formal group with memos addressed to them, etc. Furthermore, a "source" said that "Judy [Miller] was a charter member." Was that a literal truth, or just a figurative one? It certainly wasn't (and isn't) clear. But when we read that Miller returned from Iraq and immediately went to give Scooter Libby "an update about her experiences there," it certainly provides food for thought.

Is Judith Miller actually a CIA asset? It's quite possible. Is she being paid under the table by the White House, like Armstrong Williams? Possible. But I think really she is being "paid" quite openly by the White House with the currency she really wants -- "knowledge" (and I use that term very loosely) and power. I don't have access to Lexis-Nexis, so I can't do a review of all the articles Miller wrote during the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, but I'll hazard a guess that every one of them involves anonymous sources. Without her sources of misinformation, Miller would just be a reporter who can't even take good notes.

That's not to say that anonymous sources don't have a critical role to play in reporting. But there's a vast difference between anonymous sources who are in power, and using their power, and anonymous sources who are challenging that power. Judy Miller's sources are all of the former kind -- chickenhawks and chickenshits who don't have the courage to fight their own battles, but prefer fighting them while hiding behind people like Judy Miller.

Updated with the "Snark of the Day" from Los Angeles Times columnist Tim Rutten:

"This week [Miller] went before the Senate Judiciary Committee to testify for the Free Flow of Information Act. There, she didn't even blush when she told the lawmakers: 'Confidential sources are the life's blood of journalism. Without them ... people like me would be out of business.'

"Probably so, but there's still a case to be made for this legislation."

In other movie news, we ask the question: What do Good Night, and Good Luck, the George Clooney film about Edward R. Murrow and Joseph McCarthy, and North Country, the movie about a female coal miner and the harassment and discrimination she encounters, starring Charlize Theron, have in common? They're both in theaters now, they're both receiving praise from the critics, and they both star incredibly good-looking people who are probably going to get Oscar nominations? OK, besides for that. The answer is that both films were financed by eBay founder Jeff Skoll's new moviemaking venture, Participant Productions, dedicated to the proposition (according to Skoll) that films can "educate and inspire" people to "actually get involved in the issues." Skoll elaborates:

"'One metric of success that we use is whether more good comes from the film than just putting the money directly to work in a non-profit organization involved in the same issue.

"We've actually had cases where we looked at the risk profile of a film and said, 'The way this looks, chances are we're going to lose a million, 2 million, even 5 million dollars. But maybe we'll get $10 million or $20 million worth of social value from it.' We will take risks on projects where we think we might lose money, because we hope that the good that comes from that outweighs the risk. It's a different kind of philanthropy."

Yesterday, speaking with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, George Bush said this:

Reporter: President [Bush], you say you wanted to see the Palestinian state made before the end of your presidency. Are you still hoping to see something like that?

Bush: You said I would like to see two states before I get out of office. Not true. I'd like to see two states. And if it happens before I get out of office, I'll be there to witness the ceremony.

"I think it is fair to say that I believe we've got a great chance to establish a Palestinian state, and I intend to use the next four years to spend the capital of the United States on such a state...I hate to put artificial time frames on things; unfortunately I've got one on my existence as President. It's not artificial, it's actually real. And I'd like to see it done in four years. I think it is possible. I think it is possible."

How did the press react? The Financial Times not only led with the denial, but even provided the appropriate context for Bush's earlier remark (implicitly to show that his optimistic remarks last November were done with a specific intent):

"President George W. Bush yesterday backed away from the goal he set a year ago to help establish an independent Palestinian state by the end of his second term.
...
"In Washington last November, meeting Tony Blair, the UK prime minister who was in dire need of a diplomatic fillip to counter the fallout over Iraq, Mr Bush said he would 'spend the capital' of the US on establishing a Palestinian state. 'I'd like to see it done in four years,' Mr Bush said. 'I think it is possible.'"

"Speaking at a joint news conference in the sunny Rose Garden, Bush also appeared to pull back from a goal he set shortly after his reelection to create a Palestinian state by 2009. He had earlier said he would 'use the next four years to spend the capital of the United States' on creating a state. But yesterday he denied setting such a goal -- 'Not true' -- and added, 'I can't tell you when it's going to happen.'"

But that still puts the Post ahead of other outlets. The BBC doesn't mention the subject at all; the New York Times says: "President Bush...cautioned that a Palestinian state living peacefully with Israel might not be established before Mr. Bush leaves office in 2009," giving no hint whatsoever that this was either a change in position, or that Bush denied that it was.

The award for worst coverage of this lie, however, goes to Knight-Ridder, with this:

"Bush acknowledged that the negotiations have slowed to the point that he is unlikely to reach his goal of an independent Palestinian state before he leaves office in 2009."

Of course, Bush's biggest lie is to pretend that he really has any interest whatsoever in the creation of a Palestinian state, and that he's actually doing anything of substance to pressure the Israelis to stop settlement expansion in the West Bank or to adhere to the "road map." But we'll leave those subjects for another day.

• We will remember the 2,000 U.S. servicemen and women who have died in Iraq.
• We will remember the tens of thousands of Iraqis -- civilians and combatants, men and women, children the elderly -- who have been killed.
• We will remember that these deaths did not have to happen, should not have happened.
• We will call for our troops to be brought home now. Don't ask these men and women to continue to die for politicians' mistakes and lies. And we want them treated right when they return. Give them the benefits they were promised and give them the help they will need to heal their bodies, their minds and their spirits.
• We will demand an end to the occupation so the Iraqi people can determine their own destiny free from foreign interference and control.

The list of events already shows hundreds are planned; join one or start your own in your town (and make sure to list it). UfPJ and AFSC are recommending, among other things, candlelight vigils, but my preference is for shouting our opposition to the war as loudly as possible, not for standing silent. Here's my newly made up chant for the occasion -- feel free to use it, or make up your own:

Stop the killing, stop the war!
2,000 dead. No more.

Incidentally, to forestall the obvious criticism -- the deaths of Iraqis must never be forgotten. In a way, they are more tragic than the deaths of Americans, not just because they are more numerous by more than an order of magnitude, and not just because so many of them are civilians, but also because the Americans (at least their government) asked for this war, whereas the Iraqis did not, thus making every one of their deaths a war crime. However, that being said, I think on an occasion like this, it just complicates matters to try to convey all that on a sign. If you're talking to a reporter, by all means make sure to bring up the subject, but other than that, there's nothing wrong with making the focus of the signage and the event itself the 2,000 Americans. Sadly, we'll never know when the 2,000th Iraqi, or the 20,000th, or the 200,000th, is killed.

"When it came time to unveil the statue, the Star Spangled Banner was played -- as a symbol of 'how far we've come' since 1968. There was one problem: the curtain became snagged on the statue's raised fists. In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, we need our anti-racist history and our anti-racist heroes now more than ever. We need more fists gumming up the works."

But on the redistricting proposition, Prop 77, opinions are all over the map. The Greens have no position. Kos of Daily KOS is for it, although many of the "diarists" on his site are against it. The two most extensive and pursuasive arguments for a NO vote are presented by WIIIAI and KOS diarist Latino in LAw, which are recommended reading for those wanting the full gamut of arguments. Both of them make many good points; one I'll call out in particular is Latino in LAw's observation (I'm putting this in my own words) that the bunch of retired, mostly wealthy, white men who are the pool of supposedly neutral people designing the new districts are hardlly a representative sample of the population.

But the reason I'm voting NO on 77 is entirely different. What is the concept behind Prop 77? That there isn't enough competition between Republicans and Democrats, and that if the districts are redrawn "neutrally," then there will be more "competitive districts." So what? The problem with the California legislature isn't that there are too many Democrats, or too many Republicans, or even too many incumbents (the latter problem was solved undemocratically with term limits), but there are too many Democrats and Republicans, and in general too many legislators beholden to monied interests, and this proposition doesn't solve that problem.

As structured, the concept of the Assembly is that the people of, say, Fresno have common interests. They do, but so do gays and lesbians, and teachers, and parents, and opponents of the war, and the poor (and, yes, the wealthy), and so on. Why don't those interests get to be explicitly represented in the legislature (except for the wealthy, who have no problem on that score)? What is really needed to make the legislature more representative of the people, and more responsive to them, are large (even statewide) districts using proportional representation, combined with prohibitions against corporate contributions, mandatory public financing of elections, and more. Proposition 77 is just a distraction from the real change that is needed in California, and the nation.

By the way, has anyone else noticed that there are now allegedly 200,000 Iraqi troops "standing up," and not a single American soldier (not one!) has been "stood down" as a result? What are these Iraqi troops anyway, neutrinos?

