Liberal with the "facts"

Hans Blix says the Bush administration is "misquoting" his recent report to the UN Security Council. The LA Times reported yesterday that Bush's assertion of an Iraq/Al-Qaeda link was "murky." CIA officials are apparently "puzzled" about where he's coming up with the evidence to back up such a claim, because they don't have any.

In other words, the Bushies are back to their familiar game of distorting, exaggerating, and, yes, lying about Iraq, hoping that this information will scare people into accepting the need for a war.

Someone want to tell me why we should believe anything this administration says?

Update: The Guardian tries to assess how strong the Iraq/Al Qaeda link is.

More $$ for the Military

Surprise! Defense spending is going up again. According to the Washington Post, the "Pentagon has prepared a $399.1 billion defense budget for fiscal 2004 as part of a spending plan that grows by about $20 billion annually over the next five years and surpasses half a trillion dollars by the end of the decade."

How they'll be able to maintain this ascending budget while the tax cuts eviscerate the spending base is to be determined. It will probably require a magician's act, but the old Reagan accountants are primed for the task, I'm sure.

Steven M. Kosiak, director of budget studies at the CSBA, observes, "We've come full circle. We're not only not cutting defense anymore, but we've come to the point where we're spending more money than we spent during the Cold War. Whether this is sustainable over the next six years is questionable."

Despite such skepticism, Bill Kristol and his cronies will, of course, keep begging for more.

Invading Iraq not a new idea for Bush clique

William Bunch of the Philadelphia Daily News has picked up on the PNAC trail in a pretty good cover story for that paper. Nice to see, although I'm shocked by how many people still don't know about the role this think tank and its claque of neoconservative hawks play in shaping Iraq policy.

If you don't know about the PNAC, then it's likely that you don't know why Bush is so adamant about waging war on Iraq.

Update: An article in the NY Times investigates the PNAC crew and likens Wolfowitz, Perle, Kagan, Kristol, and the boys to "The Best and the Brightest" who sunk the United States into Vietnam. Time will only tell if the Iraq conflagration is just as costly. One other thing...why is this article in the "Arts" section of the paper?!

8 Leaders Stand with Bush; Europe does not

Eight European leaders -- José María Aznar of Spain, José Manuel Durão Barroso of Portugal, Silvio Berlusconi of Italy, Tony Blair of the UK, Václav Havel of the Czech Republic, Peter Medgyessy of Hungary, Leszek Miller of Poland, and Anders Fogh Rasmussen of Denmark -- have endorsed Bush's stance on Iraq in an opinion piece that is being published all over the continent today. Interestingly, the vast majority of people represented by these men disagree sharply with Bush.

Invasion of the body snatchers, or worse

Kurt Vonnegut: "I myself feel that our country, for whose Constitution I fought in a just war, might as well have been invaded by Martians and body snatchers. Sometimes I wish it had been. What has happened, though, is that it has been taken over by means of the sleaziest, low-comedy, Keystone Cops-style coup d’etat imaginable. And those now in charge of the federal government are upper-crust C-students who know no history or geography, plus not-so-closeted white supremacists, aka “Christians,” and plus, most frighteningly, psychopathic personalities, or 'PPs.'"

Schwarzkopf's Been "Reassured"

They got to Stormin' Norman. I thought he was an apologist for Hussein. Looks like that's no longer true. His fellows at the Pentagon have reeled him in, and now he's warming up to a war.

Mandela condemns US stance on Iraq

"Former South African president Nelson Mandela has criticised US President George W Bush over Iraq, saying the sole reason for a possible US-led attack would be to gain control of Iraqi oil," reports the BBC. "The US stance on Iraq is 'arrogant' and would cause 'a holocaust', Mr Mandela, a Nobel Peace laureate and one of the world's most respected figures, told a forum in Johannesburg."

Nellie better watch it, or the CIA's gonna get him arrested and thrown in jail again.

War Would Be 'Catastrophic' for Iraqi Children

"Should we go to war against these children?" That's the question John Pilger proposed we all ask ourselves before signing off on the Bush/Blair excursion into Iraq.

To help clarify the ramifications of that question, perhaps it'd be worth consulting a new study, "Our Common Responsibility: The Impact of a New War on Iraq Children", released today by the Canadian International Study Team. Marty Logan of IPS reports that the study indicates that a war on Iraq "would have devastating effects on the country's 13 million children, many of whom are already malnourished and living in 'great fear' of another conflict."

''While it is impossible to predict both the nature of any war and the number of expected deaths and injuries, casualties among children will be in the thousands, probably in the tens of thousands and possibly in the hundreds of thousands,'' Canadian team leader and medical doctor Eric Hoskins said in a statement.

The report says that Iraq currently has only one month's supply of food and three months of medicine remaining.

...Weakened by the effects of war and more than a decade of economic sanctions, 500,000 Iraqi children are malnourished, it says. For example, the death rate of children under five years of age is already 2.5 times greater than it was in 1990, before the Gulf War.

Because most of the country's 13 million children are dependent on food distributed by the Government of Iraq, ''the disruption of this system by war would have a devastating impact on children who already have a high rate of malnutrition'', says the report.

Antiwarriors being duped by Iraqi spies

Michael Kelly, et al. have just had their prayers answered: "Iraq sent spies from Canada to New York and Washington this month to snoop and stir up anti-war demonstrations, according to a government report obtained by the Daily News."

You don't think they'd release this type of "classified" information to discredit the antiwar movement, do ya? Nor is there any chance, I suppose, that this is entirely fabricated. Nah. The US government would never do that...

Back to the Future for Iraq

Seumas Milne of the Guardian argues that, despite the efforts of Bush and Blair, the recolonisation of Iraq should not be be sold as an act liberation.

The danger of military interventions in the name of human rights is that they are inevitably selective and used to promote the interests of those intervening - just as when they were made in the name of "civilisation" and Christianity. If war goes ahead, the prospect for Iraq must be of a kind of return to the semi-colonial era before 1958, when the country was the pivot of western power in the region, Britain maintained military bases and an "adviser" in every ministry and landowning families like Ahmed Chalabi of the INC's were a law unto themselves. There were also 10,000 political prisoners, parties were banned, the press censored and torture commonplace. As President Bush would say, it looks like the re-run of a bad movie.

New Toys for the Military

JR Mooneyham has the goods on the super-weapons the Pentagon might test drive during an Iraq war.

Amusing Links

If you need to laugh, which I know I have trouble doing recently, check these out:

*The Onion: UN Orders Wonka Factory to Submit to Inspections

*Jesus was a warmonger. Yes, tis true.

*Whitehouse.org's Transcript of the State of the Union

(latter two links via LMB)

Nader Helps the Dems

Haven't heard the Nader bashers mention this point. What say you, Eric?

Despite their outward contempt for the man they say spoiled the 2000 presidential election, congressional Democrats privately hope Ralph Nader will make another presidential bid.

The former Green Party nominee is certainly a curse for Democrats at the presidential level, but he can be a blessing to Democratic candidates in down-ballot races. That’s because he draws progressives — many of whom otherwise wouldn’t vote — to the polls. A majority of them, in turn, tend to vote for Democrats in down-ballot races.

Political experts say about four-fifths of Nader voters supported Democrats at the state and local levels, giving Democratic candidates a boost that can make the difference between victory and defeat in close races...

Demonizing Saddam

Michael S. James of ABC News has an exceptionally critical (and surprisingly good) article on the propaganda campaign against Saddam Hussein.

Schwarzkopf

Let it be known: Stormin' Norman Schwarzkopf is an apologist for Saddam Hussein!

"The thought of Saddam Hussein with a sophisticated nuclear capability is a frightening thought, okay?" he says. "Now, having said that, I don't know what intelligence the U.S. government has. And before I can just stand up and say, 'Beyond a shadow of a doubt, we need to invade Iraq,' I guess I would like to have better information."

