Not fighting the people who attacked us
AUSTIN, Texas -- President Bush has once more undertaken to explain to us "Why We Fight," which is also the title of an excellent new documentary on Iraq. According to the president, "Our goal in Iraq is victory." I personally did not find that a helpful clarification.
According to the president, we are doomed to stay in Iraq until we "leave behind a democracy that can govern itself, sustain itself and defend itself." That's not exactly getting closer every day. But, the Prez sez, "A free Iraq in the heart of the Middle East will make the American people more secure for generations to come."
So far, no good. After three years, tens of thousands of lives and $200 billion, we have achieved chaos. As Rep. John Murtha put it, "The only people who want us in Iraq are Iran and al-Qaida." Since the revisionist myth that we went to war to promote democracy keeps seeping into rational discussion, it is worth reminding ourselves that there never were any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
According to the president, we are doomed to stay in Iraq until we "leave behind a democracy that can govern itself, sustain itself and defend itself." That's not exactly getting closer every day. But, the Prez sez, "A free Iraq in the heart of the Middle East will make the American people more secure for generations to come."
So far, no good. After three years, tens of thousands of lives and $200 billion, we have achieved chaos. As Rep. John Murtha put it, "The only people who want us in Iraq are Iran and al-Qaida." Since the revisionist myth that we went to war to promote democracy keeps seeping into rational discussion, it is worth reminding ourselves that there never were any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
Did Milosevic or his accusers "cheat justice"? The show trial that went wrong
"It's hard not to feel that by dying in his cell, Slobodan Milosevic finally succeeded in his determined effort to cheat justice." Thus read the opening sentence of a New York Times editorial, Tuesday, March 14. The editorial cited without comment Carla Del Ponte, the chief prosecutor of the United Nations tribunal, who told an Italian interviewer that "the death of Milosevic represents for me a total defeat."
In fact, Milosevic's death in his cell from a heart attack spared Del Ponte and the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) -- itself a kangaroo tribunal set up by the United States with no proper foundation under international law or treaty -- the ongoing embarrassment of a proceeding where Milosevic had made a very strong showing against the phalanx of prosecutors, hearsay witnesses and prejudiced judges marshaled against him.
In fact, Milosevic's death in his cell from a heart attack spared Del Ponte and the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) -- itself a kangaroo tribunal set up by the United States with no proper foundation under international law or treaty -- the ongoing embarrassment of a proceeding where Milosevic had made a very strong showing against the phalanx of prosecutors, hearsay witnesses and prejudiced judges marshaled against him.
Bush: internationalist and isolationist?
AUSTIN, Texas -- It's hard to keep up with George W. Bush's shuttles between internationalism and isolationism. You may recall he first ran for office declaring he was against nation-building and other such effete, peacekeeping efforts. None of that do-gooder, building-a-better-world stuff for him -- he couldn't even be bothered to learn the names of the Grecians and Kosovians.
Until Sept. 11, except for staring deep into Vlad Putin's ice-blue eyes and concluding the old KGB shark had soul, Bush evinced little interest in foreign affairs.
Then he literally became an internationalist with a vengeance. Absolutely everybody signed up to help go after al-Qaida in Afghanistan -- offers of help gushed in. Next came the campaign to bring down Saddam Hussein because he had weapons of mass destruction, including a nuclear weapons program. Unfortunately, most of the rest of the world didn't think Iraq had much in the way of WMD, or at least felt the United Nations inspectors should be given more time to see if they were there.
Until Sept. 11, except for staring deep into Vlad Putin's ice-blue eyes and concluding the old KGB shark had soul, Bush evinced little interest in foreign affairs.
Then he literally became an internationalist with a vengeance. Absolutely everybody signed up to help go after al-Qaida in Afghanistan -- offers of help gushed in. Next came the campaign to bring down Saddam Hussein because he had weapons of mass destruction, including a nuclear weapons program. Unfortunately, most of the rest of the world didn't think Iraq had much in the way of WMD, or at least felt the United Nations inspectors should be given more time to see if they were there.
Did Bush make mistakes in good faith?
When we watch a video of Bush being informed of the danger of Hurricane Katrina and recall that he claimed that there was no way he could have known of that danger, our faith in his good intentions may be shaken.
And when we learn that Bush has long since authorized wiretapping without court approval, what are we to make of his public statements (such as last June 9, or July 14, 2004, or April 20, 2004) when he reassured us that all wiretapping requires court approval?
