10/02/2004

Least Polite? Moi?

Loaded Mouth is proud to have been nominated for "Least Polite Political Blogger" in Rox Populi's I Call Bullshit and Offer My Own Best Political Bloggers Contest. I can assure you that me serving as guest blogger on Roxanne's site this weekend is in no way a conflict of interest. ;> And just in case you don't think I'm rude enough, check out my performance in this weeks flame war with some assholes from Power Line. I had great lines like, "If I stuck a fact on the head of my dick and fucked you up the ass with it, would you still think it's not a fact?" And this is all after I posted a trackback ping to Power Line simply saying, "Fuck you, Power Line." So, if it were upto me, I'd be so winning this thing.

The Curse of Nomah

How about them Cubbies? I thought the A's were the kings of choking, but that was before seeing this playoff bound Chicago team drop 7 of 9 games against the Mets and Reds, ferchristssake. Then they lose to the Braves by letting Mike Hampton - a pitcher - hit a homer. (I know Hampton is a very good hitter despite being a pitcher, but still.) That's pretty pathetic. And while, as a baseball fan, I would have loved to see another chance at a Red Sox/Cubs World Series, as a Red Sox fan I can't help but laugh at the ball club which traded for our whiny ass "superstar" shortstop and expected him to lead them to greatness. Didn't Nomar try bunting in extra innings, tying run on first base, and only one out? I guess those fireballers on the Reds pitching staff were just too much for him.

I'll be laughing until my coworker reads this and kicks my ass this Tuesday.

Anybody who thinks this up should be able to keep the money

When you see a headline like, "Who wants to be an idiot?," you just have to read the story.

Seven TV station workers in Greece have been charged with criminal fraud after a police crackdown on a televised quiz show that enticed viewers to compete for a cash prize by phoning in on high-charge toll lines.

The Athens paper Kathimerini reports that nobody actually managed to get through to the show, because its organisers only answered the phone to their accomplices who then all failed to give the right answers to an outstandingly stupid quiz. [Only the bright ones call!]

Punters, encouraged by the waiting jackpot, were kept on the high-charge line for up to 15 minutes, after which they were disconnected.

The quiz producers reportedly have made €10 million ($17 million) so far this year out of the toll charges, while at least 115,000 people had called up without getting through over the past five months.

Did you know there's a fatwa against yoga?

No shit.

...Gar Fatwa (House of Fatwas), Egypt's highest religious institution, said the yoga was an un-Islamic 'aberration'.

"Yoga is an ascetic Hindu practice, which should not be adopted as a sport or a worship," reads the fatwa...

Damn. I was really hoping to find some Muslim "Stretch Armstrong's"...

Spiiiiiinnnn!

After sorting through some right wing commentary which tries spinning Bush's debate disaster into some sort of victory, I can't help but think of one thing: Could you imagine what the wingnuts would be saying if roles were reversed? IE: Bush presented himself in the manner Kerry did, and Kerry presented himself as a speaker who leaned on his lectern while he constantly fumbled for words? We wouldn't hear the end of it. We would be inundated with assertions that Kerry is unintelligent, unpresidential, and how anybody who can't even pronounce "mullah" correctly shouldn't be taken seriously. Rush, Hannity, and Savage would all air clips of his mistakes and make fun of him for days on end. Instapundit would provide hundreds of links to shitty little right wing blogs who will all stick a fork in Kerry's campaign.

But if Bush comes across as a bumbling fool, that's just swell. Who wouldn't want a man who can't fucking talk as our president?

And I thought they were conservative?

Let's see what London's Telegraph thought of last night's debate.

Bush explained the Moo Laws were behind the trouble in Eye-rack

For some of us, the most unpredictable moment of the first Bush-Kerry debate was when the President said he was standing up to what he called the militant "Moo Laws". George W Bush is a Texan, at least by adoption. Texas is cattle country.

Perhaps the Moo Laws are legislation passed by liberal, environmentalist congressmen that would make it unconstitutional for cattle to emit their traditional sound - mooing now being considered noise pollution. As Mr Bush used the phrase, John Kerry looked wary. Mr Bush was obviously trying to depict him as anti-moo...

If you don't read the whole thing, you're a moo-law.

Light blogging

Running monthly reports, which takes a few hours to complete. Whee. But it's nice to see the left side of the blogosphere going nuts after the debate, TPM calling out Fox for releasing an article which attributes blantantly false quotes to Kerry, and dKos pointing out that Fox also also altered photos of Bush, making him look taller when side-by-side with Kerry. Keeping these fuckers on the defensive, just like Kerry did to Bush in the debate, is what I like to see.

It still kills me that the wingnuts scream about bias at CBS, yet their trusted news source is Fox. More proof that the right is absolutely fucking insane.

10/01/2004

And let's not forget about the Darfur Genocide

The mention that Darfur got in the debate last night hardly scraped the surface of the problem.

In its reporting, the media has used stale and unchanging figures. Current data suggests that far more than 200,000 have already died, though the figures cited in wire reports and news accounts are typically between 30,000 and 50,000. Approximately 2 million have been displaced in Darfur or made refugees in Chad, but news reports continue to speak of "more than 1 million driven from their homes." The World Health Organization found that 10,000 are dying every month in camps to which there is humanitarian access; but elsewhere in Darfur the mortality rate is much higher.

So what's being done about this? Uhm.. Nothing.

With a woefully inadequate AU force, a meaningless U.N. resolution, and much bombast from various nations trying to substitute unctuous talk for concrete action, the future of Darfur is bleak. As the catastrophe accelerates, the international community has yet to make a meaningful response and the news media has yet to comprehensively render the genocidal realities. Our failure could not be greater.

I think Genocide Watch will be coming back next week, along with a link to send your donations to Oxfam. This lack of progress on stopping genocide, for christ's sake, is ridiculous.

The Miami Massacre

Impatient, arrogant, noticeably irritated, and snapping back his answers in a tone which suggested that he was insulted to even be questioned, Bush was at his very best last night. Except, of course, when he shows us five different ways to say Kim Jong-il, pronounces mullah as "moo-lah," and asks Jim Lehrer for extra time to respond to Kerry and gives the camera a deer in the headlights look for a few seconds before forming a sentence. While that may not be his best, that's just classic.

I really wish that I could bring myself to discuss foreign policy, the War in Iraq, and everything else that was brought up in this debate, but I just can't get over the fact that Bush performed so horribly. And besides, beyond dictating that the Commander-in-Chief should merely serve as a cheerleader to our Armed Forces, he didn't partake in much discussion about policy, either. "Mr. President, how do we win the War in Iraq?" 'We must stand strong and support our troops. Rah-rah-sis-boom-bah!' Listening to him convinced me that his only plan for Iraq was to team up with Senator Lott and form the Axis of Pom-Poms.

And Poland? Poland?!

After watching last night's debacle, I don't think I can ever take Bush seriously again. What was your impression of the debate?

[Crossposted to Rox Populi.]

When exactly were you planning to invade Iraq, Mr. Bush?