He hasn't seen that yet, and so -- in sharp contrast to the Bush administration -- he supports letting the U.N. weapons inspectors drive the timetable: "I think it is very important for us to wait and see what the inspectors come up with, and hopefully they come up with something conclusive."

Boxgate

From the Washington Post:

Remember "Boxgate," the incident last week at a St. Louis warehouse in which President Bush touted small business and things made in America? And the problem was, he was standing behind a bunch of boxes that had tape over the words "Made in China"?

Seems the person who did this, said by the White House to be an "overzealous volunteer," may have committed a federal offense...

Why the US Needs the UN

Pepe Escobar of the Asia Times explains why the US will need the UN for Iraq. Washington won't need the UN for the assault, but it "will definitely need the international community for the mopping-up business of post-Saddam. Powell himself put it succinctly; the US would like to internationalize the intervention as much as possible, because later 'there will be too much work to do'. This is a basic tenet of the Bush doctrine: America bombs, and the rest of the world picks up the pieces."

To clarify, Escobar writes, "Washington hawks don't need and certainly don't want the UN to get inside Iraq. They may need the UN to get out. But who said they will want to get out?"

Show All the Evidence, George

Dennis Hans points to a "growing body of evidence that the Bush administration is hoarding intelligence information that disproves or weakens the case against Saddam Hussein with respect to banned WMD activities as well as collaboration with al Qaeda on 9-11 and other terrorist activities." "That’s right," he says, "disproves or weakens, not strengthens."

Hans is specifically referring to the "aluminum tubes equals a nuclear program" lie that Bush keeps trying to push, and which the IAEA has continually shot down. He notes that this story, and the many other instances where the Bush administration has been dishonest about the Iraqi situation, should prompt the media to look at Bush's claims with a skeptical eye. Unfortunately, that's not happening. "Many in the news media are filing lame stories on the alleged dilemma facing the president - should he risk exposing intelligence 'sources and methods' to make the smoking-gun case against Saddam Hussein, or should he protect sources and methods even if it weakens his case. Such reporters are operating from a preposterous premise: This is an honest president in an honest dilemma, rather than a president who, when it comes to Iraqi policy, has never hesitated to misrepresent, exaggerate and lie."

Hans continues, the "news media should be demanding the release of ALL relevant material (again, taking precautions to protect sources and methods) - the material that weakens Bush's case as well as that which supports it."

SOTU: What Wasn't Mentioned

William Saletan of Slate wonders why Bush didn't talk about the state of the union last night. Meanwhile, Kathryn Casa points out all that happy news that Bush didn't bother to mention. "For example," she notes, "here is what we didn't hear the president say about the economy:"

* 1.7 million jobs have been lost since January 2001, and 8.6 million Americans are actively looking for work.

* Between Dec. 29, 2000, and the end of the third quarter 2002, the total market value of all U.S. equities dropped by 38 percent, or $6.65 trillion.

* 1.3 million Americans slipped below the official poverty line in 2001, the first increase since 1993.

* In two years, the United States had the highest rate of bankruptcy cases in history, up 23 percent since 2000.

* Requests for emergency shelters increased some 19 percent in 2002, the largest annual increase since 1990.

And here's "More news from the domestic front that went unspoken:"

* A budget surplus of $236 billion in 2002 has turned into a $157 billion deficit for 2002, and forecasters predict the Bush '04 deficit at between $300-350 billion -- a half-trillion-dollar negative change.

* Bush has cut programs within the "No Child Left Behind" Act by $90 million, and the '04 budget for Title I, the main program targeting aid to disadvantaged children, is expected to fall more than $6 billion short of what was promised in the new education law.

* Nearly 40 percent of Bush's first tax cut went to the richest 1 percent of the country, or those earning more than $373,000 a year. Under the second tax cut proposal, the same segments of the population would receive an average tax cut of $30,127, while the average working family would get about $289.

* The number of Americans without health insurance rose by 1.4 million in 2001, after dropping in 1999 and 2000.

* Monthly premiums for employer-sponsored health insurance went up by 12.7 percent between spring 2001 and spring 2002, the largest increase since 1990.

* Bush unilaterally withdrew the United States from the Kyoto Treaty, despite an EPA warning to the United Nations of significant environmental effects from climate change with, according to Associated Press reports, "changes over the next decades expected to put southeastern coast communities at greater risk of storm surges, prompt more uncomfortable heat waves in cities and reduce snowpack and water supplies in the West." The president has suggested "voluntary action" by industry is enough to deal with greenhouse-gas pollution.

* The Bush administration in 2002 designated fewer toxic sites for restoration, and shifted the bulk of the cleanup costs from industry to the taxpayers. Bush's EPA also denied requests from its own regional offices to continue cleanup actions at 33 sites in 19 states.

* In the first increase in serious crime in a decade, the FBI reports robberies were up 3.7 percent between 2000 and 2001, and murders increased 2.5 percent.

* Yet despite a focus on the "war on terrorism," we are not likely to hear the president reveal that we are no safer now than we were on Sept. 11, 2001. That's because:

* In August 2002 -- just four months before he was to propose another tax giveaway to the rich -- Bush vetoed a bipartisan package for port security, cockpit doors, border patrol, customs information systems, local first responder equipment, chemical weapons safety and other security concerns. Bush said the nation could not afford the additional homeland security expense.

* The Washington Post reported in December that the "threat of 'Islamic terrorism' toward Western countries was growing, as Islamic militants linked to al-Qaida successfully recruit young men for a "holy war" against the United States.

* U.S prestige in Europe, the Middle East and Asia is at perhaps an all-time low due to our perceived arrogance and belligerence.

How many will die?

Jonathan Steele of the Guardian draws together MedAct's projection and the UN's assessment of "Likely Humanitarian Scenarios" to discern how many Iraqi civilians will die in a war.

Dissecting the SOTU

Stephen Zunes rips apart Bush's foreign policy statements in the speech last night.

Anti-War Ads Rejected During Bush Speech

The Peace Action Education Fund tried to air some anti-war ads last night during the State of the Union. But Comcast said no.

Peace Action has issued a press release in response.

"URGENT ASSISTANCE - NEEDED BY USA"

Still waiting to receive this version of those "Nigerian Scam" e-mails...from George.

Lacking Context

Ahmed Bouzid of Palestine Media Watch criticizes the US media for its continual failures in reporting the Mid East.

"A Nation of Pirates"

From a Consortium News editorial:

When the New England Patriots won the Super Bowl in 2002, some enthusiastic sportswriters found the victory fitting because, since Sept. 11, “we’d become a nation of patriots.” Some wags responded by asking: “Does that mean if the St. Louis Rams had won, we’d be a nation of sheep?”

Following that logic, the outcome of Super Bowl XXXVII means that the United States is now “a nation of pirates.” That result was a foregone conclusion after the Oakland Raiders and the Tampa Bay Buccaneers won their respective conference championships. The Buccaneers made it official by beating the Raiders, 48-21...

How fitting, considering that we're getting ready to savage and plunder.

Hypocrisy and Double Standards

Jonathan Power writes in the Daily Times of Pakistan on the "hypocrisy about biological weapons."

Richard Butler, a former UNMOVIC inspector, does not cite "hypocrisy," but warns that "Washington is promoting 'shocking double standards' in considering taking unilateral military action to rid Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction."

"The spectacle of the United States, armed with its weapons of mass destruction, acting without Security Council authority to invade a country in the heartland of Arabia and, if necessary, use its weapons of mass destruction to win that battle, is something that will so deeply violate any notion of fairness in this world that I strongly suspect it could set loose forces that we would deeply live to regret," says Butler.