But there's another big lie that I mention less frequently, and that's the urgency lie. Although the existence of Iraqi WMD programs or stockpiles of WMD was most definitely not proved beyond a shadow of a doubt, let's concede that there was certainly a possibility that such programs or even stockpiles existed. But there were weapons inspectors going over Iraq with a fine-tooth comb during the entire pre-invasion period (and, needless to say, finding nothing except some highly debatable technical violations of missile ranges, which led to the prompt destruction of the missiles in question). Perhaps the biggest lie of all was the lie that there was such an imminent danger to the United States and to the world that, even with Iraq's hands figuratively tied behind its back, the inspectors had to be pulled out and the U.S.-led invasion had to begin right then, in March 2003, without further delay.

There is not a shred of evidence, not just a shred of valid evidence but even a shred of concocted evidence, that this urgency was justified. There was no such evidence at the time, and no "story" has been concocted since then, either. The urgency of invading Iraq in March, 2003 was an assertion by the Bush Administration, nothing more. And, as I said, perhaps the biggest of the big lies, and the one which people, including myself, all too frequently forget.

"A Spanish judge issued an international arrest warrant Wednesday, charging three U.S. soldiers with murder in the death of a Spanish television cameraman in Baghdad."

"The arrest warrant says the United States provided 'no judicial cooperation' in the investigation of the cameraman's death.

"An attorney for [Jose] Couso's family told CNN+ that she doubted the arrest warrant would have much practical effect. She said she understood that the United States would not extradite the men and that they stood little chance of arrest unless they left the United States."

Incidentally, the standards under which the court operates? Guilty if the judges are "satisfied" by the evidence. Surely they could just save all the money they're going to spend on the trial in that case.

"Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said Wednesday the Federal Emergency Management Agency...must be retooled to improve preparation and response to natural disasters." (Source)

"If you want information about a car, you don't ask the used car dealer. You ask Consumer Reports."

- "Granny" (as in "Raging Grannies") Gail Sredanovic, discussing the new batch of recruiting ads pitched at parents, just released by the increasingly desparate U.S. military

Which is as good an excuse as any to introduce:

Iraq Pledge of Resistance is calling for a national day of demonstrations on November 18, directed against armed forces recruiting stations.

"The American Red Cross said yesterday that it has vastly overstated the number -- and potential cost -- of Hurricane Katrina evacuees staying in hotel rooms because of errors in how it interpreted its data.

"Embarrassed officials from the charity acknowledged that instead of housing 600,000 displaced people, the hotel program -- paid for by the federal government -- is housing 200,000 storm evacuees.

"Red Cross officials attributed the error to the misreading of daily reports from a consultant handling the hotel placements: Staff members mistook a cumulative tally of people who had lived in hotels to date for the daily hotel population."

"The Bush administration, worried that Palestinian militants will gain a foothold in legislative elections in January, is pressing Mahmoud Abbas to require that candidates renounce violence and 'unlawful or nondemocratic' methods, administration and Palestinian representatives say."

"The fact of the matter is that when we were attacked on September 11, we had a choice to make. We could decide that the proximate cause was al-Qaeda and the people who flew those planes into buildings and, therefore, we would go after al-Qaeda and perhaps after the Taliban and then our work would be done and we would try to defend ourselves.

"Or we could take a bolder approach, which was to say that we had to go after the root causes of the kind of terrorism that was produced there, and that meant a different kind of Middle East. And there is no one who could have imagined a different kind of Middle East with Saddam Hussein still in power. I know it's difficult, but we have ahead of us the prospect, and I think the very good prospect of a foundation for a democratic and prosperous Iraq that can solve its differences by politics and compromise, that becomes an anchor for a Middle East that is changing."

"Would you like to see a regime change in Syria, and will we help bring that about?" [Ed. note: notice the "we"]

Most of the blogs seized on Rice's statement as an admission of previous administration lies, or as yet another change in rationale for the invasion, but they missed one key point -- Rice is still lying about why Iraq was invaded. She claims that reason was "eliminating the root causes" of terrorism, which from the rest of the statement we conclude she thinks are a lack of democracy and prosperity. But with 15 of the 19 hijackers being Saudis, surely someone really looking for "proximate causes" would conclude that the lack of democracy in Saudi Arabia was high up on the list. Did the U.S. respond by launching an invasion to overthrow the dictator (excuse me, "king") of Saudi Arabia? Of course not. And everyone knows the largest group in the Middle East lacking both democratic rights and prosperity are the Palestinians. Did the U.S. respond by sending troops to force the Israelis out of the West Bank and Gaza, restoring those territories to Palestinian control? No again.

Sorry, Condi. No sale.

Last night, San Jose State University unveiled a statue honoring Tommie Smith, John Carlos, and their anti-racism protest at the 1968 Olympics. As I wrote back in June when ground was broken, I consider this one of the most shocking developments since the United States put Malcolm X on a postage stamp.

A full look at the statue reveals something curious:

But wait. Did the guy who finished in second place boycott the ceremony or something? No, not at all, as the picture of the real event shows:

Indeed, it turns out Australian Peter Norman, who attended last night's ceremony along with Smith and Carlos, was involved with the protest, and suffered for it as well (though not as much as Smith and Carlos, of course):

"Smith and Carlos...wanted to show that all was not well for African-Americans in the United States and to promote the Olympic Project for Human Rights, a cause that originated in the Bay Area.

"In discussions beneath the stadium before the medal ceremony, Smith and Carlos decided to don black gloves and raise their fists. Norman could have ignored the drama. Instead, he asked what he could do to assist the protest. Carlos suggested wearing the OPHR button. Norman borrowed one from an American rower and pinned it on an Aussie warm-up jacket.

"By doing so, Norman implicitly supported Smith and Carlos. This carried its own heavy price.

"'In Australia, no one knows I ran in the race,' joked Norman the other day in a phone interview. They just think I stood on the victory stand.'

"And many of his countrymen weren't happy about where he stood.

"'I copped some letters and some abuse,' Norman said. 'My hometown didn't give me a celebration. Only family and friends met me at the airport. It got a little bit nasty. But when you look at what Tommie and John had to go through for a long, long time, anything that anyone could or did say to me pales in significance.'"

"'Will Smith and Carlos only be stone-faced amidst a beautiful plaza?' speaker Professor Ethel Pitts-Walker asked the crowd. 'For them to become immortalized, the living must take up their activism and continue their work.'"

"Carlos originally lobbied for the sculpture to include Norman. But the artist who designed it -- a Bay Area artist named Rigo 23 -- said he purposely left Norman's spot blank. That way, people could climb up and pose for pictures and be encouraged to 'take a stand.'

"That's more than fine with Norman.

"'I love that idea,' said Norman. 'Anybody can get up there and stand up for something they believe in. I guess that just about says it all.'"

"Almost two months after Hurricane Katrina slammed into the Gulf Coast and a month after promising in a nationally televised speech to help rebuild the region 'quickly,' President Bush has settled on a cautious, piecemeal approach that even many members of his own party fear will stall reconstruction and sow economic disarray."

You can read the details of the latest fiasco yourself in the LA Times, but my favorite part is the reaction of Jack Kemp, former Housing and Urban Development secretary under George H.W. Bush:

"Laissez-faire, Darwinian capitalism is not going to work here. Markets do work, but they need the direction of government in situations like this."

In a way, this whole affair is kind of reverse demonstration of the "Tragedy of the Commons," the idea that the common good is not best served by a series of individuals each making a decision which is to their own individual benefit, as illustrated by this:

"By wiping out whole communities, Katrina created problems that even some Republicans argue cannot be handled by individuals and market mechanisms alone.

"'Where once you had an operating society, now there's nothing -- no firetruck, no school, no grocery store to buy a loaf of bread,' said Rep. Richard H. Baker (R-La.).

"Such devastation creates a sort of chicken-and-egg problem, Baker said. 'The question is, Who goes first?' If firefighters and police officers return to their communities first, they will have no equipment or food. If car dealers and retailers are the first, they will have no protection."

3-4 million people killed, countless more wounded. Millions of lives shattered and destroyed. What a pointless, monumental tragedy.

And it's happening again today. The war, the lies which accompany that war, and the need for people of conscience to stand up (or sit down, as the case may be) and protest against what's happening. All of those aspects brilliantly demonstrated by this must-see film, and all of them all too relevant today.

Stop the war. Now. Not one cent more for occupation and war. Bring the troops home - now!

Iraqis Say Airstrikes Kill Many Civilians
U.S. Military Gives Different Account
"A U.S. fighter jet bombed a crowd gathered around a burned Humvee on the edge of a provincial capital in western Iraq, killing 25 people, including 18 children, hospital officials and family members said Monday. The military said the Sunday raid targeted insurgents planting a bomb for new attacks.

"In all, residents and hospital workers said, 39 civilians and at least 13 armed insurgents were killed in a day of U.S. airstrikes in Ramadi, the capital of Anbar province, a Sunni Arab region with a heavy insurgent presence.

