Off The Top of My Head

2009-11-10T18:46:00.001-08:00

I was in the Neokeboi when Strago killed The Lion. Of course, this was no ordinary lion; The Lion was a man. He was a man that many looked up to for leadership. Some said he was a criminal, but not many in the Neokeboi said it. Crime in the Neokeboi was what the Doradoi lords prohibited. The Allyrians that settled the Neokeboi since the end of the wars had their own rules and their own leaders.

The Lion was one of those. He fought the Mervoringian Whitecloaks during the wars. We would have won and kept our homes if the Doradoi in Sinnak had had the will to fight. At the time back here in Sinnak, it was a forgotten war. Nobody paid much attention to it until we lost. When we lost, we lost our lands and our homes and most of the survivors resettled here on the outskirts of Sinnak, the capital city of the empire. Now they call us criminals. No lands, no work, not future.

The Lion was one of the men who led us out of Allyrion to Sinnak. He was able to secure a grant from the Emperor for us to settle the Neokeboi, just south of the city. He reestablished churches for us, mainly dedicated to Joshu, who was favored by the Allyrians. He provided protection from unscrupulous merchants so that Allyrian merchants could get established. He helped rebuild the Allyrian community in our new home. Now he’s dead. He died because of a gambling dispute and the man who killed him still walks the streets of the Neokeboi a free man.

Nobody can touch Strago. He is one of the New Men of the Neokeboi. He never fought in the wars or resettled. He and the other New Men were born in the Neokeboi. He is one of the reasons the Doradoi call us criminals. He doesn’t care about the community or our heritage. He only cares about money and power. He and his men have curried favor with the Red faction in the Imperial Palace. The Reds opposed the war in Allyrion when we were fighting for our lives. They advocated for a peace treaty with the Mervoringians that would have sold us out to them. The Lion has always supported the Blues because they supported us during the war. They legislated for more money and troops to fight the war. The reds wanted a tighter grip on the imperial purse strings. The power merchants in the party felt that the Emperor was spending too much and borrowing all the available cash the moneylenders had available, making it hard for anyone else to borrow money. In the end, the Red faction won. The Emperor signed a peace treaty and the Whitecloaks came and threw us out of our homes. Now, with a new Emperor, the Reds are ascendant and the Blues have little power. So when Strago killed The Lion, there was nobody who could bring him to justice.

It all started over a gambling dispute. Even in his older age, The Lion still loved games. A natural competitor, he would fight or play with all the passion in his heart, which was a great deal. A little wager on a game made it all the more interesting.

The game of grips is a simple one. Each player is dealt five cards, four in hand and one face up. In addition, there is one card laid in the middle of the table that all the players can play as well. The players begin to bet based on the initial deal, then on the second time around, they lay down another card and increase the bet or fold. When the last players remaining lay down their final cards, the one with the most points showing wins the game. It is scored one point for each minor card in a run of at least three and two points for each major card in a run. In addition, one point is scored for each card in a suit of at least three and two points for each major card. Each player can use the central card to add points if it gives him a run or suit.

Strago normally plays at the Golden Chalice, a club run and frequented by followers of Joshu and one of the more elite establishments in the Neokeboi. A great deal of money changes hands at the tables in the Golden Chalice, much of it ending up in Strago’s pockets. It is customary for winners at the tables to donate a portion of their winnings to the house, which then goes to supporting the less well off in the community through the charities of Joshu. Strago rarely followed this custom and came to the notice of The Lion, who is an elder in the Church.

It is said that The Lion sat at Strago’s table that night intending to teach him a lesson in
customs and the virtue of supporting the community. Others say it was to recover the Helm of Donys, which Donys’ son had lost to Strago weeks earlier in a game. Such is the desperation of men these days that they will wager the treasures of the community for their livelihood. Unscrupulous men like Strago have no qualms about taking advantage of that. Donys’ Helm is one such treasure. It was worn by Donys in battle against the Mervoringians. The Lion fought beside Donys when he fell. The Lion survived and brought Donys’ helm back from the battlefield where he had buried Donys and gave the helm to Donys’ family. Since the building of the Neokeboi, the helm has been displayed at the Golden Chalice as a reminder to the community of what was lost when we lost Allyrion.

Strago makes no secret of his contempt for our own history and our leaders. This night was no different. The Lion approached Strago’s table after one of Strago’s opponents stepped away, probably after losing his fortune and owing an onerous debt to Strago. The Lion politely requested the seat at the table. Strago acceded to his request, though it is not clear whether he did so because he relished a chance to vanquish The Lion at cards or simply did not wish to appear rude by refusing him in any case, The Lion sat and was dealt into the game.

The first few hands were uneventful. Both Strago and The Lion played conservatively, testing each other’s style and limits. As the game progressed, other players came and went as the winnings slowly accumulated in front of both Strago and The Lion. Over time, more players left the table than sat down as the stakes rose between the adversaries. Opening bets prevented other players from starting in the game and pushed others out. Soon, it was just the two sitting at the table and it was becoming clear that The Lion was gaining on Strago.

The fateful hand came after three hours of play. By then, everyone in the club had lost interest in playing their own games and all attention was focused on Strago and the Lion. People throughout the neighborhood had been filtering in to see the game, even children and women. The room was crowded and tension ran high. The crowd seemed evenly divided, half supporting Strago and half supporting The Lion.

At the opening of the hand, the card in the middle was the Fool. This increased the uncertainly greatly. In his hand, a player can use the fool to become any card he wants. To have it as the middle card meant that it would be useful to each player, but it was uncertain how until all the cards were played. To open, each player laid down a Hierophant, which is good luck. The Lion laid down the Hierophant of Joshu and Strago laid down the Hierophant of Bodhi. A Hierophant in one’s hand can break ties, but with both players playing a hierophant, ties became more problematic. Both of the players bet one thousand gold. At the next round, Strago laid down a nine of swords. Swords follow suit with Bodhi, so it appeared Strago had the beginning of a possible flush for three points. Strago bet two thousand gold. The Lion laid down an eight of shields. Shields follow suit with Joshu, so three possible points for The Lion. He met Strago’s bet for another two thousand gold.

As the cards were laid down, the bets increased accordingly until the players had one card left. The Lion showed a split run of an eight and nine of shields and the paladin and hierophant of Joshu. He could use the Fool as a witch of Joshu to make a suit run for twelve points. He would still need the rogue of Joshu to make any more points. Strago already showed the nine of swords and a rogue, paladin and hierophant of Bodhi. With the Fool substituting for the witch of Bodhi, Strago had a grand run for eighteen. The odds of The Lion holding the rogue of Joshu was very low. If he did, he would win with twenty.

The final bet came and The Lion made a grand move. He bet everything. The crowd was stunned. Apparently, so was Strago. Was it a bluff or did The Lion hold the witch or the rogue of Joshu? Strago stared at his cards and at his money. He did not have enough to match the bet. He took off a ring and threw it in the pot. The Lion refused it.

“I can’t accept jewelry without a proper appraisal and no reputable appraiser would give an honest opinion in the dead of night.”

“I’ll write a letter of credit for the difference,” Strago announced.

“I don’t take the debt of gamblers,” The Lion refused again. “But we all know the worth of the Helm of Donys. I’ll accept that as your wager.”

In fact, the Helm had little monetary value. Strago took it from Donys’ son because it was all he had left to give. He kept it because it provided a certain level of respect among his peers, though none of them appreciated the full moral value of it. If he lost, it would limit his losses, but he could still play and there was a good chance he could win the pot, which was substantial. But his calculation was for naught.

“Bring the helm down,” he called to the bartender.

The bartender took the helm down from its position above the bar and brought it to the table. He laid it on top of the pot of money.

The Lion laid down his last card. It was the rogue of Joshu. The Lion held a grand run! Strago laid down the eight of swords and both held a grand run of eight through hierophant for twenty points each. It was a draw, but no player had anything left to play another round.

“It is simple,” The Lion announced. “Hierophants break ties and the Hierophant of Joshu rules the house of Joshu. The Golden Chalice being a house of Joshu, my hand prevails. The Helm of Donys is mine."

“There is no such rule. Bodhi comes before Joshu. My hierophant breaks the tie!”

“It is an old rule that rarely comes into play. As often as you gamble, you should have heard of it!”

In fact, there was such a house rule. I had forgotten it, but The Lion jogged my memory. That is, in cases of exact ties, if players cannot play another hand, the hand with the higher suit wins. The highest suit is always the suit of the house. They then cycle through the others from Moshu, Bodhi, Joshu, and Momadu. In the house of Joshu, it cycles from Joshu to Momadu, then Moshu and Bodhi.

“You can’t make up rules on the spot just to get a tin pot back,” accused Strago. “I own the Helm.” He picked up the helm and began to put it on.

“Put the helm down! You have no right to wear the helm of a warrior many times your better. You aren’t even worthy of tightening his bootstrap!”

“You are a liar and a cheat!”

“No one calls The Lion a cheat to his face!” The Lion reached for the helm as Strago was putting it on. Whether The Lion intended to knock the helm out of his hands or grab it for himself is unclear. In any case, the helm fell out of Strago’s hands and hit him in the face, cutting a gash across his nose. Enraged, Strago pulled a knife and stabbed The Lion in the heart. The room erupted. The tension behind the dam was released. Knives and swords appeared from beneath cloaks. The defenseless ran and many were trampled in the stampede.

The Lion’s supporters surged forward to help him but Strago’s followers cut them down as they were distracted. The Lion’s supporters put up a valiant fight, but The Lion had fallen and could not lead. Too many died early and the remainder could not hold against Strago’s more numerous survivors. The Lion’s men broke and ran.

The rest of the night was a bloody one in the Neokeboi as Strago’s men went house to house looking for The Lion’s men, knowing they could not unite to defend themselves. Their houses were burned and families put to the sword. The next day was a somber one. Strago’s followers ruled the settlements and few would speak out against them.

The bodies of the dead were piled in a mass grave on the site of The Lions burned home. Nobody has built on it since. Some followers of Strago have tried, but construction was difficult because too many accidents happened on the site. Some blame the ghosts of the dead. A few among us call it Lion’s Square, but not too loudly.

An imperial magistrate came a few days after the massacre to investigate, but found nothing. Strago’s ties to the palace are too strong for him to be brought to justice. Now, the Reds can depend on Allyrian support. Strago makes sure they get it. Anybody who professes any support for the Blues is swiftly dealt with and never speaks up again, if he speaks at all.

I tell you this story now because I am old and do not fear for my life. Please remember the lion; he should not be forgotten.

2006-04-24T16:29:00.000-07:00

An interesting quote I ran into in the Washington Post:

"Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose -- and you allow him to make war at pleasure [emphasis added]. . . . If, today, he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, 'I see no probability of the British invading us'; but he will say to you, 'Be silent; I see it, if you don't.' " Abraham Lincoln February 1848 explaining his opposition to the Mexican-American War.

I found it in a guest editorial by Arthur Schlesinger Jr. about George W. Bush's war power. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/23/AR2006042301014.html

2006-01-24T08:48:00.000-08:00

Here is a post by Juan Cole, one of the better bloggers on Iraq and Middle Eastern issues in general. It is a damning indictment. Read more by Juan Cole at http://www.juancole.com/

1. Bush vastly exaggerates al-Qaeda's size, sweep and importance, while failing to invest in genuine counterterrorist measures such as port security or security for US nuclear plants.

2. Bush could have eradicated the core al-Qaeda group by putting resources into the effort in 2002. He did not, leaving al-Zawahiri and Bin Laden to taunt us, inspire our enemies and organize for years after the Taliban were defeated. It would be as though Truman had allowed Hitler to broadcast calls for terrorism against the US from some hiding place as late as 1949.

3. Bush opened a second front against Iraq before he had put Afghanistan on a sound footing.

4. Bush gutted the US constitution, tossing out the Fourth Amendment, by assiduously spying on Americans without warrants. None of those spying efforts has been shown to have resulted in any security benefits for the United States. Bush says that he wants to watch anyone who calls the phone numbers associated with al-Qaeda. But some of those phone numbers were for food delivery or laundry. We want a judge to sign off on a wire tap so that innocent Americans are not spied on by the government.

5. Bush attempted to associate the threat from al-Qaeda with Iran and Syria. Iran is a fundamentalist Shiite country that hates al-Qaeda. Syria is a secular Arab nationalist country that hates al-Qaeda. Indeed, Syria tortured al-Qaeda operatives for Bush, until Bush decided to get Syria itself. Bush and Cheney have cynically used a national tragedy to further their aggressive policies of Great Power domination.

6. Bush by invading Iraq pushed the Iraqi Sunni Arabs to desert secular Arab nationalism. Four fifths of the Sunni Arab vote in the recent election went to hard line Sunni fundamentalist parties. This development is unprecedented in Iraqi history. Iraqi Sunni Arabs are nationalists, whether secular or religious, and there is no real danger of most of them joining al-Qaeda. But Bush has spread political Islam and has strengthened its influence.

7. Bush diverted at least one trillion dollars in US security spending from the counter-terrorism struggle against al-Qaeda to the Iraq debacle, at the same time that he has run up half a trillion dollar annual deficits, contributing to a spike in inflation, harming the US economy, and making the US less effective in counterterrorism.

8. Counterterrorism requires friendly allies and close cooperation. The Bush administration alienated France, Germany and Spain, along with many Middle Eastern nations that had long waged struggles of their own against terrorist groups. Bush is widely despised and has left America isolated in the world. Virtually all the publics of all major nations hate US policy. One poll showed that in secular Turkey where Muslim extremism is widely reviled and Bin Laden is generally disliked, the public preferred Bin Laden to Bush. Bush is widely seen as more dangerous than al-Qaeda. This image is bad for US counterterrorism efforts.

9. Bush transported detainees to torture sites in Eastern Europe. Under European Union laws, both torture and involvement in torture are illegal,and European officials can be tried for these crimes. HOw many European counterterrorism officials will want to work closely with the Americans if, for all they know, this association could end in jail time? Indeed, in Washington it is said that a lot of our best CIA officers are leaving, afraid that they are being ordered to do things that are illegal, and for which they could be tried once another administration comes to power in Washington.

10. Bush's failure to capture Bin Laden and al-Zawahiri allows them to continue to grandstand, to continue to frighten the public, to continue to affect financial markets, and to continue to plot. Al-Zawahiri almost certainly plotted the 7/7 London subway bombings himself, and gloated about it when he issued Muhammad Siddique Khan's suicide statement. Misplaced Bush priorities are getting our allies hit. The CIA is reduced to firing predators at villages because our counterterrorism efforts have been starved for funds by the Iraq quagmire. If al-Qaeda does pull off another American operation, it may well give Bush and Cheney an opportunity to destroy the US constitution altogether, finally giving Bin Laden his long-sought revenge on Americans for the way he believes they have forced Palestinians and other Muslims to live under lawless foreign domination or local tyranny.

2005-11-17T13:40:00.000-08:00

Since Bush has gone on the offensive in defending his decision to go to war, I have been skeptical of what he has been saying. Here is a point-by-point rebuttal of many of the points he has been making (edited). For the complete article, go to: http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/13185357.htm

ASSERTION: In a Veterans Day speech last Friday, Bush said that Iraq war "critics are fully aware that a bipartisan Senate investigation found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community's judgments related to Iraq's weapons programs."
CONTEXT: Bush is correct in saying that a commission found no evidence of "politicization" of the intelligence. But neither that report nor others looked at how the White House characterized the intelligence. That's supposed to be the topic of a second phase of study by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

ASSERTION: In his speech, Bush noted that "more than a hundred Democrats in the House and the Senate - who had access to the same intelligence - voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power."
CONTEXT: This isn't true. The Congress didn't have access to the President's Daily Brief. As for prewar intelligence on Iraq, senior administration officials had access to other information and sources that weren't available to lawmakers. Cheney and his aides visited the CIA and other intelligence agencies to view raw intelligence reports, received briefings and engaged in highly unusual give-and-take sessions with analysts. Moreover, officials in the White House and the Pentagon received information directly from the Iraqi National Congress (INC), circumventing U.S. intelligence agencies, which greatly distrusted the organization. All of the exiles' claims turned out to be bogus or remain unproven. War hawks at the Pentagon also created a special unit that produced a prewar report not shared with Congress. After the report was leaked in November 2003 to a conservative magazine, the Pentagon disowned it.

ASSERTION: In his Veterans Day address, Bush said that "intelligence agencies around the world agreed with our assessment of Saddam Hussein."
CONTEXT: Bush is correct in saying that many intelligence agencies, particularly in Europe, believed that Saddam was hiding some weapons of mass destruction capabilities - not necessarily weapons. But they didn't agree with other U.S. assessments about Saddam. Few, with the exception of Great Britain, argued that Iraq was an imminent threat, or that it had any link to Islamic terrorism, much less the Sept. 11 attacks. France, backed by several other nations, argued that much more time and effort should have been given to weapons inspections in Iraq before war was launched.

ASSERTION: Stephen Hadley, the president's national security adviser, told reporters last Thursday that the Clinton administration and Congress perceived Saddam as a threat based on some of the same intelligence used by the Bush administration.
CONTEXT: Congress did pass the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, which stated U.S. support for regime change in Iraq and provided up to $97 million in overt military and humanitarian aid to opposition groups in Iraq. But it didn't authorize the use of U.S. force against Iraq.
Clinton said his bombing order was based on Iraq's refusal to comply with weapons inspections, a violation of United Nations Security Council resolutions that ended the 1991 Persian Gulf War.

2005-10-07T16:55:00.000-07:00

Has the veil been lifted from the eyes of the American people? Probably not, but there are more that are seeing the light. It turns out that George Bush isn't the person so many thought he would be. The events in New Orleans exposed many of the patterns of the Bush administration. Some of the patterns: appointing cronies to jobs for which they are not qualified. Reacting to problem situations with press releases and photo ops instead of fixing the problem. Denying that anything bad is happening or that anybody on his watch did anything wrong.

2005-03-08T21:51:00.001-08:00

From memory (except lines 3&4 of the second stanza)

The last time I saw Richard was Detroit in '68.
He told me that romantics all meet the same fate
Someday; cynical and drunk and boring someone in a dark cafe.
You laugh, he said. You think you're immune."
Go look in your eyes; they're full of moon.
You like roses and kisses and pretty men to tell you all those pretty lies.
Pretty lies, when you going to realize they're only pretty lies?

Richard went up to the Wurlitzer
And pushed three buttons and the thing began to whirr.
And a barmaid came by in fishnet stockings and a bowtie
And said drink up now; it's getting on time to close.
Richard, you haven't really changed, I said.
It's just that now you're romanticizing some pain that's in your head.
You've got tombs in your eyes, but the songs you punched are dreaming.
Listen, they sing of love so sweet. When you going to get yourself back on you feet?
Love can be so sweet.

Richard got married to a figure skater
And he bought her a dishwasher and a coffee percolater.
He drinks at home most nights with the TV on and all the house lights left up bright.
I'm going to blow this damned candle out; I got nothing to talk to anyone about.
All good dreamers pass this way someday. Hiding behind bottles in dark cafes.
When am I going to get my gorgeous wings and fly away?
Only a phase, these dark cafe days.

-Joni Mitchell

2005-03-08T21:51:00.000-08:00

2005-01-22T11:09:00.000-08:00

There are a few really big issues facing America these days with the new Bush administration. Iraq still looms large. The situation is still not settled there, even with elections coming up on January 30. The elections will bring a new government with legitimacy in at least the Shi'ite and Kurdish areas of Iraq, but the instability is really based in the Sunni areas. It is likely that the insurgency will continue for years to come, new government or no.

If Iraq remains unstable, it is possible that it can spiral out of control and a warlord could emerge there that will destabilize the entire region. Of course, the Bush administration is hoping for exactly the opposite, that elections will install a legitimate government in Iraq that provides an inspiration for democrats throughout the region. One can only hope that he is right. Even if this proves to be the case, the region will see instability for some time, though the instability will be more related to social change and upheaval rather than insurgent movements. And one should not assume that a democratic Arab state would be a pro-American Arab state.

Another big issue coming up is Social Security reform. I have not paid as close attention to this issue as I should have. It is very important. Democrats are accusing the Republicans of wanting to dismantle the most effective poverty-ending program in US history. Republicans want to allow workers more control over their Social Security taxes. In order to get some momentum behind the call for reform, the Bush administration is manufacturing a crisis in the same way it manufactured a crisis in the run-up to the Iraq war. It will repeatedly tell people the worst news, shouting down dissenters, avoiding the good news. They have said that the system is heading for bankruptcy and trillions in deficit. What they have not said is, but others have, is that the system is projected to remain solvent for the next 40 years (well into my retirement) and that the trillions projected are over a period of infinity. The solution they are putting forward is that we must allow people to take their contributions out of the system and invest it in the stock market. (Preferably in stocks of companies owned by Republicans.) Talk about counter-intuitive. We have to fix the system to prevent massive deficits by taking revenue out of the system?

