Enemy Combatant
Thursday, February 27, 2003
So the Supreme Court decides to throw the civil rights community a meager bone? All except Clarence Thomas, of course -- "the Supreme Court's cruelest justice."
My quick take on Thomas's dissent: "Ain't no racism here! Why, look, I went over everything with a fine toothcomb, and if you slice it all thin enough, it's just not racism -- no matter what all those crackers in the majority say! Why, it's just like the Rodney King video -- slow it all down to molasses, and analyze the shit out of each frame, and -- presto! -- the police brutality just disappears!"
Thomas needs to get to the doctor, to have that racism hyperopia looked at.
Wednesday, February 26, 2003
I have yet to see any major American media reporting this war crime from the first Gulf War; shouldn't somebody be prosecuted for this?
Tuesday, February 25, 2003
This story at Talking Points Memo is a good one: Seems the New Hampshire GOP paid a group to "get out the vote," and they instead used that money to jam the Democratic Party's phone banks.
Late last week, the head of the New Hampshire GOP, Jayne Millerick, told the [Manchester] Union Leader that she's decided not to seek any refund after all, preferring instead to "move forward."
"Move forward" -- translated from GOPspeak, that means, "Quick, kids! Scatter! It's the cops!"
"Ours is a useful trade, a worthy calling: With all its lightness and frivolity, it has one serious purpose; one aim; one specialty and it is constant to it: The deriding of shams; the exposure of pretentious falsities; the laughing of stupid superstitions out of existence. And that whoso is by instinct engaged in this sort of warfare is the natural enemy of royalties, nobilities, privileges and all kindred swindles -- and the natural friend of human rights, and human liberties." -- Mark Twain
Boy, the "moral clarity" of the Endless War Against a Vicious Method of Warfare just keeps smacking us in the face, doesn't it? If what Seymour Hersh tells us is true, don't we need to begin impeachment proceedings against both Bush and Cheney NOW? Before they start ANOTHER war?
Monday, February 17, 2003
Statement by US Senator Robert Byrd
Senate Floor Speech
We Stand Passively Mute
Wednesday 12 February 2003
"To contemplate war is to think about the most horrible of human experiences. On this February day, as this nation stands at the brink of battle, every American on some level must be contemplating the horrors of war.
Yet, this Chamber is, for the most part, silent -- ominously, dreadfully silent. There is no debate, no discussion, no attempt to lay out for the nation the pros and cons of this particular war. There is nothing.
We stand passively mute in the United States Senate, paralyzed by our own uncertainty, seemingly stunned by the sheer turmoil of events. Only on the editorial pages of our newspapers is there much substantive discussion of the prudence or imprudence of engaging in this particular war.
And this is no small conflagration we contemplate. This is no simple attempt to defang a villain. No. This coming battle, if it materializes, represents a turning point in U.S. foreign policy and possibly a turning point in the recent history of the world.
This nation is about to embark upon the first test of a revolutionary doctrine applied in an extraordinary way at an unfortunate time. The doctrine of preemption -- the idea that the United States or any other nation can legitimately attack a nation that is not imminently threatening but may be threatening in the future -- is a radical new twist on the traditional idea of self defense. It appears to be in contravention of international law and the UN Charter. And it is being tested at a time of world-wide terrorism, making many countries around the globe wonder if they will soon be on our -- or some other nation's -- hit list.
High level Administration figures recently refused to take nuclear weapons off of the table when discussing a possible attack against Iraq. What could be more destabilizing and unwise than this type of uncertainty, particularly in a world where globalism has tied the vital economic and security interests of many nations so closely together? There are huge cracks emerging in our time-honored alliances, and U.S. intentions are suddenly subject to damaging worldwide speculation. Anti-Americanism based on mistrust, misinformation, suspicion, and alarming rhetoric from U.S. leaders is fracturing the once solid alliance against global terrorism which existed after September 11.
Here at home, people are warned of imminent terrorist attacks with little guidance as to when or where such attacks might occur. Family members are being called to active military duty, with no idea of the duration of their stay or what horrors they may face. Communities are being left with less than adequate police and fire protection. Other essential services are also short-staffed. The mood of the nation is grim. The economy is stumbling. Fuel prices are rising and may soon spike higher.
This Administration, now in power for a little over two years, must be judged on its record. I believe that that record is dismal.
In that scant two years, this Administration has squandered a large projected surplus of some $5.6 trillion over the next decade and taken us to projected deficits as far as the eye can see. This Administration's domestic policy has put many of our states in dire financial condition, under funding scores of essential programs for our people. This Administration has fostered policies which have slowed economic growth. This Administration has ignored urgent matters such as the crisis in health care for our elderly. This Administration has been slow to provide adequate funding for homeland security. This Administration has been reluctant to better protect our long and porous borders.
