I protest.

Can you say "atrocity?"

Originally reported yesterday in most places, another blog puts it like it really is:

Warblogging.com: Tragedy in Iraq

One or two stories mentioned the Captain's orders to his troups and his shouts. Most, though, just repeated the official word that the driver ignored warnings and warning shots. Unfortunately, it looks like any warning shots that were given were much too late.

"Cease fire! You just fucking killed a family because you didn't fire a warning shot soon enough!"

. . . I knew that you could.

AAAAUGH!

It's The Dog From Hell!!

Run away! Run away!

A British journalist's perspective.

Robert Fisk is a reporter for The Independent, a daily newspaper in Britain. ArabNews has published this article by Fisk: ArabNews: A ‘Truly Remarkable Achievement’.

This is an opinion piece, of course. It's also a pretty damning indictment of the war in Iraq. He has a lot to say, pointing out for instance that all the "fuss about chemical and biological warfare has been forgotten." He finishes:

Yet there is one achievement we should note. The ghastly Saddam, the most revolting dictator in the Arab world who does indeed use heinous torture and has indeed used gas, is now leading a country which is fighting the world’s only superpower and which has done so for almost two weeks without surrendering. Yes, Gen. Tommy Franks has accomplished one “truly remarkable achievement”. He has turned the Monster of Baghdad into the hero of the Arab world, and allowed Iraqis to teach every opponent of America how to fight their enemy.

Well said, Mr. Fisk.

Why this war is wrong.

One reason. Beware, this story will sicken you.

Jihad Unspun - A Clear View On The US War On "Terrorism"

Sorry, Georgie, it was us after all.

The proof: marketplace deaths were caused by a US missile.

Serial numbers are so embarrassing. Particularly when they're on the fragments of a missile that killed more than sixty Iraqi civilians.

"Precision" bombing. "Minimal" civilian casualties. Uh, huh.

From the "rich get richer" department.

Candidate for Production Job Is a Retired Shell Executive

Sigh.

Welcome to the New Amerika.

TalkLeft has a good post about the latest attempt by Ashcroft, Bush and friends to relieve us of those odious "civil rights" they so resent: TalkLeft: Patriot Act II

I had always looked at the ACLU as being somewhat on the fringe; I am on the liberal side of moderate, myself and had never considered joining that organization. Until, that is, they announced that they were categorically opposed to the so-called "USA PATRIOT" Act and others of its ilk, and were working to have it repealed. At that point, I gave them my money.

You should, too, if you value your rights as a United States Citizen. You should also be writing your Senators and Representative about this abominable legislation. I already have, repeatedly.

Awwww...

Looks like poor little Bushie is feeling sorry for himself that his nice little war isn't going quite as well as he was told it would: Daily Kos: Bush is depressed.

The writer of the Daily KOS wonders what the White House is trying to sell. It's easy: Bushie is "sharing the pain." We're supposed to sympathize with him because he's feeling just like we are about this war. Never mind the fact that he's not, that he's the one that got us into this war in the first place and that it will be years, decades, if ever, before we recover our international prestige and the trust of our erstwhile allies.

In other words: We're being manipulated. Again.

What others think of the neocons.

Origins of Regime Change in Iraq

The "neo-conservatives," among whom are Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and a number of others, have wanted this war for a long time. They tried to get Clinton to wage it; he refused. Then after 9/11 they saw their chance to implement their "Project for a New American Century" (and an arrogant title that is, too!); they finally convinced Bushie that Iraq would be a pushover. With Iraq out of the way, they could redraw the map of the Middle East the way they want. As the article referred to above says,

"Change toward democratic regimes in Tehran and Baghdad would unleash a tsunami across the Islamic world," claimed Joshua Muravchik in August of that year. Michael Ledeen on September 4, 2002, called for the US to launch "a vast democratic revolution to liberate all the peoples of the Middle East…It is impossible to imagine that the Iranian people would tolerate tyranny in their own country once freedom had come to Iraq. Syria would follow in short order."

Democracy experts, including Carnegie's Tom Carothers, call this vision "a dangerous fantasy."

These people are intelligent, well-educated, and they are fools. They have guided us into a morass from which we will have a very difficult time extricating ourselves. If we can at all.

And these are the people whom Bush placed in power in the United States.

