June 2005

June 29, 2005

Yawn

His protest songs made him the figurehead of the anti-establishment movement that defined America during the 1960s. But yesterday Bob Dylan was facing accusations of selling out after it emerged the singer had agreed an exclusive deal to sell some of his rarest tracks at Starbuck's, the coffee shop chain targeted by anti-globalization protesters as a symbol of American cultural dominance. [...]

By yesterday afternoon fans on Dylan discussion boards were already venting their fury. "This sucks," wrote one doleful fan on the website Expectingrain.com. "He's belittling his music." Another disgruntled fan opined: "He certainly doesn't need the money. Maybe he's doing it to directly discredit the public's view of him as an anti-establishment protest singer?"

Uh, is Bawb's selling his rekkids through Starbuck's supposed to somehow be more sellout that selling them through Columbia (or whoever the fuck he's signed to these days)? Geez, it's not as though he jumped from an Indie to Starbuck's.

Like an acoustic version of the Alanis Morissette album Jagged Little Pill, which Starbucks began selling several weeks ago, the Dylan release will not initially be available anywhere else, in this case for 18 months.

Eighteen months? How about eighteen minutes until it's available online?

June 28, 2005

Satire: Six Feet Under

A few weeks ago, this blogger posted what was intended to be an at-least-somewhat over-the-top suggestion at what one of the ideas issuing from the "Party Of Ideas" might be:

"Hey, I've got an idea! Let's re-instate the draft!"

"But that would mean that our children could be required to serve."

"Oh...hey, I've got an idea! Let's re-instate the draft -- but only for niggers!"

"Too right!"

Turns out that that "idea" may not have been so over-the-top after all:

The Defense Department yesterday began working with a private marketing firm to create a database of all U.S. college students as well as high-school students between ages 16 and 18, to help the military identify potential recruits in a time of dwindling enlistment.

The program is provoking a furor among privacy advocates. The new database will include an array of personal information including birth dates, Social Security numbers, e-mail addresses, grade-point averages, ethnicity, and what subjects the students are studying. [Emphasis added.]

According to a DoD drone, "The program is very important because it helps the recruiters be more effective to target qualified candidates for specific missions."

Is it too much of a stretch to assume that the "specific missions" that our, er, darker-skinned brothers will be "recruited" for will be getting their asses shot off overseas?

At any rate, the company chosen to "process" the data boasts that it maintains

arguably the largest repository of 16-25 year-old youth data in the country, containing roughly 30 million records. ... BeNOW helps to produce the High School Masterfile (HSMF), Selective Service System (SSS), Joint Leads Fulfillment (JLF), and College and Permanent Suppression releases for the Services to use in their respective marketing/recruiting efforts.

Got that, parents? Your tax dollars (should you choose to pay them) are not only being used to round up your children to get their asses shot off, but to allow private companies to profit during the process.

It doesn't get any more real than that: refuse to pay your taxes, and your children may be safe; consent to pay your taxes, and your children are toast.

June 17, 2005

Up Is Down

Roughly two years ago, Rep. Walter Jones led the campaign to rename french fries, turning "freedom fries" into a symbol of protest over France's opposition to the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

On Thursday, the North Carolina congressman introduced legislation calling on President Bush to begin withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq by the autumn of 2006.

So far, so good, right? Uh...

In Onslow County, home to the Camp Lejeune Marine Corps base, a county commissioner initially called on Jones to resign but later said he just wanted Jones to drop requests for a timetable for withdrawal.

John R. McLaughlin, a Republican commissioner from Jacksonville, said Thursday that he was astounded when he heard that Jones had called for a timetable.

"Such a statement would provide encouragement to our enemy and be harmful to our troops," said McLaughlin, a former Army Ranger.

The five-member Board Of Commissioners, all Republicans, will consider a resolution Monday that calls on Jones to drop his efforts.

The Carteret County News-Times in Morehead City said in an editorial Wednesday that it had supported Jones in the past but called his stance on the war a "gift to terrorists".

Yeah...'cause without "encouragment", "our enemy" is just going to sit around with its thumb up its collective ass. You've noticed, have you not, how few and far-between have been attacks upon American troops of late? No? Well, Scottie sure has noticed:

The terrorists -- this message would say to the terrorists, "All you have to do is wait until that day when our troops leave, and then you can start carrying out those attacks and just hold out."