"The U.S. military said it killed a total of 70 insurgents in Sunday's airstrikes and, in a statement, said it knew of no civilian deaths.

"At Ramadi hospital, distraught and grieving families fought over body parts severed by the airstrikes, staking rival claims to what they believed to be pieces of their loved ones."

Update: Aaron Brown on CNN's NewsNight, doing his "tomorrow's headlines" closing, leads with the Post article, which appears on page one, column one of tomorrow's paper. His comment? "This is one of those things we'll never know the truth about, I suppose." Well sure, if you don't care to, and don't bother to actually send a reporter to interview people, take pictures, examine the hospital records, etc. If you do care, and obviously Brown doesn't, it's really not a difficult "mystery" to solve. Unless there aren't any investigative reporters available, because they're all working on the Natalee Holloway story.

A blockbuster! How could I have missed this! Well, thanks to Mike Whitney's post at CounterPunch today, my poor eyesight has been cured. Here, buried in the middle of Judith Miller's article on "Plamegate" is this statement [emphasis added]:

"My third interview with Mr. Libby occurred on July 12, two days before Robert D. Novak's column identified Ms. Plame for the first time as a C.I.A. operative...I told Mr. Fitzgerald I believed that before this call, I might have called others about Mr. Wilson's wife.

But the big issue, which fits in with the line of argument I advanced in an earlier post, is to ask about what Miller doesn't say: why might she have placed such calls? According to her, Valerie Wilson/Plame was so insignficant that Miller couldn't even get her name right (twice!). Libby mentioned where she worked, but for no apparent reason whatsoever -- it wasn't about about nepotism, and it wasn't about arranging Joe Wilson's trip to Niger. According to Miller, as I wrote earlier, it was evidently just idle chit-chat, and didn't relate to the actual subject at hand. So why on earth was she on the phone a few days later, pursuing the subject, placing calls to "others" about Valerie Wilson/Plame? Once again, it's what's not said more than what is said that is significant -- Miller doesn't give any indication about the answer to that question. She isn't even capable of making up some lame excuse for why she might have placed such calls, because there is no valid reason for her having done so.

Update: I really should make the same note about Patrick Fitzgerald on this post as I did on the previous one. Miller says she "might have called others," but doesn't name those "others." Is it at all plausible that Fitzgerald didn't ask her who those "others" might have been? No, but Miller gives no indication that he did so. Furthermore, is it at all plausible that Fitzgerald didn't ask her why she placed those calls? No again, but again, Miller simply skips over the subject, implicitly asking us to believe she is providing a full account of her interrogation by Fitzgerald when it is quite clear that she is not, not by a long shot. Lying by omission.

History is written by the victors

...and so is the administration of justice. In 1982, there was an assassination attempt against Saddam Hussein which he barely escaped; 150 residents of the village in which it happened were massacred in retaliation. Today, charges were filed against Hussein in connection with those deaths.

In 1993, there was an alleged Iraqi-based assassination plot against former President George Bush. There was no assassination attempt, and it is questionable not only whether Iraq had anything to do with it, but whether there was even a real assassination plot. Nevertheless, in response, Bill Clinton ordered an attack on Iraq, which killed an unknown number of Iraqis, among them at least eight civilians, including Layla al-Attar, one of Iraq's most gifted artists. A decade later, George W. Bush on more than one occasion talked about how "Saddam tried to kill my daddy", and there are those who believe that this was a significant factor in his decision to invade Iraq. As a result of that invasion, tens of thousands, probably well more than 100,000, Iraqis have died, not to mention more than 2000 American and allied forces and contractors.

As of this date, no charges have been filed against George W. Bush.

As of this date, no charges have been filed against George W. Bush in those deaths either.

Will Iraq manage to execute Saddam Hussein before putting him on trial for crimes in which the American government is implicated, and in which Saddam's testimony could prove, to put it mildly, embarrassing? Stay tuned.

[First posted 10/17, 10:09 a.m.; updated]

It's such a routine occurrence I wasn't even going to write about it - U.S. airstrikes kill 70 Iraqis. The U.S. military, showing an uncanny ability to identify people from hundreds (thousands?) of feet in the air, says "all the dead were militants," even though eyewitness reports say that at least 25 of the people were just "a bunch of civilians whose curiosity prompted them to gather around a destroyed Humvee." In their daily attempt at irony, "Military officials said they had no reports of civilians killed." Ah, those pesky reports. I just can't understand why the pilots dropping the bombs failed to check the "civilians killed" box on their sortie report. If only the "military officials" had access to, oh, I don't know, the Internet.

Print reports, like the CNN and BBC reports linked above, at least include (sometimes, anyway) statements by Iraqi eyewitnesses which call into question the identity of the dead, even while passing on unquestioned absurd statements by military spokespeople like "We do careful targeting to ensure minimum civilian casualties in the areas that the insurgents are operating." But broadcast reports, like the one I just listened to on MSNBC, are a different story entirely. There, it's simply "70 insurgents killed by airstrikes." No question about it.

One interesting language note. The BBC headline, "US strikes kill '70 Iraq rebels'," quite clearly identifies the identity of the attacker (the U.S.), as well as the contested nature of the dead. CNN, by contrast, misleads its readers by telling them that the attack was carried out by "coalition forces."

*Programmers will recognize that the title of this post isn't an equation, but a programming statement, intended to indicate that the unknown number of Iraqi dead has just increased by 70 (but is still unknown). Readers of this blog will also recognize that this story is yet one more example of the Left I on the News "Exit strategy is a sham" thesis.

Update: If MSNBC was bad, CNN was worse. In a piece from reporter Jamie McIntyre on the day's events and the lack of sufficient manpower on the ground, McIntyre described the "predictable consequences" of having to resort to airstrikes as "claims of civilian casualties" [emphasis added]. Yes, Jamie, it's all about us, and our sensitivities to "claims" of killing civilians. Look, you can argue that the U.S. doesn't "target" civilians, and you can argue (on pretty darn thin evidence) that the U.S. "takes pains" to avoid killing civilians, and you can argue that the civilian deaths are acceptable collateral damage, or are really the "fault" of the resistance, but you cannot argue that there aren't civilian deaths. The "predictable consequences" of using airstrikes to fight an urban resistance are "civilian casualties," not "claims of civilian casualties."

"We're making progress toward...a country that will serve as an example for others who aspire to live in freedom."

By the way, a sort of related point on the number of deaths which have occurred since (and as a result of) the invasion of Iraq. I always use the term "tens of thousands," which is accurate as far as it goes, but obviously not very precise. Iraq Body Count counts 26,500-30,000 civilians, but that doesn't include members of the Iraqi military killed during the invasion. A lot of people cite the Lancet number of 100,000, but that study was published a year ago and was concluded even before that; if their methodology was valid (and I don't want to get into that here), the number is surely much higher by now.

But, whatever the price, I doubt many countries are eager to follow the "example."

"I would love to support Hillary for President if she would come out against the travesty in Iraq. But I don't think she can speak out against the occupation, because she supports it.

"I will not make the mistake of supporting another pro-war Democrat for president again: As I won't support a pro-war Republican.

"I thought Mrs. Clinton listened [when Sheehan met with her], but apparently she didn't because immediately afterwards she said the following to Sarah Ferguson of the Village Voice:

"'My bottom line is that I don't want their sons to die in vain... I don't believe it's smart to set a date for withdrawal... I don't think it's the right time to withdraw.'

"That quote sounds exactly like what the few Republicans I talked to that week said. Making sure that our children did not die in 'vain' sounds exactly like something George Bush says. A 'date' for withdrawal? That sounds like Rush Limbaugh to me. That doesn't sound like an opposition party leader speaking to me. What Sen. Clinton said after our meeting sounds exactly like the Republican Party talking points I heard from Senators Dole and McCain.

"Sen. Clinton is in California today to raise money for her political campaigns. An invitation to one star-studded gala reads:

"'We must stand with Senator Clinton as she stands up for what we believe in. Hillary is and always has been our champion in the White House and the Senate.' And she's one of the 'strongest, most passionate and intelligent Democrats.'

"I didn't get an invitation to any of the events, but maybe it's because she doesn't stand up for what I believe in. I don't believe in continuing this occupation of Iraq and I don't believe in killing more of our soldiers because my son has already been needlessly and tragically killed. I don't believe she is passionate. I think she is a political animal who believes she has to be a war hawk to keep up with the big boys.

"Sixty-nine of our best and brightest have been sent meaninglessly and unnecessarily to their premature deaths since I met with Mrs. Clinton on September 22nd. Sixty-nine mothers and fathers and who knows how many spouses, brothers, sisters, sons, daughters, cousins, and friends have been meaninglessly and unnecessarily sent into tailspins of grief and emptiness since that meeting."