Who dies?

The CS Monitor features an article today on the "Pentagon's quietest calculation: the casualty count." The article closes on a note worth acknowledging:

The latest Gallup Poll shows that most Americans (56 percent) expect there to be fewer than 10,000 US troops killed in any war with Iraq, with 30 percent saying it would be less than 1,000. But even though 95 percent say it's likely that the US and its allies would win, barely more than half of those surveyed agree that "the current situation in Iraq is worth going to war over." And three-quarters worry that such conflict "could develop into a larger war."

Against this political backdrop, it may be understandable that military officials hesitate to talk about likely US casualties.

"We are on uncharted ground here," says John Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org in Washington. "In the past, the decision to go to war had always involved the sacrifice of blood and treasure. Now, the sacrifice is largely one of treasure, instead of blood. It has made it far easier for America to go to war, which may explain why we have been almost permanently at war for the past dozen years."

See also: "Who dies for Bush's lies?"

No contortion too extreme in support of US imperialism

Stephen Gowans offers some biting remarks on the bankruptcy of the Iraq "debate" within the United States. He is especially critical of those leftists who "look for something even mildly progressive in their own country's imperialism."

Blix Delivers; Inspections no longer relevant?

Paul Wolfowitz is claiming that Iraq has "infiltrated the inspections team". Convenient little way of discrediting any future inspections, now that Blix has given the US something that can be used to justify an invasion, eh?

Oh, and I wonder where Iraq got the idea to use spies on the inspections teams, should it be a true allegation (not bloody likely, but possible).

Rational and Pragmatic. Uh-huh.

”Honestly, I am very happy that we have people in leadership roles who are willing to act as leaders,” said Wendy S. Kopp, President of the New York-based non-governmental organization Teach For America.

”Sometimes you have to lead and it's clear to me that they have a lot of rational people at the administration (of U.S. President George W. Bush) who are looking at the whole thing very pragmatically,” she said.

Maybe I'm being unfair by saying this, but if the President of Teach for America thinks the above, then maybe we shouldn't be surprised to have an educational system that is in tatters.

The quote's from this story, btw.

Making Way for the Wall

Underreported.com draws the connection between the recent IDF demolition of 62 Palestinian shops and the "Great Wall" Israel is building to seal off the West Bank.

Throw another $100 billion on the fire

Jim Lobe of IPS reports,

If there was any doubt about the global ambitions of the Bush administration hawks, it was dispelled this weekend when a group of influential right-wing figures complained that the current military budget of almost 400 billion dollars -- greater than the world's 15 next biggest military establishments combined -- is not enough to sustain U.S. strategy abroad.

In a letter to the president released on the eve of his State of the Union address, the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), whose alumni include both figures close to Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney, as well as most of their top aides, called for increasing the defence budget by as much as 100 billion dollars next year.

''Today's military is simply too small for the missions it must perform'', said the letter whose signatories included mainly key neo-conservatives, former Reagan administration officials, and a number of individuals close to big defence manufacturers like Lockheed Martin. ''By every measure, current defence spending is inadequate for a military with global responsibilities'' . The letter, which also suggested that Washington should prepare for confrontations with North Korea, Iran, and China, is to be published Monday in the Weekly Standard, the Rupert Murdoch-financed neo-conservative journal edited by William Kristol, PNAC's co-founder and chairman.

And to think...these madmen are running the world right now.

Going it alone?

The CS Monitor reports that, should the US launch a war on Iraq without widespread support, particularly the UN's, it "would be more expensive for Americans, in terms of tax dollars and likely casualties, even if the effort included some help from a 'coalition of the willing.' The US would also have a more dominant role in forging a postwar Iraq." Another report from the Monitor breaks down how the war would hit American wallets.

The news in the first story is obvious; the interesting question is whether the "more dominant role in forging a postwar Iraq" is seen by Washington as worth this greater price.

Nevertheless, despite the tough talk from Europe at the moment, the London Times reports that the US is quietly gathering allies for a coming war, "many of which will probably reveal their backing only just before the conflict takes place." Even Arab nations are tentatively signing on, according to this story.

The Times report goes on to quote Richard Perle as saying, "There is a lot of hypocrisy at the moment...Many countries do not want to be seen to be openly supportive. Until they are convinced that we are going ahead, they will not reveal themselves.”

This might just be window dressing by Perle -- ie., an unsubstantiated claim that he could be laying out there to temper the uneasiness about a possible unilateral effort -- but I tend to think it's truthful. The US is hellbent on war, and wary allies probably see no way of stopping the assault. So, time to hop on board before the gravy train leaves 'em behind.

A sad assessment, but, unfortunately, not too much of a reach, I think.

Bioterror Inevitable

"The US warned on Sunday night that a bioterrorist attack that could kill thousands was inevitable and urged industrial and developing nations to spend tens of billions of dollars more to gear up medical systems to cope with the threat," reports Brian Groom of the Financial Times.

"'There is going to be an attack. Whether it is in western Europe, the US, Africa, Asia or wherever, you have got to anticipate that there is going to be a bioterrorism attack and the only way to defend yourself is by getting prepared,' said Tommy Thompson, health secretary."

Democractic Institutions and Iraq

Laurie King-Irani demands that we "stand up and speak out, if we wish to be worthy of the title 'democrats,'" precisely because "those stern men and women who want to bring 'democracy' to the Arab-Islamic world -- by force if necessary -- can, ironically, only realize their perilous plans by first dismantling democracy in the United States of America."

They can only pull off their neo-con artist sleight-of-hand if they first succeed in shutting down public debate and decisively strangling participatory grassroots politics in the US.

Reports and revelations from inside-the-beltway indicate that the neo-cons and their lackeys in the mainstream media are working overtime to disable critical thought, derail historical consciousness, fragment opposition, sever solidarity, and deflect any questions that might expose what they are really up to, and what they have been planning for over two decades in the brightly lit and elegantly appointed offices of some of Washington DC's wealthiest think-tanks.

With demagoguery, knee jerk patriotism, and pusillanimous punditry reaching levels unseen in the US capital since the McCarthy era, few journalists, policy makers or elected representatives are willing to speak publicly about the dangerous repercussions -- or the troubling antecedents -- of current unilateralist American designs in the Middle East.

Also, Dennis Hans argues that Bush is getting ready to bring a version of democracy to Iraq, but not of the Jeffersonian variety. Rather, he's getting ready to export "warlord democratic federalism."

Colin

The Washington Post alleges that "moderate" Colin Powell has suddenly turned hawkish this week. Where have they been? Powell's always been the hawk (wolf) in sheep's clothing.

Rebellion Or Apathy?

Haroon Siddiqui contends that the world is rebelling against America. He writes,

There already is a global rebellion against America, separate and apart from the recent terrorist attacks on U.S. civilians and soldiers in Yemen, Pakistan and Kuwait.

Governments everywhere are dreading the dawn of American imperial unilateralism. They are even more scared of their riled-up citizenries.

Most Muslims are characterizing American designs on Iraq as racist. Others are calling it a colonial endeavour — the return of the Ugly American.

From Europe through Africa and Asia to the Far East, public opinion is solidly ranged against America. The dissidents include the Pope, the archbishop of Canterbury and Nelson Mandela.

This anti-war movement may be more potent than the one against the Vietnam War. It is worldwide and it has gelled before the war has even begun.

North American pundits have it that Bush has a small window of opportunity for war because a delay would push it into the unbearable heat of the Middle East summer. The greater truth, as seen from here, may be that his options are closing because of growing people power, even in America.