As someone once said, we may not have the leaders we need, but we certainly have the leaders we deserve. For allowing these criminals into power in the first place.

More about the atrocity.

Survivors tell of checkpoint tragedy

Horrifying.

Atrocity upon atrocity.

All perpetrated by the so-called "good guys." Us. The "men in the white hats."

Robert Fisk: Wailing children, the wounded, the dead: victims of the day cluster bombs rained on Babylon

Were these women and children "enemy combatants" or were they innocent victims of an unnecessary, unwanted, illegal war. Forty soldiers killed. Eighty civilians or more, women and children.

And Bush is "depressed."

Maybe this will cheer you up.

The Toronto Star has this to say: Washington a meaner place for Bush.

Could it be that Mr. Bush's inadequacy is becoming obvious to everyone? Could it be that everything may no longer go his way? I'm sure he's confused by these setbacks, unable to understand just why, suddenly, he isn't getting his way on everything. In a way I almost pity him, but then I remember the innocents dying in Iraq on his say-so.

I only hope he brings his cronies down with him.

Just when you thought you were safe.

You discover you have already lost a few more essential liberties: Warblogging.com: Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review Upholds USA Patriot Act in Secret Proceedings

Let's see, a secret court upheld an unconstitutional law after an uncontested hearing by saying that the law "only violates the Fourth Amendment a little bit."

And this court is accountable to no one.

Horrifying.

Another from the "rich get richer" department.

Seems that our wonderful Senators are doing their best to repeal the estate tax. This article tells all: A Fair Payment for War (washingtonpost.com).

Meanwhile, more and more of the burden falls upon the middle class and the working poor.

Orwell was right.

George Orwell invented newspeak but the current bunch of liars in power have perfected it. Only they call it "spin."

[ Corporations-Suck.com ] Editorials : Niman : Spinning the War

This is why you can't believe much of what you read, and nearly none that comes from the large media corporations. It has all been "spun" to present the view that best suits the sources.

Welcome to the New Amerika.

Steve Gilliard at the Daily KOS asks a damned good question: Who is the president?

It certainly looks like Rumsfeld is trying to co-opt that job, along with Colin Powell's job (Secretary of State) and the jobs of most of the folks in the Pentagon. Unfortunately for him, he's not allowed to do that and unfortunately for us, not only is he doing it anyway, he's not even doing it competently.

And don't forget Mr. Ashcroft, over there in the shadows tearing bits out of the Constitution while our attention is on the war in Iraq.

Justifying War, by James Mayhar

My brother James, who has a Ph.D. in Political Science, emphasis International Relations, and who has been thinking about this sort of thing for quite a long time, has written a good essay about the attempt to justify the war on Iraq. He comes to a pretty compelling conclusion. Read on...

As is true of so many, I've spent a lot of time thinking about this war. Unlike most, I've also spent much time over the last few years thinking about war in general, reading theories of why nations go to war, why they get out of wars, how and why they cooperate, what types of regimes they develop to facilitate cooperation and how they justify not cooperating.

The arguments I've seen, here and in other venues, go back and forth, some arguing that Iraq has W'sOMD, some that a brutal regime must be removed for the good of humanity, the people of Iraq, it's neighbors, or what-have-you. Those opposed seem to fall into two camps: those opposed to war for any reason and those who believe that this is a Bush political adventure without sufficient, or even any, justification.

I fall somewhere in between. As I've said before, I'm solidly in the neoliberal camp, believing that the power possessed by nation-states is an important factor in determining how the international community of states interacts but that those interactions can be moderated by the strong, liberal states building regimes and institutions that encourage cooperation on every front. We don't have to give up sovereignty, but if we build structures to make dealing with "rogue" nations a multi-lateral problem with some set of acceptable and pretty standard responses, then we can minimize the human and economic costs associated with unilateral decisions to go to war. I do accept, however, that war is sometimes a necessary, although always unwanted, behavior.

If our goal is to minimize the human and economic costs, then why are we at war in the Persian Gulf? At first, this questions seems to require a pretty complex answer, but when you break it down, it isn't so tough. The rationales are pretty straightforward.