Left I on the News can now exclusively reveal that Miller's original notes on WMD reporting grew out of a discussion with sources who were discussing Iraq's development of a new chemical weapon, a herbicide designed to eradicate moss in lawns. Unfortunately, Miller wrote "weapons of mass destruction" instead of "weapons of moss destruction" in her notes. Then, in a second conversation with another source, Miller was told about Saddam Hussein's devious plan to supply the poor of Iraq with free televisions to take their minds off the effects of the crippling American-led embargo which had killed more than a million of them. Intending to write "weapons of mass distraction," Miller's poor note-taking once again led her to write "weapons of mass destruction," and, well, you know the rest.

Soviet jewelry, anyone?

Note: If you've arrived here linked from somewhere else, don't miss the more "serious" posts on the subject, here and here.

Just two days before he was struck down, Lennox had sent out an email to the community, informing us that the peace vigil at the corner of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Winchester Boulevard in San Jose had dwindled to 2-3 people in recent weeks, and urging everyone to come out. More than three dozen people responded to the call to come out in Lennox's honor and memory, first demonstrating (to an almost continual honking of horns from the not-so-silent majority driving by), and then gathering for a "service" (people speaking about their memories of Lennox) in his honor.

Photos by Susan Muysenberg

Lennox Sweeney, we salute you!

"Most educated Iraqis want to vote against the constitution. This makes the fact that Iraqis abroad aren’t being allowed to vote this time around worrisome. Why was it vital for them to vote for a temporary government back in January but it’s not necessary for them to contribute to this referendum which will presumably decide a permanent constitution for generations and generations of Iraqis? Could it be that the current Iranian inclined government knew that many Iraqis abroad didn’t like the constitution because of federalism, women’s rights, and the mention of no laws to be placed which contradict Islam?"

Now, in what appears to be more of a carefully prepared legal document and less an actual newspaper article, Miller has written about "My Four Hours Testifying in the Federal Grand Jury Room" and continues her tradition of distorting the truth. The key to reading this article is to discard the chaff and get to the heart of the matter - her discussions with "Scooter" Libby about Valerie Plame (Wilson). And if you concentrate on just those parts, one thing is clear as a bell -- either Judith Miller is lying about those conversations, or she engages in very strange conversations indeed.

Of her first conversation with Libby, on June 23, 2003, Miller resorts to standard obfuscations, like "my notes do not show that Mr. Libby identified Mr. Wilson's wife by name." But her name itself is completely irrelevant. What did Libby say? "Mr. Libby raised the subject of Mr. Wilson's wife for the first time. I wrote in my notes, inside parentheses, 'Wife works in bureau?'" [Miller explains that this is a reference to a specific bureau in the CIA, not the FBI]. That's it. Miller wants us to believe that she was interviewing Libby about Joseph Wilson, and that Libby just "happened" to mention where Wilson's wife works, with no reason to do so and no elaboration. Sure he did.

The same turns out to be the case in her second conversation with Libby on July 8, if we are to believe what Miller writes:

"At that breakfast meeting, our conversation also turned to Mr. Wilson's wife. My notes contain a phrase inside parentheses: 'Wife works at Winpac.' Mr. Fitzgerald asked what that meant. Winpac stood for Weapons Intelligence, Non-Proliferation, and Arms Control, the name of a unit within the C.I.A. that, among other things, analyzes the spread of unconventional weapons.

"I said I couldn't be certain whether I had known Ms. Plame's identity before this meeting, and I had no clear memory of the context of our conversation that resulted in this notation. But I told the grand jury that I believed that this was the first time I had heard that Mr. Wilson's wife worked for Winpac. In fact, I told the grand jury that when Mr. Libby indicated that Ms. Plame worked for Winpac, I assumed that she worked as an analyst, not as an undercover operative.

"Mr. Fitzgerald asked me whether Mr. Libby had mentioned nepotism. I said no. And as I told the grand jury, I did not recall - and my interview notes do not show - that Mr. Libby suggested that Ms. Plame had helped arrange her husband's trip to Niger. My notes do suggest that our conversation about Ms. Plame was brief."

Look more closely and you'll see that Miller can't even keep her story straight. On July 8, she claims, she's not sure she knew "Ms. Plame's identity." Why does she refer to "Ms. Plame", by the way? Her notes refer only to "wife", and she's already told us that on June 23, she had been told that Wilson's wife worked in the "bureau." On July 8, she asserts, this was the first time she had heard that Wilson's wife "worked for Winpac." But on June 23, she was told that she worked in "the bureau," and she makes clear that she knows that "the bureau" refers to "a particular bureau within the agency that dealt with the spread of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons," i.e., Winpac. The woman is a liar. It's as plain as the words on the page she has written.

A couple other curiousities worth noting. How about this: "Mr. Fitzgerald asked me if I knew whether I was cleared to discuss classified information at the time of my meetings with Mr. Libby. I said I did not know." She's going into a meeting with a top government official to discuss possibily classified information, she's been an investigative reporter covering national intelligence issues for the New York Times for three decades, and she doesn't know (or, apparently, care) whether she is cleared to discuss classified information in that meeting? You've got to be kidding.

And how about this one:

"Mr. Fitzgerald asked about a notation I made on the first page of my notes about this July 8 meeting, 'Former Hill staffer.'

"My recollection, I told him, was that Mr. Libby wanted to modify our prior understanding that I would attribute information from him to a 'senior administration official.' When the subject turned to Mr. Wilson, Mr. Libby requested that he be identified only as a 'former Hill staffer.' I agreed to the new ground rules because I knew that Mr. Libby had once worked on Capitol Hill."

Update: Patrick Fitzgerald has a reputation as a competent prosecutor; I very much doubt that the questions I'm posing above didn't also occur to him, although Miller gives no indication that any such questioning occurred ("And just why did Mr. Libby suddenly start discussing Ms. Wilson, Ms. Miller?"). Media critics are a different story; Howard Kurtz, for example, is oblivious to the subject.

Update update: For further recommended reading, see this post by Richard at American Leftist. Further recommended are my two posts above, this one on "weapons of moss destruction," and this one on the blockbuster revelation I missed in this post -- Miller's curious phone calls.

But even I didn't realize just how handpicked this group was. Several people have noted that five of the 10 were officers, making them hardly representative of the "troops," but it gets even worse. One of them, as noted by the Village Voice (with a hat tip to Cookie Jill at Skippy), is actually a flack - a public relations spokesperson for the Army. Yes, "officially" an Army person herself, but hardly one of the "troops." Unbelievable.

Update: By "coincidence," no doubt, it it just so happens that Corine Lombardo, the soldier in question, was in New York City on Nov. 11, 2001, when Bush attended an event recognizing soldiers for their recovery and rescue efforts at Ground Zero, which of course got mentioned, thereby tying in 9/11 to the war in Iraq during the course of this "spontaneous conversation."

"The show's creator, Rod Lurie, told television reporters before the season started that he hoped to influence American culture and thus its politics.

"'It's my dream to see something like this happen,' Lurie said, adding that he thought the odds still were against female candidates such as Clinton. 'However, if Hillary Clinton should get the nomination, we're all taking the credit.'

"The show's lead writer, Steve Cohen, once worked as Clinton's deputy communications coordinator, the Village Voice reported."

"This fall's new hit TV show 'Commander in Chief' could help a woman get elected president, some political observers say. By showing a strong female president leading in a time of war, the ABC show starring Geena Davis could help overcome some voters' lingering reluctance to put a woman in charge of national security...As the show's title suggests, early action focuses as much on her threatening military action as it does on her relationships with her husband and children."

"I was a scientist before I was a politician. And as a scientist I know you need facts, evidence and proof - and then you check, recheck and check again. The fact was that there were no facts, there was no evidence, and there was no proof. As a politician the most serious decision you can take is to commit your armed services to war from which they may not return."

- Margaret Thatcher, commenting on Tony Blair's decision to invade Iraq

"Lady Thatcher's office did not dispute her reported remarks but said she had been - and remained - in full support of the decision to oust Saddam by military means."

"You've got tremendous support here at home."

- George Bush, boldly addressing a group of hand-picked soldiers in Tikrit by video, since "the situation [isn't] such" that he can actually go there in person.

"As a campus police officer put Tariq Khan in a chokehold, a lunchtime crowd at George Mason University began egging the officer on. Chants of 'Kick his ass! Kick his ass!' were intermingled with cries of 'Punch him!' 'Kick him!' and 'Take him down!'

"Khan, 27, a four-year Air Force veteran and a junior at GMU, had been walking through the Johnson Center on September 29 when he saw a Marine recruiter. He made up a sign, 'Recruiters lie. Don't be deceived,' and silently stood next to the recruiter's table. Less than thirty minutes later he found himself in the chokehold. Backup police dragged Khan from the building, and one of them pulled out pepper spray.