Check this out:

Public interest groups finally managed to get some records from Dick Cheney's energy task force. Surprise, they show that industry lobbyists not only played a pivotal role in making the policy, they wrote much of it themselves. Judicial Watch obtained maps of the Iraqi oil fields from the energy task force, along with charts, developments, project costs, etc., as well as a list of "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts." They are dated March 2001. This is of particular interest because the staggering profits of the last three years have left the oil companies with billions of dollars they want to invest in undeveloped world reserves.

One monkey with a thousand typewriters

Guess who wrote Iraqi PM Allawi's speech to Congress? The White House!

In other news

I hate to pull another "light blogging" day, but all I want to do is sleep right now. On top of the 12 hour shift I had to work a couple days ago still screwing with me, I started a new diet this week to see if it helps out with my hypoglycemia. As you can probably imagine, it's not working. I've got another 12 hour shift to look forward to today, and I have to find something to write about because I'm supposed to be guest blogging on Rox Populi. So no days off for me.

The only thing that surprised me about this debate is that no poo was flung

My dog cocks his head and makes this look, too

Tonight on Fox - WHEN MONKEYS ATTACK!

The real confirmation that Bush did a terrible job

You might be wondering where the first place I turned for debate coverage was? Why, Instapundit, of course! I have to see how the right spins Bush's latest train wreck.

You know what most of them seem to be saying? "Draw." Bush was so terrible that even the assholes who support him can't honestly come out and say this was a victory. That's pretty bad.

So which part of the debate gave you the biggest laugh? When he said "moo-lah" instead of mullah, that was priceless.

9/30/2004

Why have a debate? Bush has already won it.

I flipped on a local AM radio talk show before going to bed, and here's what the host said: "Does Bush have anything to prove in this debate?" The host, his cohost, and all the callers they let on answered no.

What a stupid fucking question. What does Bush have to prove?

Well, where are those weapons of mass destruction?

Where are Saddam's ties to bin Laden?

Where's bin Laden?

Why do we control so little of Iraq that Iyad Allawi wouldn't even be considered the full mayor of Baghdad under a real democracy?

How come the violence has only escalated since you declared "Mission Accomplished?" (Memo to trolls: I don't care if those words never came out of his mouth, he stood under a banner saying such, which means he fucking said it.)

How come, just a week ago, you said that the Taliban are no more when we are still fighting against them in Afghanistan?

How come Afghanistan's elections are going to be a sham?

Why did my job goto India?

Why are health care costs going up?

Why does North Korea have a nuclear weapon?

Why is Iran on the verge of getting a nuclear weapon, if they don't already have one?

How could we let Iran setup their nuclear program by modeling it after Isreal's, wherein they bury a bunch of bunkers in their vast desert where you can't find them and the area is too large to carpet bomb?

Why have you let al-Qa'ida grow stronger?

How come you ignored warnings that a terrorist attack would happen on US soil?

How come the rest of the world hates us?

Why don't you give a flying fuck about Sudan?

Why? Why? Why?

But, of course, none of these questions will be asked tonight. And since the rules of the "debate" are weighted to allow Bush to win, which is the only reason why Bush is participating in these "debates," then there's really no point to holding them. It's all staged, just like the Gallop polls being rigged to give Bush a "lead", so then the media can say, "Well, look at this, Bush has a double digit lead! This election's going to be a landslide!" Of course, we all know that the race is a dead heat, but when the media keeps on repeating these lies enough, many possible Kerry voters who don't know any better will start feeling like the presidential race is over and not cast their vote.

It's sickening, really. Bush isn't going to be challanged on jackshit tonight, and tomorrow everybody will glorify his huge victory and say Kerry doesn't stand a chance.

How do we turn this kind of spin around?

And they said Fahrenheit 9/11 was propaganda...

I just watched the trailer for Fahrenhype 9/11. Here's the three things you need to know about it:

- They use Ann Coulter as an "expert."
- They use Zell Miller as an "expert."
- They instigate that Michael Moore thinks there is no terrorist threat.

Oh yeah, it's by Dick Morris, the man who spends his spare time hiring expensive call girls and licking their toes.

I'm sure this straight-to-video "film" will be fucking groundbreaking.

Speaking of masturbation...

Hey! The first debate is on tonight! There's gonna be some massdebation going on!

Sorry...

And now time for something completely random

Hmmm.. One arm is larger than the other. I better start jerking off with my left hand.

Vietaq

Al Lorentz, a soldier with 20 years of military experience whose currently serving in Iraq, gives us five reasons for "Why We Cannot Win." I'm going to quote his first one, which I've titled "Guerilla War 101."

First, we refuse to deal in reality. We are in a guerilla war, but because of politics, we are not allowed to declare it a guerilla war and must label the increasingly effective guerilla forces arrayed against us as "terrorists, criminals and dead-enders."

This implies that there is a zero sum game at work, i.e. we can simply kill X number of the enemy and then the fight is over, mission accomplished, everybody wins. Unfortunately, this is not the case. We have few tools at our disposal and those are proving to be wholly ineffective at fighting the guerillas.

The idea behind fighting a guerilla army is not to destroy its every man (an impossibility since he hides himself by day amongst the populace). Rather the idea in guerilla warfare is to erode or destroy his base of support.

So long as there is support for the guerilla, for every one you kill two more rise up to take his place. More importantly, when your tools for killing him are precision guided munitions, raids and other acts that create casualties among the innocent populace, you raise the support for the guerillas and undermine the support for yourself. (A 500-pound precision bomb has a casualty-producing radius of 400 meters minimum; do the math.)

He makes a lot of sense. There's four more, so go read the rest.

Ike likes Kerry

President Eisenhower's son, John, won't be voting for Bush. This really shouldn't come as a surprise, since President Eisenhower was one of the first leaders to warn us about the military-industrial complex, and he spent much of his time fighting against the Pentagon, with arms contractors in tow, taking over the government. Compare that with Bush's record of placing CEOs in cabinet positions and doing whatever current Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, and former Secretary of Defense Cheney, tell him to do. If Eisenhower were a yardstick to measure all other Republicans to, George W. Bush wouldn't even be in the same party.

Mr. Greenie is turning blue

After catching myself reading Kos and Atrios again, less than 24 hours after I swore off doing so, I've been forced to rethink a few of the things I ranted about earlier this week. The funny thing is, after all my ranting about the Republicans setting the agenda for the media, I read Kos' column in the Guardian. He touched upon the same topics, and I pretty much agree with everything he has to say.

What is the Rightwing Noise Machine? Conservatives in the United States have spent the last 30 years building a vast infrastructure designed to create ideas, distribute them, and sell them to the American public. It spans multiple think tanks and a well-oiled message machine that has a stranglehold on American discourse. From the Weekly Standard, Rush Limbaugh, Wall Street Journal, Drudge Report and Murdoch's Fox News, to (more recently) the mindless drones in the rightwing blogosphere, the right enjoys the ability to control entire news cycles, holding them hostage for entire elections.

So if I can agree with Kos that the agenda is being set by the right, and this is something that needs to be fought, then how come I'm criticizing him?

I thought about that, and the only answer I came up with is that I'm impatient, and this impatience has led to me being ungrateful of the efforts that people like Kos and Atrios have put into influencing the mainstream media's agenda, and I shouldn't insult people who deserve a thank you.