Anyhow, "Our troops understand the importance of completing the mission." (And that's precisely why we have to impose stop-loss orders, extend their tours, and activate the IRR.)

You couldn't make this shit up if you tried:

President Bush, addressing the Iranian people yesterday on the eve of their presidential election, denounced Iran's electoral system as undemocratic and vowed that the United States would stand with those seeking "freedom" in the Islamic republic.

In a statement distributed by the White House, Bush said, "Today, Iran is ruled by men who suppress liberty at home and spread terror across the world. Power is in the hands of an unelected few who have retained power through an electoral process that ignores the basic requirements of democracy."

The U.S. military launched a major combat operation Friday as 1,000 Marines and Iraqi soldiers fanned out to track down insurgents and foreign fighters in a volatile western province straddling Syria.

Operation Spear began before dawn in Anbar province, the military said. The area is where U.S. forces said it killed about 40 militants in airstrikes in Karabilah on June 11.

But...

On Thursday, [Air Force Brig. Gen. Don] Alston blamed the recent spike in bloodshed on al-Zarqawi, who purportedly condoned the killing of fellow Muslims and denounced the Shiites as collaborators with the Americans.

Friedman's most recent column warns of a "tipping point" in Iraq. No more nor less idiotic than his usual. But if one is looking for a tipping point, perhaps the White House Press Corps is getting close. Thursday's Press Briefing (from whence the above quotes were gathered) was just possibly the most hostile to-date -- forcing McClellan to spin so furiously it's a wonder he didn't tip over. Here's a particularly juicy exchange:

Q Scott, is the insurgency in Iraq in its last throes?

MR. McCLELLAN: Terry, you have a desperate group of terrorists in Iraq that are ...[snip a load of Bush/McClellan boilerplate]... And every day we move forward on democracy and training Iraqi security forces is every day closer that we are to succeeding in Iraq.

Q But the insurgency is in its last throes?

MR. McCLELLAN: The Vice President talked about that the other day -- you have a desperate group of terrorists who recognize how high the stakes are in Iraq. A free Iraq will be a significant blow to their ambitions.

Q But they're killing more Americans, they're killing more Iraqis. That's the last throes?

MR. McCLELLAN: Innocent -- I say innocent civilians. And it doesn't take a lot of people to cause mass damage when you're willing to strap a bomb onto yourself, get in a car and go and attack innocent civilians. That's the kind of people that we're dealing with. That's what I say when we're talking about a determined enemy.

Q Right. What is the evidence that the insurgency is in its last throes?

MR. McCLELLAN: I think I just explained to you the desperation of terrorists and their tactics.

Q What's the evidence on the ground that it's being extinguished?

MR. McCLELLAN: Terry, we're making great progress to defeat the terrorist and regime elements. You're seeing Iraqis now playing more of a role in addressing the security threats that they face. They're working side by side with our coalition forces. They're working on their own. There are a lot of special forces in Iraq that are taking the battle to the enemy in Iraq. And so this is a period when they are in a desperate mode.

Q Well, I'm just wondering what the metric is for measuring the defeat of the insurgency.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, you can go back and look at the Vice President's remarks. I think he talked about it.

Q Yes. Is there any idea how long a last throe lasts for?

MR. McCLELLAN: Go ahead, Steve.

It was almost as though the Corps were playing Keep-Away with the Secretary. If one didn't know Mr. McClellan from Adam, one'd probably conclude that he was not only the stupidest person in the room, but perhaps the stupidest person in the entire city.

But of course, it's not stupidity that revs Scottie's engine, it's mendacity. Scottie lies, obfuscates, spins, propagandises with his every single word because were he to do otherwise, the President's popularity ratings would be lower than the already are.

Now, I know I sound like a broken fuckin' record here; but are you going to put up with this kind of shit from your public servants? Or are you going to refuse to pay your Federal Income Taxes?

For the record, here're the "remarks" that Scottie wanted us to "go back and look at":

I think they're in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency. We've had reporting in recent days, Larry, about Zarqawi, who's sort of the lead terrorist, outside terrorist, al Qaeda, head of al Qaeda for Iraq, may well have been seriously injured. We don't know. We can't confirm that. We've had reporting to that effect.