"Khan, a sociology major, was taken to the Fairfax County jail and charged with disorderly conduct and trespassing. While there, he says, one officer told him, 'You people are the most dangerous people in the world.'

"'It's not just Madison or Mason or Holyoke. It's a national trend,' says Madison senior Ben Ratliffe. 'They're missing their recruiting numbers. It's a massively unpopular war. They certainly don't want a movement like this to take hold.'"

"What if they gave a war and no one came?" Boy, I'd sure like to find out. Unfortunately, my gut tells me they'll just keep upping the bonuses and other enticements to fill their quotas, because people always seem to be willing to sell their souls (or their lives) for a price.

Today it's another Knight-Ridder reporter, Dion Nissenbaum, in the news today because he and his photographer were briefly kidnapped in Gaza. Despite his Israeli-sounding name, Nissenbaum is actually a native of Massachusetts, who is currently serving as the Jerusalem bureau chief for Knight-Ridder. Unlike the bureau chiefs of other major newspapers and chains, however, who seem to take the "Jerusalem" part of their title literally, Nissenbaum actually believes in covering the entire region, including Gaza (as you can tell from the kidnapping). The last time he came to our attention, he was actually interviewing Palestinians waiting to reclaim their property in Gaza, and, remarkably, daring to mention that the Israelis then living in Gaza were in defiance of international law. This might not seem remarkable to European readers, where a simple statement of fact like that might go unnoticed, but in the United States, it's the rare article indeed which will dare to say so.

A few weeks ago, Nissenbaum wrote another fascinating article which I never got around to writing about, on the subject of Palestinian hip-hop. The article actually quotes, without hint of criticism, these lyrics:

"You call me the terrorist?
Who's the terrorist?
I'm the terrorist?
How am I the terrorist
When you've taken my land?!
Who's the terrorist?
You're the terrorist!
You've taken everything I own
While I'm living in my homeland."

"Where are the Arab people?
Where is the Arab blood?
Where is the Arab anger?
Where, where and where ...
Driving the coupe car
Smoking the cigar
Voting for the super star "American Idol"
And forgetting about our martyrs, wounded, prisoners. ... Have you heard the last news!?"

"Al Qaeda's wing in Iraq on Thursday rejected as a fabrication a letter by top group leader Ayman al-Zawahri which was issued by U.S. officials this week, according to an Internet posting.

"'We in Al Qaeda Organization announce that there is no truth to these claims, which are only based on the imagination of the politicians of the Black (White) House and their slaves,' the group said in a statement posted on an Islamist Web site."

Ahead of Vote, Trying to Make Sunni Iraq Safe

"A women was killed and 10 other people were wounded on Wednesday when U.S. force conducted an air strike on a residential district in Ramadi."

This is the cause for which Americans keep fighting, killing, and dying.

Contrast that with the treatment of the same story by the BBC (emphasis added):

US publishes 'al-Qaeda's letter'
"US intelligence has published in full what it says is a letter from al-Qaeda's number two to the man said to head the movement in Iraq. The letter from Ayman al-Zawahiri to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi appears to question insurgents' tactics. In particular, it appears to question the level of attacks on Iraq's Shias, as well as the manner in which hostages have been killed. News of the 6,000-word document first emerged last week. US officials insist they believe it is genuine and recent. But it is impossible to check that independently."

"What is clear is that the level of insurgent violence is putting enormous political pressure on the Iraqi government and the US-led coalition at the moment. So the fact that this is brought to light now may not be coincidental."

The interesting thing was to watch the similarities (and differences) to real life. The show starts with nine DEA agents killed in "San Cristobal" (or some such fakey-sounding Latin American country, I forget the exact name), and the President and her advisors plotting a tough response to avenge "spilled American blood." Were these DEA agents in the country illegally? We never know, nor does it seem to matter. The President immediately comes to the conclusion that the dictator of San Cristobal was personally responsible for the murders. The rest of the plot proceeds as if there isn't the slightest doubt about that conclusion, although the evidence we hear is only a wiretap in which the dictator says something like "If they keep sending agents, they'll keep dying," which could just be a prediction rather than any kind of admission of guilt. No matter, the President orders the coca fields "and all the cocaine labs" (all of whose locations they happen to know precisely) bombed, 25% of them each week, unless, as she announces on national TV, the people of San Cristobal arise and overthrow the dictator and restore the deposed, legally elected President, to power. Amazingly, the people of San Cristobal are all watching American television, and immediately rush to the Presidential palace and overthrow the dictator.

All of this is presented as completely admirable behavior -- we are supposed to admire the President's "tough" response and overlook both the jumping to conclusions and the illegal behavior which follows. The idea that the U.S. has the right to simply bomb a country which it suspects of some illegal activity is unquestioned; the fact that completely innocent people will die in the course of that action isn't even mentioned.

The most amusing part of the show is the conclusion, when American planes are about to fly the legally elected President back into the country to retake power. Too bad that in real life, it's exactly the opposite.

I just caught a piece on CNN by reporter Gary Tuchman, discussing how many of the residents of New Orleans Ninth Ward believe that the levees were blown intentionally to flood the Ninth Ward and rid the city of poor black people. There is no evidence for this as far as I know, but surely it would be relevant to note that it is a fact that, in 1927, a levee was deliberately dynamited to protect the richer residents of the city at the price of flooding two poorer parishes. A New Yorker article, which was mentioned by Tuchman and probably formed the impetus for the piece, notes this quite clearly as one of the perfectly rational reasons why people might think something similar had happened in 2005, albeit clandestinely rather than openly. CNN, however, evidently didn't think that bit of history was relevant to its reporting.

Update: Huey is thinking along the same lines:

Aaron McGruder

Is this letter genuine? There isn't any way for the average person to know. It could have been written by Zawahiri, it could have been written by the CIA, or it could have been written by any person pretending to be Zawahiri and trying to substitute their own strategy for whatever strategy Zawahiri is (or isn't) advocating. Take a look at the recent "threat to New York City subways" hoax and you'll see how easy the American authorities can be fooled, assuming that it isn't they who are doing the fooling. I say all this despite the fact that the advice itself seems perfectly sensible (and something any Marxist could completely identify with) -- maintaining and increasing "popular support from the Muslim masses." Nevertheless, the key thing about this letter isn't whether or not it's genuine, it's to understand why the U.S. government chose to release it at this time.

Here's the strangest part of the story: "The American intelligence official would not say...whether it was believed to have been received by Mr. Zarqawi." So let's try to understand this. Zawahiri tries to send a very important communication about strategy to Zarqawi. The U.S. government intercepts it. Zarqawi may not have received it, i.e., he may not have received this advice from Zawahiri. And, in the face of that, the U.S. government decides to post the letter on the Internet, thereby assuring that Zarqawi now does have the benefit of Zawahiri's advice. In-ter-est-ing.

Update: As noted last week when the alleged letter was first mentioned, the press treatment is uniformly to give the impression that this letter exists, and is what the U.S. government says it is. Here's a typical headline and lead, this one from Knight-Ridder:

Letter from bin Laden lieutenant outlines hopes, strategy in Iraq
A 6,000-word letter from Osama bin Laden's second-in-command to al-Qaida's leader in Iraq outlines the terrorist group's strategy to oust American troops from Iraq, create a militant Islamic state there, use that as a base to overthrow the governments of other Muslim nations and finally destroy Israel.

Update update: Remember when the U.S. government wouldn't allow tapes from bin Laden or Zawahiri to be broadcast on TV, using the excuse that there might be "hidden messages" in the broadcast that they couldn't allow to be transmitted? Now they release a 6,000-word letter from Zawahiri which could contain dozens of hidden messages for all they know. Curious, eh?

"Key Iraqi government leaders agreed Tuesday to change some of the most controversial points in the proposed constitution."

"Zalmay Khalilzad, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, played a key role in Tuesday's discussions, some said, because he facilitated the meeting, which otherwise probably wouldn't have taken place. British officials and members of the United Nations also were at the meeting."

"The U.S. has not planned, is not planning, will not plan and cannot plan to assassinate Hugo Chavez. It would be a violation of both U.S. law and policy."

- William Brownfield, American ambassador to Venezuela

Other polls reveal that a majority of Americans, and 100% of the writers of this blog, agree that there is no question of "if" in that poll question. Bush lied. Full stop.

[I should note parenthetically that asking a question with only these two options leaves a lot to be desired, since there are other options which might reflect someone's views more accurately than these two poles, not to mention the ambiguity of the phrase "as soon as possible." I don't actually believe that 59% of Americans agree with me that troops should be withdrawn this week. I do believe, however, that the sentiment to withdraw troops "quickly" is far, far greater than any such sentiment in Congress, and I also believe that the change in this poll in the last few weeks accurately reflects the increasing lack of support for the occupation of Iraq.]