Why am I impatient? I imagine the underlying reasons for this are the same for why I joined the Green Party in 1999. Democrats are slow, and I want change to happen quickly. I want it now. I want fucking drive-thru change, damnit. And when you buy the Green mindset, you start believing that some people who are of like-mind politically are, instead, you political enemies because they aren't moving fast enough, they don't think progressively enough, and they compromise too much. So therefore, you're right and they're wrong. As you can imagine, somebody with this mindset and impatience is frustrated, and prone throwing hissy fits from time to time.

The thing is that I'm not wrong, but at the same time, I'm dead wrong. A-list bloggers like Kos and Atrios aren't counterproductive, they're just too slow for my impatient tastes. I took the very existence of their blogs forgranted before criticizing them; I didn't take into account that such strong pillars of an actual liberal media didn't exist in 2000, and the fact alone that they exist is a sign of progress. And yeah, many of these sites have become fundraising billboards for the Democratic party, and mouthpieces for the party itself. But when one only gets right wing spin from the mainstream media, I should be kissing some A-list blogger ass instead of criticizing them for not being progressive enough.

Do I still think A-list bloggers have been playing into the mainstream agenda set by the Republicans, which places us on the defensive? Yes, and when somebody falls into following that agenda, it should be noted. However, I went too far. I've always considered Democrats to be too slow for my tastes, that's what drove me into the Green Party. But I'm not a Green anymore, and I have to remember who I'm dealing with now.

9/29/2004

Light blogging

I worked 12 hours yesterday and didn't get much sleep afterwards, so there's a good chance I'll be passing out sometime this morning. I do have one post I want to make, recanting a bit on my rants about A-list bloggers from earlier this week. Or, in other words, I get to eat some crow. So if you're interested in that, stay tuned!

...Why does Blogger keep on fucking up my permalinks? Sigh. I'll look at those later.

Screamer of the Week

Bush's interview for Bill O'Reilly is sure to inspire many people to rip the hairs out of their head. (Less hair helps release the pressure in your skull, and if you don't depressurize, then your head will just fucking explode.) Read through this example, but only if you like pain...

O'REILLY: Do you think the Iraqis are going to fight for their freedom?

BUSH: Absolutely.

O'REILLY: You do.

BUSH: No question in my mind, they will, you bet. I was with Prime Minister Allawi yesterday. He is a tough guy. He is a strong leader. He believes the future of Iraq is the future of freedom, and he tells me that, you know that these places where they go bomb the recruits, the people trying to sign up to serve in the army or the police, the next day, more recruits come.

Bush forgot to add that the next day, more of "these places" are also blown up. He also glosses over the fact that the only reason Iraqis continue showing up for positions in the new Iraqi Amry and Police are because those are the only jobs around, which is partly due to the fact that we have Halliburton and other corportions importing in Americans, at high prices, to do contract work, leaving no work for Joe Average Iraqi.

Yet, this is supposed to be a sign of progress.

Go snort another line, buddy.

Insanity

Power Line provided me with a good example of why I just cant read some right wing blogs:

Of all the contemptible things the Dems have done during this election cycle, the "reinstate the draft" rumor is the most vile.

Wow, vile! I guess Democrats instigating that there could be a draft (a very real possibility if you do the math) is much worse than Bush murdering over a thousand soldiers for no good reason.

Fuck you, Power Line.

Sweet Sixteen

Gadflyer has sixteen questions which Bush should be forced to answer at the debates. Here's the first one:

On December 21, 2002, in the Oval Office with then-CIA director George Tenet, you expressed shock to Mr. Tenet that the evidence regarding Iraqi weapons of mass destruction was so thin. Yet just five weeks later, in your State of the Union address, you showed little if any doubt whatsoever that Iraq was a certifiable threat. What new information came to your attention that changed your mind so dramatically in just a few weeks during January 2003?

The best questions are rhetorical, aren't they?

Will any of them listen?

I love the quotes that the Washington Post was able to procure from intelligence agents, government, and military officials. Apparently, they all wished to stay anonymous. I wonder why, because the Bush administration has certainly never been vindictive. [cough]PLAME[cough]

People at the CIA "are mad at the policy in Iraq because it's a disaster, and they're digging the hole deeper and deeper and deeper," said one former intelligence officer who maintains contact with CIA officials. "There's no obvious way to fix it. The best we can hope for is a semi-failed state hobbling along with terrorists and a succession of weak governments."

"Things are definitely not improving," said one U.S. government official who reads the intelligence analyses on Iraq.

"It is getting worse," agreed an Army staff officer who served in Iraq and stays in touch with comrades in Baghdad through e-mail. "It just seems there is a lot of pessimism flowing out of theater now. There are things going on that are unbelievable to me. They have infiltrators conducting attacks in the Green Zone. That was not the case a year ago."

I think the only people in our government who still think nothing is fucked are Bush, Cheney, And Rumsfeld. Unfortunately, those are the only people whose decisions matter right now. Couple this report with some similar statements from Republican senators (link via feministe), one has to ask, "Would it KILL Rush, Hannity, Coulter, or any one of those fucking punditoid robots to LISTEN TO OTHER REPUBLICANS?!" What will it take to knock some common sense into these people?

Happy days are here again!

Now that crude is at $50 a barrel, expect gas to cost $2 a gallon again. The only benefit I can see coming out of this is a hit on Bush's popularity, but since votes against Bush won't be counted in this election, we're fucking screwed.

Here comes the voter disenfranchisement, GOP style

Yesterday, I noted that new voter registrations in Democrat-leaning counties in Ohio and Florida are up by the thousands. Well, undaunted by pesky little things like democracy and majority rule, Ohio Republicans have voided many of the new voter registrations. Why? Get a load of this shit.

Citing an arcane ruling that requires voter registration cards be printed on 80 pound stock paper, [Ohio Secretary of State Ken] Blackwell is threatening to void registrations submitted on a lighter weight paper, demanding they re-apply. There is no time to reapply and thousands of voters could be left off the rolls.

This is so illegal it's not even funny. The Republicans truly don't have a shit about our basic freedoms, like the freedom to choose our own President. And as far as I'm concerned, since Ohio is a must-win state this election, pulling a move like this invalidates the whole damn election.

The link has a petition, so sign it. And while you're at it, why not give Ken Blackwell a call? It's toll free! - 1-877-767-6446. Tell him to goto hell.

Spam him, too: info@kenblackwell.com

We all knew

My coworker sent me a picture of the Bush family secret. What if this ever got out to the media?

I apologize in advance for your nightmares.

9/28/2004

More Grade-A, primo quality shit from Drudge

Drudge is the king of tackling issues. Well, orange issues, that is.

KERRY ON ORANGE ALERT: SKIN TRANSITION ON EVE OF DEBATE

Just days before Dem presidential hopeful John Kerry is set to take the stage in a debate opener projected to be seen by 70 million, photos show the senator dramatically taking on color.

In other news, Drudge needs to get a fucking life.

And in other, other news, Republicans continue to take Drudge seriously. Liberals laugh at their stupidity, film at 11.