In foreign policy, this Administration has failed to find Osama bin Laden. In fact, just yesterday we heard from him again marshaling his forces and urging them to kill. This Administration has split traditional alliances, possibly crippling, for all time, International order-keeping entities like the United Nations and NATO. This Administration has called into question the traditional worldwide perception of the United States as well-intentioned, peacekeeper. This Administration has turned the patient art of diplomacy into threats,labeling, and name calling of the sort that reflects quite poorly on the intelligence and sensitivity of our leaders, and which will have consequences for years to come.
Calling heads of state pygmies, labeling whole countries as evil, denigrating powerful European allies as irrelevant -- these types of crude insensitivities can do our great nation no good. We may have massive military might, but we cannot fight a global war on terrorism alone. We need the cooperation and friendship of our time-honored allies as well as the newer found friends whom we can attract with our wealth.
Our awesome military machine will do us little good if we suffer another devastating attack on our homeland which severely damages our economy. Our military manpower is already stretched thin and we will need the augmenting support of those nations who can supply troop strength, not just sign letters cheering us on.
The war in Afghanistan has cost us $37 billion so far, yet there is evidence that terrorism may already be starting to regain its hold in that region. We have not found bin Laden, and unless we secure the peace in Afghanistan, the dark dens of terrorism may yet again flourish in that remote and devastated land.
Pakistan as well is at risk of destabilizing forces. This Administration has not finished the first war against terrorism and yet it is eager to embark on another conflict with perils much greater than those in Afghanistan. Is our attention span that short? Have we not learned that after winning the war one must always secure the peace?
And yet we hear little about the aftermath of war in Iraq. In the absence of plans, speculation abroad is rife. Will we seize Iraq's oil fields, becoming an occupying power which controls the price and supply of that nation's oil for the foreseeable future? To whom do we propose to hand the reigns of power after Saddam Hussein?
Will our war inflame the Muslim world resulting in devastating attacks on Israel? Will Israel retaliate with its own nuclear arsenal? Will the Jordanian and Saudi Arabian governments be toppled by radicals, bolstered by Iran which has much closer ties to terrorism than Iraq?
Could a disruption of the world's oil supply lead to a world-wide recession? Has our senselessly bellicose language and our callous disregard of the interests and opinions of other nations increased the global race to join the nuclear club and made proliferation an even more lucrative practice for nations which need the income?
In only the space of two short years this reckless and arrogant Administration has initiated policies which may reap disastrous consequences for years.
One can understand the anger and shock of any President after the savage attacks of September 11. One can appreciate the frustration of having only a shadow to chase and an amorphous, fleeting enemy on which it is nearly impossible to exact retribution.
But to turn one's frustration and anger into the kind of extremely destabilizing and dangerous foreign policy debacle that the world is currently witnessing is inexcusable from any Administration charged with the awesome power and responsibility of guiding the destiny of the greatest superpower on the planet. Frankly many of the pronouncements made by this Administration are outrageous. There is no other word.
Yet this chamber is hauntingly silent. On what is possibly the eve of horrific infliction of death and destruction on the population of the nation of Iraq -- a population, I might add, of which over 50% is under age 15 -- this chamber is silent. On what is possibly only days before we send thousands of our own citizens to face unimagined horrors of chemical and biological warfare -- this chamber is silent. On the eve of what could possibly be a vicious terrorist attack in retaliation for our attack on Iraq, it is business as usual in the United States Senate. We are truly "sleepwalking through history." In my heart of hearts I pray that this great nation and its good and trusting citizens are not in for a rudest of awakenings.
To engage in war is always to pick a wild card. And war must always be a last resort, not a first choice. I truly must question the judgment of any President who can say that a massive unprovoked military attack on a nation which is over 50% children is "in the highest moral traditions of our country". This war is not necessary at this time. Pressure appears to be having a good result in Iraq. Our mistake was to put ourselves in a corner so quickly. Our challenge is to now find a graceful way out of a box of our own making. Perhaps there is still a way if we allow more time."
Sunday, February 16, 2003
Let's see the bought-and-paid-for media try to spin this away . . .
(and thanks to Diane Everett for collecting the pictures -- that one of the guy in the hazmat suit clutching a photo of a serviceman -- his son? -- gets me every time)
I'm amazed and glad to see Chris Matthews come out in opposition to invading Iraq. "Every Arab school a madrass school" and likening Bush's foreign policy to Bernard Goetz are only two of his better bon mots. Here's a snippet:
. . . We're taking on a billion people. A battle for Baghdad could ignite a war with Islam. I think people in the Muslim world are going to see this as the Second Crusades. Every geography book in the world is going to say "American-occupied Iraq" over the map of Iraq. That's going to be the most glaring indignity the Arabs have ever faced. Every school in the Arab world will be a madrass school.