1. Eliminate regimes that have or will soon develop W'sOMD and that will threaten the Advanced Industrial Democracies (AIDs) with those weapons.
2. Remove from power any regime that supports terrorism and terrorist organizations that target AIDs.
3. Eliminate repressive regimes that engage in systematic human rights violations and in brutalization of their subjects.
4. Eliminate threats to the economic stability of AIDs that occur in critical regions of the world.

So far, so good. If we have good evidence that Iraq possesses or will possess W'sOMD, good evidence of brutality, terrorist support, and economic disruption of the oil economy, then we have some pretty compelling reasons to effect regime change. Unfortunately, when dealing with a strong totalitarian system based on power through threat, brutality, and fear, regime change from within can be very difficult and can be deadly to those within who try to bring about that change. Short of waiting until the dictator dies and hoping for a more moderate individual to take his place, few alternatives to war exist to bring about that change. Why, though, did we end up making a unilateral decision to go to war in Iraq?

Make no mistake, it was a unilateral decision. Our current administration stated repeatedly that we would "Go it alone" if we had to. The fact that two other states have provided military aid and some forty others have pledged other types of aid does not change the fact that we are the ones who made the decision to go to war. I seriously doubt that the British or Australians would have taken on the task without the U.S. involved. Out of 190 some odd countries in the world, we could only get about 1 percent to support us militarily, despite offering some rather generous loan packages in return, suggests that we could not provide sufficiently compelling evidence of an immediate threat to make the costs of war worthwhile. Let's assume, though, that they were all wrong and we were right and that we have sufficient evidence of the four items above to justify going to war and that we are doing the right thing in this case. We still encounter some difficult questions.

Why Iraq? Why not Pakistan, Inda, North Korea, Syria, Libya? The list goes on. Some (hi Kenn!) argue that failure to do the "right thing" in one area does not constitute a condemnation for doing the "right thing" in another area. Just because we fail to bring justice to North Korea doesn't mean we are criminal for doing so in Iraq. This is an emotionally compelling argument that I struggled with for a long time. I, like so many, want my country to do "the right thing" and try to find ways to justify what we are doing. I do think war is justifiable for the reasons stated above. Unfortunately, the argument that lack of effort in one area doesn't cast doubt on effort in another is an inherently flawed argument.

When you look at the history of the U.S. becoming involved in armed inter- and intra-state conflicts, you can see a lot of variation. We committed troops to Bosnia and East Timor to help to stabilize the regions under the auspices of the United Nations. We committed troops to Somalia for the ostensible purpose of helping to feed the starving. We mined the harbors of Nicaragua to prevent the spread of communism. We went to war in Southeast Asia to prevent the spread of communism (among other reasons :)). Did I mention we invaded Granada? Now, we find ourselves picking and choosing which dangerous regime we decide to attack. It's tempting to say merely that we choose the one that presents the most immediate and severe threat, and that would be fine, if we then proceeded to choose another dangerous regime, build a case, generate international debate, and remove it, and so on and so forth.

The trouble is, we haven't been doing that. We have an administration that has chosen its potential targets based on an articulation of an "axis of evil" that does not constitute an even nearly exhaustive list of the dangerous and brutal regimes in the world. We have left some of the most immediately dangerous regimes to be dealt with diplomatically. Worse, we have ignored the humanitarian abuses in quite a number of countries until it became politically expedient to render aid. It seems clear from this vantage that, had Afghanistan not been harboring Al Qaeda, then we would never have engaged in a military campaign to remove the Taliban. So, again, one would ask how this is a criticism of doing the right thing in Iraq?

If we do not address international problems systematically, but instead use political and emotional reasons for choosing our targets, then we are not working to promote stability and safety. We will not build regimes and institutions that are effective agents for preventing war and other atrocities. We, instead, use the wonderful sounding humanitarian reasons as justifications for engaging in RealPolitik. We abandon our ideals in favor of national power and prestige. We make the world a more dangerous place by reducing the effectiveness of the mechanisms that limit warfare. We once again embrace the Westphalian self-help system that took root following the 30-years war and declare our position that our sovereignty and right to project force cannot be infringed by any international institution. We deliberately and with great effectiveness break the only hope we have for the future in an ever shrinking world.

This war is wrong. Not because we are killing people. Not because war is inherently evil. Not because people at home disagree with the war. Because we are endangering the only systems that have ever been developed that can bring coordinated international, multi-lateral, forces to bear to prevent atrocities.