Mike Keefe, Denver Post

The facts are, not that we would want facts to get in the way of a good story, that there has never been a shark attack within the waters of San Francisco Bay, and that, of the attacks which have occured in the Pacific Ocean itself, virtually all of them in which the species was identified have been by Great White Sharks, which do not occur in the Bay.

The amusing thing is that San Francisco Bay actually is "shark-infested," although I seriously doubt that the anchors on CNN or MSNBC had any clue that that was the case. San Francisco Bay is home to five varieties of smaller sharks, the kind that most people have never heard of, like the Leopard Shark and the Sevengill Cowshark. These species are so harmless (to humans) that I have watched them be netted and petted by a group of schoolchildren during a boat ride on the Bay, like this Sevengill:

<

"A driverless Volkswagen designed by Stanford University was declared the winner of a $2 million race across the rugged Nevada desert Sunday, beating four other robot-guided vehicles that completed a Pentagon-sponsored contest aimed at making warfare safer for humans."

Sadly, scientists are able to talk themselves all too easily into providing their talents in the service of this cause. Consider this from the race's winner:

"Thrun said he wanted to design automated systems to make next-generation cars safer for everyone, not just the military. 'If it was only for the military, I wouldn't be here today,' Thrun said."

Consider this story from the Los Angeles Times on the fighting in Western Iraq. The headline, and the lead, are that "Six U.S. Marines were killed by roadside bombs." As we read further, we are told that "The U.S. military said Friday that at least 50 suspected insurgents were killed." No mention of Iraqi civilians, until we get to this: "Sheik Usama Jadaan, a tribal leader in the city of Karabilah...said the fighting in the west was so brutal that residents 'are now seeing members of their families being killed in front of their own eyes by the American bombardment.'" And in response? "The allegations of civilian deaths could not be verified. Lt. Col. Steve Boylan, a U.S. military spokesman, said he had no reports of civilian casualties in the offensives." Of course, they could have been verified (or refuted) by a reporter actually going on site, or even calling the local hospitals, what the reporter means is that they weren't verified, and that their definition (as with all the corporate media) of "verification" is "acknowledged by the U.S. military." And the U.S. military didn't even deny it, they just claim (which is probably true) that they "had no reports" of civilian casualties.

And there the matter will rest, never to be mentioned again in the U.S. media, except indirectly, when the relatives of the dead and wounded civilians set the next round of IEDs, killing more U.S. soldiers, who deaths will once again make the headlines and be "verified."

Note also that there is no question that the deaths of "50 suspected insurgents" (nor any evidence that they were insurgents) could be verified; once again, the word of the U.S. military seems to be both the source of the news and the "verification" of the news.

Update: The Los Angeles Times at least mentions the possibility that civilians were killed. That puts it one step ahead of CNN, in whose story on the latest action, just as with the CNN Headline News piece discussed below, the idea that civilians might have been killed is never even raised.

"In earlier weeks, the demonstrations often deteriorated into violent clashes between stone-throwing protesters and baton-wielding soldiers and police officers, whose use of stun grenades, rubber bullets and tear gas made it look as if Israel was repressing dissent."

"Made it look as if Israel was repressing dissent? Just how far up in Cloud Cuckooland do you have to ascend before you can't recognize that stun grenades, rubber bullets and tear gas aren't designed to promote conversation?"

"The army was also trying to deny these experienced protesters any scenes that could be construed as brutal behavior, which feed an image of Israel that is becoming more widespread in Europe: a country of victims transformed into oppressors by their longtime occupation of Palestinian land."

"The military has said it will wrap up the operations in time for Sunni Arabs in the region to vote in the referendum."

And then, reports Eccleston, the "tragic consequences" (or some description along those lines, I'm writing from memory). Out of the rubble come a stream of women carrying babies, young men, and children -- not (apparently, anyway) an insurgent among them. And then? That's it, the footage returns to Eccleston, bemoaning the dangers of working as a reporter in Iraq. Not one word about the Iraqis! Were any of them killed? It would be a first-rate miracle worthy of canonization if none were, given the footage we just saw. Yet not only don't we see any such footage, the mere possibility that Iraqis had been killed by the trigger-happy Americans, firing at "suspected" targets, isn't even mentioned. Unbelievable.

[Picture restored after transferring to my Flickr site]

"I just want you to think, right now. If after this meeting, you go home and everything that you left at home was destroyed. And then just think that you have to go 30 days before the government came out to help you. And you have to wear the same clothes that you have on until you be able to hustle something else to wear. And nobody would offer you any assistance. How would you feel? How would you feel while you're layin' there waitin' on the government and your children is going hungry? How would you feel if you're contracting all kinds of disease. Now think how you would feel if some person of conscience would come there, bringing you clean clothes, feeding your children, offering you health care. How would you feel then? That's what you can do, by coming down and addressing the situation that exists now."

In news of the living, it's just come to my attention that one of my favorite artists, Patti Smith, is touring again, in conjunction with the 30th anniversary of the release of her seminal album, Horses. The concert I saw last year was amazing. The only information I can find is that she'll be at Madison Square Garden on Nov. 21/22, opening for U2, and at the Great American Music Hall in San Francisco on Nov. 14. Look for me there!

Yesterday Bush gave us 16 more words: "The United States and our partners have disrupted at least ten serious al Qaeda terrorist plots." True to form, having learned precisely nothing, the media is not only reporting that assertion, but trumpeting it in large type. Although Bush said a lot of things in this speech, some of which are discussed in posts below this one, here are the headlines:

• New York Times: "10 Plots Foiled Since Sept. 11, Bush Declares"
• Washington Post: "Bush Says 10 Plots by Al Qaeda Were Foiled"
• San Jose Mercury News (Knight-Ridder): "Bush: 10 terror plots were foiled"

"A listing, produced hastily several hours after Mr. Bush's speech, also included some previously known cases, including the one that led to the arrest in May 2002 of Jose Padilla, who intelligence officials say was exploring the possibility of setting off a dirty bomb in an American city. It was not immediately clear whether other items on the list represented significant threats."

"It turns out that last year some time, 'U.S. officials last year backed off that claim [the dirty bomb claim] and said Padilla had plotted with Al Qaeda leaders to blow up apartment buildings by using natural gas.' Since Padilla, as far as any leaked rumors about him go (no actual charges have been filed against him, of course, nor any actual evidence made public) is still only accused of thinking about doing bad things, I think we should just call him the "alleged gedanken bomber" and leave it at that.

Isn't it strange that the U.S. can intercept communications between two people, neither of whose locations it knows? Truly amazing, I'd say.

"Venezuela has moved its central bank foreign reserves out of U.S. banks, liquidated its investments in U.S. Treasury securities and placed the funds in Europe, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said Friday."

"Some have also argued that extremism has been strengthened by the actions of our coalition in Iraq, claiming that our presence in that country has somehow caused or triggered the rage of radicals. I would remind them that we were not in Iraq on September the 11th, 2001 -- and al Qaeda attacked us anyway. The hatred of the radicals existed before Iraq was an issue, and it will exist after Iraq is no longer an excuse."

"Over the years these extremists have used a litany of excuses for violence -- the Israeli presence on the West Bank, or the U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia, or the defeat of the Taliban, or the Crusades of a thousand years ago."

As for the rest of Bush's "argument" -- "We're facing a radical ideology with inalterable objectives: to enslave whole nations and intimidate the world." -- I've already addressed that piffle. al Qaeda wasn't even in control of Afghanistan, one of the weakest (politically and militarily) countries in the world; it hardly has as its objective to "enslave whole nations." That's your goal, George.

Does anyone think it's mere coincidence that, on the day Bush delivers this speech, New York City is suddenly in a panic over alleged threats to the subway system?

"The San Francisco Police Commission fired a police officer Wednesday night for filing an 'intentionally inaccurate' report on a 2003 confrontation in which he broke the arm of an anti-war demonstrator he claimed was threatening him with a protest sign.

"Nelson's report said Vaccarezza had been advancing on him with a sign attached to a wooden stick when he struck her. The video showed that she was retreating and that the sign was a flimsy placard with no stick when she was hit."

...but after 29 years, there's still no justice in another case:

"Family and friends of 73 people killed when a Cuban airliner was blown out of the sky 29 years ago marked the tragedy's anniversary on Thursday by bitterly accusing the United States of harboring the bombers.

"'The families of the victims [of 9/11] in the United States are waiting like we are for justice. ... We demand ( President Bush) stop looking for excuses to protect (Luis) Posada Carriles and Orlando Bosch,' [Margarita Morales, whose father and the junior Cuban fencing team he coached died in the 1976 plane blast] told the mourners, many of whom, with tears in their eyes, wore T-shirts or carried placards with pictures of the dead."

