A perfect juxtaposition of headline and photo, from the Anchorage Daily News last month:
One has to wonder how intentional that was.
(via Jaime)
Politics
Politically, I’m very liberal — about as far left as one can go without sliding into Libertarianism.
We lost the war
An excellent editorial from truthout that covers the same points (plus many more) that I brought up while responding to a recent comment. They do it far better and far more in depth than I do, though.
Bush’s bloviating sermons on morality in this matter fail in the face of the facts. Saddam Hussein would not have existed were it not for the energetic support of the United States. We didn’t defeat Hussein. We fired him. The fact that he was a valued employee for so long, the fact that we averted our eyes as late as 1988 to his use of chemical weapons, the fact that we gave him vital intelligence data so he could more accurately and effectively use those weapons, and the fact that we gave material assistance via government and private institutions for the creation and promulgation of said weapons, all burst the bubble of righteousness the entire debate has been contained in. Bush can talk all he wants about the evil Saddam Hussein. There is little argument with the appellation of that adjective to that name. Yet it was America who allowed him to become so, and the moral arguments surrounding his firing are indelibly tainted by these sad facts. The Kurds in Halabja who were gassed to death in March of 1988 can level a damning finger of blame as much at America as at Hussein.
(via Tom)
Syria's political brilliance
Y’know, Bush probably think’s he’s a pretty durn good politician. Got himself elected President of this here country and all. Too bad Syria just seriously one-upped him…
And while Iraq wielded the propaganda tool clumsily, Syria is proving a far better foe. It’s latest move, tactically brilliant, is to introduce a Security Council resolution calling for the elimination of all WMDs in the Middle East.
The move comes as some in the US side scream about Syria’s alleged WMDs. Thus Syria’s move is nothing short of genius. If the US is truly serious about ridding the Middle East of WMDs, it should have no problem endorsing a resolution that would compell Syria to disarm. Right?
Wrong. The resolution would have the (intentional) effect of forcing Israel to surrender its nuclear arsenal — a course of action Israel would never accept. And the US, Israel’s most loyal ally, will thus be forced to veto the resolution.
So picture this — the US vetoing a resolution calling for the banning of all WMDs from the Middle East. In one fell swoop, Syria has negated the charges of WMDs against it, exposed the US’s hypocrisy on WMDs (our allies can have them, everyone else can’t), solidified its leadership of the Arab world, and forced the US to veto a seemingly common sense resolution, after blasting France and Russia for threatening vetoes on Iraq.
(via Daily Kos)
Update:
Upon preview, it appears that the Reuters article linked to in the Daily Kos’ post doesn’t say anything about this resolution. Was it edited out after the Kos made their post, or did they mis-link? I’ll try to find another link…
Second update:
Google News to the rescue! Islam-Online: Syria To Submit Resolution On WMDs To Security Council.
US priorities in Iraq
Quick summary —
Iraqi buildings that have been looted, burned, and destroyed: the Ministry of Planning, the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Irrigation, the Ministry of Trade, the Ministry of Industry, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Culture, the Ministry of Information, the Baghdad Archaeological Museum, the museum in the northern city of Mosul, and three hospitals.
Iraqi buildings protected by US troops, tanks, armored personell carriers, and Humvees: the Ministry of Interior, and the Ministry of Oil.
It casts an interesting reflection on America’s supposed war aims. Anxious to “liberate” Iraq, it allows its people to destroy the infrastructure of government as well as the private property of Saddam’s henchmen. Americans insist that the oil ministry is a vital part of Iraq’s inheritance, that the oilfields are to be held in trust “for the Iraqi people”. But is the Ministry of Trade — relit yesterday by an enterprising arsonist — not vital to the future of Iraq? Are the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Irrigation — still burning fiercely — not of critical importance to the next government? The Americans could spare 2,000 soldiers to protect the Kirkuk oilfields but couldn’t even invest 200 to protect the Mosul museum from attack. US engineers were confidently predicting that the Kirkuk oilfield will be capable of pumping again “within weeks”.
(via Dru Blood)
How much longer can people claim that this conflict had nothing to do with oil? We’re still coming up empty of any of the “weapons of mass destruction” that were one of the original justifications for attacking. Our “liberation” of the Iraqi people has led to little but anarchy, chaos, and disorder. Our troops — those not protecting our oil interests, at least — stand by while looters rampage through the city.
So we got rid of Saddam — that’s a good thing, definitely. But what now? The situation, as it stands, is giving the US an ever-worsening standing in the eyes of the world. This is when the real work is going to start. And you can bet that it’s not going to be easy.
Disgusted and depressed
I’m getting so tired of…well, everything.
Every morning I get up, and every evening when I get home, I pop open my newsreader to browse through the day’s news and headlines. And every time, I find more and more that disgusts me, outrages me, and quite simply, makes me want to go back to playing ostrich and pretending that the world outside my own private little bubble doesn’t exist.
Iraq is in chaos due to our meddling, and that seems to be entirely acceptable. US soldiers stand by and watch while making racist comments (“Goddamn Iraqis will steal anything if you let them. Look at them.”), and Rumsfeld brushes off reports of hospitals being looted and priceless historical artifacts being destroyed as something that just happens (“Surprise me? I don’t know. Disorder happens every time there’s a transition.”). Meanwhile, it looks like the pieces are being set up for us to move into Syria (“PRESIDENT BUSH yesterday accused Syria of having chemical weapons. In the clearest sign yet that Washington is turning its sights on Damascus? links to terrorism, two of his most senior Cabinet members also warned the country against harbouring Iraqi officials.”).