One other issue that usually gets short shrift because it is less than glamorous is election reform. More and more, states and counties are moving to electronic voting systems because it is cheaper and faster to get elections processed. But is it safe? Many determined high-schoolers can hack into very secure computer systems. Many of the nation's election offices are run by small counties whose elections officers also run the computer systems. Do they all have the wherewithall to prevent security breaches, especially given the vulnerabilities built into the system? Here is an e-mail I received recently summarizing some of the problems with electronic voting:

Did you know....
1. 80% of all votes in America are counted by only two companies: Diebold and ES&S. http://www.onlinejournal.com/evoting/042804Landes/042804landes.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diebold
http://www.essvote.com/HTML/about/about.html

2. There is no federal agency with regulatory authority or oversight of the U.S. voting machine industry. http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0916-04.htm
http://www.onlinejournal.com/evoting/042804Landes/042804landes.html

3. The vice-president of Diebold and the president of ES&S are brothers. http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/private_company.html
http://www.onlinejournal.com/evoting/042804Landes/042804landes.html

4. The chairman and CEO of Diebold is a major Bush campaign organizer and donor who wrote in 2003 that he was "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/07/28/sunday/main632436.shtml
http://www.wishtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=1647886

5. Republican Senator Chuck Hagel used to be Chairman of ES&S. He became Senator in a surprise upset, with votes counted by ES&S machines.
http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/2004/03/03_200.html
http://www.onlinejournal.com/evoting/031004Fitrakis/

6. Republican Senator Chuck Hagel, long-connected with the Bush family, was recently caught lying about his ownership of ES&S by the Senate Ethics Committee.
http://www.blackboxvoting.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=26
http://www.hillnews.com/news/012903/hagel.aspx
http://www.onlisareinsradar.com/archives/000896.php

7. Senator Chuck Hagel was on a short list of George W. Bush's vice-presidential candidates.
http://www.businessweek.com/2000/00_28/b3689130.htm
http://theindependent.com/stories/052700/new_hagel27.html

8. Kenneth Blackwell co-chaired George Bush's Ohio election campaign. As Ohio's Secretary of State, he left no stone unturned to surpress the democratic vote.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/113004Y.shtml#1
http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2004/894
http://67.15.90.110/article.pl?sid=04/10/29/1414219

9. Diebold's new touch screen voting machines have no paper trail of any votes. In other words, there is no way to verify that the data coming out of the machine is the same as what was legitimately put in by voters.
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0225-05.htm
http://www.itworld.com/Tech/2987/041020evotestates/pfindex.html

10. Diebold also makes ATMs, checkout scanners, and ticket machines, all of which log each transaction and can generate a paper trail.
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0225-05.htm
http://www.diebold.com/solutions/default.htm

11. Exit polls are usually excellent predictors of election results. Reputable analyses could not find an explanation of the discrepancy between exit polls and results of the 2004 presidential election.
http://ucdata.berkeley.edu/
http://www.buzzflash.com/alerts/04/11/Unexplained_exit_poll_discrep_v00l.pdf http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/23/international/europe/23ukraine.html?ex=1102245800&ei=1&en=3a3c24b7e64fe49

12. A Diebold subsidiary employed five convicted felons as senior managers and developers. These people helped write the central compiler computer code that counted 50% of the votes in 30 states.
http://www.wired.com/news/evote/0,2645,61640,00.html
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/10/301469.shtml

13. Jeff Dean, senior programmer on Diebold's central compiler code, was convicted of 23 counts of felony theft in the first degree.
http://www.chuckherrin.com/HackthevoteFAQ.htm#how
http://www.blackboxvoting.org/bbv_chapter-8.pdf

14. Jeff Dean served jail time for planting back doors in his client's accounting software and using a "high degree of sophistication" to evade detection over a period of two years.
http://www.chuckherrin.com/HackthevoteFAQ.htm#how
http://www.blackboxvoting.org/bbv_chapter-8.pdf

15. None of the international election observers were allowed in the polls in Ohio.
http://www.globalexchange.org/update/press/2638.html
http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2004/10/26/loc_elexoh.html

16. California banned the use of Diebold machines because the security was so bad. Despite Diebold's claims that the audit logs could not be hacked, hacking was easily accomplished. (See the movie here with the chimp <http://blackboxvoting.org/baxter/baxterVPR.mov .)
http://wired.com/news/evote/0,2645,63298,00.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4874190

17. ALL -- not some -- but ALL of the voting machine errors detected and reported in Florida went in favor of Bush or Republican candidates.
http://www.wired.com/news/evote/0,2645,65757,00.html
http://www.yuricareport.com/ElectionAftermath04/ThreeResearchStudiesBushIsOut.htm
http://www.rise4news.net/extravotes.html http://www.ilcaonline.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=950
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0411/S00227.htm

18. Serious voting anomalies in Florida -- again always favoring Bush– have been mathematically demonstrated and experts are recommending further investigation.
http://www.yuricareport.com/ElectionAftermath04/ThreeResearchStudiesBushIsOut.htm http://www.computerworld.com/governmenttopics/government/policy/story/0,10801,97614,00.html
http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/tens_of_thousands.html
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1106-30.htm
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2004/110904.htmlhttp://uscountvotes.org/

Based on a list compiled by Angry Girl - http://nightweed.com/usavotefacts.html

2004-12-14T22:20:00.000-08:00

It might be time now to really do some thinking about the past year’s election, now that the anger has subsided a bit. What was really going on in the election was a conflict between two differing views of reality. Many pundits said that George W. Bush got elected on moral values. This is a part of the truth. In fact, this nation is divided between two differing camps, each with a differing set of values, visions and assumptions about how the world works.

Having read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance years ago, I was trying to explain to a friend today what it was about. I realized that I didn’t remember it very clearly and finding it on my bookshelf today, I decided to read it again. Some books are worth reading more than once. This one is worth rereading repeatedly. Over ten years ago, I loaned my first copy to someone and never got it back, so I went and bought another just to have it on my bookshelf. I began reading this new copy for the first time.

I came across a passage in it that is relevant today as it was when it was written. It is about conflicting visions of reality, one of which was based in the sixties hippie movement. Here it is:

"That’s the dimension [John]’s in. The groovy dimension. I’m being awfully square talking about all this mechanical stuff all the time. It’s all just parts and relationships and analyses and syntheses and figuring things out and it isn’t really here. It’s somewhere else, which thinks it’s here but’s a million miles away. This is what it’s all about. He’s on this dimensional difference which underlay much of the cultural changes of the sixties, I think, and is still in the process of reshaping our whole national outlook on things. The names "beat" and "hip" grew out of it. Now it’s become apparent that this dimension isn’t a fad that’s going to go away next year or the year after. It’s here to stay because it’s a very serious and important way of looking at things that looks incompatible with reason and order and responsibility but actually is not. Now we are down to the root of things."

"What we have here is a conflict of visions of reality. … That’s really why [John] got upset that day when he couldn’t get his engine started. It was an intrusion on his reality. It just blew a hole right through his whole groovy way of looking at things and he would not face up to it because it seemed to threaten his whole life style." Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, Robert Pirsig, pp. 53-54.

While the conflicting visions of reality described by Pirsig in the book are different from those espoused by the Democrats and Republicans in the election over the last year, they are related and the conflict is similar. Pirsig says that the cultural changes of the sixties were here to stay. In fact, since he wrote the book, those cultural changes have become the culture for half of America. It has been a growing cultural perspective for the last 40 years and has permeated American society, mostly in urban areas and among the educated middle and upper classes. Much of the growth of conservatism over the past twenty years can be explained as a reaction among rural and traditional Americans to the growth of this new cultural perspective, not as the remnants of the old conservatism that the hippies protested against.

Aside from how these differing views came to be, the important thing to realize is that they are conflicting views of reality and seem to have little common ground. This is a dangerous and unfortunate situation for American society. Because the one’s vision of reality is an intrusion on the other’s reality, they each seem to threaten the other’s whole life style.

We need to get past this illusion and find the common ground between the red camp and the blue camp. As Lincoln put it, a house divided against itself cannot stand. America has some profound challenges ahead of it and must face the challenges united, not as a slim majority ruling over an equally sized minority.

2004-10-31T15:19:00.000-08:00

This and the next three posts are from a friend of mine. I have always respected his thoughtful approach to issues and his compassion for others and society as a whole. While this essay is long, it is well researched and well-thought out. It is worth the read. It reminds me of the quote by Lincoln: "You can fool some of the people all the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all the time. "

Griff originally wrote it with all sorts of formatting that helps reading, but blogger doesn't work very well on internet explorer on a macintosh, so I cannot add back all his formatting. I wanted to get this out before the election so people could see it.

Hello fellow voter. My name is Griff, and I live in Portland, Oregon, though I grew up in Youngstown, Ohio, and have lived in Virginia and Michigan along the way.

I am writing to try to help make some sense of some things regarding the election next week, both for myself and maybe for somebody else. I should say from the start that I strongly oppose the reelection of George Bush. I have my reservations about John Kerry, but those don't hold a candle to what I feel is the appalling and frightening record of the Bush Administration. I have come to where my objections to the current administration are so wide and numerous that I can hardly even keep track of them in my own head anymore.

Thus I decided to try to organize my thoughts. At the same time, with family and friends in both Ohio and Florida (the two states that may well decide this election) I thought I could help the cause by giving some other fellow voters something to chew on.

In Oregon we vote by mail exclusively, and we have a robust intitiative process, so we get huge books of material to read for every election, and i value those dearly. i feel best when i have read the opinions of those both for and against every measure and candidate ... those I agree with and those I don't.

In that spirit, I hope you will be willing to forward this to others that might find it helpful, whether you agree with me or not. I have tried to be as honest and fair as possible, and to write and research with integrity, though I have no intention of being "impartial."

I believe that the Bush Campaign relies on so much smokescreen that they think no one can ever find their way through it. As I have tried to see through the smoke & deception, I have been staggered by the depth of it all. I think the best I've been able to do is construct representative examples of the administration's methods and strategies. i hope this is helpful.

__________________________

Dear Mr. Bush & Co.

I strongly oppose your reelection for three primary reasons:

1) I believe you have proven yourselves the most deceitful, dishonest, and disingenuous administration I've ever seen.

2) I believe you are jeopardizing our safety and security with a clumsy, belligerent, and inept foreign policy that does not respect statesmanship, international law, or the vital support of allies.

3) Your reckless fiscal policy has erased over a decade of very difficult and bipartisan work to overcome the federal deficit. This is an irresponsible course that we will pay for for decades or generations to come.

Below I will address the first two of these only.

A) HONESTY, DISCLOSURE AND INTEGRITY.

You have built nearly an entire presidency of one simple idea: "if we say it enough, and stand by it with conviction, then it will be true."

but many of us beg to differ.

The Scientific Community Calls You Out

Please recall the days when scientists were censored and punished for proposing the earth is round. This suppression was based on religious grounds, as the flat earth model was central to the theology of the time, and the church and state were inextricably intertwined. Now, certainly, no one today would propose that belief in a spherical earth is heretical. No, the science was not the problem, but rather, the dogmatic religious conservatism, unwilling to seek, face, and embrace a richer understanding of God's creation with honesty.

On February 18, 2004, over 60 leading scientists–Nobel laureates, leading medical experts, former federal agency directors, and university chairs and presidents–signed [a public statement] voicing their concern over the misuse of science by the Bush administration.

This statement came from the Union of Concerned Scientists, a non-partisan group representing esteemed scientists from many disciplines.

The UCS states "When scientific knowledge has been found to be in conflict with its political goals, the administration has often manipulated the process through which science enters into its decisions. This has been done by placing people who are professionally unqualified or who have clear conflicts of interest in official posts and on scientific advisory committees; by disbanding existing advisory committees; by censoring and suppressing reports by the government’s own scientists; and by simply not seeking independent scientific advice. Other administrations have, on occasion, engaged in such practices, but not so systematically nor on so wide a front. Furthermore, in advocating policies that are not scientifically sound, the administration has sometimes misrepresented scientific knowledge and misled the public about the implications of its policies. - From Union of Concerned Scientists statement. 2/18/04

According to CNN on 2/19/04:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush's administration distorts scientific findings and seeks to manipulate experts' advice to avoid information that runs counter to its political beliefs, a private organization of scientists asserted on Wednesday.

The Union of Concerned Scientists ("UCS") contended in a report that "the scope and scale of the manipulation, suppression and misrepresentation of science by the Bush administration is unprecedented."

"We're not taking issue with administration policies. We're taking issue with the administration's distortion ... of the science related to some of its policies," said the group's president, Kurt Gottfried.

I want to reiterate that point ... this group is not "taking issue with administration policies. We're taking issue with the administration's distortion ... of the science related to some of its policies."

In other words, these distinguished scientists are not objecting because they have different opinions about what policy choices we should make. They are objecting to dishonesty and manipulation in the decision making process itself. It would be very different if the administration was approaching the issues with integrity and genuine concern for relevant evidence, and if they were candid about the process. Then some scientists might agree with the decisions and others might not (and the same for the larger public), ... that's part of Democracy ... we have honest debate and then those empowered to do so make policy choices based on the information gleaned from that debate. But that's not what's happening here.

How does this work? There are many ways. This statement from the UCS gives some examples, including federal advisory committees being stacked with unqualified representatives from regulated industries, and suppression of studies that do not support administration policies.

According to the UCS, for instance, in November 2002, an advisory committee of the Center for disease Control ("CDC") was considering whether to make federal standards for lead poisoning more stringent, a move opposed by various affected industries. A few weeks before the scheduled meeting, the Bush administration stacked the committee with members opposed to the change in standards. Now in order to do that, the administration had to dump or turn away highly qualified experts that were recommended by the CDC, according to standard procedure. The move included dismissing a leading expert and researcher who had been on the committee for four years, as well as rejecting the recommendations of the CDC staff. "According to Dr. Susan Cummins, who chaired the CDC’s lead advisory committee from 1995 to 2000, this was the first time an HHS secretary had ever rejected nominations by the committee or CDC staff." The replacement members included two appointees with financial ties to the lead industry, including at least one that other experts describe as holding a "'fringe' view in his field (far from even the normal extremities of mainstream expert scientific discourse)." "As one medical researcher explains it, Banner’s position either ignores or willfully misreads some four decades’ worth of accumulating data on lead exposure in children." But the one clear commonality among the "replacement appointees" was that the administration was certain they would oppose the changes in standards. It didn't really matter to the administration whether they were actually qualified or not, or whether they had a conflict of interest or not ... it only mattered that they would support the administration's position.

Science cannot effectively operate under such conditions.

Now, the UCS acknowledges that, "researchers may well reasonably debate whether the government should tighten its standard for lead poisoning. The public needs and deserves such an informed debate. In this case, however, the Bush administration effectively denied the public an informed policy recommendation by tampering with the integrity of the advisory panel nominating process."

This approach flies in the face of scientific integrity, and even political integrity. In the end, science is only one factor in making policy decisions, to be weighed along with many others, including economic impacts, ethics, etc. But while it is perfectly legitimate to consider the impacts of environmental policy on industry, for instance, it is not legitimate not try to distort the scientific information that is designed to inform that policy decision with the best information available.

As George Bush Sr. has said, "Science, like any field of endeavor, relies on freedom of inquiry; and one of the hallmarks of that freedom is objectivity. Now, more than ever, on issues ranging from climate change to AIDS research to genetic engineering to food additives, government relies on the impartial perspective of science for guidance." - President George H.W. Bush, April 23, 1990

But with the current administration "we’ve seen a consistent pattern of putting people in who will ensure that the administration hears what it wants to hear," says Dr. David Michaels, a research professor in the Department of Environmental and Occupational Health at George Washington University’s School of Public Health and former assistant secretary for environment, safety and health at the DOE during the Clinton administration. "That doesn’t help science, and it doesn’t help the country."

As Russell Train, former EPA Administrator laments, "In all my time as EPA administrator, under both Nixon and Ford, I do not recall ever receiving even a suggestion, let alone an order from the Whitehouse as to how I should make a regulatory decision. How times have changed." (quoted from a 2/18/04 National Public Radio ("NPR") story on the UCS statement).

You can check out this whole UCS statement, the signees, and other examples at:

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/rsi/page.cfm?pageID=1320.

For a related story:

Tue Jun 22, 9:40 AM - Chicago Tribune

By Jill Zuckman Tribune national correspondent

Forty-eight Nobel laureates denounced President Bush on Monday for "compromising our future" when it comes to scientific research and the environment, and said Sen. John Kerry "will restore science to its appropriate place in government and bring it back into the White House."

The star-studded scientific endorsement for Kerry came on a day when the presumptive Democratic nominee stood in Civic Center Park and told several hundred rain-soaked voters that the way to build the economy is to invest in science, technology and higher education.

"We need a president who will once again embrace our tradition of looking toward the future and new discoveries with hope based on scientific facts, not fear," said Kerry, vowing not to let "ideology and fear stand in the way."

Many scientists have complained that the Bush administration has filled science advisory panels with conservative ideologues rather than individuals with sterling scientific credentials.

In an open letter to the American public, Nobel Prize winners including Caltech President David Baltimore and cancer researcher Harold Varmus said "the Bush administration has ignored unbiased scientific advice in the policy-making that is so important to our collective welfare."

__________

Now Mr. Bush, the reason I've started out talking about science is that it is an ideal illustration of the willingness of your administration to distort facts for political ends. While you seem willing to do this on any and all fronts, it is most clear and apparent in the realm of science, specifically because of the stark contrast with the scientists' dedication to actual facts, research, and evidence. We all know that we can find an "expert" to say anything we want to support, but that doesn't make it a legitimate or realistic debate. As your administration has systematically positioned itself against mainstream science, substituting "fringe" opinions, in so many areas (climate change, forest management, endangered species, clean air, mercury emissions, health education, mining, breast cancer, etc. etc.) it becomes ever clearer that you are really not concerned with facts, research, or science, but driven only by half informed ideological dogma.

2004-10-31T15:18:00.000-08:00

B) Iraq: Misleading a Nation to War

In the build-up to your invasion of Iraq, we can see so many examples of this same sort of strategy that it's nearly impossible to even catalog them all. But since we were talking about science, let's just start there.

Many citizens and, especially, Senators have indicated that the potential threat of an Iraqi nuclear weapons program was the most significant factor in their reluctant support for the "preemptive" invasion of Iraq. So what evidence did you offer of that nuclear program to convince the American people of the threat?

The single most persuasive piece of evidence you offered at the time was the purchase by Iraq of some unique aluminum tubes. You explained to us that these tubes were secured by Iraq to use for centrifuges in their nuclear weapons program. However, as we have since learned, there was actually a substantial debate among government experts as to what these tubes were really for. There were CIA analysts who believed the tubes were for centrifuges. However, there were also experts at the Energy Department, in fact the most knowledgeable experts in the country, who believed the tubes were unsuited for centrifuges, but rather, were likely for combustion chambers for slim rockets fired from launcher pods. In fact, the International Atomic Energy Agency had examined tubes of identical specifications in Iraq in 1996 that were actually being used as conventional rocket launchers. Based on their analysis, "the Energy Department experts ... concluded that using the tubes in centrifuges 'is credible but unlikely, and a rocket production is the much more likely end use for these tubes.' "Yes, it was theoretically possible [to use the tubes for centrifuges], but as an Energy Department analyst later told Senate investigators, it was also theoretically possible to 'turn your new Yugo into a Cadillac.''' Similar conclusions were being reached by Britain's intelligence service and experts at the International Atomic Energy Agency, a United Nations body."

Now this point was very important to your case for an Iraqi threat that would justify an invasion. It was clear to you and everyone else that support for the war was reluctant and that you would have to have a viable and convincing case to get support from Congress and the American People. Furthermore, as Dr. David A. Kay, the chief American arms inspector after the war said, "remember ... the tubes were the only piece of physical evidence about the Iraqi weapons programs that [you] had.''

Now this sounds a lot like some of the scientific issues we looked at before. You have a specific agenda, and the science does not really back up your agenda. So what do you do? Well you ignore, or even bury the science that doesn't support you, of course, and focus only on those opinions that bolster your position.

So, more than a year after the department of Energy started telling your administration that it was unlikely these tubes were for a nuclear program, you stood before the U.N. and said Iraq had made "several attempts to buy high strength aluminum tubes to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon." Now I can see how you might have still thought this was a debatable issue. But you didn't say that. You just said it was true, even though the best science at the time said otherwise. In other words you selectively chose to go with science that you wanted to be true, rather that being honest about finding out what was actually true.