"Some observers also claim that America would be better off by cutting our losses and leaving Iraq now. This is a dangerous illusion, refuted with a simple question: Would the United States and other free nations be more safe, or less safe, with Zarqawi and bin Laden in control of Iraq, its people, and its resources? Having removed a dictator who hated free peoples, we will not stand by as a new set of killers, dedicated to the destruction of our own country, seizes control of Iraq by violence."

OK, I admit that expecting logic from George Bush is itself illogical. Forgive me.

"Up to 15 months of survival without significant side effects has been achieved in children suffering from brain tumors who were treated with the Cuban biopharmaceutical CIMAher, as part of Phase II of the clinical trials carried out by the German Oncoscience AG biotechnical company."

"'When people ask me why I go to Cuba to build playgrounds for children, I say to them, 'you've never been to Cuba, and you've never seen a Cuban child,'' says Bill Hauf, a tall, affable businessman from San Diego, California.

"Hauf is founder and director of a non-profit group, It's Just the Kids, 'dedicated to the needs of Cuban children,' according to its website, www.itsjustthekids.org. The group has built seven playgrounds in Havana city parks since 2003 and is planning to build four more."

(Hat tip to Under the Same Sun)

I don't visit the Angry Arab blog as much as I used to, but one thing he seems to have remarkable access to are pictures like the one above. Pictures which he always accompanies with great captions, like this one:

Don't allow this picture to fool you. These terrified children in Tikrit are not innocent, and US occupiers know what they are doing. The child to the left is a senior aide to Abu Mus'ab Zarqawi.

Probably #2.

You know, when you have to walk around a country you are occupying dressed like this American soldier, something is very, very wrong. But you all knew that.

"The United States makes no distinction between those who commit acts of terror and those who support and harbor terrorists, because they are equally guilty of murder."

- George Bush, speaking this morning

Meanwhile, yesterday on CNN I was treated to a long segment featuring the reactionary, racist, homophobic views of the "Reverend" Franklin Graham, discussing his "theory" of Hurricane Katrina: "There's been Satanic worship in New Orleans. There's been sexual perversion. God is going to use that storm to bring a revival. God has a plan. God has a purpose." Reverend Graham can spout his theories in his church all he likes, but does CNN have to give him a five-minute segment to promulgate it to the world? CNN's host John King did give Graham a reasonable grilling, including this zinger:

"Sir, I was in New Orleans last week, and as the French Quarter started to reopen among the first businesses to reopen were the strip clubs. By your account of God's purpose, I would assume that things aren't going as you would envision them or wish them so far?"

There's fighting going on between U.S. forces and Iraqi resistance fighters in Ramadi. A few days ago, five U.S. soldiers were killed by a roadside bomb, in a story that was, naturally, widely reported in the American press.

Two days ago, six more people were killed in Ramadi, but the story has as far as I can tell not been reported by a single Western news outlet, who are too busy covering George Bush's press "availability" today where he's busy (mis)informing the American public about the "progress" being made in Iraq:

"Six members of a family died today and another 27 people were injured when U.S. tanks and planes bombed a group of houses in the city of Ramadi, 110 kilometers west of Baghdad, EFE reported.

"Sources at the Ramadi general hospital affirmed that they had received the bodies of a city government official, Jalid al-Hasan, his wife and their four children."

Update: BBC World tonight featured a piece on the fighting in northern Iraq. We were "treated" to shots of U.S. forces using night scopes and simply blasting a series of houses apart, clearly not in response to any immediate firing but presumably in response to "tips" about where the "bad guys" were located. Shot after shot after house after house reduced to rubble; a few less "voters" to worry about whether to vote for or against the Constitution. Then, finally, some shots we would never see on an American newscast -- pictures of dead babies and other civilians in an Iraqi hospital, "fresh kill" of the American assault. No evidence, by the way, of any of the Iraqi forces about whom George Bush spoke so highly today.

"After hearing a presentation from retired Gen. Wesley Clark on Tuesday night [Sept. 20], a bloc of House Democrats who have been calling for an immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq admitted Clark's comments are prompting them to take a new look at the issue.

"Clark met privately with the members of the Out of Iraq Caucus to give them his perspective on the ongoing conflict and offer advice on how Democrats should frame their arguments for bringing troops home. His call: Avoid specific timelines for withdrawal and focus instead on calling for and developing strategies for success that rely not on the military, but on diplomacy.

"Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), who formed the Out of Iraq Caucus, said Clark gave the group 'good recommendations' about how to move forward in talking about bringing an end to the war and developing a strategy to bring home U.S. forces. The Out of Iraq Caucus is developing a strategic plan on the matter to be released in the coming months."

Update: Just to elaborate on a bit on the reasons why Congressional Democrats shouldn't be proposing a "plan for withdrawal." First and foremost, it is not their job, and is, in fact, illegal. Congress cannot withdraw the troops, or conduct diplomacy; that's the job of the Executive Branch. "Developing a plan" for withdrawal is George Bush's job.

But there are at least two things that Congress can do. One would be to repeal the Montgomery amendment which removes control of the National Guard from the Governors to which it formerly belonged, which would thereby allow Governors to withdraw their Guard from the war (and in turn, cause the entire war to collapse). The second would be to vote against any and all funds being expended for the war against Iraq, like the Defense Spending bill coming up this week. OK, for a third, they could impeach George Bush, but while that's directly related to why the U.S. invaded Iraq, it doesn't have any necessary correlation with withdrawing from Iraq, so let's leave that out in this context. But anything else the Congress does is just talk. If they want to call themselves the "Out of Iraq" Caucus, then, by God, do something to prove it, and stop talking about "developing a plan."

The funny thing is, at the beginning of the report I was actually feeling sorry for the police officers, who, although they weren't laid off like 3,000 other New Orleans city employees, are no longer being paid due to lack of funds -- the city is actually negotiating with United Way (a charity!) to pay them. Curiously enough, charities are not being asked to pay the expenses of Halliburton, Bechtel and their ilk; for them there's plenty of government money. Maybe that will help open the eyes of these police officers to the nature of the society they're protecting when they kill people under these orders.

That's Bill O'Reilly, sounding precisely like the kind of God that George Bush and his ilk pray to. And the reaction from the media and liberals? So far, I cannot find a single reference to O'Reilly's outrageous (and, must I mention it, illegal) words outside of Media Matters for America and Democracy Now!.

"While the English version of the interim constitution suggested that the referendum would fail if two-thirds of participating voters rejected it, the Arabic version called for two-thirds rejection from registered voters. [Ed. note: why is there an English version at all? I'm unaware that English is an official second language of Iraq]

"The Assembly also decided Monday that the document needed only majority approval from participating, rather than registered, voters to pass -- in effect, lowering the bar for passage while it was being raised for rejection. [Ed. note: this was before the reversal of the rules for rejection]

"What was supposed to be a final draft of the constitution was sent to be printed and has yet to be distributed. Despite this, political leaders still are discussing ways to refine the language or make subsequent changes."

Adding insult to injury, CNN reported this morning that even after the Constitution is printed, there are no plans to distribute it in Anbar Province due to the dangers involved.

Sheehan's been spending a lot of time being interviewed by the mainstream press, and more recently she's spent a lot of time talking to members of Congress. Pressures like that have a tendancy to make one want to be "respectable," and have "reasonable" positions (rather than principled ones). Here are a few quotes from an interview Sheehan did with Ross McGowan on KTVU this morning (transcription mine from a videotape):

McGOWAN: You have called for a complete pullout of our troops. What is your plan? How do you see this coming down?

SHEEHAN: I believe that our military presence was never necessary there, and it's still not necessary. I don't have a plan. I think that we have to start withdrawing our military presence there, help the Iraqis as much as they need, put an Arab face on it. I am getting together some people, we're inviting generals, and foreign policy experts, and we're going to hammer out a plan, and we're going to do it as soon as possible. You know, I don't have any of the answers, I just know that George Bush and his administration have made a terrible mess there and its going to take a lot of wisdom to get us out of this mess.

McGOWAN: Have you had a chance to sit down with the former President Bill Clinton or Hillary Clinton, who support what we are doing in there right now?

SHEEHAN: I met with Mrs. Clinton, I haven't met with Bill Clinton yet, the former President. I believe that Hillary will be ready to lead our country out of this mess, but I believe this is urgent, and I believe it needs to start right now, we don't have time to waste. Almost three soldiers are killed every day, and how many Iraqis are killed every day while we wait, while we wait for the right time to do it? Today is the right time to start talking about bringing our troops home.

It looks to me like the same antiwar progressives who were preaching the "Anybody But Bush" gospel in the last election, and urging us to vote for "send 40,000 more troops" Kerry, are beginning to have a regrettable influence on Cindy Sheehan.

"The war issue is not complicated: wrong to invade and wrong to stay. Bring our troops home. Simple."