The Great Blog Sell out is (almost) over

Another thought on Billmon's op-ed piece: What happens to the blogosphere (or blogtopia, as skippy would rather us say) when the blogs which have "sold out" after November 2 aren't able to anymore? The only resaon some blogs are able to make money is because this is an election year, and with millions flowing into campaign coffers and larger blogs offering cheap advertising that will be seen by thousands of eyeballs, it's only natural that thousands upon thousands of dollars would be poured into blogs. But after November 2, that money well has officially dried up. What happens then? Does this mean Instapundit will be forced to close? :)

Fuck the polls

I haven't looked at who gets polled in a while, (it's something I'd research if I had the time right now, but I just thought of it), but we know that polls this election have been weighted to look like Bush has the lead. Then since the false polls say Bush has the lead, the mainstream media gets to go wild and tell us that Bush is going to win the election, thus making things sound hopeless for those of us that can't take another 4 years of this shit.

Well, from a blog called The Scoop, here's something you won't see in the polls:

Ford Fessenden of the New York Times used voter registration data from a sample of Ohio counties and most of Florida’s counties to show that “a sweeping voter registration campaign in heavily Democratic areas has added tens of thousands of new voters to the rolls in the swing states of Ohio and Florida, a surge that has far exceeded the efforts of Republicans in both states.”

This race definitely isn't over yet.

Feeling safe yet?

Here's another one of Bush's stellar accomplishments in the war on terra.

...More than one-third of al-Qaida intercepts authorized by a secret federal court were not reviewed within 12 hours of collection, as required by FBI Director Robert Mueller.

Since Sept. 11, 2001, more than 123,000 hours of audio in languages associated with terrorists still had not been reviewed as of April 2004, the audit found. In addition, more than 370,000 hours of audio associated with counterintelligence had not been reviewed.

You know it's a slow news day when...

You see this headline: "Four Cows Escape From Truck in Arkansas."

Nothing to see here, folks, just mooooooove along.

OK, now this doesn't make sense, unless...

Last Christmas, Pakistan's President Musharraf survived a near fatal assassination attempt. I blogged about it, drawing connections to the fact that elements of Pakistan's own military had to be involved with the assassination attempt on their own president, and I theorized that al-Qa'ida had some influence in this since many members to Pakistan's military support them and the Taliban. This is scary, of course, because it questions the stability of a government that could start a nuclear war.

Today, via Antiwar.com, I've read two articles covering the killing of Amjad Farooqi. The first, in The Australian, says Pakistan scored a major victory against al-Qa'ida by killing Farooqi, the lead suspect in the assassination attempt against Musharraf and, "had been running al-Qa'ida operations in Pakistan."

But an article from a favorite resource of mine, Asia Times, tells a very different story.

Pakistan's establishment recently labeled Amjad Farooqi as al-Qaeda's mastermind in the country. However, Asia Times Online contacts vigorously dispute this claim ... and they suspect that Farooqi has already been arrested in Karachi and that he will be "presented" at a later date.
- Twin hot spots near boiling point, Asia Times Online, Jun 5


KARACHI - Even as President General Pervez Musharraf played to the international gallery on his trip to the United Nations and beyond, at home, Pakistan was cooking up another treat to be served on the tour...

Pakistan's establishment recently labeled Farooqi al-Qaeda's mastermind in the country. However, Asia Times Online contacts say that, certainly, Amjad was wanted in connection with the murder of Pearl in Karachi in 2002. The contacts claim, though, that Amjad was in fact a "stand-alone" operator who did not draw support from any one organization as he was able to gather his own manpower and financial resources. Senior intelligence officers told Asia Times Online that while Farooqi was a stand-alone operator, he carried out specific operations in conjunction with local and foreign elements...

After Riaz Basra, Farooqi is the second high-profile wanted person to have died with his secrets, especially in relation to the murder of Pearl, in which he is said to have been involved directly. Pearl had became deeply involved in investigations into the arrest of Abu Zobaida, a chief al-Qaeda operator, in Faisalabad. He was in the process of making a connection between Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence-backed groups and the seminaries of Faisalabad when he was abducted and murdered. Farooqi, incidentally, comes from the same area...

Farooqi, according to security sources who spoke to Asia Times Online, had worked hand-in-glove with army officials in the attack on Musharraf's motorcade in Rawalpindi last year. Had he stood for trial, some interesting information might have been released. An expert on jihadi groups, Mohammed Tahir, editor of a local weekly, maintains that Farooqi's death is meant to close the files on the conspiracy to kill Musharraf, as well as the Pearl case.

If this Asia Times report is to be believed, then Pakistan had in their custody a man who killed a Wall Street Journal reporter who was about to, I assume, uncover some corruption within Pakistan's formidable intelligence agency, the ISI. Farooqi also tried assassinating President Musharraf with the help of at least one person in Pakistan's military. But he's not connected to al-Qa'ida, but the group still can't be discounted since Farooqi "carried out specific operations in conjunction with local and foreign elements." And even though he could have been put on trial and, maybe, forced to talk, he was killed. One would figure that whatever Farooqi has to say is important, right?

Hmmmmm. I wonder if the ISI has something to hide. Or maybe Musharraf himself...

And this is from a conservative paper

This op-ed piece in the Telegraph pulls no punches on Bush, Blair, and Iraq.

Squalor and fear suffuse the lives of the poor majority in the centre and the south. Greenish lakes of sewage lap the edges of the housing estates. Last week, the first cases of hepatitis, directly linked to the state of the infrastructure, were reported in Baghdad.

There is no work except for the jobs the occupiers are offering. Take one, and in the eyes of the insurgents you are a collaborator and a candidate for a bullet in the head. The middle classes, what remain of them, are no more secure.

The largesse donated by America and the world for reconstruction lies in bank vaults, mostly unspent. The insurgents' grip on the place means that almost all the projects that would improve living conditions are on hold.

And let's get to some of Bush's lies.

There is a yawning discrepancy between what the President claims is being done and what the Pentagon sees on the ground.

Mr Bush says there are 100,000 fully trained and equipped security forces currently at work. Defence department documents released this week estimate that only 22,700 Iraqi personnel had received enough training to make them "minimally effective at their tasks".

It would be so nice if our "liberal" press actually printed this information about our president lying during an election year. Instead, I have to read it in a conservative UK paper.

There's a lot more, so go read the whole thing.

...Special bonus! Another Telegraph piece critical of Iraq. Two for the price of one!

Gee, I wonder why

I love reading these articles telling us why Bush is leading in the polls.

Bush's relentless attacks on Kerry have badly damaged the Democratic nominee, the survey and interviews showed. Voters routinely describe Kerry as wishy-washy, as a flip-flopper and as a candidate they are not sure they can trust, almost as if they are reading from Bush campaign ad scripts.

Sounds like those who are conducting these polls are the ones reading from a Bush campaign ad script.

God Bless America

Given just what happened in the 2000 election, it's simply amazing that we can read this...

Just five weeks before Election Day, a federal appeals court Monday revived a lawsuit demanding that all Florida voters who use touchscreen machines receive a paper receipt, in case a recount becomes necessary.

...nearly a month before the 2004 election.

Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with this country? How long does it take us to learn something? Remember when you were a child, and that bright red burner on the kitchen stove looked so tempting to touch? So, of course, you touched it, burned yourself, cried a little bit and never touched it again. Well, not anymore, because we as a nation are so bad at learning from our past mistakes that we've just laid our hand out on the burner and stuck a pot of boiling water on top of it. We've gone from making a stupid mistake to just being fucking stupid.

How informed will I feel afterwards?

After pondering over Billmon's op-ed piece, I've decided to unsubscribe from A-list left wing blogs on my Bloglines account. I figure if they have anything important to say, then I'll surely hear about it through other blogs and I shouldn't waste my time reading blogs that I'm starting to view as counterproductive to influencing the mainstream media's agenda.

Reading Billmon's piece reminded me of a post I saw at Utopian Hell a month ago, Blog for Sale. Astarte wrote about refusing to reading blogs which ran advertisements because their authors were no longer interested in being independent writers. I still somewhat disagree with this, probably because I met Kos and thought he was a cool guy who says whatever the hell he feels like, advertisers be damned. But there's a certain ring of truth to what Astarte says, and maybe I feel that larger blogs aren't independent voices not just because of who advertisers for them, but because they constantly have to kiss Democrat ass to stay popular and keep those advertisements. I don't feel like these bloggers will ever challange the Democratic party line on a story. And since the Democrats have a history of being invertebrates who don't know how to fight back against the right, I'm starting to feel that reading their blogs is pretty useless. I'd much rather read blogs that stick their necks out and are willing to take risks, placing the story above their popularity.

Operation OUTROVE Thank You's

Huge thanks to Roxanne, Needlenose, skippy, and Rimone for supporting Operation OUTROVE. And thanks to blunted for letting me do self promotion (again). Your help and support has been invaluable and greatly appreciated.

I'll continue to push the story through other channels, but mention of it again on the blog is done unless something big happens.

9/27/2004

Billmon has a point, and it's about time we set the agenda

From his LA Times op-ed piece on blogging:

As blogs commercialize, they are tied ever closer to the mainstream media and its increasingly frivolous news agenda. The political blogosphere already has a bad habit of chasing the scandal du jour. This election season, that's meant a laser-like focus on such profound matters as the mysteries of Bush's National Guard service or whether John Kerry deserved his Vietnam War medals.

Meanwhile, more unsettling (and important) stories — like the Abu Ghraib prison scandal or the great Iraq weapons-of-mass-destruction snipe hunt — quietly disappear down the media memory hole. And bloggers either can't, or won't, dig them back out again. As the convergence with big media continues, I suspect there will be progressively less interest in trying.

Reading this reminds me of some email conversations I've had recently with a Loaded Mouth reader concerning Operation OUTROVE and, aside from this blog influencing Pandagon to link to Palast's original article, nobody seemed to give a shit about the story. Pandagon never followed up on it, and my research and conclusion piece which proves beyond a doubt that Bush is guilty of fostering corruption has gone largely unnoticed. Now I'm not going to take a "woe is me" attitude and apply a guilt trip to whose who haven't paid attention to my little shit blog because, let's face it, there are so many other stories about Bush out there that a bunch slip through the cracks. It doesn't surprise me that Operation OUTROVE suffered the same fate.

But why hasn't one of these stories surfaced and been linked to like wild fire on the left side of the blogosphere? The right wing blogs, led by Instapundit and Drudge, have done an excellent job of trumping up stories, essentially non-issues, where they get the whole right side of the blogosphere talking about it. That creates enough buzz to make the mainstream media pay attention to their story. Foxnews usually does so first, and then it can't be ignored be CNN and MSNBC, and suddenly instacrap becomes a national issue. While "Rathergate" is recognized as being the right blogosphere's first breakthrough, where they influenced the mainstream and brought CBS to it's knees, it's really the first high profile case where they've influenced the mainstream. Think about this: without Instapundit and his useful idiots, would anything the Swift Boat Vets had to say have even become a story worth mentioning?

The fact is that Instapundit, and the Republicans as a whole, set the agenda for what's reported in the mainstream media. Naturally, blogs are going to comment on what the mainstream media reports, but there's a huge difference between setting the agenda and following that agenda. The left side of the blogosphere, unfortunately, merely follows the agenda set forth by the Republicans. Led by Atrios, Kevin Drum, and Kos, among others, these blogs can't stop commenting about Swift Boat Vet and forged memos/Rathergate bullshit, non-issue "stories" whose sole purpose for being reported are to defame Kerry and keep his supporters on the defensive. And, just like when Instapundit talks about a story and everyone on the right links to it, when Atrios or Kos talk about a story, the left side of the blogosphere will link to it. So when they're put on the defensive, the rest of the left wing blogosphere follows.

In short, simply by commenting on these stories, the left wing blogosphere is placing itself on the defensive because we're not setting the agenda. Instead, we're only commenting on a preset agenda specifically designed to place us on the defensive. And I've got news for you, folks: If the left is constantly on the defensive, Bush is going to win the White House.

We're wasting our energy commenting on the right's flavor of the month scandal when we should be organizing our efforts to research, link to, and break stories which will set the mainstream media's attention against Bush. And when Billmon points out that we're dropped the ball on the Abu Ghraib prison scandal and the fact Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction, he's exactly correct. There are a lot of stories which we should be researching and should be linking to because they could place Bush on the defensive. But instead, these stories slip through the cracks. At times it can get pretty shameful. For example, it appears that I'm one of the only liberal bloggers who attempts to make the Genocide of Darfur a story. I haven't seen it mentioned on Kos or Atrios, although one would figure that such a tragic story would rise above partisan bickering. (Hell, it's one of the only issues Instapundit and I would agree upon, and at least he reports it.) I've been one of the only bloggers holding Bush's feet to the fire to do something about this crisis. Why hasn't anybody else on the left simply said, "Thousands of people are dying in Darfur and Bush could do something about it." Why? Not only does this place Bush on the defensive, but it might even save a few thousand lives in the process. But instead, it's all Swift Boat and Rathergate, all the time.

That's just one example. I could use my Operation OUTROVE reporting as another example. Here we have proof that Bush brokered a $23 million payoff to Ben Barnes, the man who could have killed his political career. I didn't research this story for shits and giggles, I researched it to give the left some ammo to put Bush on the defensive with. But instead, it's all Swift Boat and Rathergate, all the time.

Billmon's right, the leftwing blogosphere does not follow up on stories. I view this as a symptom of our inability to set the agenda of the mainstream media. The longer we're placed on the defensive and commenting on the right's bullshit stories, the longer it will take us to organize and claim the power that is ours. We have the power to influence the mainstream media and set the agenda, but do we have the power to recognize this and organize our efforts, follow up on stories, and do the research to break new ones? The clock is ticking, folks. We've got a little more than a month to get our shit together, otherwise we'll have another four years of the most most extreme administration this country has ever seen.

More shit to scream about

Unfuckingbelievable #1 from Rox Populi: Republicans veto $1.6 billion in funding for Homeland Secuirty.

Unfuckingbelievable #2: Feministe has a quote from Bush's UN speech: "We know that dictators are quick to choose aggression, while free nations strive to resolve differences in peace," Bush said."

!!!