So I think we're making major progress.

So, according to McClellan, via Cheney, the "metric" for "measuring the defeat of the insurgency" is that Zaraqawi "may well have been seriously injured". Yet, according to the latest assessment of the U.S. military (as noted above), Zarqawi is responsible for the "fantastic rise in the number of civilians killed".

So, as usual, the various players on Team Bush are unable to co-ordinate their lies effectively; resulting in the logical mishap known as "self-contradiction".

But here's a "metric" the American (ahem) taxpayer can understand:

On Monday, the House is scheduled to vote on a bill that would provide an additional $45 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan as part of a Pentagon spending measure for next year, war-funding that Bush hasn't requested.

June 13, 2005

Damned If You Lie, Damned If You Don't

The official U.S. reaction to the latest leaked British memo -- this one charging that the Bush Administration had given "little thought" to the "aftermath" of its pending invasion of Iraq -- was fairly predictable:

The White House took exception yesterday to the characterization of the British memo. ''There was significant postwar planning," said spokesman David Almacy. ''More importantly, the memo in question was written eight months before the war began; there was significant postwar planning in the time that elapsed."

If the White House wants us to take it at its word, it is telling us that either:

• The massive looting and general chaos that followed the overthrow of Baghdad was part of the plan. The ousting of Jay Garner in favour of Paul Bremer, after only a few weeks on the job, was part of the plan. Troop levels of insufficient magnitude to deal with the Resistance and in general keep the peace were part of the plan. The inability to protect against almost daily sabotage of Iraqi oil pipelines were part of the plan. That two years in to the occupation electricity levels would be nowhere near the pre-invasion level were part of the plan. And so on.

• The Administration's planners were totally inept.

Almacy hints at the latter:

Some things we prepared for did not happen, like large numbers of refugees needing humanitarian assistance. And others we did not expect, such as large numbers of regime elements fleeing the battlefield only to return later.

Is Almacy trying to inspire confidence in the Bush Administration's skillz? If so, he's about as competent as the "significant planning" he says took place prior to the invasion.

June 08, 2005

How Many More Lies?

• "All weapons -- biological, chemical, missile, nuclear, were destroyed." -- Hussein Kamel, 1995

• UNSCOM's executive chairman Rolf Ekeus reported to the Security Council on 11 April 1997 that "not much is unknown about Iraq's retained proscribed weapons capabilities" (para. 46). The long-term monitoring of Iraqi sites was largely unobstructed: "Iraq has sustained a good level of cooperation in the operation of the monitoring system" (report by UNSCOM’s executive chairman, 11 October 1996, para. 61; similar statements made in subsequent reports). In its October 1997 report, UNSCOM stated that "the majority of [weapons] inspections were conducted in Iraq without let or hindrance" (Annex I, para. 33). Even up to its final inspection report on 15 December 1998, UNSCOM was recording how "the majority of the inspections of facilities and sites under the ongoing monitoring system were carried out with Iraq’s cooperation." Non-cooperation was recorded in only five out of 427 inspections in the round before inspectors were withdrawn on the request of the US; those five instances resulted in minor delays, not inspection refusals.

• "At this stage, the following can be stated:

"One, there is no indication of resumed nuclear activities in those buildings that were identified through the use of satellite imagery as being reconstructed or newly erected since 1998, nor any indication of nuclear-related prohibited activities at any inspected sites.

"Second, there is no indication that Iraq has attempted to import uranium since 1990.

"Third, there is no indication that Iraq has attempted to import aluminium tubes for use in centrifuge enrichment. Moreover, even had Iraq pursued such a plan, it would have encountered practical difficulties in manufacturing centrifuges out of the aluminium tubes in question.

"Fourth, although we are still reviewing issues related to magnets and magnet production, there is no indication to date that Iraq imported magnets for use in a centrifuge enrichment programme." -- Mohamed ElBaradei; March 7, 2003

• "Inspections in Iraq resumed on 27 November 2002. In matters relating to process, notably prompt access to sites, we have faced relatively few difficulties and certainly much less than those that were faced by UNSCOM in the period 1991 to 1998. This may well be due to the strong outside pressure. [...]