The way bin Laden points to the U.S. military bases in Saudi ArabiaÖ
Right. And nobody ever explained to me why we kept troops there all these years, when we know it drove them crazy. We're not even using them this time around. So why not get them out? Why didn't we recognize how much it bothered them spiritually and politically?
I know one thing: There are a billion Islamic people in the world today, and there will be about 2 billion by the time we're dead. They're not going to give up their religion. Five years from now, 10 years from now, there's going to be a huge Islamic population in the world, they're going to be nationalistic, they're going to be religious, and they're going to be militant. The question will be, "Do they hate us or not? Do they have a grievance?"
Well, do they?
Well, they will after this, won't they?
Friday, February 14, 2003
On the radio last night I heard a number of scientists and others working in the area of chemical and biological weapons, who all sounded a bit exasperated about the whole "duct tape and plastic sheeting" advice coming out of Washington.
They pointed out that, for one thing, such an attack probably would come without advance warning, so you'd have to "duct tape" your house (or at least a room) beforehand. But that's not the REAL kicker: In order to prevent contamination, what you'd need to do is to seal up at least one room, airtight.
Which leaves you, of course, with one OTHER big problem: Air.
You'll have about 5 hours' supply, before you pass out and die.
Which I thought particularly appropriate, given how this administration manages to spread disinformation at every turn -- even (on that extremely rare occasion) where it may not mean to.
So here's Homeland Security's big disaster plan, folks: Seal up the house. Drink the Kool-Aid. Lace up those Nikes.
Our Great Leader is taking us on a marvelous adventure, out behind Saturn, where we will all be whooshed away Home!
Thursday, February 13, 2003
A few questions for those who support a preemptive invasion of Iraq: First off, yeah, I'll readily concede that Saddam is surely one of the "bad guys" on the world stage -- but that's a pretty big crowd. Always has been, always will be.
Just because Chickenhawk Little in the White House is screaming "The sky is falling in!" is no reason to believe him, however -- since it's been proven eight ways from Sunday that he's lied to us continuously and repeatedly about the "dangers" of Saddam, and his "partnership" with Osama.
(Question: If a dozen hunters throw enough lead around the forest, and manage to drive both a bobcat and a snake up the same tree -- does that mean the bobcat and the snake are "cohabiting" up there? It's about as ridiculous as what Colin Powell has been nattering about the past week -- Osama's tape calls Saddam an infidel, and asks the Iraqi people to OVERTHROW HIM! Does that mean there's a "linkage" between Osama and Boy George?)
So what's Saddam got that Kim Il Sung (of N. Korea) HASN'T got? (Hint: It's one word, and it rhymes with "linoleum.") And why aren't we going after Kim first? (Answer: Because he can actually fight back -- with nukes.)
Wednesday, February 12, 2003
This administration is proving, on a daily basis, that its foreign policy (which is to say, its reelection campaign) now consists of nothing more than Stoking the Jihad. The CIA tells us a preemptive strike against Iraq is almost certain to bring more terrorist attacks here at home. But apparently the Bushies think that's an acceptable risk. Of course they do -- THEY won't be the ones wounded or killed. And if it's not them -- well, as they've proven time and again -- they just don't care.
Tuesday, February 11, 2003
With apologies to the late Robert Frost:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I --
I took the road all despots try
And that has made all the difference . . .
Sunday, February 09, 2003
And the hits just keep on coming! After the travesty of Colin Powell's presentation to the UN (which, if you discount the lies and exaggerations, shows that Saddam is definitely trying to hide something) one must conclude that Powell failed to prove (or even address, really) the second, crucial part of the equation -- what is the wisest thing to do about it right now? When the evil dictator with WMD has nook-u-lar weapons, and regularly threatens to use them on us -- well, that's when our unelected government downplays the danger, and pooh-poohs the threats.
On the other hand, when it's Iraq -- a nation far weaker than it was twelve years ago, when we last destroyed it militarily -- why, we can just waltz right in and take over. It's absurdist theater in place of a foreign policy, and worthy of a Monty-Pythonesque parody.
Friday, February 07, 2003
It occurs to me this morning that government is simply a tool. Democrats treat it like they own it; Republicans treat it like a rental.
Thursday, February 06, 2003
I must say I did find this a bit disturbing -- until I realized what Clinton was advocating back in '98 was stepped-up inspections, not war.
Nathan Newman points out how Bush sells out the Kurds -- for a third time. Gosh, why do they hate us?
And enough about the dead astronauts already -- can't we grow a sense of perspective here, people?
(That last link was to CNNLies, the blog of a webfriend, Denis.)