- Cindy Sheehan

"19 troops were needlessly killed in Iraq this past week. 19 families were destroyed senselessly and avoidably. Hundreds of innocent Iraqis were killed for just being home that day, just being out shopping, or just going about their daily lives. An average of almost three of our young men and women are killed everyday in George's abomination. While the War Hawk Repbublicans are wrongfully supporting a wrongheaded war and the 'anti-war' Dems are hemming and hawing about the politics of this administration's misguided and evil policies, how many more families will get the news that their lives have been destroyed in the tragic meantime?

"What are they waiting for?"

"Venezuelans tortured by terrorist of Cuban origin are today preparing the files of their cases and those of disappeared comrades in order to support the demand for the criminal's extradition.

"Jesus Marrero, coordinator of the group of victims affected by Posada during the years in which he had a high position in the Venezuelan political police (DISIP), explained to Prensa Latina that the initiative is an attempt to bring about justice.

"Marrero, who was tortured at the orders of Posada, considers the decision of the U.S. judge not to hand the criminal over to Venezuelan authorities under the pretext that he may be tortured, an insult to Posada's victims.

"He pointed out that this judge should call as a witness Brenda Esquivel, who was beaten on Posada's orders until she lost the child she was carrying because the criminal thought that 'the bad seed' must be done away with.

"Marrero detailed other cases for which they are gathering testimonies and evidence, including the murder of Pancho Alegria and the disappearance of Noel Rodriguez, who was detained by the DISIP and whose family is still searching for his remains."

"Ms. Reyes said the assembly members had not changed election law, but only clarified the meaning of the word 'voters' in the relevant passage. The legal passage in question states: 'The general referendum will be successful and the draft constitution ratified if a majority of voters in Iraq approve and if two-thirds of voters in three or more governorates do not reject it.'

"In their vote on Sunday, the Shiite and Kurdish members interpreted the law as follows: the constitution will pass if a majority of ballots are cast for it; it will fail if two-thirds of registered voters in three or more provinces vote against it. In other words, the lawmakers designated two different meanings for the word 'voters' in one passage."

"As Congress completes action on the 2006 appropriations bills, I call on members to make real cuts in nonsecurity spending. The heart of America is big enough to be generous and responsible at the same time."

Aren't you "responsible" with your head, and not your heart? And how exactly does it demonstrate the "generosity" of America's "heart" to cut spending in education, health care, housing, and the other social needs which George Bush has spent the last five years cutting?

The engine that drives growth and job creation in America is the private sector. (referring to the rebuilding of New Orleans)

Pretty funny claim coming from someone during whose term the only reason employment has not declined (in absolute terms, not even just relative to the growing size of the population) is because of the growth of the public sector.

QUESTION: Mr. President, of all of the people in the United States you had to choose from, is Harriet Miers the most qualified to serve on the Supreme Court?

BUSH: Yes. Otherwise, I wouldn't have put her on.

Why, oh why, do people insist on either asking such questions or answering them like that. The notion that there is some one person who is the "most qualified" of all the people in the United States to serve on the Supreme Court is simply ludicrous. Can't the questioner, and the responder, just limit themselves to the question of whether Miers is "qualified," or "extremely well qualified," or whatever, without resorting to the absurd fiction that she is the "most" qualified?

As I said the other day, to the extent that the federal government fell down on the job [in Katrina response], I take responsibility...And I command a large, vast administration, and people I put in place, you know, I take responsibility for the decisions they made...I'll take responsibility. I'll take all the responsibility for the failures at the federal level.

So can we conclude he's resigning? Agreeing that he should be jailed for criminal negligence, or for the deliberate actions he took which led to hundreds of deaths? What exactly does he mean by "he takes responsibility"?

I'm a pro-life president.

Well, that would account for his taking pride in being responsible for the deaths of thousands of Afghan civilians and tens of thousands of Iraqis, not to mention sending two thousand Americans and two hundred allied forces to their deaths.

She [Miers] just didn't kind of opine about things; she actually led...I know people are jumping to all kinds of conclusions. And that's fine. That's part of our process, you know. People are quick to opine...People can opine all they want, but the final opinion is at the floor of the United States Senate.

Ooh, somebody learned a new word today.

"The Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee on Monday quickly approved the $440.2 billion fiscal 2006 Defense spending bill, including $50 billion to pay for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan."

Just because I like to do the math to "bring it home," I'll note that that $440 billion defense [sic] authorization is $1450 for every woman, man, and child in the United States, or $4000 for every household. The spending for the continuing occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan alone amount to $450 per household for this year alone. I know I can think of better uses for the money.

"The reason why they're fighting us is not Osama bin Laden. They're fighting us because we're here. . . . They don't want us here. They just want us to leave. I guess that would be a victory for them. As far as I can see there's not going to be any victory for us."

"In past situations you've had a good guy and a bad guy and the troops were impassioned, but now troops just want to go home. I don't feel like there's a cause. I don't personally think there's a reason for this."

"'It takes nothing,' he said with a half-grin. 'I don't care about these people.'"

The American military -- building "democracy" and "freedom"...one dead Iraqi at a time.

"It was supposed to be a good thing: For the first time in its 40-year history, Medicare would help seniors pay for their prescription drugs.

"The new plan is so complicated -- and an advertising blitz by private insurers will be so intense -- that analysts believe it will be extremely difficult for the elderly to make sense of the dozens of drug plans to choose from.

"Some who do sign up may find their new program doesn't cover their medications. Others may save thousands of dollars a year, and still others may face higher co-pays and deductibles. Meanwhile, anyone who inadvertently picks a policy incompatible with their Medicare Advantage health plan may wind up losing their underlying medical coverage.

"And yet, while the Medicare plan is considered 'voluntary,' seniors who delay enrollment could face stiff financial penalties down the road.

"There is no one-size-fits-all program. And Medicare beneficiaries face an overwhelming number of choices. In California alone, there will be dozens of plans offered by nearly 40 companies, although some won't be available everywhere."

How would you rate the job President Bush has done combating terrorism and protecting America against future attacks - excellent, good, fair, poor? - By itself, this might not be a terrible question, although it certainly doesn't challenge the notion that "combating terrorism" is a priority, or question the relation of America's foreign policy to terrorism, or challenge the notion that the U.S. is even fighting a "war on terrorism." All that being said, the worst aspect of the question is the three which follow it, which are all about Iraq, thereby implicitly supporting Bush's contention that U.S. troops are in Iraq to fight terrorism.

Is the United States on target to meet its objectives in Iraq - yes, no, don't know? - The notion that the U.S. has objectives in Iraq, or that, whatever they might be, they would be legal, moral, or in any way acceptable, is totally unchallenged.

How comfortable do you feel with the President's handling of the war in Iraq - very, somewhat, slightly, very uncomfortable? - What a strange question? My "comfort" has nothing to do with it. And even if it were, the President is hardly the only one making me feel "uncomfortable." How about the Democrats who keep voting more money for war, or the ones, the prominent ones, who keep calling for more troops to be sent to Iraq?

And finally, Do you think the President should establish a time frame for bringing our troops home - yes, no, undecided? No, I think you Congressional Democrats who sent me this survey should establish the time frame by voting to deny any funds to the military for use in Iraq and demanding the troops be brought home now. Leave it to the Congressional Democrats, though, to try to put the onus on Bush, and to allow him to satisfy them by "establishing a time frame," which will no doubt have about the same significance as the famous "road map" for peace between Israel and the Palestinians.

" I considered a wide variety of distinguished Americans from different walks of life."

- announcing the nomination of White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.

"These are people from all walks of life, all income groups."

- describing a group of line workers at an automobile plant in Mississippi that he spoke to

Wampum has a longer take on this subject.

And what is this minor news which is being buried in the press?

"[The Iraqi] parliament voted Sunday to alter the rules of the constitutional election. It decided that in order for the draft to be defeated, two-thirds of registered voters -- rather than two-thirds of those who cast ballots -- in three provinces must vote against it."

Update: The New York Times runs a full article on the subject, noting, among other things, that "the United Nations had expressed dissatisfaction on Monday with the rule change, and that the National Assembly would meet Tuesday to reconsider it."

"Bush's ownership society turns out to be the on-your-ownership society."

- Katha Pollitt, writing in The Nation

"If you think of current behavior as an advance accommodation to what is on the way, some things make sense that otherwise are mysterious. Why, at the very moment that we are talking obsessively about academic 'excellence' and leaving no child behind, are we turning our public schools into factories of rote learning and multiple-choice testing, as if learning how to read and count were some huge accomplishment? Well, if your fate is to be a supermarket checker--and that's a 'good job' these days--you won't be needing Roman history or art or calculus."

"A liberal is someone who thinks that things like the invasion of Iraq, the pathetic response to Hurricane Katrina, and all the other 'bad' things that happen are the irrational outcomes of a perfectly rational system. A radical is someone who thinks they are the perfectly rational outcomes of a completely irrational system."