What Condoleeza Rice said, though is even more deceptive. A few days before you spoke to the U.N., she actually said, "We do know that there have been shipments going into iraq, for instance, of aluminum tubes that really are only suited to ... high quality aluminum tubes that are only really suited for nuclear weapons programs; centrifuge programs. We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud. " -Condoleeza Rice, US National Security Advisor, September 2002

It's hard to even believe that! She actually said these tubes were "only really suited for ... centrifuge programs." Even though the Energy Department experts; the best experts in the country, had been saying for over a year that the tubes were not suited for centrifuges, but were well suited for conventional rocket launchers! Still she said otherwise.

Of course, this is not just a matter of opinion ... as to which theory was better. It's not a subjective matter like which are better ... peas or carrots? that's a matter of taste. The question of the aluminum tubes is much more objective than that. Now, of course, we know that those tubes were NOT for a nuclear program, never were, and in fact, Iraq had had no nuclear program for over ten years. Indeed, the tubes were for conventional rocket launchers, just like they said.

That's the problem when you disregard, ignore, or bury to best evidence, of course, ... is that you're unlikely to have your view born out when the facts come in. Now even the best scientific theories may be disproven, but you're really on thin ice when you just try to ignore the evidence and make up what you want.

Again, remember what those scientists were saying. We may or may not agree as to the ultimate policy choices, but that's not even what we're talking about. This is about refusing to even enter into an honest debate ... or to be truthful or accurate in your representation of information. If you had wanted to be honest, you would have thoroughly investigated and apprised yourself of the various theories on these aluminum tubes, then told the public "there is some debate about what these tubes are for." You could have said, "some believe they are for (permissible) conventional rocket launchers, but others fear they may indicate an ongoing nuclear program." You could even have said, "we don't feel like we can take the chance that they might be part of a nuclear weapons program, and believe we must err on the safe side." Now all that would have been truthful and honest. Then the American people would have had accurate information and perspective on which to base our opinions, as would the Congress. But that's not what happened. Instead you chose to present a one sided distortion of the information, because you feared that a truthful disclosure would have weakened the case you wanted to make.

But the American people deserve more respect than this. We are not stupid. We are perfectly capable of "handling truth" ... even when it's a little complicated. It's not your job to pursue your own agenda, and release information only as it will mold our opinions in support of that agenda. No! It's your responsibility to be straight with us ... to lead us, not to lie to us. Misleading is not the same as leading. When others see the wisdom in your approach to problems and circumstances, and come to trust you and follow you with confidence, you are "leading." When you misrepresent the problems and circumstances to convince others of the wisdom of your approach, you are not leading but "misleading." In this way you have indeed proven yourself a great national misleader.

Now that we've got many more facts, and we've learned that those aluminum tubes were not for centrifuges or any nuclear program at all, now that we've gone ahead and invaded a sovereign nation and started a war that has cost over 10,000 lives based on misinformation, now Condoleeza is backtracking. Now, regarding her earlier statement, she says, ""The intelligence community assessment as a whole was that these were likely, and certainly suitable for and likely for his nuclear weapons program." - From ABC's This Week - 10/3/04. Now even this is debatable ... considering the Energy Department analysts, some of whom had been building and working on centrifuges for decades, were clearly indicating to the contrary. But, even if we give the benefit of the doubt, and say Condi weighed all the opinions and analysis, and came to buy into the centrifuge theory as the most credible, that's still a long way from saying the tubes are "only really suited" to nuclear weapons programs. Either she was "telling tales" or she didn't know what the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Energy Department knew.

And this brings me to another, larger point. Frankly, I don't care a whole lot whether Condoleeza Rice was outright lying, was creatively deceiving by half-truths and ommission, or was actually completely in the dark. I mean, she is the National Security Advisor for Pete's sake! It's her job to know these things. If she's going to go on National Television and tell the American people that Iraq is buying aluminum tubes that are "only suitable" for development of nuclear weapons, then surely she has the responsibility to check the story out first. That doesn't just mean asking the first person who will say what she or the President wants him to say. That means actually asking questions, hearing dissent, digging under the surface, and challenging the analysis she receives. The excuse of "bad intelligence" just doesn't fly here. It wasn't bad intelligence at all, it was a question of the analysis of perfectly good intelligence (in fact we had actually captured a shipment of the aluminum tubes and had the opportunity to study them extensively).

I mean this was not a small issue. This was, perhaps, the single most important issue of "National Security" at the time. This analysis was to be the central justification for an unprecedented unprovoked invasion of another sovereign nation. It was the basis for estimating whether an declared enemy might have nuclear capabilities. You'd think that she could actually check it out ... thoroughly! You'd also hope that she would represent it truthfully to the American people.

But as far as I can tell, one of three things happened here ... either:

1) Condoleeza Rice understood the debate between the CIA analysis and the Energy Department Analysis and willfully and blatantly misrepresented the information to the American people or

2) She assessed the analysis by the Energy Department to be so unlikely that it was not even worth considering (in spite of the facts that it was proffered by the leading experts in the field, and that this analysis is the one that was actually most accurate), or

2) The National Security Advisor was oblivious to vital and pivotal information on the most important issue of National Security facing the country, in spite of the efforts of those trying to communicate that information to her.

I'm not sure which of these is more frightening.

If she lied outright, then we must remove her immediately, as anyone that would so boldly lie to the nation about such a grave and monumental concern certainly cannot be trusted as a servant of the people.

If she assessed the most accurate analysis of this vital issue, as well as the opinions of the most expert analysts, and assessed them to be inconsequential, then her judgment is so horrible and lacking, then she certainly cannot be trusted with our national security, and she must be removed.

If she was oblivious to the most relevant analysis of this most vital situation, then she is utterly irresponsible and incompetent to protect our national security, and must be removed.

This is a conclusion I come to often when trying to understand how this situation, and this war developed. I feel like the administration is playing a shell game with us ... and it can be a very effective distraction, until I realize that ALL THE SHELLS ARE EMPTY!

_______________

I should mention that you actually gave two pieces of "supporting evidence" for Saddam's nuclear program. The other clue was the uranium Iraq supposedly tried to buy from Niger. Of course this story has been completely debunked even more emphatically than the lies about the aluminum tubes ... to the point where the CIA was actually telling you this story was make believe - and you included it in the state of the union anyway!!! ... but i think that's been examined and exposed enough.

(check out: NY Times
July 6, 2003
OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR

What I Didn't Find in Africa
By JOSEPH C. WILSON 4th

Ultimately, what is most important is that you convinced enough people to believe in a non-existent Iraqi nuclear program to get the support you wanted ... and that's what you were after. As usual, the actual truth of the situation just didn't seems to matter.

More War Stories

In the last several months, reports from two very important investigations have been completed, and released. The first was the report from the 9/11 Commission (Officially the "National Commission on Terrorist Attacks on the United States"), and the second was the Duelfer Report, released in early October.

The 9/11 Commission, "an independent, bipartisan commission created by congressional legislation and the signature of President George W. Bush in late 2002, is chartered to prepare a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, including preparedness for and the immediate response to the attacks. The Commission is also mandated to provide recommendations designed to guard against future attacks." It's process and results have been widely praised as a triumph of genuine inquiry and non-partisan cooperation, and the commission released it's unanimous report in July of 2004.

The Duelfer Report is the culmination of approximately 17 months of investigation led by Charles Duelfer, the chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq. Duelfer was appointed by the President to complete the U.S. investigation of Iraq's weapons programs, and this "investigation represents the government's most definitive accounting of Hussein's weapons programs, the assumed strength of which the Bush administration presented as a central reason for the war," according to the Washington Post (U.S. 'Almost All Wrong' on Weapons, Thursday, October 7, 2004; Page A01.)

The report had many striking conclusions. It said, for instance, that Saddam Hussein was extremely focused on getting the international sanctions that had saddled Iraq since 1991 lifted. To that end, the report paints a picture of back room wheeling, dealing, and influence peddling with a network of businesses and nations around the world to illegally bypass the sanctions, secure banned goods, and also to get the sanctions officially softened. It also indicated that Hussein still had a strong wish and intent to restart at least some of his WMD programs if the sanctions were lifted, and that this was a major motivation for his wanting to get out from under the sanctions.

On the other hand, The Duelfer Report concluded that within a couple years of the first Gulf war (1991), Iraq has dismantled most or all of its WMD ("Weapons of Mass Destruction") programs. By the time the U.S invaded Iraq, stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons were destroyed and there were no mechanisms in place to rebuild or restock them. There had been no nuclear weapons program for some years, and there were no specific plans to restart one. Apparently, the sanctions that had been in place since 1991 were effective in shutting down Hussein's WMD programs, while also crippling Iraq's economy.

Meanwhile, (a few months earlier) - the 9/11 Commission Report had also had some significant findings. Here is an Excerpt:

Bin Ladin also explored possible cooperation with Iraq during his time in Sudan, despite his opposition to Hussein's secular regime. Bin Ladin had in fact at one time sponsored anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan. The Sudanese, to protect their own ties with Iraq, reportedly persuaded bin Ladin to cease this support and arranged for contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda. A senior Iraqi Intelligence officer reportedly made three visits to Sudan, finally meeting bin Ladin in 1994. Bin Ladin is said to have requested space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but Iraq apparently never responded. There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda also occurred after bin Ladin had returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship. Two senior bin Ladin associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq. We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United

They way I read it, according to the 9/11 Commission Report, Osama Bin Ladin was living first in Sudan then in Aghanistan when he had contact with Iraqi officials. For a while Bin Ladin was actually helping out some forces opposing Saddam, presumably because Bin Ladin fundamentally opposes secular regimes, but Sudan convinced him to cut that out. At some later point officials from Sudan set Bin Ladin up to meet with Iraqis, and they met once. Bin Ladin asked them for some favors, and they didn't respond, and they didn't call him back. Later, there are some reports of contact between Iraq and al Qaeda in Afghanistan, but it's not clear what those were about. However, the Commission's summary of this line of evidence is that there's nothing to show that al Qaeda and Iraq ever had a cooperative relationship.

Of course the 9/11 Commission is an extensive report, dealing with many many subjects and issues, and this examination of the ties between Iraq and Bin Ladin is but a small fraction of the very grand whole. However, I am highlighting this area because my focus is on the lack of veracity, integrity, and competence we find in the statements and manners of the Bush Administration as they tried to sell the war against Iraq.

So what I'm seeing here is that these two reports are looking hard at all the evidence they can find, including both what the administration knew when and before they invaded Iraq, as well as much more that has come to light or been clarified since. Of course it is only natural to compare what we've learned with the representations the Administration made when they were in sole control of the intelligence.

Needless to say, I, personally, see a great chasm between the evidence we have now and the legitimacy of the representations by the Administration. It seems to me that the Bush Adminstration approached this policy as it approaches most policies. They had an agenda or a plan already, and they set about to shape the perceptions of the facts to support their agenda. Well of course ... that's part of democracy. Everyone tries to appeal to others' perceptions of facts.

However, if you are in control of nearly all the intelligence, and you are unscrupulous, then you can do a lot more than just "shape the perceptions of the facts." You can actually change the facts ... and get away with it. It only takes very subtle changes in detail to have huge impacts on perceptions. As outlined previously, the Bush Administration has consistently shown themselves more than willing to bend, change, distort, and suppress relevant information in the service of their own ends.

So when they wanted to sell us the war, they took what information they had and bent and exaggerated and omitted as necessary to make their case. At the time many many many many people believed, and said (and screamed) that the Administration's cast was lying. Since then, I have seen much to reinforce that belief, but almost nothing to diminish it.

Once more I must say that if they had been truthful and candid ... if they had adequately questioned one sided intelligence and reported to us as accurately as they could ... and they had still garnered sufficient support to go to war, then I might have still oppose the war as a policy choice, but I could still have respected the process ... that's democracy. But that's not what happened.

Here's an exercise that I'm hardly the first to do, ... but it's interesting ...

... talk talk talk ...

2004-10-31T15:15:00.000-08:00

On The Subject of al Qaeda/Iraq Ties:

What they Said:

In September, Cheney said on NBC's "Meet the Press": "If we're successful in Iraq . . . then we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11." (Washington Post) (That's right ... he said if we beat Iraq, we will be hitting the "heart of the base" of the terrorists that attacked us on 9/11!!! This is the same guy that, during the VP debate stated, "I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11")

Speaking about Iraq's alleged links to al Qaeda and the Sept. 11 attacks, Cheney connected Iraq to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing by saying that newly found Iraqi intelligence files in Baghdad showed that a participant in the bombing returned to Iraq and "probably also received financing from the Iraqi government as well as safe haven." He added: "The Iraqi government or the Iraqi intelligence service had a relationship with al Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the '90s." (Washington Post)

The war on terror, you can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror. And so it's a comparison that is -- I can't make because I can't distinguish between the two, because they're both equally as bad, and equally as evil, and equally as destructive. George W. Bush, President
Remarks By President Bush, The Oval Office
9/25/2002

So, yes, there are contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda. We know that Saddam Hussein has a long history with terrorism in general. And there are some al Qaeda personnel who found refuge in Baghdad...There clearly are contacts between al Qaeda and Iraq that can be documented. Condoleeza Rice, US National Security Advisor
NewsHour with Jim Lehrer
9/26/2002

Iraq and al Qaeda have discussed safe haven opportunities in Iraq, reciprocal nonaggression discussions. We have what we consider to be credible evidence that al Qaeda leaders have sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire weapons of mass destruction capabilities Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense
Comments To Reporters
9/27/2002

This is a man who has had contacts with al Qaeda. George W. Bush, President
Remarks by the President in Minnesota Welcome
11/2/2002

We know that he has had contacts with terrorist networks like al Qaeda. George W. Bush, President
Remarks by the President at Tennessee Welcome
11/2/2002

He's had connections with shadowy terrorist networks like al Qaeda. George W. Bush, President
Remarks by the President in Atlanta, Georgia Welcome Remarks by the President in Atlanta, Georgia Welcome
11/2/2002

We know that he's had connections with al Qaeda. George W. Bush, President
Remarks by the President in Florida Welcome
11/2/2002

He's got connections with al Qaeda. George W. Bush, President
Remarks by the President in Colorado Welcome
10/28/2002

We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. George W. Bush, President
Cincinnati, Ohio Speech
10/7/2002

we need to think about Saddam Hussein using al Qaeda to do his dirty work, to not leave fingerprints behind. George W. Bush, President
Remarks by the President in Michigan Welcome
10/14/2002

He is a man who would likely -- he is a man who would likely team up with al Qaeda. He could provide the arsenal for one of these shadowy terrorist networks. He would love to use somebody else to attack us, and not leave fingerprints behind. George W. Bush, President
Remarks by the President at Illinois Welcome
11/3/2002

And, not only that, he is -- would like nothing better than to hook-up with one of these shadowy terrorist networks like al Qaeda, provide some weapons and training to them, let them come and do his dirty work, and we wouldn't be able to see his fingerprints on his action. George W. Bush, President
Remarks by the President in South Dakota Welcome
11/3/2002

AND ... FROM THE STARTE OF THE UNION ADDRESS on 1/28/2003 ...
Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. George W. Bush, President

What We Found Out:

A senior Iraqi intelligence officer had met Bin Laden in 1994 to hear his requests for space to establish training camps and assistance in procuring weapons - but Iraq had not responded. (from BBC - on 9/11 report)

"There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda also occurred after Bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship," the statement says. (from BBC - on 9/11 report)

There is no convincing evidence that any government financially supported al-Qaeda before the 11 September attacks. (from BBC - on 9/11 report)

this is interesting, too, and shows what a good job they do at shaping the (mis)perceptions.

According to a Harris poll in late April, a plurality of Americans, 49 percent to 36 percent, believe "clear evidence that Iraq was supporting al Qaeda has been found." (Washington Post)

and why do you suppose that is?? ... Why do you think so many thoughtful Americans believed something that just wasn't true? Could it be because that's what you told them??

Well of course they believed this, ... after the drone from the administration suggesting that "you can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror," (George W.) and "Iraq . . . [is] the heart of the base ... of the terrorists who had us under assault ... on 9/11." (Cheney):

On the subject of Weapons of Mass Destruction:

What they Said:

In the case of Saddam Hussein, we've got a dictator who is clearly pursuing and already possesses some of these weapons.. A regime that hates America and everything we stand for must never be permitted to threaten America with weapons of mass destruction. Dick Cheney, Vice President
Detroit, Fund-Raiser
6/20/2002

Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. Dick Cheney, Vice President
Speech to VFW National Convention
8/26/2002

There is already a mountain of evidence that Saddam Hussein is gathering weapons for the purpose of using them. And adding additional information is like adding a foot to Mount Everest. Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary
Response to Question From Press
9/6/2002

Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons. George W. Bush, President
Speech to UN General Assembly
9/12/2002

Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons. We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have George W. Bush, President
Radio Address
10/5/2002

The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas. George W. Bush, President
Cincinnati, Ohio Speech
10/7/2002

And surveillance photos reveal that the regime is rebuilding facilities that it had used to produce chemical and biological weapons. George W. Bush, President
Cincinnati, Ohio Speech
10/7/2002

After eleven years during which we have tried containment, sanctions, inspections, even selected military action, the end result is that Saddam Hussein still has chemical and biological weapons and is increasing his capabilities to make more. And he is moving ever closer to developing a nuclear weapon. George W. Bush, President
Cincinnati, Ohio Speech
10/7/2002

Iraq, despite UN sanctions, maintains an aggressive program to rebuild the infrastructure for its nuclear, chemical, biological, and missile programs. In each instance, Iraq’s procurement agents are actively working to obtain both weapons-specific and dual-use materials and technologies critical to their rebuilding and expansion efforts, using front companies and whatever illicit means are at hand. John Bolton, Undersecretary of State for Arms Control
Speech to the Hudson Institute
11/1/2002

We estimate that once Iraq acquires fissile material -- whether from a foreign source or by securing the materials to build an indigenous fissile material capability -- it could fabricate a nuclear weapon within one year. It has rebuilt its civilian chemical infrastructure and renewed production of chemical warfare agents, probably including mustard, sarin, and VX. It actively maintains all key aspects of its offensive BW [biological weapons] program. John Bolton, Undersecretary of State for Arms Control
Speech to the Hudson Institute
11/1/2002

Iraq could decide on any given day to provide biological or chemical weapons to a terrorist group or to individual terrorists,...The war on terror will not be won until Iraq is completely and verifiably deprived of weapons of mass destruction. Dick Cheney, Vice President
Denver, Address To Air National Guard
12/1/2002

If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world. Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary
Press Briefing
12/2/2002
(who's misleading the world?!)

The president of the United States and the secretary of defense would not assert as plainly and bluntly as they have that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction if it was not true, and if they did not have a solid basis for saying it Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary
Response to Question From Press
12/4/2002

We know for a fact that there are weapons there. Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary
Press Briefing
1/9/2003

The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. George W. Bush, President
State of the Union Address
1/28/2003

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. George W. Bush, President
State of the Union Address
1/28/2003

We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more. Colin Powell, Secretary of State
Remarks to UN Security Council
2/5/2003

There can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more. And he has the ability to dispense these lethal poisons and diseases in ways that can cause massive death and destruction. If biological weapons seem too terrible to contemplate, chemical weapons are equally chilling Colin Powell, Secretary of State
Addresses the U.N. Security Council
2/5/2003
("there can be no doubt" about what turns out to be untrue??!! what am I supposed to make of this?)

In Iraq, a dictator is building and hiding weapons that could enable him to dominate the Middle East and intimidate the civilized world -- and we will not allow it. George W. Bush, President
Speech to the American Enterprise Institute
2/26/2003

If Iraq had disarmed itself, gotten rid of its weapons of mass destruction over the past 12 years, or over the last several months since (UN Resolution) 1441 was enacted, we would not be facing the crisis that we now have before us . . . Colin Powell, Secretary of State
Interview with Radio France International
2/28/2003
(but that's exactly what they apparently had done! so why are we "facing the crisis that we now have before us"?!)

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. George W. Bush, President
Address to the Nation
3/17/2003
(... again "no doubt" ... really??!!)

There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. And . . . as this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them. General Tommy Franks, Commander in Chief Central Command
Press Conference
3/22/2003

One of our top objectives is to find and destroy the WMD. There are a number of sites. Victoria Clark, Pentagon Spokeswoman
Press Briefing
3/22/2003

I have no doubt we're going to find big stores of weapons of mass destruction. Kenneth Adelman, Defense Policy Board member
Washington Post, p. A27
3/23/2003

We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat. Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense
ABC Interview
3/30/2003
(oh this is rich ... "we know where they are" he says!)