In no time in the past has the technology existed that would allow non-state actors to bring *any* country to its knees. That is no longer the case. The supplies of Strontium 90 and Cesium 137 floating around the former Soviet states are of sufficient quantity to do incalculable damage to virtually any country in the world. We desparately need effective institutions that are capable of cooperating in reducing the threats associated with these and worse agents in the hands of fanatics. We are quickly throwing that ability away.

James A. Mayhar

Oh, and on the matter of Democracy in Iraq? It would take a dramatic cultural shift. Bush has already told us the military is coming home as soon as the fightings done, so how do we accomplish that cultural shift?. But that's another issue entirely.

If you're against the war...

Joan Walsh had a good article in Salon: How to think about this war if you're against it.

She want the people (including Bush) who lied to us about this war to be held accountable, and she says why. In particular, she says:

In a dishonest piece of writing in the Weekly Standard this week, "The War for Liberalism," cakewalk conservative William Kristol described the Democrats as divided between brave "Dick Gephardt liberals," the "patriots" who back the war-supporting former minority leader, and the despicable "Dominique de Villepin left," -- there's the French slur again, after the foreign minister who led the U.N. opposition to Bush's war -- whose adherents "hate conservatives with a passion that seems to burn brighter than their love of America, and so, like M. de Villepin, they can barely bring themselves to call for an American victory." And though Kristol's list of de Villipin leftists is short on names, one of the handful he includes is Nancy Pelosi -- despite her vote "in support and appreciation" of Bush's conduct of the war.

Kristol is wrong: Most war critics still hope for an American victory, one that results in as little loss of life and as much freedom for Iraqis as possible. But it's already clear that he and his neocon friends designed a war that wouldn't ensure we could do either, and they and their war deserve criticism. There will be a reckoning for bullies like Kristol, and all the pampered, pink-cheeked scions of no-sacrifice who sold this war dishonestly. Yet I fear there will be a lot more Iraqis and Americans dead before that day comes.

Mike Hawash makes the NY Times.

As many blogs have already reported, the Mike Hawash story has made the New York Times:

Terrorism Task Force Detains an American Without Charges

Let us all hope that this will make for his speedy release. And the censure of those responsible.

A little good news.

Judge Leonie Brinkema presides over the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, the alleged terrorist. CBS News has this article about that trial:
CBS News | Judge Jibes Feds In Moussaoui Trial | April 4, 2003 18:59:45

Judge Brinkema said that she shares Moussaoui's skepticism that the government is able to successfully prosecute him in open court and has ordered them to turn over relevant documents that have been classified and Moussaoui has not, therefore, been allowed to see.

Moussaoui is representing himself and has requested the documents in order that he may prepare his defense.

Of course, who wants to bet that the Feds drop the case and then try him in a military court where they can do what they like? This seems to be the way things work, these days.

Remember the basic tenet of our justice system: Innocent until proven guilty.

The warnings of history.

History speaks loudly. Only those too ignorant to learn of it can fail to hear it. This essay reports the early history of the Third Reich and of the foundation of Nazi Germany.

Read it.

When Democracy Failed: The Warnings of History by Thom Hartmann

When you have read it, come back and tell me how today's events are not the same, except in the trivial details.

We are being warned. Do we listen, or do we submit to tyranny?

Another viewpoint.

For your consideration.

ArabNews: Exclusive: Just a Few Weeks Ago

The other extreme.

Not much going on today...

Just the usual working-on-timing-device stuff, watching the news and being depressed by it, reading and napping. A lazy Saturday. I needed one.

Zzzzz.

An unpopular viewpoint.

At least here in the US:

ArabNews: Editorial: Elusive WMDs

The short version: No evidence of "weapons of mass destruction" has so far been found. If none are found, so much for the US rationale for invading. According to Bush, et al, we invaded because Hussein has "weapons of mass destruction" and will use them. The "liberating the Iraqi people" excuse only came later, after the invasion was already in place.

Of course, in the US, this is a damned unpopular viewpoint. People seem to be convinced that we had to invade, that we had some kind of moral obligation to invade, or if we hadn't invaded then the world would have been worse off. I believe neither. Even given a "moral obligation," we have a much greater moral obligation to be part of a true coalition of countries. If we can sell the "moral obligation to free the Iraqi people from the tyranny of Hussein" to that coalition, then there's both a reason and a method to move against him. True overwhelming force, instead of Rumsfeld's stupid "high-tech warfare" against the advice of the Pentagon.