Edward Said, on the other hand, is not as optimistic. He's appalled at the apathy towards Bush's planned assault on Iraq, especially in the Arab world. In a pained, searching essay, he asks,

Why is there such silence and such astounding helplessness? The largest power in history is about to launch a war against a sovereign Arab country now ruled by a dreadful regime, the clear purpose of which is not only to destroy the Ba'ath regime but to redesign the entire region. The Pentagon has made no secret that its plans are to redraw the map of the whole Arab world, perhaps changing other regimes and borders in the process. No one can be shielded from the cataclysm if and when it comes. And yet, there is only long silence followed by a few vague bleats of polite demurral in response. Millions of people will be affected, yet America contemptuously plans for their future without consulting them.

Davos vs. Porto Alegre

Compare and contrast a few of the pictures from Davos' World Economic Forum and Porto Alegre's World Social Forum.

After looking at the pics, you're likely to agree with sassafrass: "It's true - transnational progressivists have more fun!"

The War You've Never Heard About

As the US prepares to invade Iraq I think we should all ask each other this question: "Do you remember the last war? The one that took place a little over two and a half years ago?"

You remember that one dont you? It wasnt a little war. No, not little at all, it was a great big war. Probably the last great land war in history. In this war an army of at least a million invaded a little country, carrying out a policy of scorched earth everywhere they went. Murder, rape, looting, planting booby traps in peoples homes and poisoning the water supplies. They even dug up graveyards and scattered the bones of war dead in the wind.

Of course you know what war I am talking about, right? The one where one poor, small country got invaded and almost half of the people in the country became not "refugees" mind you, but "internally displaced persons"? That's right, almost two million people were forced from their homes by this war and you know which one I am talking about...right? No, not the Kosovo war, not the war against Yugoslavia. Only 800,000 were "internally displaced persons" in that one. No, I am afraid that I am talking about the war where the little country being invaded had the UN put an international arms embargo against them. Ring a bell? No?

Read more about this war, here.

Anti-Europeanism

Rumsfeld's derisive remarks towards Germany and France as the "old Europe" this past week threaten to open up a significant rift between Europe and the US. Timothy Garton Ash takes a closer look at "Anti-Europeanism in America" in the NY Review of Books.

Oil Is Key

Oil, if you haven't noticed, is crucial to the logistics of attacking Iraq. The Sunday Herald reports today that, in order for it "not to carry out its threatened veto of a second UN resolution to allow the US to intervene in Iraq," France is demanding to have a cut of the Iraqi oil riches once the US "liberates" that nation.

Meanwhile, Faisal Islam and Nick Paton Walsh of the Observer report that Iraq has recently "doubled its exports of oil to America, helping US refineries cope with a debilitating strike in Venezuela." They write,

After the loss of 1.5 million barrels per day of Venezuelan production in December the oil price rocketed, and the scarcity of reserves threatened to do permanent damage to the US oil refinery and transport infrastructure. To keep the pipelines flowing, President Bush stopped adding to the 700m barrel strategic reserve...

The trade, though bizarre given current Pentagon plans to launch around 300 cruise missiles a day on Iraq, is legal under the terms of UN's oil for food programme.

But for opponents of war, it shows the unspoken aim of military action in Iraq, which has the world's second largest proven reserves - some 112 billion barrels, and at least another 100bn of unproven reserves, according to the US Department of Energy. Iraqi oil is comparatively simple to extract - less than $1 per barrel, compared with $6 a barrel in Russia. Soon, US and British forces could be securing the source of that oil as a priority in the war strategy. The Iraqi fields south of Basra produce prized 'sweet crudes' that are simpler to refine.

And, finally, since Hussein has threatened to light ablaze the Iraqi oil fields once a US invasion begins, John Donnelly of the Boston Globe reports that the "Bush administration has compiled a classified strategic plan to protect Iraq's oil fields during a war and then manage that oil for months or years afterward, including funneling proceeds into humanitarian relief and rebuilding the country, according to US officials who have worked on the blueprints."

"Out-terrorising the terrorists will not work"

"Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad told the United States on Thursday that 'out-terrorising the terrorists will not work' and forecast a long period of war driven by hatred, revenge and greed," reports Reuters.

Mahathir, a veteran Asian leader, accused the West of seeking to impose its brand of capitalist democracy by force and starving or bombing those who did not accept that model.

"It is blasphemy to say anything against democracy. If you do, if you resist, then you'll be considered a heretic and starved to death or bombed out of existence," he said.

He suggested that suicide bombers and hijackers such as those who attacked the United States on September 11, 2001, were driven by poverty and despair.

"Out-terrorising the terrorists will not work, but removing the causes for terrorism will," he said.

"The worm finally turned. The weak have now hit back in the only way they can. Groping for the enemy, the strong hits out blindly in every direction, in every part of the world. No one is free. Fear rules the world.

"Sanity has deserted both sides. Just as, in the stone age, the man with the biggest club ruled, in our modern and sophisticated global village the country with the biggest killing power rules," Mahathir said.

President George W. Bush's campaign against an "Axis of Evil" grouping Iraq, Iran and North Korea, was doomed to fail because it had the wrong target, he added.

Nice to see Mr. Mahathir joining our very own CIA in this assessment of the "roots of terorism." "Apologists!" the neocons will surely cry.

"A Rising Tide Lifts All Boats"

From the AP:

The number of jobless worldwide has risen by 20 million people over the past two years and hundreds of millions more are employed but make so little money they can barely survive, the United Nations labor agency said Friday.

"The world employment situation is alarming," said Claire Harasty, senior economist at the International Labor Organization, launching the 108-page Global Employment Trends report. "After two years of economic slowdown and delayed recovery we estimate that 180 million people are now unemployed worldwide."

The figure represents 6.5 percent of a total global labor force of 2.8 billion people, the ILO said.

The last report, in 2001, said the number out of work was 160 million - or 5.9 percent of a then 2.7-billion labor force.

Going too far

The IDF has moved on up from shooting at ambulances to now firing missiles at hospitals. Wonderful. Charles Sheehan-Miles claims that Israel is "going too far" - not for these assaults - but for its planned killings on American soil.

In a development that probably shouldn't shock me, but does, Israel has publicly announced plans to murder people on U.S. soil. The story initially surfaced in a January 15 report by United Press International correspondent Richard Sale. Sale reports not only the aggressive plan of Israel's Mossad intelligence agency to conduct targeted assassinations in other countries, but also the nonplussed reaction of U.S. officials. I can't decide if Israel's new policy, or the American lack of outrage, is what disturbs me the most.

Pathological Liar

At this rate, "What Keeps Bush From Planting Evidence of WMD in Iraq?"

U.S. Weighs Tactical Nuclear Strike on Iraq

The LA Times is reporting that the US military is "quietly preparing for the possible use of nuclear weapons in a war against Iraq," according to a report by a defense analyst William Arkin. Again, no surprise, as this has been clearly articulated in the Nuclear Posture Review, which Arkin first reported, as well as subsequent revelations in the press. Still, it's alarming, especially when we have trilobytes continually lauding our "moral clarity" in this "war on terror".

Pentagon Eyes Mass Graves

"The bodies of U.S. soldiers killed by chemical or biological weapons in Iraq or future wars may be bulldozed into mass graves and burned to save the lives of surviving troops, under an option being considered by the Pentagon," reports Greg Seigle of The Denver Post. "Since the Korean War, the U.S. military has taken great pride in bringing home its war dead, returning bodies to next of kin for flag-draped, taps-sounding funerals complete with 21-gun salutes. But the 53-year-old tradition could come to an abrupt halt if large numbers of soldiers are killed by chemical or biological agents, according to a proposal quietly circulating through Pentagon corridors."

FBI Taps Campus Police in Anti-Terror Operations

The Washington Post warns that COINTELPRO might be revived, as "Federal authorities have begun enlisting campus police officers in the domestic war on terror, renewing fears among some faculty and student groups of overzealous FBI spying at colleges and universities that led to scandals in decades past."