We simply cannot live in fear of a ruthless dictator, aggressor and terrorist such as Saddam Hussein, who possesses the world’s most deadly weapons. Bill Frist, Senate Majority Leader
Speech to American Israel Political Action Committee
3/31/2003

I think you have always heard, and you continue to hear from officials, a measure of high confidence that, indeed, the weapons of mass destruction will be found. Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary
Press Briefing
4/10/2003

But make no mistake -- as I said earlier -- we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about. And we have high confidence it will be found. Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary
Press Briefing
4/10/2003

Were not going to find anything until we find people who tell us where the things are. And we have that very high on our priority list, to find the people who know. And when we do, then well learn precisely where things were and what was done. Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense
Meet the Press
4/13/2003
(oh ... maybe we didn't "exactly" know when I said so before ... )

I have absolute confidence that there are weapons of mass destruction inside this country. Whether we will turn out, at the end of the day, to find them in one of the 2,000 or 3,000 sites we already know about or whether contact with one of these officials who we may come in contact with will tell us, ``Oh, well, there's actually another site,'' and we'll find it there, I'm not sure. General Tommy Franks, Commander in Chief Central Command
Fox New
4/13/2003

We are learning more as we interrogate or have discussions with Iraqi scientists and people within the Iraqi structure, that perhaps he destroyed some, perhaps he dispersed some. And so we will find them. George W. Bush, President
NBC Interview
4/24/2003

There are people who in large measure have information that we need . . . so that we can track down the weapons of mass destruction in that country. Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense
Press Briefing
4/25/2003

We'll find them. It'll be a matter of time to do so. George W. Bush, President
Remarks to Reporters
5/3/2003

I'm absolutely sure that there are weapons of mass destruction there and the evidence will be forthcoming. We're just getting it just now. Colin Powell, Secretary of State
Remarks to Reporters
5/4/2003

We never believed that we'd just tumble over weapons of mass destruction in that country. Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense
Fox News Interview
5/4/2003

I'm not surprised if we begin to uncover the weapons program of Saddam Hussein -- because he had a weapons program. George W. Bush, President
Remarks to Reporters
5/6/2003

U.S. officials never expected that "we were going to open garages and find" weapons of mass destruction. Condoleeza Rice, US National Security Advisor
Reuters Interview
5/12/2003

Given time, given the number of prisoners now that we're interrogating, I'm confident that we're going to find weapons of mass destruction. Gen. Richard Myers, Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff
NBC Today Show interview
5/26/2003

No one ever said that we knew precisely where all of these agents were, where they were stored Condoleeza Rice, US National Security Advisor
Meet the Press
6/8/2003
(see Rumsfield above ... maybe not "all of them" ... maybe just some?)

You may be reading too much. I don't know anybody that I can think of who has contended that the Iraqis had nuclear weapons. Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense
DoD News Briefing
6/24/2003

DIANE SAWYER: But stated as a hard fact, that there were weapons of mass destruction as opposed to the possibility that he could move to acquire those weapons still —
PRESIDENT BUSH: So what's the difference?
George W. Bush, President
Diane Sawyer Interviews President Bush.
12/16/2003

What We've Found Out:

After 16 months of invesigation Duelfer concludes that Saddam Hussein had no chemical weapons, no biological weapons, and no capacity to make nuclear weapons. - from report on Duelfer's Senate report on NPR.

The Iraqi's were actually farther from having nuclear weapons than they were in the early 1990s.

Based on my experience with the administration in the months leading up to the war, I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat Joseph C. Wilson IV, Ambassador
New York Times Editorial
7/6/2003

The Washington Post quoted an unidentifed senior administration official as declaring that "knowing all that we know now, the reference to Iraq's attempt to acquire uranium from Africa should not have been included in the State of the Union speech." Unidentifed, Senior Administration Official
New York Times Article
7/8/2003

Hans Blix (Former UN Chief weapons Inspector): Earlier, in a BBC radio interview, he said the coalition had appeared to use "shaky" evidence, including forged documents, as a pretext for making war on Iraq. 4/23/03 from The Guardian.

Now, yet again I must say ... things could have been different. The Administration and their supporters are focusing now on the findings of the Duelfer report that Saddam Hussein had an intense "intent" to regain WMD capability, and would have as soon as he had the chance. I think that's important, and I don't want to belittle those findings.

But if the Administration had said, "as of now we do not have conclusive evidence of WMD programs in Iraq, but we strongly suspect that Saddam will restart those programs as soon as sanctions are eased," then they would have been truthful." Then we could have had an honest debate. If they had said "experts from around the world believe that Saddam is concealing weapons and weapons programs, but we cannot establish that for certain," then, as a nation, we would have had to wrestle with whether that was enough justification for war. That would have been honest democracy. But that's not what happened. There is an extensive list above of statements from the administration that are all, ... each and every one of them ... false. The administration chose to present the false case that we were certain there were WMD (and even that "we know where they are."). How could we be certain of something that wasn't true?

This again brings me back to the possibilities I faced in trying to make sense of the misrepresentation of the aluminum tubes... either they:

1) were outright lying, or

2) they were completely negligent in actually gathering sufficient intelligence (and didn't realize that), or

2) they so completely misjudged the evidence and misinterpreted the intelligence as to be "absolutely sure" with "absolute confidence" and "no doubt" of something that is apparently untrue.

Again, I'm not sure which of these circumstances is more frightening, but all of them lead me to conclude that the Administration cannot be trusted to execute monumental issues of national security with competence and good faith.

_____________

Mr President ...

Again, just 'cause you say it ... just 'cause you look into the camera with resolve and say it ... doesn't make it true. often your entire strategy seems based on the tenet that if you show enough resolve, that's good enough ... even when you are completely wrong!! Now you might convince people this way, but that doesn't change the facts.

If this isn't the perfect example, I can't imagine what would be: "The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda, [is] because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda." W. speaking at press conference 6/17/2004

... that's right, you're doing great ... just say it over and over ... and we should believe it just because you say so!

too often you confuse stubborness for conviction, self righteousness for inspiration, and and might for wisdom. you seem to do your very best to confuse us about these things as well.

well you just can't fool us all the time. it's not working anymore, and the many times you've tried to pull the wool over our eyes are now catching up to you. so go ahead ... try to dance. try to trick and shimmer your way out of it ... it just won't work. you've dug your hole too deep - and you're dragging us down with you. but, ultimately, i have more faith than that in my own people. i believe that no matter how tricky you are enough people can still see through it and we can start repairing some of the horrible damage you have done to us, our nation, and our respected place as a world leader.

2004-10-31T15:13:00.000-08:00

C) ARE WE SAFER???

you insist "we are safer" ... interesting ... look at the papers just from today (it doesn't matter what day). how are we safer? i'm not necessarily saying we're not, but you can't just say that in the face of a mountain of evidence to the contrary. you cite that 75% of al qaeda leaders are caught ... but that's only one model and one threat, and one that many terrorism experts say is not the relevant model for such a decentralized organization. so you're creating the picture ... and it's very clever ... "we'll make this deck of cards ... and when we've got most of those people, then our voters will feel safer & believe us." yes, that's very clever, but that doesn't make it true or accurate. saying it just does not make us safer. in fact, creating a false image of safety makes us more dangerous, like convicting the wrong person for a crime makes the community feel safer - even though the actual killer is still loose and no one is looking for him anymore.

so it seems you are basing your reelection on the perception that you are making the nation safer.

"I should vote for you because you are making me safer?"

but what if that's just not true? what if we're not actually safer? should we still vote for you?

why should i believe we are safer when it looks the very opposite to me?

My single biggest concern regarding our safety and security is that we are alienating much of the world.

I read of two different recent international polls that say we have grown to all new levels of animosity & mistrusted for us around the world. (see for example http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=185).

and check this out ... astounding numbers of protests & protesters!

http://www.brainyencyclopedia.com/encyclopedia/g/gl/global_protests_against_war_on_iraq__pre_war_.html

(... Much larger protests [against the U.S. invasion of Iraq] in nearly 800 cities on February 15 drew millions of protesters in total, in the vicinity of ten million people around the world, listed by the 2004 Guinness Book of Records as the largest mass protest movement in history.)

more violence all the time ... even in iraq.

iran & north korea developing nuclear weapons.

growing new recruits for anti US forces.

Being Part of the World Community is not "turning over our national security to other nations," it's the best way to remain keep ourselves and others safe ... as good neighbors ... and respected in the world.

in the first debate you said there was no doubt in your mind that if we had not invaded iraq, saddam hussain would have continued to grow his weapons program. "To think that another round of resolutions would have caused Saddam Hussein to disarm, disclose, is ludicrous, in my judgment. It just shows a significant difference of opinion. We tried diplomacy. We did our best."

(of course you were completely wrong about this ... Saddam had, in fact, already long disarmed. So if you say that "in [your] judgment ... it is 'ludicrous' to think something that turns out to be true, what does that tell me about your judgment?)

BUT in any case ... let me set the scenario again ...

1) in the 90's we all know saddam had chemical weapons ... he used them.
2) at the time we invaded this sovereign nation, there were weapons inspectors there looking, and they couldn't find any more of these weapons. in fact the weapons inspectors (Hans Blix et. al) recommended continuing on with these inspections, rather than going to war ... giving the process more time. you said the inspectors couldn't find them because saddam was hiding them. but you said it with conviction, so people believed you. again, you didn't care about actual facts ... only the ones you could use or fabricate.
3) now that we've invaded and taken over an entire nation, unprovoked, lost over a thousand soldiers, and caused the deaths of ten thousand or more iraqis (including thousands of iraqi children), lost diplomatic respect throughout the world, and exploded the number of people with a reason to hate us ... based solely on your "conviction," we still can't find any of these weapons! (and we all know how desperately you all have been trying.) clearly saddam is not hiding them now. he's not evading inspectors. he's not hiding anything. he's in jail.

it's very simple ... you were wrong, iraq was not an imminent threat.

But your actions have further endangered us by isolating us and straining our alliances, friendship, and support in the world.

now, i know that everyone makes mistakes. everyone is wrong sometimes. i can't knock anyone for making honest mistakes. we all make plenty of them. but this is different.

you now explain that you had "intelligence" that led you astray ... that other's looked at the intelligence and came to the same conclusion. but that's not true. you are the only one that looked at that evidence and ordered an attack on another sovereign nation. even if we did have a few allies with us, i know you wouldn't claim they would have attacked if you decided not to. no, this decision was your alone ... that's your job.

we've all seen enough of the "intelligence" you had to know there was a very mixed bag of opinions. there was a great deal of conflicting evidence and information. this was even further complicated by the fact your administration has a habit of trying to influence the intelligence to align with the policy you already favor.

so, 'near as i can tell, you sifted through the intelligence and picked & chose what you liked (as usual), what supported your plans, and discarded the rest, sometimes even attacking the unwanted message bearers.

to be fair, of course, you are in the only position with the power to make this huge decision. and a huge decision it was. this was not just a decision of whether to enter a war or not. it was not a decision of whether to defend ourselves ... as we were never attacked, or even threatened by iraq. no this was so much bigger than that, even.

i mean let's think about this. you made the decision to attack, overpower, and occupy another sovereign nation without provocation, and without the support of the world community. the last time i remember that happening was when iraq invaded kuwait in the early 90s, when your father was president. at the time, he, with the rest of the world, reacted with outrage, as well they should have. you just don't do that in the modern world. invading another nation without provocation is a big deal ... maybe the very biggest deal on the world stage.

that's exactly why most of the world was opposed to the idea. some of the biggest marches and protests in history were happening almost daily throughout the world. imagine well over a million people marching in rome to protest something proposed in washington D.C.! that's because they realized how important this was. even in countries that joined the "coalition" ... some governments may have backed you, but the people did not.

you see the formula is simple. either we respect international law or not. if it's okay for one country to attack another without provocation, then it's okay for everyone to do that. in modern times we are gradually developing a system of international law and community that allows us to deal with each other in different ways. we are all safer in that kind of a system, because we have the help, support, and legitimacy of the whole community when there are problems.

here's an analogy. most americans have a common picture of the old gunfighter towns in the old american west. we got this picture from the movies. i don't know how accurate it is, but we share the picture in any case. now as near as i can tell you are john wayne saying "we have to stand up and show them (terrorists) how strong we are or we are sitting ducks." "they don't follow the rules, they don't stand up and fight like a man, so we've got to smoke 'em out." this approach made a lot of sense, of course, in a place where there was no effective law enforcement and the rule of the gun was supreme.

however ... moving to modern times ... can you imagine what would happen if an old gunslinger bad guy started making trouble in downtown, USA today. well he might take out a few people before we got him, and we would mourn the losses. it might even be me or a loved one of mine. but, very soon, he would be stopped, very likely by someone nearby, or a group of people nearby (as happened on the 9/11 plane that went down in PA). at the very least, the situation would soon be controlled by the police, our collective representitives in upholding the law. this is the point ... that we live in a land of laws. sure, we sometimes still rely on guns to enforce the laws, but the laws come first. the law is the justification, not the gun. might does not make right. and we are all expected to follow the law, and we are all safer for it.

in fact, that old gun totin' bad guy doesn't stand a chance of surviving long in the modern world because we've learned better ways of dealing with him. we deal with him collectively ... and with a system in place.

well, on the world stage, the united nations & world court are our best attempts so far at achieving that sort of collective efficacy worldwide. so in a land of "might makes right," of course, the united states could blow up the whole UN without much effort. but if we did that, we would lose the safety in numbers and common goals and ideals that we gain from operating in good faith as a part of this collective. if we thumb our nose at the UN, or at world opinion in general, we are sacrificing the good will of our neighbors. worse than that, though, we are redefining the rules of the game. if we're not going to follow the rules, why should anyone?

if i believe my neighbor is a threat to me, how should i deal with it? i could go directly to my neighbor and try to work it out. i could go to the police and evoke the legal system. i could go to my other neighbors and make my case, trying to enlist some support. now there's no guarantee that any of these will be effective, but all will be within the collective agreements we live under, and all will likely earn me the respect and support of my community.

another alternative is that i could just go shoot my neighbor. now this would effectively prevent him from doing me any harm. but does that make me safer? now i've got the police, my neighbors, and all my dead neighbor's friends and family against me. even if my neighbor was a bad guy. even if he was a threat. even if everyone is happy he's gone, who will stand by me when his family comes after me? then, if they do shoot me, then everyone comes to realize that the rule of the gun is back ... everyone will have guns. who is safer now? this is the result of choosing the gun over the rule of law and collective community action.

now mr. bush, you say the united nations security council voted to threaten "serious consequence" if iraq did not comply with the UN resolutions in place ... and that justified your attack. but the glaring hole in that story is that when you proposed the attack, the U.N. security council would not support you.

now let' me be clear here. the others on the security council were not saying "no way - we would never authorize preemptive force" or "no way, we would never authorize an attack." no, they were only saying, "hold on, the inspectors are still there, they're saying hold on, and it may be that the inspections are proving effective ... so let's be careful." again, other nations realized how important this was ... they recognized the danger of a precedent of unprovoked invasion, so they recommended caution.

of course we all remember all the rhetoric against germany and, especially, france for these cautions. they were villified by you and your administration for being uncooperative difficult. remember "if you're not with us you're against us." imagine! you actually said that those who urged we be careful and cautious before we carried out such an unprovoked invasion, those who said we should not start a war without proof that iraq was actually a danger were "against us."

but it turns out they were right! there were no weapons.

you can't change the story now. we all know the U.N. council was against the war.

maginot line.

being steadfast is not a justification in itself.

Early in your term, long before 9/11, one of your senior administration officials was quoted as saying ''The common European perception [of you] is of a shallow, arrogant, gun-loving, abortion-hating, Christian fundamentalist Texan buffoon, ... they read all the press about a hard-line unilateralist. They really believe this stuff about cowboys. We need to get it all on a higher plane.''

The sad thing is that I didn't believe all that stuff at the time, but you have consistently proven their perception accurate with your actions. We are not safer when the world sees us in this light.

We will be safer when we relearn Statesmanship, rejoin the world community, and regain the respect we've lost.

that's all for now.

peace & love.

griff bear.

VOTE! (one way or another)

2004-10-14T21:04:00.000-07:00

Oh, the polls are so tight right now! It is impossible to tell who will win this election. The most important state that I see is Ohio. As Ohio goes, so goes the nation. I have eight states that are too close to call. Most of them have slight edges one way or the other except for Wisconsin and Ohio. If Kerry loses Ohio, then he will probably lose the whole shooting match.

Here is the calculation: If the parties win the same states that they did in 2000, then Bush will win with 278 electoral votes to Kerry's 260. Kerry is likely to add New Hampshire's 4 EV, though it is not a shoe-in. Bush is currently polling strongly in Florida, Missouri and Nevada, all of which he carried in 2000. They are toss-ups, but if Kerry loses them, he can still win. Gore carried Pennsylvania, Maine, Iowa and Wisconsin in 2000. These are also too close to call, but Kerry has been polling well in Pennsylvania, Maine, and Iowa. The last poll out of Iowa has the candidates tied equally. Rumors also have said that Bush is pulling resources out of Pennsylvania, effectively conceding that state to Kerry.

If these states vote the same way as they did in 2000, and polls suggest they might, then Ohio is the key to the election for Kerry. Ohio goes back and forth daily depending on which poll one watches. If Kerry wins in Ohio, then Bush would have to win in Wisconsin, Iowa and one additional democratic state, most likely New Mexico. In Wisconsin, Bush has been polling well, but the polls go back and forth. If Kerry takes Ohio and not Wisconsin, then he wins 274-264. If he takes Wisconsin and not Ohio, then he loses by the same margin. Other states might change this calculation, such as if Florida falls to Kerry or New Jersey to Bush, but it looks like the final decision will be made in Ohio.

2004-10-13T09:46:00.000-07:00

OK, Politics! I encourage everyone to watch the last debate tonight. I watched the last three (2 Presidential, 1 vice-presidential) and found them fascinating. What these debates show is that issue politics is alive and well. The candidates have turned away from character questions such as what they did during the Vietnam war (or whether they did anything). Bush and Kerry are actually debating issues and laying out their visions for what they would do on the economy, Iraq, nuclear proliferation, etc. I think this is healthy. Much healthier than the debate during the 90's when the most salient issue involved a blue dress.

In Doonesbury, one of my favorite comics, Garry Trudeau has drawn a lot of criticism over the years for bringing politics to the comics page. Of course, there has been conservative politics on the funnies pages as well, but it has either been subtle or just plain unfunny. Doonesbury is at it again this week, providing URL's to conservative commentary.

This might seem odd to someone who is familiar with Doonesbury's liberal slant, until one realizes that the conservative commentary is critical of George Bush. Here's a juicy piece from Salon: "Conservative pundit Andrew Sullivan worries that Bush 'is fusing Big Government liberalism with religious right moralism. It's the nanny state with more cash.'" Salon This sounds like a good summary of compassionate conservatism.

If you have thought yourself a conservative in the past but are confused about Bush, here are a couple of links to and from Doonesbury:
Doonesbury October 11 www.unionleader.com/articles_showa.html?article=44657
Doonesbury October 12 www.poynter.org/forum/?id=misc
Doonesbury October 13 salon.com/opinion/feature/2004/09/10/conservatives/index

2004-10-11T09:47:00.000-07:00

Many of my readers might be wondering where I am and what I have to say about politics in this most political of all seasons. I have been paying very close attention to the race for President, but I'm not sure I can add much to the discourse that has not be addressed. What issue is there that I can address that has not already been flogged by the blogs and pummeled by the pundits? If you want a poll update, there are three or four websites that cover polls in great detail. If you want analysis on the left or on the right, I don't think there is a blogger or news outlet that can't give what you are looking for in spades. I have little to add, so I'll give an entertainment review. I promise my entertainment reviews will have more substance than Ebert & Roeper. ;)

I just watched the movie "Goodbye Lenin!" yesterday. It was a good movie on a few levels. It had some flaws, but special effects did not play a central role in the movie anyway. It was set in East Berlin, a location I have some familiarity with.

On the 40th anniversary of the founding of the German Democratic Republic (a.k.a. DDR or East Germany), the main character’s mother slipped into a coma due to a heart attack and did not awaken until 8 months later. In the meantime, she had missed the reunification of Germany. The mother had always presented herself as a staunch supporter of socialism, so the son decided that news of the dissolution of the DDR would be too much of a shock for her. In order to avoid too much excitement, he hid the fact that the DDR was no more. Much of the movie is about the antics resulting from that decision.