If we weren't able to sell that "moral obligation" to the coalition, then we should have stayed the hell out. We do not have the right to be the moral authority for the world. When we try to assume that authority, we instantly lose it as well as any credibility we might have had.

As is the case now.

One for the good guys.

CNN.com - Utah court rules in favor of lesbian teacher - Apr. 5, 2003

A slap in the face for the people who would impose their view of morality upon everyone. A small victory for tolerance.

Lies, damned lies, and what Rumsfeld wants us to believe.

The Daily KOS points out something that is really obvious to anyone with a brain: Raiding Baghdad.

If the Pentagon or the DoD are telling us that the Republican Guard has collapsed and we don't see the evidence, it didn't happen. They are lying to us. The sad thing is that the media, along with, I am sure, most of the population of the US, is eating it up.

So where is the Republican Guard?

I suspect that we will find out. And that we won't like the answer very much.

Mike Hawash: Bad News

From the Portland Oregonian: Bail denied for Arab American being held as material witness.

The judge has imposed a gag order so neither the defense nor prosecution lawyers can discuss the case. Mike's name has now been removed from the inmate list at the federal prison in Sheridan, Oregon. The Oregonian cites its sources as claiming that Mike's arrest is related to the "Oregon Six" terrorist investigation.

There is no public court record of his arrest or of the searches the FBI conducted of his home and office. We don't even know when the bail hearing was held.

It would be nice to believe that all this secrecy is justified. Unfortunately it isn't, nor can it be. The first act of a tyranny is to hide all of its acts behind a cloak of secrecy.

"For our own good."

What they aren't telling us.

Speaking of secrecy, Essam Al-Ghalib has this report on ArabNews: ArabNews: Exclusive: US Military Police Are Acting as ‘Censors’ in This War

This tells me that at the very least we are not hearing about what is really going on from the main media outlets. Anything that isn't in front of the embedded reporters isn't reported, and that is controlled by the military.

And when it is reported, it is slanted to put the US in the best possible light and to downplay any mistakes or atrocities.

Like the use of cluster bombs, for instance.

Back in Iraq

Christopher Allbritton has made it into Kurdish Iraq and has officially started reporting the war:

Back In Iraq 2.0: Arbil in Mourning

He also has stories of his travels and the process of getting into Iraq. Good stuff, and something you will see absolutely nowhere else.

Why I like Robert Fisk.

He tells it like it is and he pulls no punches:

Robert Fisk in Baghdad: The twisted language of war that is used to justify the unjustifiable.

He points out some lies that the media (British as well as American) and the Bush Administration are using to justify this war. "Coalition," when it's just the US, the UK and a few troops from Australia. The "securing" of Basra and Nasiriyah. The Iranians having "stirred up" an uprising in Basra (it was the elder Bush who did that, in fact, and then betrayed it).

Fisk doesn't limit his condemnation to the US and the UK. He excoriates the Iraqis as well, describing them as trying "to imitate the US Central Command (CentCom) propaganda operations, though with less subtlety."

But he reserves his harshest criticism for those from whom I think he expects better.

And we deserve it.

The face of the "enemy."

This is one tiny piece of the price of Bush's invasion of Iraq: Daily Kos: Ali Ismaeel Abbas, 12.

"Can you help get my arms back? Do you think the doctors can get me another pair of hands?" Abbas asked. "If I don't get a pair of hands I will commit suicide," he said with tears spilling down his cheeks.

Satire from The Onion.

The Onion | I Should Not Be Allowed To Say The Following Things About America.

Remember, this is satire.

Remember George McGovern?

He has a few good things to say in a new essay, "The Reason Why."

Somehow I give more weight to a World War II bomber pilot than to a former alcohol abuser, despite the fact that the latter is in the White House.

What Hermann Goering had to say.

I got this link through CJ Silverio's blog entry for today: Urban Legends Reference Pages: Questionable Quotes (Hermann Goering).