THE GODDAMN PLANE HAS CRASHED INTO THE MOUNTAIN!!! ARGH!! !##%$$#%!

Unfuckingbelievable

He hasn't learned a thing.

When asked by Fox News if he still would have put on a flight suit to declare major combat operations in Iraq over, Bush replied, "Absolutely."

My head is about to fucking explode. In fact, I think that's the Bush campaign's strategy here - Have Bush say something so outrageous that it causes millions of liberal's heads to explode. Then as an added bonus Halliburton gets the contract to clean all the blood, guts, and cranium bits.

I mean, I mean.. WHAT THE FUCK?! WHAT A FUCKING MORON! GODFUCKINGDAMNIT, 1000 DEAD SOLDIERS AND HE SAYS NOTHING IS FUCKED?! !@$#@$#$@#@...

...BOOM...

[Editors note: Loaded Mouth will be inarticulate, and possibly unintelligible, for the rest of the day.]

I wonder what he caught?

It would appear that Billmon is back. [tas does the happy dance]

...Needlenose links to an op-ed piece by Billmon in yesterday's LA Times. And he may not be back...

That wascally elusive thing called the Truth

While attempting to read an article in my Sunday paper called "Bush's faith," I was assaulted with this paragraph:

Before President Bush addressed a Knights of Columbus convention last month in Dallas, the audience of 2,500 conservative Catholics watched a documentary film about a woman who chose to die rather than end a pregnancy that threatened her life. Then the president gave a speech in which he called Pope John Paul II "a true hero of our time" and used the pope's phrase "culture of life" three times.

Unfortunately, this was the first paragraph. I honestly tried to read the rest of the article with a clear and open mind, but I couldn't finish it. After starting out with such a shocking introduction paragraph where the president gives a nod of approval to the needless death of an innocent woman and then shows his support for a man who harbors a culture of child molestation, the author then tries to say that nobody knows if President Bush's religious beliefs are moderate or hardline and, in fact, nobody really knows what Bush believes.

Perhaps the author should read his first paragraph over again. I think he stated pretty clearly the religious beliefs of this president in that passage before ruining his article by questioning whether or not Bush believes all abortions should be illegal, what his stance on evolution is, etc. Before the pungent stench of bullshit caused me to cease reading, I remember the author noted that Bush's speechwriters are very careful in choosing what the president says about his personal religious beliefs, purposely leaving his stances as ambiguous because, I assume, they fear that his beliefs could be used against him in a political campaign.

Well, it may not be religious, but I have a belief: Actions speak louder than words. And if President Bush chooses to allow the Knights of Columbus to introduce his speech with a movie glorifying the choice of a pregnant woman to die rather than aborting a pregnancy which could kill her, then I think the president has made his stance on abortion crystal clear. It's really that simple. So why does the mainstream press continue to give this man a free ride when the truth is right in front of them?

9/26/2004

Somebody should email this to CBS

I'd really like to highlight the most important parts of this Mother Jones article to make your reading easier, but I think this whole piece is a must read. So I'm quoting the whole thing. Even for those of us who think the war in Iraq is hopelessly fucked, it contains many surprises.

Incident on Haifa Street
By Tom Engelhardt

Are there any statistics from Iraq in recent weeks which don't indicate trouble? Oil production, which Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz once swore would fund the reconstruction of a democratic Iraq, is now crippled and well below prewar levels, while attacks on oil pipelines and facilities have risen sharply; American deaths are on the rise (53 for just over half of September) as are the numbers of our wounded, as are attacks on American troops, which are now averaging more than 80 a day, "four times the number of one year ago and 25 percent higher than last spring"; while the strains on American Guard and Reserve units, being called up ever more frequently, grow greater by the week; Iraqi civilian casualties have soared in recent weeks; and on the rise are the killings of Iraqi policemen, targeted by the insurgency, but also of translators, cleaning women, clothes washers, carpenters, anyone in fact who works with the occupying forces; "no-go" areas for American troops have been increasing steadily as parts of Iraq simply blink off the American map; the kidnapping of foreigners has risen as evidently has the under-the-table payment of ransom demands; the number of car-bombings has gone up and they are being ever more carefully coordinated; estimates of the numbers of insurgents and their supporters have been rising rapidly; more mortar shells are being dropped on U.S. bases; desertions from and the infiltration of the Iraqi battalions the American military has been training are high and possibly on the rise; the sophistication and deadliness of guerrilla attacks is on the rise; the number of CIA agents in the country has risen; American air strikes on heavily populated neighborhoods of Iraqi cities are on the rise; the fighting is still spreading (as the battles around Tal Afar, near the Turkish border, indicated last week); more schoolchildren are dropping out of school at ever earlier ages to help support their families; more highways are too dangerous to drive; the number of countries supporting the "coalition" with even handfuls of troops has been falling as have the numbers of troops in allied contingents; the number of articles in leading American newspapers announcing that large swathes of Iraq have passed from American control is on a precipitous upward curve; the number of military experts ready to declare the war in Iraq in some fashion lost is also on a steep upward climb; while -- and nothing could be more devastating than this -- on advice from its new staff and ambassador in Baghdad, the Bush administration has gone back to Congress to switch $3.4 billion in Congressionally mandated reconstruction funds from two of the most important areas of daily life -- the generation of electricity and the purification of water supplies ("'Maku Karaba, Maku Amin' -- no electricity, no security -- is still the cry of Iraqis on the street") -- largely to "security"; that is, to the creation of Iraqi forces that will nominally fight under the banner of Iyad Allawi's regime but essentially under American command. (Does no one remember Richard Nixon's disastrous "Vietnamization" program?) The only number in this last month that seems not to have risen precipitously, but has remained doggedly at zero is the number of weapons of mass destruction (nuclear, biological or chemical) in Saddam Hussein's possession before the invasion began.

But let's turn from the large and statistical to a single incident that made the news repeatedly last week, an incident on Baghdad's Haifa Street, known locally as "Death Street" for the regular ambushes that take place there. The thoroughfare, part of a Sunni neighborhood in the capital that has been a hotbed of opposition to the Americans, lies across the Tigris river from, but only several hundred yards away from what's now being called the "International Zone" (as in neocolonial Shanghai) but is better known as the Green Zone, the highly fortified area where the U.S. embassy and the Allawi government have existed, until recently, in air-conditioned (relative) splendor.

On Saturday night, September 11, unknown guerrillas began pounding the Green Zone with mortars. The area had certainly been mortared before, but on a distinctly hit-and-run basis. This time, there was evidently far more mortaring and far less running. The initial September 13 New York Times report (Sabrina Tavernise, "Scores Are Dead After Violence Spreads in Iraq") commented that "rarely has the bombardment [there] been so persistent and intense." When the intermittent mortaring hadn't stopped by morning, the Americans sent out troops to locate the guerrillas and undoubtedly fell into a planned ambush, one aspect of changing tactics as the insurgency grows ever stronger. ("Militants," reports Kim Housego of the Associated Press, "now follow up roadside bomb attacks with a deluge of rocket-propelled grenades instead of fleeing, or fire off mortar rounds to lure soldiers out of their base and into freshly laid mine fields, [U.S.] military commanders say.")