Since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the FBI has strengthened or established working relationships with hundreds of campus police departments, in part to gain better access to insular communities of Middle Eastern students, government officials said.

On at least a dozen campuses, the FBI has included collegiate police officers as members of local Joint Terrorism Task Forces, the regional entities that oversee counterterrorism investigations nationwide.

...Sheldon E. Steinbach, general counsel for the American Council on Education, said criticism of the FBI's heightened activity on U.S. campuses is overblown.

"Much of the concern expressed at the moment is speculative and anticipatory," he said. "It's ascribing sinister motives to the FBI before anything remotely akin to that has been proven."

God forbid we ascribe "sinister motives to the FBI." All they need to do is dust off Ronald Reagan and away they go...

Flight 93

Following up on a recent report in London's Daily Mirror, WorldNetDaily asks the forbidden question, "Was United Flight 93 shot down on Sept. 11?"

Iraq Faces Massive U.S. Missile Barrage

CBS News is reporting, "If the Pentagon sticks to its current war plan, one day in March the Air Force and Navy will launch between 300 and 400 cruise missiles at targets in Iraq," more missiles than "were launched during the entire 40 days of the first Gulf War."

"'There will not be a safe place in Baghdad,' said one Pentagon official who has been briefed on the plan."

The report mentions that this continual bombardment is part of a "Shock and Awe" plan that will hopefully encourage key Iraqi military officers and troops to give up before they can mount any resistance. Harlan Ullman, a principal architect of this brand of warfare, explains that the purpose is to "take the city down. By that I mean you get rid of their power, water."

Interesting, especially since a few million civilians also happen to live in Baghdad. But remember: we don't want to harm the people of Iraq. According to Rumsfeld, "We favor the people of that country."

Update: According to ABC News, the Air Force is "seriously concerned about the public relations backlash from an expected high level of collateral damage" once the missiles start flying.

On violence and the Intifada

"It has now become standard to say that the Palestinians will make no progress unless suicide bombings targeting Israeli civilians end," declares Ali Abunimah. "Increasingly, Palestinians correctly acknowledge that attacks targeting civilians are a cruel and illegitimate reaction to Israel's aggression. In addition to the toll in innocent lives, there is growing recognition that suicide bombings have harmed the image of the Palestinian people and their just struggle for freedom." But, he concludes,

To pretend that unilaterally ending violence by Palestinians -- were that even possible -- while Israel's occupation -- by definition also violence -- is allowed to continue effectively unchallenged by the international community, would suddenly produce an Israel willing to withdraw behind its borders, is to ignore everything all Israeli governments have worked for throughout Israel's existence.

All Palestinians have an interest in immediately ending attacks on Israeli civilians, just as they have a genuine self-interest in developing democratic governance. But those who have seized on these two issues and made them the litmus test for further progress, as well as an excuse to avoid talking about the urgent need for international action to end the occupation, are not helping either the Palestinians or Israelis who want peace. These goals -- unattainable while Israel's daily assault on Palestinian civil society continues -- have been deliberately emphasized in order to provide Israel with cover to continue a colonial occupation that guarantees the death count will continue to climb on all sides, with no end in sight.

Iraq preparing for chemical war

"Documents smuggled out of Iraq by an opposition group appear to indicate that Baghdad is equipping key units with protection against chemical weapons," reports the BBC. "The hand-written papers, said to have been smuggled out by the Iraqi opposition, refer to new chemical warfare suits to protect soldiers and distribution of the drug atropine to counter the effects of nerve gas."

A friendly reminder: "If attacked, Israel might nuke Iraq"

It's Not About the Oil?

Brendan O'Neill is on his "it's not about the oil" tip again. As I have said before, it's not only about the oil. To go out of your way to marginalize the oil issue, which is what O'Neill repeatedly does, is sheer folly.

Whenever you talk about the geopolitical alignments within the Middle East, oil is the subtext. What makes things tricky is that the politics of oil get intertwined with other issues. So, Justin Raimondo, et al. can spout off about "this is a war for Israel's benefit," again marginalizing the oil issue, but this fails to take into account that one of the principal reasons for the American support of Israel, historically, has been its strategic function as a sort of Western buffer for Arab nationalism. A strong sense of Arab nationalism, of course, would mean that oil profits and distribution networks within the Middle East would be regulated internally, and not dominated by Western interests.

All of this is assumed and internalized at the highest echelons of power. With the current Bush junta, all you have to read is the Baker Institute/CFR report to realize how crucial oil is to their strategic thinking.

Nonetheless, O'Neill is right to caution those who oppose the war from laying all of their eggs in one basket.

Getting Desperate

The US again claims to have "very convincing evidence" that Iraq has (and is hiding) WMDs. Please, share!

Oh, and since the going's got tough, the allegation of an Iraq-al Qaeda link has been revived.

Dubya's loose lips threaten your well-being

Sam Parry argues that those classic "Bushisms" -- the President's "often-insulting remarks about political and international adversaries" -- are "becoming a national security danger to the American people." He writes,

The evidence is now clear that Bush’s bellicose statements have contributed to a growing hostility toward the United States in all corners of the globe.

“Negative opinions of the U.S. have increased in most of the nations where trend benchmarks are available,” reported the Pew Research Center for The People & The Press in a recent study. Even worse is the deterioration of U.S. standing in areas near the front lines of the war on terror, such as Jordan, Turkey and Pakistan.

Newsweek International editor Fareed Zakaria has written that anti-Americanism is emerging as the planet’s “default ideology,” which translates into deepening threats against Americans, both as individuals and as a people. But the anger may be less anti-American than anti-Bush. Respondents to international surveys often stress that they like Americans but oppose Bush administration policies.

Blocking TIA

It turns out that the US Senate is good for some things, after all. Reuters reports that the Senate "voted on Thursday to block funding for a Pentagon computer project that would scour databases for terrorist threats...until the Pentagon explains the program and assesses its impact on civil liberties."

The ACLU has more on the opposition to Poindexter's Panopticon.

Astroturf, Everywhere

We've already seen that "When it comes to the economy, President Bush is demonstrating genuine leadership." Cursor points out that he should also "be applauded for taking a courageous stand against Saddam." It seems that the deeper you dig, the more Astroturf you find.

This should not come as a surprise, as much of the activism on the Right comes from similar orchestrated campaigns, thinktanks, and well-spent money. Revolution from above, for the past 20+ years.

Nice Try, Condi

The "Devil's Handmaiden," Condoleezza Rice, tries to explain "Why We Know Iraq Is Lying" in today's NY Times. The meat of her argument is that Iraq has lied, plagiarized, hidden, and excised crucial information about its weapons program, in flagrant violation of the UN. Because of this pattern of obfuscation, she writes, "time is running out."

Considering that the US used extortion to get 1441 passed, habitually disregards inconvenient UN resolutions, lies blatantly about Iraq's role in world affairs, and has done a hefty editing job with Iraq's weapons declaration means this argument is not one that the Rice can make in good faith, especially when hopping onto her Truth Ferry means war.

The burden of proof for resorting to war is extraordinarily high, and this administration is not even close. And, of course, this is all notwithstanding the fact that the preoccupation with WMDs, UN violations, international law, etc. is merely a smokescreen for the US' larger, strategic ambitions.

Any Excuse will Do

An editorial from the Gulf News summarizes the current US-British stance on Iraq well:

With relentless determination, impervious to international sentiment, Britain and America are increasing the number of troops and equipment being sent to the Gulf region. "Preparedness" they tell everyone, just in case Iraq should be found wanting. Or, put another way, an opportunity to increase the stakes and make it even more likely that there will be a war declared on Iraq. And sooner, rather than later, despite pleas from the UN chief weapons inspectors for more time to undertake their searches.

