December 2004

December 29, 2004

Just How Many "Dead-Enders" Are There

In June of 2003, Donald H. Rumsfeld opined that there was "no question" that where "pockets" of "dead-enders" were "trying to reconstitute", that "General Franks and his team" were "rooting them out", and that, "in short" the "coalition" was "making good progress".

In the same month, Paul Wolfowitz opined that "these people are the last remnants of a dying cause"; while General Ray Odierno opined that "noncompliant forces, former regime members, and common criminals" "really qualify" as "militarily insignificant" and were "having no impact on the way we conduct business on a day-to-day basis."

In August of 2003, Donald H. Rumsfeld opined that the "remnants" of the defeated regime and the "pockets of resistance" were fighting "long after their cause" was lost.

Now, I don't know about you. But to me, this language suggests a fairly miniscule movement.

They were still with us in December of 2004, however, as Richard Myers opined that the Fallujah offensive "will take its toll on their ability to function".

Still with us, but, thankfully, no longer able to function.

Uh, except that now Colin Powell has opined that "the insurgency will continue".

Is it Vietnam, or is it Brazil? Tough call!

December 27, 2004

By Way Of Comparison

The Seattle Times' coverage of yesterday's earthquake and tidal wave -- which, at time of printing, had killed 13,500 people -- spans almost four full pages, including the great majority of the front page. It all adds up to roughly 140 column-inches, five photos, three graphics, and a list of suggested websites for further reading.

On the other hand, the Times' coverage of survey findings, published in the medical field's most respected journal, The Lancet, that 100,000 Iraqis "died since the start of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq than would have been expected otherwise" amounts to eight paragraphs in the Times' now-defunct blog maintained by staffer Tom Brown. Brown concludes by "having" to "wonder" whether "these numbers anywhere near accurate".

To this blogger's knowledge, the story has never appeared in the paper's print edition.

Which is not to minimise the magnitude of the tragic events unfolding in Southeast Asia. But it is a tragedy, after all, which was unforeseen, and not preventable; in sharp contradistinction with the human tragedy currently unfolding in Iraq -- for which American taxpayers bear the lion's share of the culpability.

For a newspaper which continually boasts, in full page advertisements, of its "independence" (as the Seattle Times does), one can't help "wonder" at its editorial priorities.

No doubt the same can be said of your own hometown daily, not to mention the so-called "trend-setting" media. (If anybody's got similar comparitive statistics of the two stories for the New York Times, Washington Post, and Los Angeles Times; please feel free to provide them.)

December 22, 2004

My Name Is George W. Bush, And I Approve Of These Methods

Another document said an executive order signed by President George W Bush had authorised techniques such as "sleep management", stress positions, use of military dogs and sensory deprivation.

Uh, now can we throw his ass in jail?

While denying the claim, Dubya, in explaining his Administration's "dilemma", demonstrated (again) the depths of his delusion:

But you're got to understand the dilemma we're in. These are people that got scooped up off a battlefield attempting to kill U.S. troops. And I want to make sure, before they're released, that they don't come back to kill again.

Imagine that! We invade another country, and its people attempt to kill U.S. troops! But, "scooped off a battlefield" -- textbook Prisoners of War, yes? Well, no. They're "illegal combatants", because only U.S. troops are authorised to attempt to kill.

Hence: "And so I think it's important to let the world know that we fully understand our obligations in a society that honors rule of law to do that."

Right.

Do not pass "Go", George.

December 17, 2004

How Low Can They Go?

A top Army general said yesterday that the Iraqi insurgency was being run in part by former senior Iraqi Baath Party officials operating in Syria who call themselves the "New Regional Command".

These men, from the former governing party of deposed president Saddam Hussein, are "operating out of Syria with impunity and providing direction and financing for the insurgency," said Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the U.S. commander in Iraq. "That needs to stop," Casey said at a Pentagon briefing.

Right. So, the Resistance is comprised "former Baath officials" "directing" and funding "foreign terrorists" in Iraq. Who's missing in this equation? Uh, oh yeah: Iraqis themselves.

Is there some reason to think that neither the 200,000 refugees from Fallujah that are starving and freezing in makeshift camps outside their city, nor any of the other of the millions of beleaguered and battered Iraqis, could be "directing" themselves to blow the Americans' asses off? Well, sure there is: because we liberated them. Q.E.D..

Never mind that less than 5% of Iraqis have any trust in the Americans, or that the Shiites are emphatically selling the forthcoming election as the categorical end-date of the occupation. It's the "former regime elements" and the bin Ladenites that are running the show. (If we are to believe this, by the way, it's yet another striking Bush Administration admission that Saddam and Osama are still kicking our ass all up and down the sidewalk. And that if the Baathists are able to "direct" the resistance from Syria, that they must have infiltrated the Green Zone to a much greater degree that is currently presumed to be the case.)

But anyway, this scenario sounds somewhat familiar, doesn't it? A rebel army funded and "directed" from abroad -- where have we heard this before? Uh, oh yeah: the Reagan Administration's war on Nicaragua. (Not quite the same: at least the Nicaraguan government was democratically elected, and at least the Contras themselves were Nicaraguans, and at least the presumed Baathists are Iraqis. But these are minor details, yes yes.) The World Court ruled that that war "needed to stop" as well. But we kinda sorta ignored that ruling.

Give Casey props for the name, anyway: "New Regional Command". If it's a sign of more poetic lying to come, that'll at least be better than Rumsfeld's semi-literate spew.

December 08, 2004

Terrorists Evil, Liberators Good

Preliminary findings of a military inquiry suggest that some of the recently published photographs of Navy special forces capturing detainees in Iraq were taken for legitimate intelligence-gathering purposes and showed commandos using approved procedures, a Navy spokesman said yesterday. [...]

Navy Cmdr. Jeff Bender said some of the photos are "consistent with the use of tactics, techniques, and procedures in the apprehension of detainees."

He said a photo in which a uniformed man is holding the head of a prisoner to pose him for a picture was for "identification purposes", not a souvenir.

December 03, 2004

Then And Now

THEN (May 2003):

Rumsfeld's rejection of Islamic state angers Shias
Donald Rumsfeld, the US Secretary of State, will have won plaudits from his zealous friends by declaring that an "Iranian-style" Islamic government "is not going to happen" in Iraq.

NOW (December 2004):

White House getting used to idea of Shia government
As American troop reinforcements head to Iraq, the Bush administration is slowly coming to terms with the realisation that elections scheduled for next month could spell the end of Iyad Allawi, prime minister and the secular US favourite, and usher in a quasi-theocracy.