Our President says the United States does not torture, but he's been informed that it does because even if he doesn't read newspapers, reporters have asked him and his press secretary about specific cases. When Bush signed a bill banning torture he added a signing statement claiming the right to keep torturing. Yet he says he doesn't torture. How should we characterize that statement? It's clearly not the truth.
And when we learn that Bush has long since authorized wiretapping without court approval, what are we to make of his public statements (such as last June 9, or July 14, 2004, or April 20, 2004) when he reassured us that all wiretapping requires court approval?
Our President says the United States does not torture, but he's been informed that it does because even if he doesn't read newspapers, reporters have asked him and his press secretary about specific cases. When Bush signed a bill banning torture he added a signing statement claiming the right to keep torturing. Yet he says he doesn't torture. How should we characterize that statement? It's clearly not the truth.
The ultimate movie monster may be the Military-Industrial Complex
Reviews of:
WHY WE FIGHT
A film by Eugene Jarecki
THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE
Directed by Jonathan Demme
As our nation lurches sickeningly toward outright fascism, it's both liberating and disturbing to see a complete, coherent take on the core of the problem.
WHY WE FIGHT is a deeply clarifying and profoundly saddening summing up of the domination of the United States by what Dwight Eisenhower called "the military-industrial complex."
Eisenhower himself was hardly without blame for its rise. He was a great general who defeated the Nazis in Europe. He also raised serious questions about the use of the atomic bombs on Japan. And at the end of his eight-year presidency (1953-1961) he famously warned of the power of the armed services in combination with the pull of the huge corporations that profit from them.
WHY WE FIGHT
A film by Eugene Jarecki
THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE
Directed by Jonathan Demme
As our nation lurches sickeningly toward outright fascism, it's both liberating and disturbing to see a complete, coherent take on the core of the problem.
WHY WE FIGHT is a deeply clarifying and profoundly saddening summing up of the domination of the United States by what Dwight Eisenhower called "the military-industrial complex."
Eisenhower himself was hardly without blame for its rise. He was a great general who defeated the Nazis in Europe. He also raised serious questions about the use of the atomic bombs on Japan. And at the end of his eight-year presidency (1953-1961) he famously warned of the power of the armed services in combination with the pull of the huge corporations that profit from them.
Digital hype: a dazzling smokescreen?
As each new season brings more waves of higher-tech digital products, I
often think of Mark Twain. Along with being a brilliant writer, he was also
an ill-fated investor -- fascinated with the latest technical innovations,
including the strides toward functional typewriters and typesetting
equipment as the 19th century neared its close.
Twain would have marveled at the standard PC that we take for granted now. But what would he have made of the intrusiveness of present-day media technology -- let alone its recurring content?
It’s getting harder and harder to drive out of cell-phone range -- that is, if you really want to. And judging from scenes at countless remote locations, many people would rather not forfeit 24/7 phone access for conversations that involuntary eavesdroppers hear half of. (Virtually always, it seems, the more boring half.)
Twain would have marveled at the standard PC that we take for granted now. But what would he have made of the intrusiveness of present-day media technology -- let alone its recurring content?
It’s getting harder and harder to drive out of cell-phone range -- that is, if you really want to. And judging from scenes at countless remote locations, many people would rather not forfeit 24/7 phone access for conversations that involuntary eavesdroppers hear half of. (Virtually always, it seems, the more boring half.)
South Dakota: First to outlaw abortion this century
AUSTIN, Texas -- South Dakota is so rarely found on the leading edge of the far out, the wiggy, the California-esque. But it has now staked its claim. First to Outlaw Abortion This Century. The state legislature of South Dakota, in all its wisdom and majesty, a legislature comprised of sons and daughters of the soil from Aberdeen to Zell, have usurped the right of the women of that state to decide whether or not to bear the child of an unwanted pregnancy. THEY will decide. Women will do what they decide.
These towering solons, representing citizens from the great cosmopolitan centers of Rapid City and Sioux Falls to the bosky dells near Yankton, are noted for their sagacity and understanding. When you think "enlightenment," the first thing that comes to your mind is "the South Dakota Legislature," right?
As well it might. The purpose of the law is to force a decision from the United States Supreme Court, where the appointments of John Roberts and Sam Alito have now shored up the anti-choice forces.