This page quotes Gustave Gilbert's Nuremberg Diary, in which Gilbert relates a conversation with Goering in his prison cell. For the whole thing, go to the link. The most chilling part, though, is at the end:

We got around to the subject of war again and I said that, contrary to his attitude, I did not think that the common people are very thankful for leaders who bring them war and destruction.

"Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."

"There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."

"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

Bush, Chaney, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, Wolfowitz, Rice and the rest have apparently taken that lesson to heart.

Mike Hawash stays in prison.

In a closed hearing, a federal judge ordered that Mike Hawash is to remain imprisoned without charge as a "material witness" for at least another three weeks: ABCNEWS.com : Oregon Arab-American to Be Detained Longer.

The problems with this? The secrecy. We don't know what the case is, what he is a "material witness" for, what the evidence is that the judge considered "clear and convincing" or why he should be held further. He is hardly a flight risk.

At least Mike's case has received national attention and the ACLU has become involved. They have the resources to actively fight this thing.

Counterpoint.

Another story from Arab News: ArabNews: Exclusive: War ‘Against Iraqi People’.

This one doesn't have the "ring of truth" or the personal perspective of the other articles by Essam Al-Ghalib. This makes me suspicious. At the same time, I seriously doubt that it is false. Exaggerated, perhaps. Entirely false, almost certainly not.

Welcome to the New Amerika.

How others see us: ArabNews: Exclusive: This Is Not America.

This is what this war is.

Just read it. This is what our "news media" leaves out of their reports.

Amid Allied jubilation, a child lies in agony, clothes soaked in blood.

Fusion!

Sandia National Labs has achieved fusion in their Z-machine: Sandia National Laboratories.

This is a Good Thing in the long run. Maybe self-sustaining fusion is not so far off, after all!

Scare tactics.

This should keep everyone too afraid of "terrorist attacks" to notice that the Ashcroft bunch are continuing to rob them of their Constitutional rights: Iodide pills urged for homes, schools.

Yeah, it's not a terrible idea. It's just that the chances of this actually being necessary are very low. Potassium iodide pills protect against only one type of exposure and children (as well as adults!) need it anyway, for good health. This is why ordinary table salt is often "iodized" (that is, has had potassium iodide added to it).

For some real information, see Potassium Iodide (KI) - Radiation Studies" at the CDC. From the first paragraph of that page:

Taking potassium iodide (KI) tablets after an incident involving radioactive materials may or may not limit the risk of damage to a person's thyroid gland from ionizing radiation.

Emphasis mine.

The view from the other direction.

Essam Al-Ghalib reports from the "liberated" town of Najaf: ArabNews: Exclusive: The Evil of Cluster Bombs.

No one Arab News spoke to was celebrating the reported news of Saddam Hussein’s death. “I don’t believe what we are hearing,” said a 42-year-old hotel receptionist. “Even if he is dead, it’s not worth the price our children and families have paid,” he added.

I can add nothing to that.

"Torture is okay!" Says Dershowitz.

I thought about adding an "idiocy" category for this one. I missed this when it went by last month. It seems that the Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz thinks that torture is just fine, under the right conditions:

CNN.com - Dershowitz: Torture could be justified - Mar. 3, 2003

Funny, only the entire fucking world disagrees with this assessment! This is another case of using the ends to justify the means, when in fact using the wrong means can make an end unjustifiable. Like "liberating" Iraq by unilaterally invading, for example.

Down the Hatch!

Remember the so-called "USA PATRIOT" Act? The one that robs you of so many of your civil rights? Well, many of the worst parts of it have a sunset clause that will force them to expire at the end of 2005. Only not if Orrin Hatch and the rest of the Republicans have their way: Republicans Want Terror Law Made Permanent.

Write your Senators! Stop this in its tracks!

Wesley Clark for President?

General Wesley Clark, who led NATO in Kosovo, wrote an essay in The Washington Monthly last year: "An Army of One?" by Gen. Wesley Clark.

He makes the very strong case that the most effective way to go about the "war on terrorism" is to do it in concert with NATO and the UN. He describes the factors that led to success in Kosovo and attributes that victory directly to the cooperation among the nations in NATO.

He wrote the article months before Bush and his cronies ignored the UN and unilaterally invaded Iraq. I wonder what he thinks of current events.

It has been suggested in other places that General Clark might be a viable Presidential candidate in 2004. Perhaps.

Perhaps.

More about Padilla.