"Initial difficulties raised by the Iraqi side about helicopters and aerial surveillance planes operating in the no-fly zones were overcome.

"This is not to say that the operation of inspections is free from frictions, but at this juncture we are able to perform professional no-notice inspections all over Iraq and to increase aerial surveillance. [...]

"Several inspections have taken place at declared and undeclared sites in relation to mobile production facilities. Food testing mobile laboratories and mobile workshops have been seen, as well as large containers with seed processing equipment. No evidence of proscribed activities have so far been found. [...]

"During inspections of declared or undeclared facilities, inspection teams have examined building structures for any possible underground facilities. In addition, ground penetrating radar equipment was used in several specific locations. No underground facilities for chemical or biological production or storage were found so far. [...]

"While during our meetings in Baghdad, the Iraqi side tried to persuade us that the Al Samoud 2 missiles they have declared fall within the permissible range set by the Security Council, the calculations of an international panel of experts led us to the opposite conclusion.

"Iraq has since accepted that these missiles and associated items be destroyed and has started the process of destruction under our supervision. The destruction undertaken constitutes a substantial measure of disarmament -- indeed, the first since the middle of the 1990s. We are not watching the breaking of toothpicks. Lethal weapons are being destroyed. [...]

"There is a significant Iraqi effort underway to clarify a major source of uncertainty as to the quantities of biological and chemical weapons, which were unilaterally destroyed in 1991. [...]

"How much time would it take to resolve the key remaining disarmament tasks? While cooperation can and is to be immediate, disarmament and at any rate the verification of it cannot be instant. Even with a proactive Iraqi attitude, induced by continued outside pressure, it would still take some time to verify sites and items, analyse documents, interview relevant persons, and draw conclusions. It would not take years, nor weeks, but months. -- Hans Blix; March 7, 2003

• "The larger point is and the fundamental question is, did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is absolutely. And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in and he wouldn't let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power, along with other nations, so as to make sure he was not a threat to the United States and our friends and allies in the region." -- George W. Bush; July 14, 2003

• "Since the liberation of Iraq, we have discovered Saddam's clandestine network of biological laboratories, the design work on prohibited long-range missiles, his elaborate campaign to hide illegal weapons programs. Saddam Hussein spent years frustrating UN inspections, for a simple reason -- because he was violating UN demands. And in the end, rather than surrender his programs and abandon his lies, he chose defiance, and his own undoing." -- George W. Bush; October 23, 2003

• "We gave Saddam Hussein plenty of time to heed the demands of the world, and he chose defiance. He did. He said, 'Forget it. I don't care what the United Nations has said over a decade. I don't care about all the resolutions passed.' He chose defiance; we acted." -- George W. Bush; December 15, 2003

• "And then we went to the United Nations, of course, and got an overwhelming resolution -- 1441 -- unanimous resolution, that said to Saddam, 'You must disclose and destroy your weapons programs,' which obviously meant the world felt he had such programs. He chose defiance. It was his choice to make, and he did not let us in." -- George W. Bush; January 27, 2004

• "War was President Bush's last option. That's why he exhausted diplomatic options, to include giving Saddam Hussein one more warning, and yet another UN resolution. Given this final chance, Saddam chose defiance, and he chose war." -- "Ask The White House"; February 6, 2004

• "The United States and the world still hoped for a peaceful solution -- and Saddam Hussein faced a choice: to show that he was meeting his international obligations to disarm, or to continue his defiance. He chose unwisely. [...]

"We may never know why Saddam Hussein chose the destruction of his regime over peaceful disarmament. But we know this: it was his choice. And if he had chosen differently -- if the Iraqi regime had taken the steps Libya is now taking -- there would have been no war." -- Donald H. Rumsfeld; February 7, 2004

• "In 2002, the United Nations Security Council yet again demanded a full accounting of Saddam Hussein's weapons programs. As he had for over a decade, Saddam Hussein refused to comply. So we had a choice to make: either take the word of a madman, or take action to defend America and the world. Faced with that choice, I will defend America every time. [APPLAUSE]" -- George W. Bush; February 24, 2004

• DR. RICE: "Sooner or later, Tim, the international community had to mean what it said about Saddam Hussein. When it said that it could no longer tolerate his defiance and he had one last chance to disarm or be disarmed, he chose defiance. And the president fulfilled the obligation that he had given to the international community when he went to the UN in September of 2002 and said, 'If he will not comply with his obligations, then he has to go.'"