The media and reviews of the movie had presented the movie as a light-hearted comedy, but in watching it (in German with subtitles), it had a little more depth than the average Hollywood comedy. It had a profound human element to it, showing the love of the son for the mother, the difficulties of a small family dealing with a sick member, and the coming of age of a young man in a time of great social upheaval.

First and mainly, the movie dealt with the effects of an overnight social revolution on a society whose hallmarks were order and security. Alex could no longer find his mother’s favorite foods, so he had to repackage Western foods in empty Eastern packages. He scavenged abandoned apartments for unopened wares. He bought the cast-offs of the East in flea markets and thrift shops. He had all visitors dress in clothes that had gone out of fashion literally overnight. Most amusingly, he and a techie friend recreated East German television news in order to explain the few oddities that the mother could see from her bedroom window, such as a Coca-Cola banner hanging from a neighboring window.

Many critics have accused the movie of pandering to Ostalgie, or nostalgie for the East. But the movie did not gloss over the darker side of the "worker and farmer paradise." The most obvious was early in the movie when we saw the brutality of the East German police in supressing a mostly orderly protest march. Slightly more subtle, but more important to the characters and the movie as a whole was the mother’s explanation of why she was left behind when her husband fled to the West, never to be heard from again.

The most surprising aspect of the film to me was that, towards the end, it seemed that the mother actually knew that the wall had come down and the world she knew was gone. Just as Alex had created the charade for the sake of his mother, the mother went along with the charade for the sake of her son. The scene that belies this is when they were in the hospital watching the final news report of the East German news reporting that the DDR had opened its borders to allow the Western refugees in. The mother looked at her son with a look of pride, not in the DDR, but in her son. It seemed as if she knew that he had created this illusion and the illusion he created was not the DDR as it was, but at it should have been; as they all wanted it to have been.

I believe that Alex created the charade in part to prevent any shock to his mother, but kept it going to prevent any shock to himself. He created in his mother’s bedroom the society he wanted to live in, with the cultural foundations of his childhood which were now gone, but also with the idealism that infused the socialist East Germany and without the brutality that kept it in line. His mother’s bedroom became for him a kind of refuge from the chaos and turmoil of the revolution going on outside.

2004-09-25T20:08:00.000-07:00

Two weeks ago, I rented a DVD of Neil Young’s Greendale. I found it on the new releases shelf at Blockbuster. It is one of the best movies I have seen in ages. It breaks genres. It is something completely new. It is more than a music video and something less than a feature film. All the dialogue is from his album of the same name. The movie can be better described as the visual accompaniment to the music.

To truly understand the movie, one has to listen to the music. The album has been described as a musical novel. In other words, it is something more than that endangered species, the concept album. Like a novel, all the main characters are introduced early in the album and their story unfolds as the album progresses. Most of the story occurs as a result of the action of Cousin Jed early in the album. The album is really about how his one act affects the rest of his family, including Grandpa, Uncle Earl and his cousin, Sun Green.

The story resonates with me strongly because of a number of factors, including the fact that it is set in a small town, has a strong environmental message, and focuses on Alaska quite a bit. I can see a lot of Sitka in it. Like my uncle once told me, "Everyone has to find his own Sitka". It seems Neil Young has found his. Greendale is in northern California and reflects a kind of aging hippie population and their progeny. It is similar to the works of Thomas Pynchon (Vineland or Gravity’s Rainbow) or the movie River’s Edge, though much less dark in the end. The low point in "Grandpa's Interview" is followed up with the upbeat "Sun Green" and ends on the high note "Be the Rain".

The music is vintage Neil Young and is his best work in ages, possibly of his career. In interviews, he is obviously proud of the album and thinks it might be the best work he has done. He is backed up by Crazy Horse, the band that has played with him since "Everyone Knows This Is Nowhere" in 1969. Billy Talbot’s bass is strong and heavy throughout the album. In many cases, the music reflects their early work, except there are fewer random jams. The music is tight and focused on the story. Most of the album is plain, unadorned rock & roll, but a few songs have a decidedly swing flair to them. "Be the Rain" evokes his earlier work in "Rockin' in the Free World".

Today, I bought the album and found that there was a bonus DVD on it with an entire live acoustic concert filmed at Vicar St. in Dublin, Ireland. This is a real treat for Neil Young fans. If you are interested in learning the songs, the cameras focus frequently on his guitar playing. The music played acoustically creates a far different emotional environment for the story. It is more personal, as if the story comes out of Neil Young’s own personal experiences. The most introspective is the song "Bandit". It is a song of someone taking stock of his life and his art. It is the kind of thing that only an artist of Neil Young’s caliber could pull off.

Admittedly, some of the songs, such as "Sun Green" or "Be the Rain", do not lend themselves to acoustic instrumentation, but many do. For the song "Bringin’ Down Dinner", he puts down the guitars and moves to an old pump organ (it appears to be the same as he used for his MTV Unplugged sessions.) This song is quite moving in this version.

I highly recommend this album for anyone who has lived for any time in a small town, who considers him or herself an environmentalist, or for any and all fans of Neil Young. Buy the CD, watch the DVD, read the story in the liner notes or online. If you can’t buy the CD, listen to the entire thing on Neil Young’s Website. You can find a lot of other things on the website, including lyrics and the narrative he gives between the songs in the acoustic concert at Vicar St. Pub.

2004-09-24T09:00:00.000-07:00

In today's Washington Post, a military panel has called for more troops to secure elections in Iraq. Luckily, our allies have answered the call. The former Soviet republic of Georgia will send 800 more troops to bolster its 180 already on the ground. Also, there are rumors that Fiji will also send a contingent. But don't be lulled into a false sense of security, Fiji has not confirmed the rumor.

2004-08-11T21:36:00.000-07:00

For those of you who want to explore the blogosphere a little more, here are a few sites. Especially one that has this little tidbit:

The fault lies not in our weapons, but in our inspectors.
"Over a week ago, the White House announced its opposition to provisions for inspection and verification as part of a new anti-proliferation treaty that would ban the production of nuclear weapon material. Some have called the administration's decision "disturbing," "astonishing," "frightening," and "stupid" for essentially endorsing the containment and derailment of nuclear weapons programs across the globe while simultaneously neutering any real attempt to do so by preventing inspectors from checking to see if the treaty's signatories are actually complying. What reasonable objection, they ask, could a sane and competent White House have to inforcement of a treaty aimed at preventing the spread of nuclear weapons?"

The comments are especially tasty.

Other blogs I have found:
Professor Pollkatz's Pool of Polls. Poll Cats, Polecats. Get it? Nudge, nudge. He has some fine graphic representations of aggregations of polls. It tracks mostly Bush approval and disapproval ratings. There are no maps of election projections, but he has one that shows Bush approval ratings state by state. A data chart shows Kerry winning with 377 electoral votes if the elections were today. It is based on only two polls, though. He has some links to the following:

Federal Review. A collection of polls and with its own vote projections. The blogger seems to be conservative (or at least anti-liberal), but he gives equal voice to both sides. He is projecting Kerry winning with 301 electoral votes to Bush's 237 if the vote were today.

Election Projection. Another conservative blog showing Kerry would win with 296 electoral votes to Bush's 242 if the vote were today.

Race 2004. This is an interesting site that shows how the race would come out with Nader in the race and how it would come out if he were out. He points out that the two projections will get closer over time because Nader will have either qualified for the ballot or failed to qualify in each state. A responsible poll aggregator, he projects no winner and gives Kerry 247 electoral votes and Bush 196. When push comes to shove, however, he says that if the elections were held today with Nader on the ballot in the states where he has yet to qualify, Kerry would win with 318 electoral votes to Bush's 207. With Nader not on the ballot in the state where he has yet to qualify, Kerry wins with 307 electoral votes to Bush's 231. He points out that the fact that Kerry does better with Nader in the race goes against conventional logic.

Electoral-Vote.com. Currently shows Kerry the winner with 307 electoral votes, Bush with 231.

I would not be too excited that all these site are showing Kerry the winner, he has just come off of his convention/pep rally with a major campaign trip. The increase in electoral votes is likely the 'bounce' that pundits were predicting would happen after his convention. Bush will likely get a 'bounce' after his convention/pep rally at the end of August. Also, some of the more respectable polling outlets such as the LA Times, Washington Post, CNN, etc. are showing the most states up for grabs. Dave Leip's Election Atlas also does not project a winner. Most state-by-state polls have too much of a margin of error and there are conflicting polls in many states. A minor change of a few points is statistically insignificant in a poll with a margin of error of 3 points.

It is interesting that Kerry's bounce did not show up in the national polls (those that did not break things down by state), but it did show up in the electoral college polls. This is probably an indication that the divisions in the country are strongly based in demographic and geographic factors.

I have mentioned Dave Leip's Election Atlas before. Not only does it have election projections aggregated among various readers, it has aggregated polls, an electoral vote calculator and a mock election. The mock election is worthless, showing the libertarian winning, but the other features are very well done. In addition to the 2004 features, it has historical elections data down to county level for every election since the beginning of the Republic.

In projecting the 2004 election, Leip's data show different things in different features. The 2004 Presidential Predictions show Bush winning the same states he won in 2000 except for New Hampshire. This gives Bush 274 electoral votes to Kerry's 264. This aggregate prediction has not changed since I began watching it early this year. This is likely because people have visited the site, made their predictions, then left and never updated them. Therefore, we are left with stale predictions made at the beginning of the year when Kerry was more of an unknown.

The State Polls Aggregate page is more interesting. He updates it weekly with the newest polls from across the internet. Some are less reliable than others. (For a look at reliability of various polls, take a look at Professor Pollkatz's analysis or Robert Chung's poll bias analysis.) The aggregate of the polls show Kerry with 243 electoral votes and Bush with 200. 95 votes are still up for grabs, including not just Florida and Ohio, but some of the historically more liberal midwest states of Wisconsin, Iowa and Minnesota as well as the more conservative Nevada, Missouri, Arkansas and West Virginia. Click on the states to find polling data going back to the beginning of the year for each state.

Finally, I recommend playing around with the vote calculator and come up with your own scenario for how the election might come out. When you come up with something you like, post it to the prediction page of the site.

2004-08-10T21:24:00.000-07:00

Is it possible that the end of Iraq as we know it is upon us? Will the country be divided into three parts? It is well known that the Kurds have wanted their own country for some time and even ran Iraqi Kurdistan as a state independent from Saddam Hussein since the first Gulf War. Now, the second Gulf War is threatening to divide the country further, with calls for provinces in the south to be independent of the central government.

According to Al Jazeera, a deputy governor of Basra is about to announce the separation of some Iraqi southern governorates from the central government in Baghdad. The breakaway province would include would include Basra, Misan and Dhi Qar governorates. These governorates include the cities of Basra, Al Amarah and An Nasiriyah. It is unclear how much support this proposal will have among the Shiites of southern Iraq, but many seem to be upset with the continuing violence in the holy city of Najaf and Prime Minister Iyad Allawi's explicit approval of it.

2004-08-09T14:55:00.000-07:00

This article in the New York Times about removing senior official from the Endangered Species Office is an example of the Bush administration's approach to environmental issues. That is, to supress science and facts in order to allow political pressures to dominate the creation of environmental policy. We have seen it in their approach to weakening the Clean Air Act, revoking the Roadless Rule in National Forests, and now what looks like the first move in weakening the Endangered Species Act. The Endangered Species Act is a favorite shibboleth of the anti-environmental right and business interests. They have long wanted it weakened to the point of being irrelevant. This action could be the first step in the attack.

2004-08-04T08:44:00.000-07:00

Pop Quiz: Whose quote is this and whom is it about?

"The danger here is that once a president loses credibility with the Congress, as this president has through months of lies and deceit and manipulations and deceptions, stonewalling, it raises into doubt everything he does and everything he says, and maybe everything he doesn't do and doesn't say. I just hope and pray the decision that was made was made on the basis of sound judgment, and made for the right reasons, and not made because it was necessary to save the president's job."

Hint, it wasn't a former Governor of Vermont referring to President George Bush's decision to release information regarding imminent terrorist attacks that is years old, some of it collected before September 11, 2001.

2004-07-31T15:01:00.000-07:00

There is a certain look that a woman has that makes her the most attractive thing in heaven and on earth to a man. It is a look of desire more akin to an unnamed hope combined with an expectation of a feeling reciprocated. Sometimes, this look is a confident one, expressing a certainty that her feelings will be returned. Other times, this look combines uncertainty. Even if her words express certainty that she will be loved, her underlying feelings that this might not be so make their way to the surface and are expressed in her face, body language and speech. In either case, she may reserve her feelings because they are underlain and suffused with a fear that perhaps she is wrong and any overtures might be rejected. It is this cautious, expectant hope of love in her face that arouses in a man not just desire, but an expectant hope as well.

This look is reflected in songs, movies and books. In Spiderman 2, Mary Jane is the most beautiful when she and Peter Parker sit in the coffee shop and she is trying to figure out what his feelings are. She is cautious yet hopeful and confident enough to ask him to kiss her. You can see this expectant look in her face and hear it in the tenor of her voice.

In the opening lines of Bruce Springsteen’s Thunder Road, the music evokes and the words describe this as well.

The screen door slams, Mary’s dress waves.
Like a vision she dances across the porch as the radio plays
Roy Orbison singing for the lonely,
"Hey that’s me and I want you only."
Don’t turn me home again;
I just can’t face myself alone again.

This vignette describes a woman who is looking for her hero "to rise from the streets." She runs across the porch to see if the singer is the hero she is looking for. One can just imagine the hopeful yet cautious feelings Mary has that perhaps this is the love she is looking for.

Finally, in M. Night Shyamalan’s new movie The Village, when Ivy Walker and Lucius Hunt talk on the porch at night, that same look is in her face, confident and demanding. It is during this scene that she is the most beautiful. The look in her face and her blind eyes reflect her love for him, her certainty that he loves her in return and the hope that he will overcome his own fears and express those feelings to her.

Are this look and this feeling the sole possession of the young? I remember it in my youth, though I didn’t recognize it. Now I am older and I recognize it, though I rarely see it only in movies or reflected in songs or books. Can older women still express that feeling in their faces and bodies or do people practice suppressing it over the years and let fear practice hiding it? Is it only found by accidental discovery? Can it be found by searching? Where would one begin to look?

2004-07-31T12:12:00.000-07:00

I have made it a policy in this blog to avoid giving any clues as to my location in the universe. Of course, the three or four people who actually read it probably know where I am, so it is a pointless policy anyway. Just this once, however, I am going to appeal to the readers who live in Washington and Oregon regarding the presidential campaign.

I have made no secret that I voted for Nader in 2000 and am actively supporting John Kerry this time around. Hell, I even sent the Kerry campaign money. For those of you who live in Washington and Oregon and are thinking of supporting Kerry, I urge you to change your passive support to active support. These states are considered swing states. If you do not act to make sure that John Kerry wins in these states, there is a possibility that they will fall to George Bush. If this happens, then not even winning Ohio or Florida will make up for it. Kerry would have to win both Ohio and Florida and pick up more states than Gore did in 2000 in order to win in the electoral college. As a side note, if Kerry picks up all the states that Gore did in 2000, except Oregon and Washington and including Florida, then the electoral college would be tied and the decision would go to the House of Representatives, which is controlled by Republicans.

For those of you who are uncertain whether to vote for Bush or Kerry, I urge you to take a close look at the differences between the two candidates on John Kerry's website and George Bush's website. Don't just look at their voting records; look at their leadership styles, their values and their accomplishments over the past 40 years and judge between them. I think John Kerry will come out more favorably than George Bush. John Kerry makes much of his service in Vietnam for the simple reason that his service there reflects his commitment to defending our country and shows that he has experience as a leader that goes back over 30 years. John Kerry has been accused of being a flip-flopper, but where the Republican activists accuse him of flip-flopping, I see a nuanced view of the world from a man who understands complex issues and is constantly challenging his own opinions in order to arrive at the correct outcome. I trust a man with this approach far more than I would someone who sees the world in black and white and refuses to change in the face of changed circumstances. Also, religious values are important. Kerry said in his acceptance speech that he does not wear his religion on his sleeve but his religious values underpin all his actions and views.

For those of you who voted for Bush or Nader last time but are unhappy with the direction Bush is taking the country, think about the restriction of civil liberties, the secrecy and manipulative control of information by the Bush administration and the use of false information to take us into an unjust war of choice. Think about Bush's promises in the 2000 campaign of compassionate conservatism and his vow to be a uniter, not a divider. Do you see the compassion in his conservatism? Is the country more united or more divided than it was in 2000?

If you have been a loyal republican in the past but are unhappy with Bush, you probably can't bring yourself to vote for Kerry but don't want to vote for Bush. I cannot advocate not voting at all, but perhaps you can look more closely at some of the other candidates for President. Michael Badnarik of the Libertarian Party might be more to your taste, or Michael Peroutka of the Constitution Party. Perhaps you might vote for Ralph Nader running as an independent or even former porn star Marilyn Chambers of the Personal Choice party. Well maybe not Marilyn Chambers; she's running for Vice-President anyway.

2004-07-29T20:32:00.000-07:00

One political convention and a bottle of 2000 Beringer Knights Valley Cabernet later, what kind of comments do I have about the Presidential race?

America can be stronger and respected in the world.

God is not on any one side, we must pray that we are on God's side.

America can do better and help is on the way.

We are not red states and blue states, but one America, red, white and blue.

Send John Kerry.

He sold me, but then, I was already sold.

Here are a few thoughts for those who might not have decided whom to vote for in November.

Are you Catholic? Remember that there are other sins besides abortion. If it is a sin to vote for a politician who supports abortion, it must also be a sin to vote for a politician who supports the death penalty and unjust war. Those are also sins under Catholic theology. George Bush presided over a lot of executions a governor of Texas, is unapologetic and seems proud of it. The Catholic Church declared that the war in Iraq was not a just war. There are a lot of issues that are important to the nation besides abortion. There are a lot of issues of importance to Catholic values besides abortion. The Catholic Church and Catholics in general have been at the forefront of social justice in this country. We were taught by Jesus to love the poor, the weak and the disenfranchised. It might be a sin to practice homosexuality, but judgment lies with God, not us. We should not enshrine prejudice into the Constitution. Let the states decide whether to allow gay marriage. Marriage has always been an issue decided in the states. The Bush administration might be anti-abortion, but it is also divisive and hateful. It represents the privileged and well-connected, not the poor and downtrodden.

Are you an environmentalist? I voted for Ralph Nader in 2000 along with a lot of other people. As a result, a man who would have been the best environmental President ever was defeated. I will not let that happen again. Under President Bush, we have seen the roll-back or attempted roll-back of countless policies designed to protect our environment, including forest protection, clean air and clean water, and limiting oil drilling and exploration in pristine wilderness. The Bush administration has had the worst environmental policy since Reagan. Don't get fooled into voting for Nader because you think he would be better on environmental issues. The hopes of environmentalists lie with the democrats, not a third party. Greens voted for Nader in 2000 in order to send a wake-up call to the democrats to not take the environmental vote for granted. Instead, it sent a wake-up call to the left in general, we can't go it alone and must make common cause with the center.

Are you in the military or a veteran? Why not put a man in office who knows what it is like to serve in the military, who knows what it is like to face the enemy. While George Bush might have served in the Air National Guard in Texas (or Alabama or wherever he was), it does not compare to active combat. A man who has faced combat will be far less eager to send troops into harm's way unless he is sure of his facts and has no other choice. War is an important enough endeavor that we should not trust it to a man who rarely reads even the headlines, let alone policy briefs given to him. It should be trusted to a man who understands the complexity of international relations and is willing to read the fine print on a document on which rests the fate of nations. I have heard that re-enlistment rates in the military are the lowest they have been since the end of the Vietnam War. Many military observers fear for a hollowing-out of our mid-level officer corps that will jeopardize our military strength for years to come. The military is overstretched like it never has been since the end of World War II. How will we be able to defend ourselves against our enemies in the War on Terror under such conditions?

Are you a democrat or a republican? Wouldn't you rather that politics dealt with issues rather than divided us vs. them? America was united after September 11. Leftists and liberals rediscovered their patriotism. I flew the flag on July 4 this year. I have never before in my life done that. We want to reclaim the symbols of patriotism. We want this nation to be one nation, not divided between red states and blue states, between rich and poor, between left and right, gays and straights, black and white. Politics in Washington has become more personal and vindictive over the past four years. We are one nation and we want to be led as one nation. George Bush claimed he was a uniter not a divider, that he would practice compassionate conservatism. In 2000, he did not seem so dangerous. My only conclusion four years later is that he lied. As soon as he was sworn into office, without a mandate from the people he immediately pandered to the extreme right. He did not notice that the majority in the country voted against him and he promptly rewarded his political core supporters rather than trying to appeal to the majority. I won't be fooled again.