However, time is running out for the Western duo. They can ill-afford to keep several hundred thousand troops and equipment hovering around the Gulf region - "just in case" - for six months or more, waiting for the opportunity to attack. But then the American president and the British prime minister will not want the war to be held in the summer; for them it is a winter war, or not until later this year, for the logistics of fighting a war in one of the hottest regions on Earth, in the height of summer, is something they would prefer not to contemplate.

So now the American administration and the British prime minister are looking for the opportunity to claim some default by Iraq. Fabricated or otherwise, it is almost a certainty that within the next few weeks, a reason will be found to create an almost impossible situation for Iraq. Thus will follow the cry of "foul" from the UK and the U.S. and the excuse to invade Iraq. For it is obvious that when the American president says "time is running out for Iraq" he really means that he is losing patience and wants to resolve the problem once and for all.

Adam Hochschild of the SF Chronicle tries to figure out what the "excuse" will be.

Worst President Ever

Helen Thomas, the veteran White House correspondent who sparred with Ari a few weeks ago, is profiled in the Californian Daily Breeze. She has some choice words for Dubya.

[Thomas] seemed to have sympathy and affection for every [President] but George W. Bush, a man who she said is rising on a wave of 9-11 fear — fear of looking unpatriotic, fear of asking questions, just fear. “We have,” she said, “lost our way.”

Thomas believes we have chosen to promote democracy with bombs instead of largess while Congress “defaults,” Democrats cower and a president controls all three branches of government in the name of corporations and the religious right.

As she signed my program, I joked, “You sound worried.”

“This is the worst president ever,” she said. “He is the worst president in all of American history.”

The woman who has known eight of them wasn’t joking.

Guilt Free Soldiers

The average human being has a natural aversion to killing other human beings. This is precisely why the military has to spend thousands of hours and billions of dollars training its warriors: they have to drive this out of their heads, or at least lower their inhibitions.

A story in this week's Village Voice suggests that the military is working on a solution to this costly problem: a pill that will make killing people much easier to live with, by assuaging the human conscience.

"It's the morning-after pill for just about anything that produces regret, remorse, pain, or guilt," says Dr. Leon Kass, chairman of the President's Council on Bioethics, who emphasizes that he's speaking as an individual and not on behalf of the council. Barry Romo, a national coordinator for Vietnam Veterans Against the War, is even more blunt. "That's the devil pill," he says. "That's the monster pill, the anti-morality pill. That's the pill that can make men and women do anything and think they can get away with it. Even if it doesn't work, what's scary is that a young soldier could believe it will."

...[Of course,] The scientists behind this advance into the shadows of memory and fear don't dream of creating morally anesthetized grunts. They're trying to fend off post-traumatic stress disorder, or PTSD, so that women who've been raped can leave their houses without feeling like targets. So that survivors of terrorist attacks can function, raise families, and move forward. And yes, so that those young soldiers aren't left shattered for decades by what they've seen and done in service.

Recall Chris Floyd's take on "Monster's Inc."

Fiore

Mark Fiore takes on America's love affair with the death penalty in this animated cartoon. He previews the real reality television of February sweeps here.

Priorities Exposed: $3M for the 9/11 "Investigation"

Lying Media Bastards makes an observation:

The newly formed National Commission on Terrorist Attacks is being given $3 million and a little more than a year to investigate the 9-11 attacks.

In 1996, a federal commission received $6 million to investigate the notion of legalizing gambling.

And, according to blogger Atrios, the federal government spent $70 million to figure out if President Clinton had sex with an intern.

Call your elected Congressmen and tell them they're all fired.

I think it goes without saying now: they're hiding something...

"Another world is possible"

With all the hubbub about Iraq consuming the media, a positive story is likely to get short thrift: the upcoming World Social Forum, from January 23 to 28 in Porto Alegre, Brazil. Lotsa good stuff going on down there. Keep up to date as the week goes by via the WSF webpage. Oneworld.net has set up their own webpage devoted to the forum, too.

"Axis of Evil" Rhetoric Heightens Dangers

Maura Reynolds of the LA Times reports that Bush's "axis of evil" rhetoric has backfired. It might have worked as domestic propaganda, Reynolds contends, but "as foreign policy, there is wide consensus that it exacerbated the dangers it attempted to contain."

Well, duh. What could we have expected, with David Frum at the wheel?

Agencies fear human disaster in Iraq

Humanitarian agencies always throw up the red flags when a military assault looks imminent, so it comes as no surprise that they're doing so in regards to the Iraqi situation, according to the Sydney Morning Herald.

Citing the UN's own calculations, Mark Bartolini, the Middle East director of the International Rescue Committee, warns, "You're likely to see more deaths from people who fled and died of very basic diseases like water-borne diseases than are actually killed in the initial attacks."

Another aid worker, Robert Yallop of CARE Australia, is quoted in the SMH story as expressing concern over the effects of an assault on an already weakened Iraqi population: "high levels of malnutrition following years of sanctions had left nearly a quarter of children under five malnourished and highly vulnerable to disease. Also the majority of Iraqis were highly dependent on government food rations, most of which were imported. Disruption of those supplies could have devastating consequences."

We're led to believe that news about the devastating effects of sanctions on Iraq is merely Saddamite propaganda. The UN doesn't think so, nor do the relief agencies.

FBI to work on TIA

Newsday reports that the FBI is going to work with the Pentagon on TIA. Again, the government spits on the Posse Comitatus Act.

Bush unleashes propaganda in battle for support

With support quickly evaporating for a war, the "US yesterday sought to regain the political initiative over Iraq" with the release of a 30-page document of propaganda against Saddam Hussein, the Financial Times reports.

The report, "Apparatus of Lies: Saddam’s Disinformation and Propaganda 1990-2003," criticizes Iraq for its "highly developed, well disciplined and expertly organised programme designed to win support for the Iraqi regime through outright deceit." Nevertheless, to its credit, the FT story concedes that "the White House's own version of agitprop also skates over some aspects of history. For example, it describes the use of chemical weapons against the Iraqi Kurds of Halabja in 1988, but omits to mention that the US supported Iraq during the conflict with Iran at that time, and was reluctant to admit that Halabja had happened. The White House describes the horrific birth defects in Halabja since 1988, but does not address the failure of the international community to do anything about them."

Wow. Reporting that dares to challenge the claims of a government, by actually putting them into some kind of context. Ya don't see that often, do ya?

War to Begin in Mid-February

Citing the Interfax News Agency, Reuters reports that "Russia's armed forces have obtained information that the United States and its allies have already decided to launch military action in Iraq from mid-February."

Understanding the US-Iraq Crisis

Phyllis Bennis of the Institute for Policy Studies has published a primer on the US-Iraq crisis.

Health care hell

Molly Ivins tackles the absurdities of the American health care system in her latest column.

...we've got 41.2 million Americans with no health insurance -- 14.6 percent of us -- which ends up costing us more than it would to pay for their insurance. We pay the world's highest health-care taxes. Our government spends $2,604 per capita, the highest of any nation, including those with national health insurance, even though only a quarter of our population is covered by government insurance.

We spend 13 percent of our GDP on health care, the highest in the world. The average in the European Union and in other developed countries is 8 percent. According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, we spend a total of $4,600 per capita for health care, more than twice the average of other countries. We ain't getting much bang for our buck, either. Forget the "we have the finest health care in the world" claims. In both life expectancy and infant mortality, we're below the median for developed countries.

Discrediting Ritter

Geez. Isn't it convenient that this story pops up right about now...

I'll bet O'Reilly jumps on this to smear Ritter...again.

Update: Justin Raimondo takes on these "revelations" about Ritter.