CNN.com - Padilla case going to appeals court - Apr. 9, 2003.

"A federal judge has agreed to ask an appeals court to review his opinion declaring that President Bush has the authority to name and detain 'enemy combatants.'"

Hopefully the appeals court will find the whole thing unconstitutional.

All righty, then!

It turns out that Bush is no Nazi after all!

Dunno if I agree with all of it but I have to agree with Atrios that it's pretty powerful.

A real reporter.

Okay, this guy is a real reporter, of the kind that haven't been seen in the States in a long time: ArabNews: Arab News Becomes First Saudi Newspaper to Enter Baghdad.

Let's see, Essam Al-Ghalib entered Iraq, was kicked out, snuck back in, made it to Najaf, was there when Abdul Majid Al-Khoei was killed and got the story, then took off for Baghdad, was robbed(!!), returned to Najaf, then headed back to Baghdad, getting there just in time to cover a bombing around the corner from his jeep.

Wow.

Agree with him or not, you have to respect the job he's doing!

Chris Albritton in Kirkuk.

Chris Albritton has filed his latest report, this time from Kirkuk where he gives us news unavailable from the traditional media: Back In Iraq 2.0: Heading south.

Looks like he's headed to Baghdad next.

The rise of the Republican Party.

J. Michael Stracynski posted this in the Usenet newsgroup rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated, where a fierce debate is raging with respect to the Iraqi invasion and the erosion of our civil rights in the wake of 9/11. JMS points to this article in the Oregonian: IN MY OPINION Richard L. Clinton.

It begins:

Two old friends of mine — a Jewish couple in their 80s, both retired university professors who fled Nazi Germany in the late 1930s and eventually became U.S. citizens — made a stunning remark to me a few months ago: "You know, all our lives we have blamed our parents and our parents' generation for allowing Hitler to gain control. Now we're beginning to see how powerless they must have felt to stop what was happening all around them."

It's happening, all around us. We must stop it, or our children and their children will vilify us for the same reason.

George McGovern again.

George McGovern had another essay in the April 4, 2002 issue of The Nation: Questions for Mr. Bush.

This is long before the recent push for war with Iraq, the snubbing of our (former) allies and the dismissal of the UN. If anything, though, it is even more relevant now that it was a year ago.

The question he raises is one that should be asked over and over, loudly: Wouldn't doing good in the world be much, much more effective than making war on a few scapegoats and ignoring the rest of the world's problems? Couldn't we reduce the hatred of the US not by making war on so-called "rogue" nations, but by improving the lot of the citizens of those nations?

Right now the US is at odds with North Korea over their development of nuclear weapons. The North Korean leadership has reacted to the ignorant insults by the US leaders with face-saving defiance. (This should hardly be surprising, particularly if one has even the slightest knowledge of Asian culture.) But wouldn't this whole issue be resolved much easier with we, first, took the pressure off, then began to provide support to that country? In the long run, a wealthy, stable North Korea is much more in our interest than a poverty-stricken, fearful North Korea. Certainly the country is justified in fearing that they might be invaded by a North American aggressor, given the invasion of Iraq and the sabre-rattling of Rumsfeld and the rest toward Syria and Iran.

If the poor of the Middle East were receiving large amounts of aid and support from the United States, bin Laden's support would vanish like mist. But if the only way to "fight terrorism" is to drop bombs and invade "rogue states," the hate and bitterness people feel towards the United States will only increase. And the bin Ladens of the world will have no shortage of recruits.

Remarkable.

If only for its blatant cynicism. Sad but true, the photographs tell the story....

So the "celebration" was really a media put-on. Who woulda thunk?

Celebrating the "liberation."

Maybe this latest dispatch by Essam Al-Ghalib will provide a somewhat different view of things: ArabNews: ‘We Came, Saw & Conquered’.

Looks like he's seeing a slightly different view of the "liberation" of Baghdad than the average US (or, for that matter, British) journalist reports. Maybe they really don't want us there? Maybe we really were wrong to invade?

All I can do is quote the story:

“Why are you here?” demanded a woman in her thirties. “Why are you killing our people. We do not want war. We do not want you to kill us. Today you have killed even more civilians.”

An Iraqi man shouted in classical Arabic: “You are here to rape our women and give drugs to our children."