America can be stronger and respected in the world. God is not on any one side, we must pray that we are on God's side. America can do better and help is on the way. We are not red states and blue states, but one America, red, white and blue.

Send John Kerry.

2004-07-24T08:10:00.000-07:00

There are some new polling updates at Dave Leip's Atlas of Presidential Elections. Florida has a new polls that show Kerry ahead, some that show Bush ahead, and some that show a dead heat. Florida is still very much in play. The map shows Pennsylvania and Michigan leaning slightly to Kerry. I believe that these states will eventually vote for Kerry in November.

Wisconsin is much more of a battleground than I originally expected. If Bush wins in Wisconsin, Ohio, and Florida, he can win the whole shebang. This is a likely possible scenario. Conversely, if he doesn't win in Ohio or Florida, it will be very difficult for him to win. Without Ohio, Bush would need to pick up Wisconsin, Washington and a host of smaller states. According to most polls, it will be difficult for Bush to win in Washington. Washington shows as a toss-up, but that is only because of one poll in late June that showed a dead heat in that state. All other polls in Washington show Kerry winning by four to five points.

In order for Kerry to win he needs to win in:
A.      Washington, Ohio, Maine, New Mexico, and New Hampshire
B.      Washington and Florida and one of either Maine, New Mexico, or New Hampshire

On interesting scenario I noticed among the various predictions that get posted to the site is an even split in the Electoral College. This scenario is a real possibility. Take a look at the battleground states and one small state with 5 electoral votes.

A. Kerry wins in Wisconsin as well as Washington, New Mexico, New England, Pennsylvania and Michigan where he is running strong
B. Bush wins Florida and Ohio as well as West Virginia and Arkansas, where he is running strong
C. Nevada votes for Kerry instead of Bush.

An even split in the electoral college is a real possibility, given the meager polling data available. Also, Nevada voted for Clinton in 1996 and 1992.  Many pundits call it a battleground state as well. If this happens, Bush is likely to win, because the election then moves out of the electoral college and into Congress, where Republicans have a majority.

2004-07-22T22:53:00.000-07:00

The September 11 report is out today. I picked it up at a local bookstore for only $10.00. I recommend everyone who is concerned about public policy to pick this up and read it. So far, I am not through a quarter of the book, but it is an easy read for a government report. The first chapter details the events of September 11 and is a gripping read. If you read nothing else in the report, read Chapter 1. It describes the coordination of the hijackers and the complete disorganization of the US government in minute-by-minute detail. It has conversations between passengers and their families, one of which is cut off while the passenger's father watches the plane crash on television.

The second chapter details the history of the rise of al Qaeda and the evolution of terrorism, while the third chapter describes the evolution of counterterrorism in the US, including the failures and shortcomings of everyone involved as well as some successes. No one is left unmentioned in this chapter, from Presidents as far back as Reagan to the FAA, the State Department, the CIA and FBI, Congress and by implication, the American Public.

If you read only one political book this year, read the 9/11 report.

2004-07-22T22:39:00.000-07:00

For those of you following the polls in the upcoming Presidential elections, I point you to Dave Leip's Election Atlas. He collects and analyzes polling data from across the country on a state-by-state basis and posts it as a map. It is quite a site. The polling page shows which states are tossups. Currently, Washington, New Mexico, Arkansas, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, New Hampshire and Maine are tossups.

The most important recent development is that Florida is now leaning slightly to Kerry. This is not good news for Bush. Bush is likely to pick up Arkansas and West Virginia, but Washington, New Mexico and Maine are likely to fall to Kerry. Without Florida, Bush needs to win at least three large midwestern states. This is not likely, given the economic picture in those states for the past four years. The history of polls in Wisconsin shows it going back and forth. Bush has some potential here. Michigan has been going back and forth, with the most recent polls falling towards Kerry. Ohio went for Bush in 2000, but recent polls go back and forth. Pennsylvania has been trending towards Kerry, but there are a few polls that show Bush in the lead in that state. Pennsylvania voted for Gore in 2000.

2004-06-07T18:37:00.000-07:00

For those of you who have ever spoken with me of Ronald Reagan, you probably already know my opinion of him.

For those of you who don't know my opinion of Ronald Reagan, he represents everything that is wrong with the conservative movement in America and is responsible for leading the country down the wrong path. I have heard rumblings that conservatives want to replace Roosevelt on the dime with Reagan. It is more likely now that he is dead. I could not listen to the radio this weekend with the unending string of commentators eulogizing him. If they do replace Roosevelt on the dime with Reagan, I swear I will never use a dime again.

Here is a post from the Blog of Juan Cole "Informed Comment", that sums up my feelings on the event of Reagan's death. The article puts Reagan's legacy in context.

Informed Comment by Juan Cole
Sunday, June 06, 2004
Reagan's Passing

I did not say anything yesterday about Ronald Reagan's death. The day a person dies he has a right to be left alone.

But yesterday is now history, and Reagan's legacy should not pass without comment.

Reagan had an ability to project a kindly image, and was well liked personally by virtually everyone who knew him, apparently. But it always struck me that he was a mean man. I remember learning, in the late 1960s, of the impact Michael Harrington's The Other America had had on Johnson's War on Poverty. Harrington demonstrated that in the early 1960s there was still hunger in places like Appalachia, deriving from poverty. It was hard for middle class Americans to believe, and Lyndon Johnson, who represented many poor people himself, was galvanized to take action.

I remember seeing a tape of Reagan speaking in California from that era. He said that he had heard that some asserted there was hunger in America. He said it sarcastically. He said, "Sure there is; they're dieting!" or words to that effect. This handsome Hollywood millionnaire making fun of people so poor they sometimes went to bed hungry seemed to me monstrous. I remember his wealthy audience of suburbanites going wild with laughter and applause. I am still not entirely sure what was going on there. Did they think Harrington's and similar studies were lies? Did they blame the poor for being poor, and resent demands on them in the form of a few tax dollars, to address their hunger?

Then when he was president, at one point Reagan tried to cut federal funding for school lunches for the poor. He tried to have ketchup reclassified as a vegetable to save money. Senator Heinz gave a speech against this move. He said that ketchup is a condiment, not a vegetable, and that he should know.

The meanness was reflected, as many readers have noted, in Reagan's "blame the victim" approach to the AIDS crisis. His inability to come to terms with the horrible human tragedy here, or with the emerging science on it, made his health policies ineffective and even destructive.

Reagan's mania to abolish social security was of a piece with this kind of sentiment. In the early 20th century, the old were the poorest sector of the American population. The horrors of old age--increasing sickness, loss of faculties, marginalization and ultimately death--were in that era accompanied by fear of severe poverty. Social security turned that around. The elderly are no longer generally poverty-stricken. The government can do something significant to improve people's lives. Reagan, philosophically speaking, hated the idea of state-directed redistribution of societal wealth. (His practical policies often resulted in such redistribution de facto, usually that of tossing money to the already wealthy). So he wanted to abolish social security and throw us all back into poverty in old age.

Reagan hated any social arrangement that empowered the poor and the weak. He was a hired gun for big corporations in the late 1950s, when he went around arguing against unionization. Among his achievements in office was to break the air traffic controllers' union. It was not important in and of itself, but it was a symbol of his determination that the powerless would not be allowed to organize to get a better deal. He ruined a lot of lives. I doubt he made us safer in the air.

Reagan hated environmentalism. His administration was not so mendacious as to deny the problems of increased ultraviolet radition (from a depleted ozone layer) and global warming. His government suggested people wear sunglasses and hats in response. At one point Reagan suggested that trees cause pollution. He was not completely wrong (natural processes can cause pollution), but his purpose in making the statement seems to have been that we should therefore just accept lung cancer from bad city air, which was caused by automobiles and industry, not by trees.

In foreign policy, Reagan abandoned containment of the Soviet Union as a goal and adopted a policy of active roll-back. Since the Soviet Union was already on its last legs and was not a system that could have survived long, Reagan's global aggressiveness was simply unnecessary. The argument that Reagan's increases in military funding bankrupted the Soviets by forcing them to try to keep up is simply wrong. Soviet defense spending was flat in the 1980s.

Reagan's aggression led him to shape our world in most unfortunate ways. Although it would be an exaggeration to say that Ronald Reagan created al-Qaeda, it would not be a vast exaggeration. The Carter administration began the policy of supporting the radical Muslim holy warriors in Afghanistan who were waging an insurgency against the Soviets after their invasion of that country. But Carter only threw a few tens of millions of dollars at them. By the mid-1980s, Reagan was giving the holy warriors half a billion dollars a year. His officials strong-armed the Saudis into matching the US contribution, so that Saudi Intelligence chief Faisal al-Turki turned to Usamah Bin Laden to funnel the money to the Afghans. This sort of thing was certainly done in coordination with the Reagan administration. Even the Pakistanis thought that Reagan was a wild man, and balked at giving the holy warriors ever more powerful weapons. Reagan sent Orrin Hatch to Beijing to try to talk the Chinese into pressuring the Pakistanis to allow the holy warriors to receive stingers and other sophisticated ordnance. The Pakistanis ultimately relented, even though they knew there was a severe danger that the holy warriors would eventually morph into a security threat in their own right.

Reagan's officials so hated the Sandinista populists in Nicaragua that they shredded the constitution. Congress cut off money for the rightwing death squads fighting the Sandinistas. Reagan's people therefore needed funds to continue to run the rightwing insurgency. They came up with a complicated plan of stealing Pentagon equipment, shipping it to Khomeini in Iran, illegally taking payment from Iran for the weaponry, and then giving the money to the rightwing guerrillas in Central America. At the same time, they pressured Khomeini to get US hostages in Lebanon, taken by radical Shiites there, released. It was a criminal cartel inside the US government, and Reagan allowed it, either through collusion or inattention. It is not a shining legacy, to have helped Khomeini and then used the money he gave them to support highly unsavory forces in Central America. (Some of those forces were involved after all in killing leftwing nuns).

Although Reagan's people were willing to shore up Iranian defenses during the Iran-Iraq War, so as to prevent a total Iraqi victory, they also wanted to stop Iran from taking over Iraq. They therefore winked at Saddam's use of chemical weapons. Reagan's secretary of state, George Schultz, sent Donald Rumsfeld to Baghdad twice, the second time with an explicit secret message that the US did not really mind if Saddam gassed the Iranian troops, whatever it said publicly.

I only saw Reagan once in person. I was invited to a State Department conference on religious freedom, I think in 1986. It was presided over by Elliot Abrams, whom I met then for the first time. We were taken to hear Reagan speak on religious freedom. It was a cause I could support, but I came away strangely dissatisfied. I had a sense that "religious freedom" was being used as a stick to beat those regimes the Reagan administration did not like. It wasn't as though the plight of the Moro Muslims in the Philippines was foremost on the agenda (come to think of it, perhaps no Muslims or Muslim groups were involved in the conference).

Reagan's policies thus bequeathed to us the major problems we now have in the world, including a militant Islamist International whose skills were honed in Afghanistan with Reagan's blessing and monetary support; and a proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, which the Reagan administration in some cases actually encouraged behind the scenes for short-term policy reasons. His aggressive foreign policy orientation has been revived and expanded, making the US into a neocolonial power in the Middle East. Reagan's gutting of the unions and attempt to remove social supports for the poor and the middle class has contributed to the creation of an America where most people barely get by while government programs that could help create wealth are destroyed.

Reagan's later life was debilitated by Alzheimer's. I suppose he may already have had some symptoms while president, which might explain some of his memory lapses and odd statements, and occasional public lapses into woolly-mindedness. Ironically, Alzheimer's could be cured potentially by stem cell research. In the United States, where superstition reigns over reason, the religious Right that Reagan cultivated has put severe limits on such research. His best legacy may be Nancy Reagan's argument that those limitations should be removed in his memory. There are 4 million Alzheimers sufferers in the US, and 50% of persons living beyond the age of 85 develop it. There are going to be a lot of such persons among the Baby Boomers. By reversing Reaganism, we may be able to avoid his fate.

posted by Juan @ 6/6/2004 12:57:54 PM

2004-06-07T18:31:00.000-07:00

A whole new series of polls from Rasmussen have come out over the past week. Not a lot of surprises. California is leaning to Kerry 49% to 41%, New York is even more lopsided 57% to 34%. Texas is in favor of Bush 55% to 38%, along with Oklahoma (58% to 34%) and Alabama (57% to 36%).

A couple of new polls have confirmed my suspicions. Georgia is strongly for Bush 51% to 39%. South Carolina is not much different with 49% for Bush and 39% for Kerry.

Virginia has new poll data that puts it in the tossup column. Bush leads there by only two points 47% to 45%. New poll data puts Missouri still up for grabs. Bush leads by a slim margin 44% to 43% there, whereas he had a solid lead (40% to 42%) in March.

Ohio, Pennsylvania and Oregon are all still battleground states and the lines are not completely drawn. Ohio switched sides to favor Bush this time around. He leads there 46% to 44%, whereas he was trailing slightly last March 41% to 45%. Pennsylvania is even tighter than the last poll, at 45% for Bush and 44% for Kerry. Last March, Bush had a strong lead 46% to 40%. Oregon is still tight, trending towards Bush 46% to 45%. It is still too close to call.

Other states expected to fall to Kerry in the Northeast are still strongly for him. This includes New York at 57% to 34%, Maine at 54% to 35%, Illinois at 54% to 38%, New Jersey at 51% to 39%, and Connecticut at 51% to 33%. Iowa and Minnesota are also strongly in favor of Kerry 49% to 41% Iowa and 48% to 43% in Minnesota.

Regionally, Bush is strong in the South, the West and the Plains states. Kerry is strong in the Northeast and the West Coast, though Oregon might give him some trouble. The Midwest and Florida are still the real battlegrounds.

Bottom Line electoral Votes: Bush 189, Kerry 227, Undecided 122
Needed to win: 270

2004-05-19T10:38:00.000-07:00

Now that the Bush administration has lost its post-hoc justification for the Iraq war, will the conservatives try to resurrect the initial justification? In the wake of the Abu Ghraib acandal, it has become difficult for the neo-cons to justify the war on the basis of ending years of torture and repression in Iraq. Of course, the situation in Iraq on the whole is still better than it was under Saddam, but the prisoner abuse scandal has undercut America's moral high ground.

In the wake of this, will the neo-cons or other Bush administration apologists try to revive the WMD issue? This editorial by William Safire in the New York Times indicates some desire to do so. He cites the discovery of sarin gas in an IED (roadside bomb) over the weekend as evidence that WMD's still exist in Iraq. Never mind the fact that most experts believe that it is an old leftover from the 1980's.

In fact, Safire goes on to revive the argument that Saddam had ties to al Qaeda, in spite of the fact that no good evidence could be found of this link. Even the Bush administration has backed off on this argument. Safire cites Abu Musab al Zarqawi, the terrorist that is said to have killed Nicholas Berg last week, as evidence of a link. Never mind that Zarqawi never operated in the portions of Iraq controlled by Saddam, but operated only in the autonomous region of Kurdistan.

He also raises the straw man of racism. Conservatives like to prop up the argument that Arabs are not culturally ready for democracy, only to shoot it down. I have never heard this argument seriously put forward as a reason not to go forward with the Iraq war and democracy-building in Iraq. I have only heard it cited by the pro-war crowd as a straw man to discredit the anti-war movement.

I think Safire is a good writer, probably better than I ever will be. I also like his linquistic columns in the Times, though I haven't seen them in a few years. When it comes to politics, I think he is disingenuous and uses facts to support his already formed opinions rather than using facts as part of the process of developing opinions. Compare his columns to those of Thomas Friedman and I think you will see what I mean.

update:
Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo has his own comments on Safire's article. Read it here.

2004-05-17T08:46:00.000-07:00

Here is a fascinating article from the New Yorker regarding the policy foundations that led to the Abu Ghraib abuse scandal. The article, by Seymour Hersch, lays responsibility for the scandal at the feet of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

The article opens with the following: "The roots of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal lie not in the criminal inclinations of a few Army reservists but in a decision, approved last year by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, to expand a highly secret operation, which had been focussed on the hunt for Al Qaeda, to the interrogation of prisoners in Iraq." Annals of National Security: The Grey Zone, New Yorker, May 24, 2004

That is a quick summary of the entire article, which implicates Rumsfeld in the whole mess. More pointedly, the article lays particular blame on Under-Secretary for Intelligence Stephen Cambone. This scandal is far from played out and by the time the dust settles, I doubt we will see Stephen Cambone in his current position. Rumsfeld's position is also not as secure as it was last week when after apologizing in testimony before Congress.

2004-05-15T14:45:00.000-07:00

The Abu Ghraib (pr. Aboo Ghrehb) scandal has a lot further to go before it burns itself out. More and more is coming to light as the scapeg… uh, perpetrators come up for trial. First up is the soldier who took the pictures, cooperated with the prosecutors to get home sooner, and pleaded guilty to a lesser charge. Coming up soon will be the soldiers who claim they were under orders to do what they were doing.

Certainly the pictures and the reports of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and General Taguba reveal horrific and repulsive scenes. So much so that even President Bush was “sick to his stomach.” But the pictures are only the worst of it and the tip of the iceberg. The reports of the ICRC claim that abuse and violations of the Geneva Conventions were widespread. Major General Antonio Taguba’s report states that there was a failure of leadership at the brigade level. An editorial in the New York Times states that “each passing day has made it more clear that the routine treatment of prisoners in military prisons violates international law, the Geneva Conventions and American values of due process and humane behavior.”

Who besides the soldiers at Abu Ghraib is involved in the controversy, what was their role and what are the implications for the whole matter? We can start at the top and work down from President Bush to Donald Rumsfeld and General Myers and keep going down to the soldiers whose faces are now splattered across the world press in shameful poses. But I prefer to work my way up. Lets start with the soldiers of the 372nd Military Police Company, 320 Battalion.

The Soldiers - 372nd Military Police Company, 320 Battalion
Specialist Jeremy Sivits – According to the New York Times, Sivits, 24, the first to be court-martialed, is expected to plead guilty on Wednesday and testify against the others in a bid for leniency. He apparently took most of the photos. In fact, he is not in most of the photos. I wonder if Sivits is being put forward first by the Army to cover their asses. Sivits claims that "Our command would have slammed us. They believe in doing the right thing. If they saw what was going on, there would be hell to pay." When a soldier claims guilt and states that his superior officer is innocent as the pure driven snow, it reeks of falling on one’s sword. More likely is what General Taguba claims is a lack of leadership. The platoon sergeant heard the screams and yelled down at Sergeant Davis to stop, surprising the other soldiers with the anger in his command. But within two minutes, the platoon sergeant left, and the soldiers resumed the abuse. If the sergeant knew of this abuse, why were the soldiers still allowed to guard the prisoners?

Pfc. Lynndie R. England – Sivits described her as “laughing at the different stuff they were having the detainees do." She is best known for the picture of her holding a leashed man and for standing in front of a naked man with her thumb up. She claims that she was under orders to pose for the picture by someone “in her chain of command,” but would not name names.

Sergeant Javal C. Davis – When the detainees were piled in a tower like cheerleaders, Davis jumped and landed on them, then stepped on their fingers and toes if they complained that it hurt. Davis told investigators that intelligence officers frequently said things such as "loosen this guy up" and "make sure he has a bad night." Davis said he was told: "Good job. They're breaking down real fast. They're giving out good information."

Specialist Charles A. Graner Jr. - "Graner punched the detainee with a closed fist so hard in the temple that it knocked the detainee unconscious. He was joking, laughing," Specialist Sivits said. "Like he was enjoying it." Sivits seems to make Graner into the bad guy in the whole situation, but Graner’s lawyer says he would not have hit a detainee. "He would have done it if he was ordered to do it." He also said that military intelligence soldiers were in one of the graphic photographs, indicating that they were aware of what was going on. Graner’s lawyer also said that Sivits's statement "is of dubious value because he's trading information to try to help himself."

Staff Sgt. Ivan L. Frederick II - Frederick and Graner then tried to get several of the inmates to masturbate themselves.

Specialist Sabrina Harman – She was a former assistant manager of a Papa John's Pizza from Alexandria, Va. She told Taguba's investigators that Graner and Frederick were responsible for getting "these people to talk." She said that military-intelligence officers "made the rules as they went."Harman and England would stand in front of the detainees and put their thumbs up and have the pictures taken. Sivits described Harman as looking somewhat disgusted by the events.

Specialist Matthew Wisdom – He was apparently asked to be involved, but Sivits did not appear to testify whether he had done anything.