Prominent Republicans continue to tighten their noose around America, working to extend the Patriot Act indefinitely, and Patriot II is still bouncing around Capitol Hill somewhere. Fully expecting Bush to run roughshod over any opposition in the 2004 Presidential race, rumblings are already being floated of who to put on the Republican ticket in 2008 — with the current front runner being Florida Governor Jeb Bush (“”If Jeb is in the mix” for the nomination, says a top GOP official, “it’s his.””).
I’m getting so tired of all of this. This isn’t the America that I grew up in, and have leared to respect over the years — even at times when I didn’t agree with its actions, the ideals our nation was founded on were strong, and until now, they’ve generally stood the test of time. Not anymore, however.
Admittedly, little of any of this has affected me directly. I’m lucky enough to be a white male, and therefore not too likely to be arrested and held indefinitely without being charged with a crime, as has happened to Mike Hawash. However, how much longer before we all start feeling the effects of the current regime’s drive for power and control? Not long at all, I’m afraid.
Anyway. Just grumbling, I guess — a little bitching and moaning to start my week off. Out of time now, though, so hi-ho, hi-ho, it’s off to work I go. Hope your weeks are starting off better than mine.
(Various links above via Chronicle Corvidae, Xeni Jardin, Stavros, and Tom Tomorrow [here, here, and here])
Which claims panned out?
Anger Managment Course’s rundown of claims made by the pro- and anti-war camps prior to hostilities, and how they seem to be panning out so far.
Final score: pro-war, -7 out of 7, anti-war, +2 out of 6. Sounds about right to me.
President for life?
This is the absolute last thing we need floating around Capitol Hill these days: House Joint Resolution 11, “Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty-second article of amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President.”
On the bright side, according to Tom Tomorrow, Rep. Serrano has been tossing this one out every so often for quite a while now. Of course, on the down side, if something this insane is going to pass, it’s a lot more likely in the current political climate. Creepy — very, very creepy.
What she said
I can’t say it better than Shelley did, so I won’t try. Just go and read.
To Tim Robbins, re: Bob Roberts
The following letter was sent to Tim Robbins via his agent. I have no real idea if he will receive it, or whether he will answer. No matter the outcome, I’m preserving the letter here.
Mr. Smith,
I’m not entirely sure if this is the best (or maybe even appropriate) way to go about this, but if would be so kind to forward this letter along to Mr. Robbins, I’d greatly appreciate it.
Mr. Robbins,
Last weekend, in the midst of ranting with a friend about all things political, I found out that she hadn’t seen “Bob Roberts.” Having been a fan of the film since I saw it in the theaters during its initial run, I pulled it out and we sat down and watched it — her first time, and my first time in about a year or so.
We both enjoyed it a lot, but I was astounded at how much more topical it seemed today than it did at the time it came out. Substitute Roberts’ folk background with Bush’s oil family background, and in many ways, they seemed almost frighteningly similar in their ideological attitudes. We spent some time after the movie talking about it, and in the course of the discussion became somewhat curious as to what you might think of the film now, especially in the light of the current administration.
At a time when the separation of church and state is becoming increasingly less distinct, when our personal liberties are becoming more and more curtailed, and when any opinion that does not mesh with that of the ‘powers that be’ is deemed “un-American” and cause for censure (as demonstrated by the unfortunate cancellation of the Bull Durham celebration due to the political views of you and Susan Sarandon), it seems all to much like what was satire in 1991 has become the sad reality of everyday life today.
I found one article on the Internet about an interview you did for ‘The Tech’ at MIT where even at the time that ‘Bob Roberts’ was being released, you were seeing some similarities between Roberts and the then campaigning George W. Bush.
The campaign that Roberts launches shows more than a few similarities to the campaigns of today’s candidates, which is somewhat amazing considering that the script was written six years ago. “Well, there are some strange similarities,” Robbins admits. “Just the other day Bush, at a campaign stop, was asked what voters could do to help him in November, and he said, I think jokingly, ‘Vote often.’ And as you know, Bob Roberts says something similar. It’s strange to see. I guess it’s good for the movie but I don’t know if it’s good for the country.”
Since then, of course, Bush has stepped up his religious rhetoric, creating even more similarities between him and your fictional character.
Should you have the time and inclination to respond to this, I’d love to hear a little bit from you about how you view ‘Bob Roberts’ now, ten years later, in a political and cultural climate that would be very familiar — and probably comfortable — for the satirical character you created. If you were comfortable with my posting any response you might be able to give to my website, that would be wonderful, however, as this is primarily my own personal curiosity at play, I would not post anything publicly without your permission.
In any case, thank you much for your work over the years, for creating ‘Bob Roberts’, and for standing up for your beliefs in a time where doing so is becoming more and more unpopular, and at times fraught with consequences it never should have.
Sincerely,
Michael “Woody” Hanscom
Questions regarding Saddam's statue
Some questions regarding the widely publicised images of Saddam’s statue getting toppled. This is more information that resides in that netherland of suspicion, rumor, and possible conspiracy theories, so keep that in mind.
From this Agonist post, we go to Kynn Bartlett’s comments on the apparent lack of people involved in the toppling of the statue, and then a comment to Kynn’s post by ‘Citizen Able’ leads us to this DC Indymedia post with another look at the picture in question, along with some other (less credible, IMHO) implications.
As I said, this is definitely veering further into possible paranoid conspiracy theory territory. The thing is, those are just so much fun! Just remember not to disengage your brain.