Oh, and as predicted, Bill O'Reilly pounced on this news. He declared on The Factor last night that it brought into question the credibility of Ritter's "moral stance" against the Iraq war.

MLK

FAIR has recirculated a 1995 Media Beat article by Norman Solomon and Jeff Cohen on the Martin Luther King you won't see on tv today. Judging from the media's depiction of King's career, Solomon and Cohen argue, one is lead to believe that King was assassinated in 1965 and not 1968.

Meanwhile, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution runs a story about how King's dream is fading "as suburban sprawl leads to racial separation." The AJC's Andrew Mollison writes that "a new study shows that the nation is 'clearly regressing' from his dream of an America in which black and white children study and play together, the Civil Rights Project at Harvard University reports."

February 15

Protests against a war on Iraq continued in DC and San Francisco today, and will likely continue through the MLK Holiday tomorrow.

The next date to circle on your calendar is February 15. So far, there are planned demonstrations in Oslo, Berlin, Bangkok, Ramallah, Rome, Cairo, Copenhagen, London, Manila, Amsterdam, Paris, Stockholm, Glasgow, Athens, Antwerp, Skopje, Barcelona, Helsinki, and Belfast. New York City will also hold a massive rally sponsored by United for Peace. I'm sure there will be shows of solidarity and protest in many other cities and communities. The UK's Mirror reports that 10 million people are set to march against war that day, "in what could be the biggest demo ever staged."

Deciphering the Bush Administration's Motives

If you still believe Bush wants to go to war against Iraq to eliminate Saddam's WMD arsenals, diminish the threat of terrorism, and promote democracy in Iraq and the Mid East, Michael Klare explains why you're dead wrong.

Midwifing Terrorists

Ray Hanania breaks down how Sharon and Likud "midwifed the birth of Hamas" in Counterpunch.

Hmm. Midwifing terrorists...sounds familiar.

Pro-Bush Astroturf Campaign

Have you seen a version of this letter to the editor in your local paper?

When it comes to the economy, President Bush is demonstrating genuine leadership. The economic growth package he recently proposed takes us in the right direction by accelerating the successful tax cuts of 2001, providing marriage penalty relief, and providing incentives for individuals and small businesses to save and invest. Contrary to the class warfare rhetoric attacking the President’s plan, the proposal helps everyone who pays taxes, and especially the middle class. This year alone, 92 million taxpayers will receive an immediate tax cut averaging $1,083 - and 46 million married couples will get back an average of $1,714. That’s not pocket change for a family struggling through uncertain economic times. Combined with the President’s new initiatives to help the unemployed, this plan gets people back to work and helps every sector of our economy.

There's a good chance you have, as it has popped in a number of different papers around the country.

Update: Atrios has found the culprit behind the letter campaign: gopteamleader.com. Gary Stock of UnBlinking has tooled around with Google and found out that this astroturf campaign pre-dates the spat of "genuine leadership" letters mentioned above.

How "Democracy" Will Flourish in a Post-Saddam Iraq

"As this gets nearer, the enormity of the prospect of the United States running an Arab country sinks in more and more," said one official from outside the Pentagon, who added that the administration wants to "make sure we do not get tagged as the ultimate neo-colonialist."

This quote is from a story in Friday's Washington Post on the United States' preparations for a post-Saddam Iraq. If the plan outlined isn't neocolonialism, then I don't know what is.

Amongst other details, the story emphasizes that Iraqis would be "relegated to advisory roles in the immediate postwar period [and] would gradually be given a greater role [after one year]." It also asserts that "Members of the [Iraqi] opposition community would be given chances to prove themselves as part of a prospective Iraqi leadership."

Given chances? What this really means is that power will be assigned in direct proportion to a group's willingness to cede to American ambitions within Iraq, most notably towards the oil reserves and the establishment of military bases.

Update: The WSWS has more on the "blueprint for a US colonial regime in Baghdad."

Thoughts on DC

I’m back from the DC protest. It was great to see the massive numbers in the streets – before a war has even started. That’s what is significant about this antiwar sentiment. It’s already at a fever pitch and at a level of resistance that elites have to take notice of. Whether they Stand Down because of this is, of course, another matter entirely. One thing is for sure, though: the pressure needs to be maintained.

As expected, it was a diverse gathering of people. The age range – from young tykes to 70-somethings in wheelchairs – was probably what was most striking to me. The rally was quite diverse in other ways, too – along racial, ethnic, class, and especially political lines. You had soccer moms, anarchists, grandmas, businessmen, Maoists, Greens, war veterans, etc. all in one place, united under the same banner of “no war!”. This diversity and juxtaposition of differing peoples and viewpoints is what I’ll remember most about today.

Estimates of the rally range from 100,000 – 500,000. ANSWER claimed 500,000. Most folks I talked to estimate it closer to 200K, although I cannot even begin to make an approximation. I just know it was huge. A few of the people I was with said today dwarfed last fall's October 26th rally, which was estimated at 100K+.

Favorite sign: “We have our own empty War head!” – adorned with a pic of Bush. Clever.

And, I’ve always been partial to the sentiment expressed here.

One other thing. Compare and contrast the lead in both of these stories:

More Than 100,000 in Venezuela Protest
By JORGE RUEDA, AP Writer
CARACAS, Venezuela - At least 100,000 anti-government protesters staged a candlelight march in Caracas late Saturday, converging on a city highway waving national flags, flashlights and flaming torches.

Thousands Rally in U.S. Against Iraq War
By CALVIN WOODWARD, AP Writer
WASHINGTON - Tens of thousands rallied in the capital Saturday in an emphatic dissent against preparations for war in Iraq, voicing a cry — "No blood for oil" — heard in demonstrations around the world.

Interesting contextualization. The first headline emphasizes “more than 100,000” for the Venezuelan situation, and leads with that number. The second headline emphasizes “thousands” for the DC protest and only offers “tens of thousands” to start off its own inverted pyramid. Slanted reporting? You be the judge.

I don't have much to say beyond the rather haphazard remarks above. Again, check DC IMC, SF IMC, and global IMC for more on the protests. Also see a quick summary of what else went down around the world, as well as an informal tally of total global protesters.

There are some nice pics from the DC demos at News From Babylon (note: long load time).

DC Protest

Off to DC for today's protest. Get reports from the streets via DC IMC. C-Span will also broadcast live from the rally, starting at 11AM. See C-Span's schedule for today.

For the San Francisco march, keep tabs on SF IMC. And for the rest of the protests 'round the nation (and world), keep an eye on the global IMC (and the open newswire).

ANSWER is coordinating the DC and San Francisco marches. United For Peace is serving as a crucial resource for many of the other events.

Putting Halabja in Context

"In calling for regime change in Iraq," Joost R. Hiltermann of IHT writes,

George W. Bush has accused Saddam Hussein of being a man who gassed his own people. Bush is right, of course. The public record shows that Saddam's regime repeatedly spread poisonous gases on Kurdish villages in 1987 and 1988 in an attempt to put down a persistent rebellion.

The biggest such attack was against Halabja in March 1988. According to local organizations providing relief to the survivors, some 6,800 Kurds were killed, the vast majority of them civilians.

It is a good thing that Bush has highlighted these atrocities by a regime that is more brutal than most. Yet it is cynical to use them as a justification for American plans to terminate the regime. By any measure, the American record on Halabja is shameful.

Analysis of thousands of captured Iraqi secret police documents and declassified U.S. government documents, as well as interviews with scores of Kurdish survivors, senior Iraqi defectors and retired U.S. intelligence officers, show (1) that Iraq carried out the attack on Halabja, and (2) that the United States, fully aware it was Iraq, accused Iran, Iraq's enemy in a fierce war, of being partly responsible for the attack. The State Department instructed its diplomats to say that Iran was partly to blame. The result of this stunning act of sophistry was that the international community failed to muster the will to condemn Iraq strongly for an act as heinous as the terrorist strike on the World Trade Center.