Those troops, in turn, came under fire, or were attacked by a suicide car bomber or a car bomb, and Bradley Fighting Vehicles were then sent out to rescue them. One of the Bradley's was subsequently disabled on Haifa Street, possibly by a suicide car bomber or a car bomb, and its crew promptly came under fire. In the course of all this, six American soldiers were wounded, including two of the Bradley crewmen who were quickly rescued and evacuated leaving the wrecked vehicle behind. Later, a crowd gathered, including children; the black and yellow banner of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's Tawhid and Jihad terrorist group was brought out; members of the Arab media appeared to do TV reports; time passed -- three hours according to the BBC -- and then two American helicopters returned, made several passes over the vehicle with the black banner by now stuffed in the Bradley's gun barrel and the guerrilla fighters evidently long gone.

At that point, according to Patrick J. McDonnell of the Los Angeles Times, the helicopter pilots let loose a barrage of "seven rockets and 30 high-caliber machine-gun rounds onto a crowded Baghdad street," an action American officials later deemed "an appropriate response." The vehicle was pulverized and thirteen people, evidently mainly bystanders including a girl, died and many more were wounded. Most important, in terms of the attention the incident has received, Mazen Tomeizi, a Palestinian producer for the al Arabiya satellite network of Dubai was killed in the attack while on camera, his blood spattering the lens, and Seif Fouad, a Reuters cameraman, was wounded. The scene of Tomeizi dying, while crying out, "Seif, Seif! I'm going to die. I'm going to die," which briefly made prime-time news in the U.S., was shown over and over again on Arab networks, to local and regional outrage.

The American military promptly offered three explanations for the attack in crowded Baghdad: the helicopters were providing covering fire for withdrawing American troops; the Bradley had "sensitive equipment and weapons" that might be looted by "anti-Iraqi forces" ("The helicopters `fired upon the anti-Iraqi forces and the Bradley preventing the loss of sensitive equipment and weapons,' the [U.S.] statement said. ‘An unknown number of insurgents and Iraq civilians were wounded or killed in the incident'''); and that the helicopters took ground fire from the crowd as they passed overhead (though TV film of the incident indicates that no firing came from around the Bradley itself, at least in the moments before the attack, nor can the sound of gunfire be heard before the helicopters let loose their missiles).

The first of these explanations was withdrawn the next day. The second has been largely withdrawn since. The third -- that the helicopters were just returning fire -- stands along with a claim that, according to the LA Times' McDonnell, "it was unclear what caused the casualties -- volleys from the helicopters, explosions from ammunition in the Bradley or insurgent fire." The fog of war is, of course, a convenient hiding place for military officials in situations like this as, after a fashion, it was for military investigators of the acts seen in those photos at Abu Ghraib. There, as Mark Danner pointed out recently in the New York Review of Books, they spoke of "'misinterpretation/confusion incidents' (those committed by military intelligence soldiers, who, however, were ‘confused' about what was permitted at Abu Ghraib as a matter of policy)."

Self-defense based on ground fire was, in fact, the basis on which, according to Dexter Filkins of the New York Times, the commander of American forces in Baghdad, Maj. Gen. Peter Chiarelli would, by week's end, explain the deaths on Haifa Street. He took a rare step (for Americans in Iraq), addressing Arab and Western reporters in a conference room at "Camp Victory," the ill-named American military headquarters, on the incident ("We wanted to explain, particularly to the Iraqi people, that we do everything we can to eliminate collateral damage."), defending the military's acts ("The actions of our soldiers and pilots were well within their rights."), sympathizing with the families of the dead ("I grieve their losses and give my condolences to their families."), but not, of course, apologizing.

Among the unacceptable military explanations for the deaths on Haifa Street: Frustration, anger ("The Army said it was not the sight of the insurgent flag on the Bradley vehicle that triggered the helicopter strike."), or revenge (think: punishment) as in Falluja last April; and certainly not the fear of sending troops a few hundred yards from the Green Zone into a possible further ambush. Many Iraqis are naturally outraged that American helicopters missiled a crowd in downtown Baghdad, whatever the reason. (Imagine the same thing happening on, say, Connecticut Avenue in Washington or upper Broadway in New York.) But what are we to make of this? What does the incident on Haifa Street tell us about our situation in Iraq?

From no-go to free-fire zones

For the last weeks, there have been a number of front page stories in major papers about the way in which the insurgency in Iraq has altered. On Wednesday, for instance, Farnaz Fassihi and Greg Jaffe of the Wall Street Journal had a front page piece headlined "Rebel Attacks in Iraq Reveal New Cooperation" with passages like:

"Iraq's once highly fragmented insurgent groups are increasingly cooperating to attack U.S. and Iraqi government targets, and steadily gaining control of more areas of the country… 'The insurgents are no longer operating in isolated pockets of their own. They are well-connected and cooperating,' said Sabah Kadhim, a senior adviser to Iraq's Interior Ministry, which oversees the police and security around the country."


In the meantime, information about the first CIA National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq since the infamously cooked NIE of October 2002 -- this one initiated before former Director George Tenet left the Agency and perhaps a case of Tenet's revenge -- was leaked to Douglas Jehl of the New York Times. That paper then front-paged its gloomy scenarios. These ranged from the maintenance of a "tenuous," strife-torn country to outright civil war. ("A classified National Intelligence Estimate prepared for President Bush in late July spells out a dark assessment of prospects for Iraq, government officials said Wednesday.") But until the incident on Haifa Street, recent reporting had focused on the loss of Falluja or Ramadi or Samarra or Baquba or the way the "Sunni Triangle" was blinking off the American map of Iraq. What was remarkable about the incident on Haifa Street was that a part of Iraq only hundreds of yards from one of our most fortified strongpoints was blinking off as well -- so much so that when our commanders decided to take out a disabled vehicle or offer payback, they chose to do so from the air.

Though headlines about bombing runs over Falluja are increasingly commonplace, the use of air power is certainly one of the great missing stories in our ongoing war in Iraq. I've seen a single, modest AP piece by Robert Burns featuring the subject -- but no overviews at all; no strategic discussions of the subject even as our military comes to rely ever more on air power for attacking in urban Iraq; and certainly no legal or moral discussions of the programmatic bombing of heavily populated urban areas. Nothing.

In our ability to let loose destructive power at great distances and by air, the United States military is undoubtedly unparalleled as a power today. And yet here's the counterintuitive way you have to think about American airpower in Iraq: Watch where the bombs and missiles are falling -- starting with Falluja and ending up on Haifa Street -- and you can map almost exactly where American power is blinking off. The use of air power, in other words, is a sign of American weakness. Its use maps our inability to control Iraq. To the extent that you can monitor our air power, you'll know much about what's going badly in that country, in part because the resort to air power in a guerrilla war means the surefire alienation of the contested population. It means that you've given up on "hearts and minds," to use a classic Vietnam-era phrase, and turned to the punitive destruction of bodies and souls.

Air power -- as in Vietnam -- is a harder story to cover than ground fighting. The planes take off; the reporters don't follow. And yet, for any reporter looking for a good story, there's a great -- if horrific -- one here, one with deep history in Iraq. After all, when the Brits found they couldn't control the country in the 1920s, they pioneered the use of air power as a weapon of bloody punishment and retribution in the resistant villages of Iraq.