These towering solons, representing citizens from the great cosmopolitan centers of Rapid City and Sioux Falls to the bosky dells near Yankton, are noted for their sagacity and understanding. When you think "enlightenment," the first thing that comes to your mind is "the South Dakota Legislature," right?
As well it might. The purpose of the law is to force a decision from the United States Supreme Court, where the appointments of John Roberts and Sam Alito have now shored up the anti-choice forces.
Kurt Vonnegut's "Stardust Memory"
On a cold, cloudy night, the lines threaded all the way around the Ohio State campus. News that Kurt Vonnegut was speaking at the Ohio Union prompted these “apathetic” heartland college students to start lining up in the early afternoon. About 2,000 got in. At least that many more were turned away. It was the biggest crowd for a speaker here since Michael Moore.
In an age dominated by hype and sex, neither Moore nor Vonnegut seems a likely candidate to rock a campus whose biggest news has been the men’s and women’s basketball teams’ joint assault on Big Ten championships.
But maybe there’s more going on here than Fox wants us to think.
Vonnegut takes an easy chair across from Prof. Manuel Luis Martinez, a poet and teacher of writing. He grabs Martinez and semi-whispers into his ear (and the mike) “What can I say here?”
Martinez urges candor.
“Well,” says Vonnegut, “I just want to say that George W. Bush is the syphilis president.”
The students seem to agree.
“The only difference between Bush and Hitler,” Vonnegut adds, “is that Hitler was elected.”
In an age dominated by hype and sex, neither Moore nor Vonnegut seems a likely candidate to rock a campus whose biggest news has been the men’s and women’s basketball teams’ joint assault on Big Ten championships.
But maybe there’s more going on here than Fox wants us to think.
Vonnegut takes an easy chair across from Prof. Manuel Luis Martinez, a poet and teacher of writing. He grabs Martinez and semi-whispers into his ear (and the mike) “What can I say here?”
Martinez urges candor.
“Well,” says Vonnegut, “I just want to say that George W. Bush is the syphilis president.”
The students seem to agree.
“The only difference between Bush and Hitler,” Vonnegut adds, “is that Hitler was elected.”
NY Times bungles coverage of AP video which proves Bush lied about breached levees
In its coverage Thursday of the latest White House Katrina scandal, the New York Times has unbelievably missed the entire main story that President Bush lied to Americans when, four days after the Hurricane hit, he declared on ABC's Good Morning America that"I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees." But a new videotape released Wednesday by the Associated Press clearly shows the president, along with Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff, being warned the day before the storm struck that the levees in fact were in serious jeopardy. Yet the Times' story makes absolutely no mention of this contradiction. In fact, its opening paragraph is so way off the mark as to almost exonerate the Bushies over their inept response to the storm:
"A newly released transcript of a government videoconference shows that hours after Hurricane Katrina made landfall, federal and state officials did not know that the levees in New Orleans were failing and were cautiously congratulating one another on the government response."
"A newly released transcript of a government videoconference shows that hours after Hurricane Katrina made landfall, federal and state officials did not know that the levees in New Orleans were failing and were cautiously congratulating one another on the government response."
Bush and Gandhi
"What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty and democracy?"
There is a terrible profanity in George Bush's intention to lay a wreath at the memorial of Mahatma Gandhi, the man who uttered those words, during the president's trip to India on a mission of nuclear proliferation and at a time when his draconian occupation of Iraq is spinning into all-out civil war. "It will be as though he has poured a pint of blood" on the great pacifist's memory, writes novelist Arundhati Roy.
Few world leaders today less embody the ideals Gandhi represents than Bush. Does he not know this? Does he think some PR advantage will accrue from his hollow gesture in Rajghat, or that it will mask the horror of his incompetence?
There is a terrible profanity in George Bush's intention to lay a wreath at the memorial of Mahatma Gandhi, the man who uttered those words, during the president's trip to India on a mission of nuclear proliferation and at a time when his draconian occupation of Iraq is spinning into all-out civil war. "It will be as though he has poured a pint of blood" on the great pacifist's memory, writes novelist Arundhati Roy.
Few world leaders today less embody the ideals Gandhi represents than Bush. Does he not know this? Does he think some PR advantage will accrue from his hollow gesture in Rajghat, or that it will mask the horror of his incompetence?