Spec. Megan M. Ambuhl – According to MSNBC, little is known about Spec. Ambuhl. Her lawyer released Sivits’ testimony to the public.

Well, this seems like a bad bunch of people, but were they alone? Sivits seems to be covering for his superior officers and the Army as a whole by claiming that his superiors did not know about it. He says that he was asked not to report it. But a platoon sergeant ordered them to stop. Military intelligence soldiers were involved, but are they being charged? Administrative action was taken against officers of the 205th Military Intelligence Brigade, but were the soldiers involved charged with crimes?

Most of the pictures were apparently taken on October 3 after the commanders had changed shifts and gone home. What happened on other nights when Sivits did not have his camera handy? Pfc England claims that she was ordered to do these things and pose for the camera. If this is true and not simply her best shot at getting off the hook, who in her chain of command gave the order?

The Chain of Command - A Failure of Leadership
According to the New Yorker magazine, a retired major general described the situation as “a huge leadership failure, implying that the stink rises above the one-star general, Brig. Gen. Karpinski. He also said that many senior generals believe that, along with the civilians in Rumsfeld’s office, General Sanchez and General John Abizaid, who is in charge of the Central Command, in Tampa, Florida, had done their best to keep the issue quiet in the first months of the year. The official chain of command flows from General Sanchez, in Iraq, to Abizaid, and on to Rumsfeld and President Bush. “You’ve got to match action, or nonaction, with interests,” the Pentagon official said. “What is the motive for not being forthcoming? They foresaw major diplomatic problems.” New Yorker, May 17, 2004

Donald Reese - 372nd company commander and a window-blind salesman from New Stanton, Pa. His unit was given control of Tier 1A, where "high priority" detainees were held for interrogation by civilian and military-intelligence officers.

Lt. Col. Jerry Phillabaum - Phillabaum, a reservist who commanded the 320th Military Police Battalion was the officer in charge of the prison. Taguba found that Phillabaum was "an extremely ineffective commander and leader" who did little after the Camp Bucca beating incident five months earlier to put his soldiers on notice about proper detainee treatment. Soon after the 372nd arrived at Abu Ghraib, Karpinski sent Phillabaum, a 1976 West Point graduate, to Kuwait for two weeks to "give him some relief from the pressure he was experiencing," the report states. Phillabaum was gone from Oct. 18 to Oct. 31.

Phillabaum claims not to have known what was going on and blamed it on a few rogue soldiers, particularly Staff Sgt. Frederick. "I have been made the scapegoat in this event," Phillabaum wrote in an e-mail to The Washingto Post. "Frederick was the NCO (noncommissioned officer) in charge of that wing of the prison. No one higher in his chain of command, starting with his platoon sergeant, knew what was occurring. If he thought that his actions were condoned, then why were they only conducted between 0200-0400 hours for a few days in late October and early November?"

In March, General Taguba recommended that Karpinski and Phillabaum be relieved of their commands and given reprimands for various command failures.

Col. Thomas Pappas, commander of the 205th Military Intelligence Brigade - Taguba recommended that Pappas and his liaison officer, Lt. Col. Steven Jordan be relieved of their commands and given reprimands for various command failures. Taguba also recommended the officers be investigated for possible criminal prosecution. Two civilians working with them — Steven Stephanowicz and John Israel, both employees of the CACI firm — are also recommended for possible prosecution.

Brig. Gen. Janis L. Karpinski – Karpinski was the brigade commander of the 800th Military Police Brigade, the military unit that ran the prisons in Iraq at the time of the abuses. General Taguba traced leadership failures as high as her. But Taguba also admitted that he did not investigate any higher than General Karpinski. Karpinski, a corporate-management consultant from Hilton Head, S.C., was called to active duty in June. She said she tried to visit each of the detention facilities under her command regularly. But she scaled back as the insurgency stepped up attacks. She was responsible for 3,400 soldiers at 16 facilities, including Abu Ghraib.

General Karpinski has said that she knew nothing about the abuse until weeks after it occurred and that she didn't have direct authority over the prison, which was run by the 205th Military Intelligence Brigade. The prison cellblock where the mistreatment occurred was under the tight control of Army military intelligence officers who may have encouraged it. She has said that she was excluded from areas of the prison where some of the abuses occurred. Taguba thought that the worst abuses was a result of soldiers interacting with military intelligence personnel who they perceived or thought to be competent authority. There are reports of conflict between her and Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller regarding the powers of military intelligence officers in prisons. Karpinski said she sees "a linkage" between Miller's visit and the abuse of prisoners. As Karpinski puts it, Miller's plan was to "Gitmo-ize" the place, to teach the soldiers manning Abu Ghraib his best psychological and physical techniques for squeezing information out of detainees. That included using Karpinski's MPs to "enhance the intelligence effort." At a meeting of top military-intelligence and MP commanders last September, Miller bluntly told Karpinski: "You're going to see. We have control, and [the prisoners] know it."

Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller – Currently head of the military prisons in Iraq after Karpinski was removed in April 2004. He may have helped create the conditions that led to the outrages at Abu Ghraib. Miller was brought in by Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez in September 2003. That summer, the word came down from Washington to get better intelligence in Iraq. "There was extraordinary pressure being put on MI [military intelligence] from every angle to get better info," says Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski, the former 800th MP Brigade commander, who at the time was responsible for Abu Ghraib and other Iraqi prisons. "Where is Saddam? Find Saddam. And we want the weapons of mass destruction." MSNBC

Miller, the commander of the task force in charge of the prison at Guantánamo, had brought a team of experts to Iraq to review the Army program. Miller's task was "to review current Iraqi Theater ability to rapidly exploit internees for actionable intelligence." MSNBC His recommendation was radical: that Army prisons be geared, first and foremost, to interrogations and the gathering of information needed for the war effort. “Detention operations must act as an enabler for interrogation . . . to provide a safe, secure and humane environment that supports the expeditious collection of intelligence,” Miller wrote. The military police on guard duty at the prisons should make support of military intelligence a priority. General Sanchez agreed, and on November 19th his headquarters issued an order formally giving the 205th Military Intelligence Brigade tactical control over the prison. New Yorker, May 17, 2004

Miller declared that Abu Ghraib was the best choice for his interrogation purposes and that military intelligence was going to take it over. Karpinski responded: "Sir, Abu Ghraib is not mine to give you." She noted it was formally under the control of Iraq's Coalition Provisional Authority. General Miller replied, "I don't care. Rick Sanchez said I could have whatever I want. And I want Abu Ghraib," Miller said. He even cleared the room, Karpinski relates, saying, "Everybody out. I want to talk with the general." Miller then told Karpinski: "Look, we can do this my way or we can do it the hard way. We are going to take Abu Ghraib." MSNBC

Miller says that the recommendations he gave were "in keeping" with the Geneva Conventions, and that he asked only that MPs be involved in "passive intelligence collection"—observing and listening to prisoners. Karpinski's MPs maintain that they were simply following new orders, which were, they say, to "soften up" prisoners for interrogation.

In late March, before the Abu Ghraib scandal became publicly known, Gen. Miller was transferred from Guantánamo and named head of prison operations in Iraq.

Major General Antonio Taguba – Was deputy commanding general of the Third Army and of the Coalition Forces Land Component Command in Kuwait at the time of his report. In his report, which was completed in March and publicly revealed about two weeks ago, he cited the "systematic and illegal abuses of detainees," and said that between October and December 2003, "numerous incidents of sadistic, blatant, and wanton criminal abuses were inflicted on several detainees." Under the scope set by his superiors, the inquiry was limited to the conduct of a military police brigade. But General Taguba used it to deliver a much broader indictment.

Among the findings laid out in the report was what General Taguba described as his strong suspicion that military intelligence officers and private contractors "were either directly or indirectly responsible for the abuses," and urged that they be subjected to disciplinary action. General Taguba took issue with Sanchez’s order giving military intelligence control over Abu Ghraib. According to Taguba, the order “effectively made an MI Officer, rather than an MP officer, responsible for the MP units conducting detainee operations at that facility. This is not doctrinally sound due to the different missions and agenda assigned to each of these respective specialties.”

General Taguba will soon take a new post in Washington as a deputy assistant secretary for reserve affairs, a move that in Army culture is not seen as a major promotion. According to an unnamed retired major general quoted in the New Yorker “[Taguba]’s not regarded as a hero in some circles in the Pentagon. He’s the guy who blew the whistle, and the Army will pay the price for his integrity. The leadership does not like to have people make bad news public.” I guess that’s what you get for telling the truth.

Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez – Overall commander in Iraq authorized the use of dogs during interrogations. In his report, Taguba strongly suggested that there was a link between the interrogation process in Afghanistan and the abuses at Abu Ghraib. A few months after Miller gave his recommendations, General Sanchez, apparently troubled by reports of wrongdoing in Army jails in Iraq, asked Army Provost Marshal Donald Ryder, a major general, to carry out a study of military prisons. In the resulting study, which is still classified, Ryder identified a conflict between military policing and military intelligence dating back to the Afghan war. But Ryder somehow failed to note last fall that MPs were being asked to facilitate interrogation. In his report to Sanchez, Ryder flatly declared that “there were no military police units purposely applying inappropriate confinement practices.” Ryder, as provost marshal, was the commanding general of all military-police units as well as of the C.I.D. He was, in essence, being asked to investigate himself.

Despite his role in having brought Miller in, General Sanchez came away unscathed.

General John Abizaid – in charge of Central Command, which oversees operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. A mounting body of evidence around the world suggests that abuses did not stop at Abu Ghraib or even in Iraq, that the Geneva Conventions protecting prisoners of war from beatings and humiliation were being routinely flouted in an environment where, as at Gitmo and Abu Ghraib, almost anything can happen because almost no one is held accountable. According to U.S. military pathologists, two Afghan detainees died of "blunt force injuries" to "the lower extremities" and "legs" at Baghram in December 2002 and another Afghan prisoner died at a U.S. military camp in Kunar province in June 2003. Yet 18 months after the first deaths, a military investigation is still incomplete, and no broad inquiry like the Taguba probe has been launched into conditions at Baghram

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld – According to the New Yorker, Secrecy and wishful thinking are defining characteristics of Rumsfeld’s Pentagon. “They always want to delay the release of bad news—in the hope that something good will break.”

Rumsfeld insisted last week that the U.S. military has observed the Geneva Conventions regarding POWs and civilians in Iraq. But in his public statements (at least until last week), Rumsfeld has also declared that Geneva Conventions rules do not necessarily mean that all detainees—especially so-called unlawful combatants—will get all the rights and privileges normally accorded prisoners of war. And in recent months, NEWSWEEK has learned, some senior members of Congress have been given highly classified briefings, indicating, in the words of one official, that U.S. interrogators were not necessarily "going to stick with the Geneva Convention."

Nigel Rodley, who was the U.N. special rapporteur on torture and has written an authoritative book, "The Treatment of Prisoners Under International Law," dismisses Rumsfeld's claims that the Geneva Conventions have been observed. Rodley says that even some interrogation practices the Pentagon acknowledges using are "clearly violations both of international human-rights law and international humanitarian law as codified in the Geneva Conventions." He adds that the problem "goes back to the whole process of essentially creating legal black holes where people are held in the dark and secret reaches of state power. When that happens it breeds a sense of impunity and people do things that they shouldn't do."

One British critic has stated, “Any defense secretary who disparages the Geneva Conventions and then fails to read a damning report detailing its violation by U.S. forces seems to me to have no option but to resign.” Niall Ferguson in Slate.com

President Bush
Many critics say the Bush administration routinely uses the global war on terrorism as a blanket justification for all sorts of human-rights violations. One American intelligence officer admitted as much, telling NEWSWEEK: "The U.S. government and military capitalizes on the dubious status [as sovereign states] of Afghanistan, Diego Garcia, Guantanamo Bay, Iraq and aircraft carriers, to avoid certain legal questions about rough interrogations. Whatever humanitarian pronouncements a state such as ours may make about torture, states don't perform interrogations, individual people do. What's going to stop an impatient soldier, in a supralegal location, from whacking one nameless, dehumanized shopkeeper among many?"

2004-05-14T12:18:00.000-07:00

Here is an interesting article in the LA Times regarding military lawyers. Apparently, when the Bush administration rewrote the rules on interrogating prisoners, they went to civilian lawyers and left the military lawyers out of the loop. The military lawyers complained that the Pentagon was creating "an atmosphere of legal ambiguity."

Some international law experts, as well as some Senate Democrats, said the loosened rules violated the Geneva Convention, which forbids soldiers to use physical force to obtain information from detainees.

But Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said the rules had been examined and approved by lawyers for the administration.

Apparently, the military lawyers from the Army Judge Advocate General's office were not involved.

2004-05-09T10:14:00.000-07:00

The Economist magazine will be running a series on crucial swing states in the upcoming election. There was an article this week in that looked at Ohio in depth. The only poll I have for Ohio showed Kerry leading in March, but it is stale. However, The Economist's analysis shows the state much closer than that. It had no actual poll number other than to say that local poll numbers show a dead heat. It also shows that Bush is only 8 points ahead in the south of Ohio, which is the Republican stronghold, and needs to be 16 points ahead to balance the heavily Democratic north. Ohio is a must-win for Bush. No Republican has ever won the White House without winning Ohio. Also, Ohio has picked the winner in every election since 1964. I will move this from Kerry to Toss-up, but it is a state worth watching.

Here are some new poll numbers by the American Research Group I found. These were done on April 21, before the Iraqi prisoner abuse issue surfaced:

A new Oregon poll shows bush and Kerry neck and neck in at 45% each with 5% going to Nader. Without Nader, Kerry leads 48% to 46%. This is one example of Nader's effect on the election. The favorability/unfavorability ratings are lopsided in favor of Kerry. Bush's favor/unfavor ratings are 47%/42%. Kerry comes out better with 48%/29%. The head-to-head numbers in Oregon are tied, but the favorability ratings come out well in Kerry's favor. This is a good indication that things will cut towards Kerry in the end, but not enough to take it out of the undecided column.

In Florida, this are as tight as anyone else has shown with 46% for Bush, 45% for Kerry and 3% for Nader. Without Nader, the race is even tighter, with 47% each for Bush and Kerry. Bush's favor/unfavor ratings are 48%/45%. Kerry's don't look good for him at 44% favorable, 45% unfavorable. This is bad new for Kerry in Florida. Nader looks worse. His rating was 17%/53% on March 4 and has fallen to 8%/70%.

In Iowa, Kerry leads Bush by a statistically insignificant margin 47% to 46% with 3% going to Nader. Taking Nader out makes little difference, with 48% going to Kerry and 47% to Bush. Bush's favor/unfavor ratings are 48%/44%. Kerry's are better with 42%/34%. As a footnote, Nader's ratings are 4%/72%. That means that almost everyone who had a favorable rating of Nader would voter for him.

A new poll in New Jersey by the Newark Star-Ledger confirms Kerry's lead over Bush in that state 43% to 37%. The edge is smaller than other polls, but it is still enough to put NJ squarely in Kerry's column. The most interesting thing about it is the large proportion of undecideds. I have noticed that the number of undecideds in this race seems to be much lower than in previous elections. So far, I show only four states with an undecided or other column larger than 10%. Normally, undecided voters tend to go for the challenger.

What the small number of undecided voters means in this election is that it is being decided early. The country is already polarized. Many observers have already commented that the 2004 election is picking up where the 2000 election left off. Compare this election and the likely electoral map to other elections such as 1992 or 1996 and you find that the map looks almost exactly like the 2000 election. There are some states that are still up in the air, but those states were battleground states in 2000 as well.

As the Star-Ledger pointed out, "Kerry is leading in New Jersey even though one-third of voters have no opinion of him. Bush has become a polarizing figure, and the election is turning into a referendum on him in the Garden State." This is true across the nation. For this reason it may be more important to see each state's favorability rating of the President, rather than the head-to-head polls that are easier to come by. Pollsters are doing those types of polls, but they don't make them available for free.

In one state that such numbers are available, Oregon, a poll by the American Research Group shows a 47% favorability rating for Bush, but a 42% unfavorability rating! Compare that to Kerry's numbers and he gets a 48% favorability but only a 29% unfavorability. The remaining 23% undecided shows that people just haven't made up their minds about Kerry. Put that together with low favoribility ratings for Bush and it doesn't look good for for the President.

Bottom Line: Kerry 220 Bush 213 Undecided 105
Needed to win: 270

2004-05-05T22:34:00.000-07:00

In the last week, polls in four states have come out in that have confirmed my current predictions, including one in Alabama that is the most lopsided I have seen so far. The Alabama poll by SurveyUSA.com shows Bush with 55% and Kerry with a mere 36%. The next runner-up was a poll in Kansas on March 5 that had Bush at 57% and Kerry at 39%.

The other polls out in the last week showed Kerry leading in Michigan (47% to 43%) and Wisconsin (45% to 41%) by four points. A poll in Arkansas shows Bush and Kerry neck and neck at 45% each. The Arkansas and Wisconsin polls were done by Rasmussen Reports and the Michigan poll was done by SurveyUSA.

Bottom Line: No Change
Electoral Votes: Kerry 252 Bush 213 Undecided 73
Needed to win: 270

2004-04-28T19:03:00.000-07:00

The new Rasmussen polls out in California and Oregon put Kerry miles ahead of Bush in California (51% to 40%) but neck and neck in Oregon. In the Oregon poll, if Nader is included, both Bush and Kerry poll at 43% and Nader gets 8%. If Nader is not in the race (which he likely will be), Kerry inches ahead of Bush 47% to 46%. This probably shouldn't be a surprise, given the discrepancies between earlier polls. This puts Oregon in the toss-up column. California will go to Kerry, but this is no surprise.

Bottom line Electoral Votes: Kerry 252 Bush 213 Undecided 73
Needed to win: 270

A very interesting poll from the Zogby polling organization takes a look at Arab-American voters' attitudes in four key states: Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Florida. In all of these states, regardless of religion, Arab-American voters overwhelmingly favor John Kerry. Even with Ralph Nader (who is Arab-American) in the race, Kerry leads Bush by a two-to-one margin in Ohio (50% to 25% with 5% for Nader) and Pennsylvania (52% to 26% with 12% for Nader) and significant margins in Michigan (42% to 25% with 19% for Nader) and Florida (40% to 35% with 14% for Nader). The overall margin for Kerry (44% to 28% with 13% for Nader) is almost exactly the opposite as the Margin of Bush over Gore in 2000 (46% to 29% with 13% for Nader). Clearly something has happened within the Arab-American community to turn against Bush so vehemently.

How this affects the overall election is unclear. Bush won in Ohio and squeaked by in Florida in 2000. The sea change in attitudes towards him might doom him in Florida, but the polls there are still very close. Polls are showing Kerry ahead by a decent margin in Michigan and Ohio and different polls show different results in Pennsylvania. The current polling in these states probably already takes into account Arab-American opinion. It remains to be seen whether the Arab-American vote will be large enough to swing these states one way or another.

What is really fascinating about the poll is in the issue area. When asked who would do a better job in dealing with various issues, Kerry outpolls Bush in every issue area except terrorism/national security. This includes Kerry's normally strong issues around Economy, Health Care, Education and the Environment. But Kerry also outpolls Bush on Foreign Policy, Iraq, Israel-Palestine, Taxes, and Patriot Act/Civil Liberties, which are Bush's strong suits in the population as a whole. It seems Arab-Americans just do not like Bush.

2004-04-23T20:41:00.000-07:00

A Rasmussen poll has Kerry leading Bush in the normally solidly Republican New Hampshire. The difference is within the margin of error (47% Kerry, 45% Bush), but this will take New Hampshire out of my prediction of going for Bush and bring it into leaning to Kerry, but too close to call.

What I find surprising about the results of my ongoing analysis is that the South has more states in play that I had expected. Arkansas, Louisiana, Georgia and Florida are all tossups. I had expected the Midwest to be the real battleground. But the big states that I had expected to be tossups there are actually leaning one way or the other by only 3 to 7 points. Most of those states are not solid locks for either party, but neither are they tossups. Kerry has less than a five point lead in Ohio and Michigan and a three point lead in Minnesota. Bush is ahead in Missouri and Pennsylvania by only 7 and 6 points, respectively. The Pacific Northwest is also leaning, but not solidly for Kerry. He leads in Washington by only 6 points and in Oregon by only 5.

I suspect that the issue of the economy will play a large roll in the Midwest and Pacific Northwest, where manufacturing and high tech have taken a hit in the recession of the past few years. If the economy improves over the next year, Kerry may find it difficult to hold his lead in these states.

Rasmussen is supposed to have a poll out for Oregon next Monday. We will see if Kerry's lead holds or gets larger. That should also give us an idea of whether Tim Hibbits or the University of Oregon is correct. My money is on Hibbits.