(There is, by the way, another intertwined missing story here: that of Western reporters in Baghdad and what they can actually report -- which seems to be next to nothing. If you listen to the New York Times' John Burns and other American reporters taking up their nighttime jobs as pundits on shows like Nightline or Charlie Rose, they sometimes do discuss, at least in passing, the extreme limitations on their ability to report in person on any story from Iraq. But have you seen a single piece in any American paper on a day in the life of a reporter in Baghdad? I think not, although for many western reporters it is clearly now increasingly perilous simply to leave one's fortified post or hotel to report within the confines of Baghdad itself, no less travel anywhere in the country.

If anything, parts of Iraq began blinking off the map of American reportage long before they disappeared from the military map of the country. Now our reporters, unless embedded with American forces, are largely trapped in restricted parts of Baghdad, waiting for the war to come to the Green Zone. Most of the major papers have hired Iraqi reporters to help them out, but don't imagine for a second that what you're reading is simply the news from Iraq. Note, for instance, that when the helicopters struck in Haifa Street, only several hundred yards from the Green Zone, Arab television was there but, as far as I could see, not CNN or the networks. The reasons for all this are quite understandable. Iraq is now a desperately perilous place for unarmed, or even armed, westerners. I won't be surprised when the first American news organizations, like the last of the relief organizations, simply decide to pull out. What's far less understandable is that the conditions for reporting in Iraq, for our "news" on Iraq, go largely unreported.)

In the meantime, as the incident in Haifa Street indicated, Iraq is blinking off the map of Iyad Allawi's government as well. Unlike Hamid Karzai ("the mayor of Kabul") in Afghanistan, Allawi turns out not even to be the mayor of Baghdad. The vast Shiite slum of Sadr City in the capital, with two million residents, has long been a near no-go area for American or allied Iraqi troops. But what the incident on Haifa Street made clearer is that a neighborhood only the equivalent of three football fields from one of the most fortified spots in Iraq has also slipped from American -- and Allawi – control, and so has become a target for air power.

Perhaps the week's most remarkable story appeared in the conservative British Financial Times which in its editorial pages only the week before had called for some kind of staged withdrawal of American and British forces from Iraq. In a September 15 piece headlined, "Green Zone is ‘no longer totally secure,'" James Drummond and Steve Negus reported that:

"US military officers in Baghdad have warned they cannot guarantee the security of the perimeter around the Green Zone, the headquarters of the Iraqi government and home to the US and British embassies, according to security company employees. At a briefing earlier this month, a high-ranking US officer in charge of the zone's perimeter said he had insufficient soldiers to prevent intruders penetrating the compound's defences.

"The US major said it was possible weapons or explosives had already been stashed in the zone, and warned people to move in pairs for their own safety. The Green Zone, in Baghdad's centre, is one of the most fortified US installations in Iraq. Until now, militants have not been able to penetrate it."


This is a remarkable development actually, far worse than anyone is yet saying, and our response is to loose air power on the situation. We still generally claim, of course, that our strikes whether in Falluja or on Haifa Street, like the Israeli targeted assassinations in Gaza and the West Bank on which they were originally patterned, are "surgical," "targeted," "precise," and carefully planned to avoid "collateral damage." But reports from hospitals in Falluja and elsewhere indicate that, as is hardly surprising when you bomb heavily populated civilian areas, this is at best a fantasy of military planners. In fact, we already seem to be in a process -- familiar enough from our Vietnam experience -- by which "no-go" areas will slowly be transformed into "free fire zones."

Just this Sunday, a New York Times front-page piece by Dexter Filkins (U.S. Plans Year-End Drive To Take Iraqi Rebel Areas) reports that, according to an unnamed senior American commander, "the military intend[s] to take back Falluja and other rebel areas by year's end" -- after, that is, the November elections in the U.S. but before the scheduled Iraqi ones.

Here, then, is a vision of Iraq's future (and ours) not to be found in the latest National Intelligence Estimate: Barring some spectacular negotiated deal, we "take," which would mean "flatten," Fallujah. (For comparison, just consider what happened to the old city of Najaf, blocks of which are now in rubble after a couple of weeks of fighting which ended dramatically with a 2,000 pound bomb being dropped on a hotel near the holy shrine of the Imam Ali.) Imagine further whole swaths of urban Iraq being turned into free-fire zones and transformed into rubble -- and an ever larger insurgency.

It is in this context that our President now rejects the CIA's July National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq and speaks of continuing "progress" in that country. It is in this context that his press spokesman decries "handwringers" and "pessimists." It is in this context that he and his vice-president continue to shellac another layer of fantasy onto what Jonathan Schell in his most recent column in the Nation (Organizing Amnesia) calls the "delusions that have been laid down now, layer after layer, for more than fifty years." In much of this, from early reporting on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction through our vaunted "transfer of sovereignty" to the Allawi interim government, our media and the whole pundit class has been conjoined with the administration in delusional activities.

But those Iraqi insurgents threatening to make their way into the Green Zone also threaten to make their way into George Bush's fantasy Iraq (as the Vietnamese once fought their way into another President's fantasy of battlefield and political "progress"). Parts of Iraq are already blinking off the President's map. The only question is whether he can hold his fantasyland together through November 2. On this, his opponent has been of great aid and comfort.

Read regular posts by Tom Engelhardt at Tomdispatch.com, a web log of The Nation Institute.

Was there anything else overlooked?

I forgot to reconfigure my XML feed, but it's back now.

Power Stupidity

So, what's being said by the new wingnuts who control the media?

The Associated Press Pulls Out the Stops for Kerry

We have noted before that the Associated Press has become a part of the John Kerry campaign. This morning, many readers have directed our attention to this astonishing AP story titled "Bush Twists Kerry's Words on Iraq".

You know, Power Line's right. That title is atrociously incorrect! Instead of telling the truth and titling the article, "Bush is a goddamn fucking lair who places words in Kerry's mouth," or, "Bush snorts another line before slandering Kerry," the AP went weak. "Twists?" Chubby Checker does the fucking twist! Is Bush playing a game of twister or something? The guy's a bald faced lying sack of shit. Why won't the media say so?!

And thank you for your inspiration, Power Line! It's so nice to see people complaining about bias in the media. Hey, maybe you could branch out and start uncovering the lies behind Foxnews! And then criticize the right wing domination of the radio! And then, if you're feeling particularly fair, you can stick to to CBS for killing a story about Bush's reasons for going to war in Iraq! Oh, wait a second, you went after CBS for other reasons... Nevermind. I guess you're just a bunch of biased, hypocritical fucking assholes after all.

Radio Mouth

Some may have noticed that I had 16 Horsepower's "Clogger" available for download last week. I'm going to try and make a different mp3 avilable each week. Many of these songs will be old, b-sides, live cuts, or compilation tracks of songs by bands that you may not have even heard of, so download it and see if my taste in music sucks or not. ;>

This week, "Television Addict," by the Victims - '77 Australian punk.

Sunday is Cartoon Day!

As always, a couple by Ted Rall.