Later on in the article, Hiltermann continues, "Some of those who engineered the tilt today are back in power in the Bush administration. They have yet to account for their judgment that it was Iran, not Iraq, that posed the primary threat to the Gulf; for building up Iraq so that it thought it could invade Kuwait and get away with it; for encouraging Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs by giving the regime a de facto green light on chemical weapons use; and for turning a blind eye to Iraq's worst atrocities, and then lying about it."

But no need to worry about these silly details now. We have our moral clarity, you see. We're trying to rectify those problems in the Mid East and bring peace to the region, by overthrowing tyrants and installing our own. Just wait. Democracy will flower, from Damascus to Riyadh, from the Sinai to the Hindu Kush.

Also see Hiltermann's previous article on this topic.

Afghan War's Just Getting Started

Syed Saleem Shahzad of the Asia Times reports that things are just starting to get interesting in Afghanistan, as a new resistance to the American presence builds momentum, led by former mujahideen warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar.

War for the Good of TV

"Let's get this war on so we can make money and boost our ratings!"

In essence, that's what the cable networks are saying about the impending war on Iraq, according to this NY Times article.

"No value"

Chris Floyd takes on Charles Rangel's ill-considered proposal for a draft in this week's column and dismisses it as "unsound" and "hypocritical." But worst of all, Floyd writes, "the ploy has introduced the idea of a draft into public discourse. If and when the Regime decides it needs forced conscription to feed its war machine, it can undermine opposition to the measure by pointing to this Democratic 'support' for such a move." No worries, though.

...for now, Bush still has a couple of million bodies to fling on his foreign fires before he need think about conscripting new ones. So Rumsfeld swatted the question away -- but it was perhaps the very ease of the parry that undid him. Ever the corporate pedant, Rumsfeld couldn't simply dismiss the notion of a draft; he had to explain why it was such a bad idea. His reason? Because the biological material "sucked" into the last draft, during the Vietnam War, was of such "inferior" quality.

Here the contempt finally broke through the avuncular rictus. Rumsfeld explained that your quality types -- college boys, married guys, teachers and others -- took advantage of "all kinds of exemptions" to skip out on combat. "And what was left" -- not even "who," just "what" -- "was sucked into the intake, trained for a few months, then went out, adding no value, no advantage, really, to the United States armed services."

Think about that. "No value." More than 58,000 of these "intake suckers" were left dead on the battlefield; hundreds of thousands more were maimed, scarred, tormented, brutalized, broken -- but they had "no value" to the "United States armed services." No value -- just meaningless biological material to be chewed up in geopolitical games.

The DOD transcript, where you can find Rumsfeld's remarks, is here. Russell Mokhiber asked Ari about this incident, and was met with the usual, obfuscatory jig.

Update: Rumsfeld apologizes for the "no value" remarks.

US Swimming Against the Tide

Interesting argument made by Tom Nairn over at openDemocracy about how America is trying to counter the force it helped usher in, and so breathlessly lauded, during the 1990s: globalization.

America’s Middle East strategy is often presented as a new expression of globalisation as well as the prosecution of a neo-imperial foreign policy. It may be the second. But it is not automatically the first. US global policy and globalisation are no longer two aspects of the same thing. In fact, the Iraq war may represent the most serious blow against globalisation as it has begun to define itself since the end of the Cold War, by offering the world an expanding, democratic process of greater economic and cultural openness.

What the assault aims to do is drag this process backwards, under ‘Western’ (but really American) leadership. Its aim is to force an awakened American nationalism into a more decidedly imperial mould — which can only be done by ‘old-fashioned’ techniques. Barbarians must be reinvented, to keep Homelanders together, to prop up a half-elected President, and to re-align restive or dissident satrapies. With all its shortcomings and contradictions, globalisation had been showing signs of escaping from US Neo-liberal hegemony over the past few years. Tragically, it is believed in some places that a ‘good war’ will help to rein in such trends, by establishing a new kind of empire-boundary, namely an apocalyptic (and by definition unceasing) fight against Terrorism.

This effort stands no chance of long-term success; a fact unlikely to influence the policy makers in Bush’s Washington. Their attempt to harness, rein in and control globalisation is embedded in their current Iraq policy – whether this remains limited to the subordination of the United Nations (UN) to the White House and an inspection process designed to humiliate Saddam, whether it results in his swift downfall, or concludes in a desperate battle and widespread violence.

Also check part 2, part 3, and part 4 of Nairn's essay.

A Time to Break Silence

Press Action has posted an excerpt from MLK's famous April 4, 1967 speech at Riverside Church in New York City against the war in Vietnam. Timely.

The Trigger?

The Independent wonders if the discovery of empty Iraqi warheads will be the trigger for war. The answer is probably no, in my estimation, but it all depends on how desperate Bush is for a pretext. Either way, in a sane world, this cannot be used to justify a full-fledged assault by the US, even if the UN signs on.

Whether we live in a sane world, then, is the ultimate question.

Update: Slate has more on the "smoking warhead." William Rivers Pitt begs CNN to provide its viewers with "facts" about the warhead, and not "overheated innuendo."

Bush on N. Korea: "We Must Invade Iraq"

The Onion has again drifted over into the realm of accurate reporting. This is the second time they've caught Bush in an evasive maneuver.

Declaring (Class) War On Republicans

Harley Sorensen of the SF Chronicle demands in his latest column that "Bush's continued brazenness in promoting programs that advance the rich has to end." After all, he says,

We're paying for his callowness. Our air and water are more polluted than they should be.

Our health care system is collapsing. According to a recent report, one child in four cannot afford medical treatment when he or she gets sick. One in four! And, worse, one in two cannot afford proper dental treatment.

Bush likes to ask: "What kind of person would gas his own people?" That's a reference to Saddam Hussein gassing the Kurds (who, incidentally, are not "his people"). Bush also asks, of the leader of North Korea, "What kind of person would let his own people starve to death?"

Well, let's continue the class war by asking: "What kind of American leader would deny poor children medical care?"

Life in Late Capitalism

Tom Frank's still preaching to the masses about market populism and the conquest of cool. Here's an excerpt from a piece he wrote for The Age today:

If our fragmented society has anything approaching a master narrative, it is more of a master conflict. We are in constant struggle - not against communism, but against the spirit-crushing, fakeness-pushing power of consumer society. And we resist by watching Madonna videos or by consorting with more authentic people in our four-wheel-drives, or by celebrating consumers who do these things.

The social theorist, Daniel Bell, declared that the conflict between the enforced efficiency of the workplace and the hedonistic blow-off of our leisure time was one of capitalism's most devastating "cultural contradictions". But now we know better: the market solves its own problems, at least superficially. Criticism of capitalism has become, in a very strange way, capitalism's lifeblood. It's a closed ideological system, within which criticism can be at least symbolically addressed and resolved.

The larger corporate picture of the '90s wasn't about revolution, smashing rules, empowering the individual, taking it to the max, and so on. It was the era of great media monopolies, of the rise of Microsoft, of runaway conglomeration in banking, broadcasting, advertising, publishing and many more areas - and of the withering of the labour movement and the death of the idea of a powerful, redistributionist state.

Accompanying these changes was the intrusion of corporate power into more and more aspects of everyday life. People worked harder and longer in the '90s than in previous decades; they saw more ads on more surfaces than before; they ran up greater household debts; they had less power than at any time in the past 50 years over the conditions in which they lived and worked.

In such an environment our anger mounted. And from the eternally outraged populist right to the liberation marketers of Madison Avenue, those who prevailed in the past decade have been those who learnt to harness this anger most effectively.