MR. RUSSERT: "But having not found the kind of stockpiles of chemical and biological and potential nuclear that we thought he had, you have no second thoughts that the war was not necessary?"

DR. RICE: "Absolutely not. Because Saddam Hussein had been a threat for 12 years, ever since he invaded Kuwait and set the Middle East on a course of instability. Somebody had to take care of Saddam Hussein and set the Middle East on a different course. This president is not confused about this point." -- "Meet The Press"; August 8, 2004

• "The president of the United States, in a very public way, reached out to people across the world, went to the United Nations and tried to resolve this in a diplomatic manner. Saddam Hussein was the one, in the end, who chose continued defiance. And only then was the decision made, as a last resort, to go into Iraq." -- Scott McClellan; May 17, 2005

• "And so we worked hard to see if we could figure how to do this peacefully, to put a united front up to Saddam Hussein, so the world speaks. And he ignored the world. Remember, 1441 passed the Security Council unanimously. He made the decision." -- George W. Bush; June 7, 2005

• "And the fact is, we decided to go to the United Nations and went through that process, which resulted in the November 2002 United Nations resolution to give a final chance to Saddam Hussein to comply with international law. He didn't do so. And that was the reason why we had to take military action." -- Tony "I have never told a lie" Blair; June 7, 2005

So, how many more lies? Well, as long as the liars can get away with lying, they've no reason to stop doing so. Isn't there someone, anyone, in the mainstream media who will challenge the repeated assertions of Saddam's "defiance"? (Not that it'd make any difference, considering that a hefty chunk of the American public believes that WMD were found in Iraq. But it'd still be interesting to see the reaction.)

June 02, 2005

Gee-Dub: Most...Entertaining...President...Ever

It seemed like [Amnesty International] based some of their decisions on the word and allegations by people who were held in detention, people who hate America, people had been trained in some instances to disassemble (sic) -- that means not tell the truth. And so it was an absurd report. It just is.

Ah, Dubya schooling others on proper use of the English language. Nothin' could be finer! Here's your idea for the next great hit teevee show: George W., Dan "Potatoe" Quayle, and a chimpanzee face off in a weekly Scrabble match.

As far as AI's report is concerned, Amnesty's rejoinder to the Bush Administration's aghast response will, presumably, not see the light of day: "The administration's response has been that our report is absurd, that our allegations have no basis, and our answer is very simple: if that is so, open up these detention centers, allow us and others to visit them."

Actually, though, the Administration's outrage -- denunciations from Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Myers, and Rice -- is as fine a testament as any to the esteem in which Amnesty's work is held.

Interestingly, at least one reaction appears to accept Amnesty's conclusions while villifying the messenger:

[Lee] Casey and [Dave] Rivkin said they were incensed at the suggestion by the head of Amnesty's U.S. section, William Schulz, that Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld and other senior U.S. officials who had a role in authorizing abusive interrogation practices should be prosecuted in foreign jurisdictions for violations of the Geneva and torture conventions committed against detainees if the administration continued to reject calls by human rights and lawyers' groups for an independent investigation.

In their view, Amnesty, ''is trapped in a 20th-century mindset where the greatest threat to individual life and liberty stemmed from the actions of sovereign governments. That is simply no longer the case.'' NGOs, they added, ''simply do not consider that the defense of the American population, and the vindication of each individual's right to live without the threat or actuality of terrorist attack, is their problem -- and it is time they did.''

The competition is keen, but when it gets down to crunch time, Dubya is still the reigning doublethink champeen:

"We expect all our friends, as well as those who aren't our friends, to honor human rights and protect minority rights." [...]

Speaking a few hours after former Russian oil tycoon Mikhail Khodorkovsky was sentenced to nine years in prison after a trial that many democratic activists called politically motivated, Bush said he has expressed concerns about the legal proceedings to President Vladimir Putin and will watch the appeals process closely. "Here, you are innocent until proven guilty, and it appeared to us, at least people in my administration, that it looked like he had been judged guilty prior to having a fair trial," Bush said.