Bottom line Electoral Votes: Kerry 259 Bush 213 Undecided 66
Needed to win: 270

Note: my previous bottom line was incorrect because I had entered the Colorado poll results in my calculator backwards. I also put Arkansas in the Bush camp when it should have remained undecided. Oops.

2004-04-22T22:49:00.000-07:00

Do you read Doonesbury? I have been a big fan of the comic strip since the 1970's.

This week, after a short series of re-runs, the strip addressed the war in Iraq through the eyes of the characters there. B.D. has been a regular on the strip since the beginning. He has always represented the gung-ho conservative. He has been in Iraq serving with a reserve unit and some buddies from the 1st Gulf war.

This Monday, I was caught by surprise when the strip showed him caught in one of the many ambushes that soldiers in Iraq have been facing since the beginning of the war. The strip started in black, then showed his buddy tending to him with smoke and dust in the background, obviously from an explosion. The strip then ends in a blackout and we don't know whether B.D. survives. (Read it Here)

By saying that I was caught by surprise, I mean surprised at my reaction as much as the turn in the storyline. I found tears in my eyes because I saw the real possibility that a character that I had known for over twenty-five years would die. Maybe that is what they meant by shock and awe? It may seem absurd that someone might have some emotional investment in a fictional character that is only pen and ink. But I suspect that only those who rarely read novels have not been brought to tears by a good book. I mean a really good book. Doonesbury is like a good book that has been going on for over 30 years.

For the past week, I have been anxious to find out whether B.D. was going to survive. Yesterday, we found out that he was going to survive, but missing his lower leg. In addition, they removed his helmet. B.D. has been defined by a helmet of one sort or another since his character was introduced. To have his helmet removed (revealing black hair with white sides) is probably the most unprecedented thing for Garry Trudeau to do. It underscores the importance he places on this particular story. I imagine that he ran last week's re-runs in order to prepare for this story.

It is obvious that Trudeau thinks that the themes of this story are particularly important. The main theme that I see is that of the danger to our troops in Iraq. The second theme is that, though relatively few are dying in ambushes and attacks compared to previous conflicts, many are being wounded and maimed. It is a testament to modern military medicine that soldiers that in Vietnam or World War II would have died of their wounds are surviving. It also shows the value Americans in general and the US military place on human life.

For the most part, the numbers Americans are hearing about from the Iraq war are the numbers of dead soldiers. Relatively speaking, these numbers are low. What is often overlooked are the numbers of wounded. The military tracks casualties in order to determine the effectiveness of combat units. From a casualty standpoint wounded or dead soldiers have the same effect on the effectiveness of combat units. That is, when a soldier is removed from a unit, the effectiveness drops. It does not matter that the soldier has been removed by death or has simply been relocated to a hospital in Germany; the combat strength of the unit drops.

However, what gets reported in the media is not casualties and the combat strength of the military, but how many soldiers died. Deaths have a greater impact at home than do overall casualties. When a soldier returns home, the families are relieved that he is back alive, even if he is missing a leg or otherwise maimed. For the soldier, though, his life has changed forever. I wonder what B.D.'s life will be like when he returns home? For a man who was a football star, a coach and otherwise physically active, losing a leg will be one of the greatest emotional and mental challenges he will ever face.

2004-04-22T18:58:00.000-07:00

New polls by Rassmussen Reports are out for New Jersey, West Virginia and Colorado. The new polls have Bush ahead in West Virginia (46% to 41%) and Colorado (49% to 44%). Neither of these are especially surprising, but it does take West Virginia out of the undecided camp and puts it solidly in Bush Territory. I had West Virginia as too close to call based on previous polls. I had already predicted Colorado as leaning towards Bush.

Based on the new poll, I am moving New Jersey out of the Bush column and solidly into Kerry territory. The margin for Kerry is just too much to ignore. The poll has Kerry ahead 51% to 39%. I had previously had New Jersey as leaning slightly towards Bush based on an earlier poll, however that poll bothered me and seemed abnormal. The newer poll by Rassmussen Reports seems more correct to me. The pollster also seems more reputable than the one I got from The Command Post, which seems like a Republican-oriented website. That site has a link to New York Newsday which cites a poll done by Fairleigh-Dickinson PublicMind. My guess is that this is probably a group based at Fairleigh-Dickinson college and probably run by teachers and students for educational purposes.

Based on this and another poll, I am going to be wary of college and university based polling. The other poll was also cited on the Command Post site and was done at the University of Oregon that showed Bush ahead of Kerry 47% to 45%. Having lived in Oregon and knowing the politics of the state, I found this rather surprising. I took it into account along with one done in early March by professional pollster Tim Hibbits that showed Kerry ahead 45% to 40%. I still have Oregon going towards Kerry.

Bottom line Electoral Votes: Kerry 268 Bush 214 Undecided 56
Needed to win: 270

2004-04-19T12:36:00.000-07:00

A poll in Arkansas shows Bush at 47% and Kerry at 45%. It is still too close to call, but it looks like Arkansas is trending towards Bush. Check out more poll results at SurveyUSA.com.

2004-04-15T20:36:00.000-07:00

The prognosticating and punditry has begun. Who will win the presidential election in November 2004? Of course, it depends not on national poll numbers, but on polls within each state. There are some great resources out there to figure it out on your own. I recommend Dave Leip's Atlas of Presidential Elections. It has a myriad of resources including a poll where you can predict the results on your own and have it displayed on a map of the country. My own prediction is slightly different from the aggregate of all predictions made.

It also has a link to a site showing the results of a Zogby poll. Zogby cannot predict an outcome yet due to uncertain outcomes in 12 states, including the battleground states of Missouri, Ohio and Florida. He predicts Kerry takes Pennsylvania, but that might change. It appears the midwest is the main battleground, but the Pacific Northwest is uncertain in Zogby's poll. A lot depends on what Ralph Nader does in the PNW.

My own predictions have Bush winning in Texas, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, North Carolina, Virginia, Indiana, Missouri, Tennessee, Arizona, Alabama, Colorado, Kentucky, South Carolina, Oklahoma, Kansas, Mississippi, Nebraska, Utah, Idaho, New Hampshire, Alaska, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming, for a total of 227 electoral votes.

I have Kerry winning in California, New York, Illinois, Ohio, Michigan, Massachusetts, Washington, Maryland, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Connecticut, Iowa, Oregon, New Mexico, Hawaii, Maine, Rhode Island, D.C., Delaware, and Vermont for a total of 244 electoral votes.

My too-close-to-call states are Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Nevada, and West Virginia.

Other close battleground states are Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Washington.

A poll in Kentucky in February put Bush ahead of Kerry by 16 points, but that poll is likely to be radically different now. Kentucky has historically been a toss-up. A poll on March 25 put Bush ahead of Kerry 49 to 42 in Missouri, but Kerry ahead of Bush 47 to 44 in Minnesota. A poll in Florida on April 14 put them neck and neck in Florida, with Kerry 47, Bush 46. Recent polls put Kerry ahead of Bush 48 to 44 in Michigan, but Bush ahead of Kerry by the same margin in New Jersey if Nader is in the race. Pennsylvania has switched back and forth, but a recent poll now puts Bush ahead 46 to 40 if Nader is in the race.

According to the few polls I have seen, it is clear that Ralph Nader's 2nd shot at the presidency tilts the race in Bush's favor. In two states, Pennsylvania and New Jersey, that I saw figures with Nader in the race and with him out, his candidacy dooms Kerry's bid. It tightens up the race in Oregon and Washington, possibly even tilting Oregon to Bush.

2004-03-10T22:03:00.000-08:00

This headline at Aljazeera.net caught my eye and I went looking for independent confirmation in western news outlets. I could find nothing confirming it at the New York Times, Washington Post, or BBC.

CIA: Pentagon lied in run-up to war
Wednesday 10 March 2004, 9:02 Makka Time, 6:02 GMT

CIA director George Tenet has revealed that a senior defence official leaked a false intelligence report before the US-led invasion of Iraq, ignoring agency advice.

Answering questions before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Tuesday, Tenet confirmed that an article in November's Weekly Standard was written by Undersecretary of Defence for Policy Douglas Feith.

The magazine claimed to have obtained a leaked top-secret document, but the CIA chief admitted the third highest Pentagon official wrote it specifically for publication.

Vice President Dick Cheney then cited the leaked unapproved document as "the best source of information" on cooperation between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida.

In fact, the New York Times, Washington Post and the BBC are each headlining a story that Tenet does not believe that the Bush Administration misrepresented intelligence before the war. What is going on here? Is it just different cultural perspectives on a similar story? It seems like radically different perspectives. Both stories are based on Tenet's testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Tuesday.

2004-03-07T11:00:00.000-08:00

My interest level in politics has waned since last year. I have been watching what is going on, but am detached from it. I am now supporting John Kerry for president and plan on helping the campaign. I usually write about things that can be analysed. I don't really feel like political campaigns can be analysed. It is too much speculation until the election actually occurs. Of course, when the election occurs, we know what the outcome is, so it is no longer necessary to guess about the outcome.

On Iraq, it is too difficult to get a handle on what is going on there. It would be a full-time job to keep up with the goings on there in order to really understand the situtation. The press seems to want to keep a simplified view of Iraq being divided into three parts: Shia, Sunni and Kurd. It seems apparent that there are elements of each fighting against each other and within each group.

Shia Factions
The bombings in Karbala and Baghdad on March 2 were intended to divide the Iraqi Shias against the Sunnis. The ploy does not seem to have worked. Rather than blaming the Sunnis, Shias were more interested in blaming Americans. It seems that sectarian divisions are just not a big motivation for Iraqis. Perhaps after the common enemy of the Americans leave on July 1 they will turn on each other.

Bombings in Karbala and Baghdad did not divide the Shiites against the Sunnis, but agreement on an interim consitution was still out of reach until today. Shiite politicians who delayed signing the constitution agreed to sign the document on Monday without any changes. Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Husseini al-Sistani had rejected two clauses in the document which would have given Iraq's Kurds the power to scrap a permanent charter and provided for a single president instead of a rotating leadership. Shiite members of the Iraqi Governing Council tried to persuade al-Sistani to drop his objections. The Shiites were reviving their demand for a presidency that would rotate among three Shiites, a Kurd and a Sunni -- giving the Shiites a dominant role. American and Iraqi officials, however, said the shape of the presidency was not in dispute. NY Times, March 7, 2004 http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Iraq.html

Sunni Factions
On February 27, Sunni clerics in al Anbar province called for an end to attacks on fellow Iraqis. Al Anbar is the province with the most active anti-American resistance in the Sunni portion of Iraq. This fatwa was written after an attack on the Falluja police station in which 15 Iraqi police officers were killed. This fatwa is a positive sign for the recovery of Iraq. This is a clear indication that Iraqis want to avoid a civil war after the Americans leave. NY Times, March 1, 2004

Baathists
The US is sending lawyers to Iraq to develop a case against Saddam Hussein. (Reminds me of the old Warren Zevon song, ?Send Lawyers, Guns and Money?) It appears that a new Iraqi government will be putting Hussein on trial, but Americans are assisting in the prosecution and investigations. The Bush administration wants the trial to occur before the US elections, preferably in October, just before election day. The Iraqis have said that it is unlikely to occur before the elections. Of course, if the trial were before the elections, it would give a boost to George Bush?s re-election chances. Since the administration was unable to find WMD?s to justify its invasion of Iraq, they are reverting to type and redirecting attention away from the WMD?s and hanging their hat on a post-hoc justification. ?Administration officials have increasingly turned to the evidence of the wide-scale atrocities committed by the Hussein government as a justification for going to war.? NY Times March 7, 2004

Al Qaeda
Al Qaeda appears to be active in Iraq. The bombings in Baghdad and Karbala on March 2, the Shia festival of Ashura, appears to be an attempt to set the Shias against the Sunnis and foment sectarian divisions in the country. The Americans and the Iraqi Governing Council are blaming Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian-born Sunni militant for the bombings and released a letter from Zarqawi to senior leaders of Al Qaeda asking for help in starting a sectarian war. (One wonders how the US got this letter but can?t capture the senior leaders of Al Qaeda.) But Iraqis on the streets blamed the Americans, rather than the Sunnis, for failing to protect them. The Americans said they had pulled American troops away from holy sites upon request of the Shiite leaders. After the bombings, Shiite militias were visibly present on the streets of Karbala, providing security. According to reports, they outnumbered Iraqi police.

The form that the largest bombings against Iraqis have taken seems to point to Al Qaeda tactics, but there are some questions. On August 29, 2003, a car bomb outside a mosque in the Shiite holy city of Najaf killed more than 95. On October 27, 2003, four suidide bombers near the Red Cross and police stations killed 35 on the first day of Ramadan. On February 1, 2004, suicide bombers killed 56 people in Erbil during Muslim holiday celebrations. On March 2, 2004, bombs in Karbala and Baghdad killed more than 140 on the holiest day of the Shiite year.

Who is responsible for these bombings? By looking at the targets of the bombings, it might give us some idea.
Aug 29 Target: Shiites in a shiite mosque
Oct 27 Target: foreign aid workers and secular police on a muslim holy day
Feb 1 Target: Kurds during a muslim celebration
March 2 Target: Shiites during a Shiite holy day

The two groups suspected in these attacks are Al Qaeda and remaining Baathists. Either Al Qaeda or the Baathists would have no hesitation in attacking Shiites, foreigners or secular targets. However, most people seem to think that the Baathists have been defanged with the capture of Saddam Hussein. Al Qaeda is the most likely suspect.

2004-03-05T08:41:00.000-08:00

I have updated my blog to get with the times. Dean has dropped out of the race and John Kerry is the presumptive nominee. Therefore, I have changed the link to Howard Dean's contribution page to John Kerry's contribution page.

It is important that John Kerry raise as much money as he can. George Bush has already raised over $100,000,000 in campaign contributions. John Kerry is in debt because he had to fight a tough primary battle. I am going to be doing all I can to help raise money and campaign for John Kerry in my district. I hope you will do the same.

Please Contribute

2004-02-08T23:53:00.000-08:00

It looks like John Kerry is headed for the Democratic nomination for President. Things sure change quickly. A week or two before the Iowa caucuses, it looked like Howard Dean would be the nominee. The Punditocracy (word copyrighted by Harry Shearer) all agree that Dean made a few missteps. Perhaps it wasn’t the missteps that caused the problem, but the underlying issues that led to the missteps. Or was it a changed circumstances on the ground in Iraq? Dean was popular mainly because he was the only Democratic candidate who came out clearly against the war. The problem is now that the situation in Iraq requires a more nuanced approach. Not even the left can agree what we should do. Should we leave Iraq and bring the troops home? Should we stay and help support a democratic government? These issues are unclear and the electorate realizes it.

Howard Dean’s approach to the Iraq issue might be the right one, but he has not articulated a clear program for what to do. He is weak on defense issues whereas John Kerry being a “war hero” can portray himself as strong in this area. The centerpiece of Dean’s position on Iraq is that he opposed the war. The best part of his program that he would implement would be a NATO-led coalition to maintain order and guarantee disarmament and transferring civilian authority in Iraq to an international body approved by the UN Security Council. www.deanforamerica.com But this program is no different from every other Democratic candidate, including John Kerry. Most Democrats can agree on this program as well as quite a few republicans.

So can John Kerry beat Bush? The Punditocracy agrees that this is the reason he is winning in the primaries. Electability. People will vote for a person on the basis of what they think others think of him. It is a strange concept; it requires understanding what other people think. This is a nation driven by polls and public opinion. In such an environment, every voter becomes his own pundit. It gives great power to those who distill the “public opinion” from the myriad of voices and views across a nation of millions.

What about John Edwards, Wesley Clark, or heaven forfend Al Sharpton and Dennis Kucinich? I recently did a quiz at presidentmatch.com to find out which candidate was closest to my views. Unsurprisingly, Kucinich was closest to my views. He is the farthest left of all the Democratic candidates. For this reason, he doesn’t stand a chance in hell of winning. In fact, I don’t think he has polled above 10% in any state. He is simply not “electable”. Of course, if people voted for him because they like his views rather than what they think others think of him, perhaps he would be electable. Al Sharpton came in second. I have heard a lot about his comments during the campaign. He is usually credited with having the best lines during the debates. His views may be close to mine, but he is also accused of focusing too much on race as an issue, much more so than Jesse Jackson, whom I voted for in previous elections. I am mainly wary of his previous experience in politics, which is mainly as a gadfly rather than as a person who actually governs. In any case, I think these two are in the race not to win the presidency, but to influence the party platform. For this reason, when the primary comes to my state and a nominee has already been decided, I will likely vote for Kucinich.

After the debacle of 2000, I think a lot of leftists are afraid of being left out in the cold. Nader and the Greens did so well not because the left (myself included) thought that he stood a snowball’s chance in hell of actually winning. Rather, we thought that a strong showing by Nader would shock the Democrats into not taking the left for granted. The left and environmentalists were upset by the treatment we received from the Clinton administration. We had thought that electing Clinton would be the answer to our prayers after 12 years of Republican dominance, but Clinton was more centrist than center-left. Many important issues for the left and for environmentalists got ignored. Unfortunately, the plan backfired and Gore could not carry key states without the left. The irony is that Gore was more liberal and even more environmentalist than Clinton. He should have been the Green’s dream candidate, but he was tarnished by the legacy of Clinton.

Now, it is not mainstream Democrats that are flocking to the left to bring them back in the fold. Instead, the left is scared silly of being left out in the cold. The left has backed Howard Dean rather than Dennis Kucinich partly because he was the strongest voice against the war, but also because he was thought to be more mainstream than Kucinich. Now that Dean is faltering, many on the left are ready to line up behind Kerry. This is mainly because, unlike Bush, Kerry is someone almost all liberals and leftists can live with. The most important goal is to get rid of Bush. The secondary goal is to force the Democratic party to become more liberal without becoming unelectable. For this reason, the Democratic party will be more united than they have in years, perhaps decades. The left is ready to compromise on many issues if it can get support for others. If John Kerry is the nominee, then everyone in the party (and some who left came back) will stand behind him. Personally, I plan to do some volunteering for the Kerry campaign when it gets into full swing for the general election.

2004-02-08T23:49:00.000-08:00

After sending the Puerco Pibil recipe to friends, one responded that I should not try this with chicken because there is too much acid in the recipe. Apparently, high acid foods should be balanced with high fat. For this reason, pork is the perfect meat for this dish because there is so much fat in it. I remember hearing the acid-fat pairing before when reading about wines. With high acid wines such as Riesling or Sauvignon Blanc. Many red wines also have high acidity, such as some Cabernet Sauvignons. High fat foods also are good complements to tannic wines, such as Cabernet Sauvignons.

2004-02-01T09:44:00.000-08:00

This recipe was featured in the movie “Once Upon a Time in Mexico.” In it, Johnny Depp’s character, a corrupt CIA agent, would go to restaurants all over Mexico and order this dish. If it was too good, he would pay the bill then go into the kitchen and shoot the cook. In his mind, this was his way of restoring the balance. He only met with people in restaurants and always offered them some of his pork.

On the DVD of the movie, the director, Robert Rodriguez, showed how to make the dish. Even though I don’t like pork, I tried the recipe. The aroma while it is cooking is intoxicating. Next time, though, I will try chicken. I also wonder how it would taste if I replaced the lemons with limes or used fresh oranges for the orange juice.

Puerco Pibil

Grind very fine (Rodriguez recommends a coffee grinder)
5 Tbsp Annatto Seeds (check Latino markets if you can’t find this in the grocery. It is also called Anchioto seed.)
2 Tsp Cumin seed
1 Tbsp whole black peppercorn
8 whole allspice
½ Tsp whole Cloves

Combine the spice mix in a blender with:
½ cup orange juice
2 Habanero peppers (I removed the seeds and veins for a milder sauce)
½ cup white vinegar
2 Tbsp salt
8 cloves fresh garlic

Blend this until smooth, then add:
Juice of 5 lemons
A splash (perhaps less than a shot) of fine tequila (I used Sauza Commemorative. Though I would have liked to have used something better, budgetary concerns took over.)

Cut 5 lbs Pork Butt into 2” cubes and place in a 1 gallon ziploc bag. Pour the sauce into the bag with the meat. While this marinates, preheat the oven to 325 degrees.

Line a large pan with Banana leaves and cover with tin foil. If you can’t find Banana Leaves, you can line the pan with tin foil as well. I did this in a cast iron pot and it worked fine. It was harsh on the cast iron, though, so I recommend another type of pot or pan.

Cook at 325 degrees for 4 hours. Serve over white rice or spanish rice. Shoot the cook.

2004-01-19T18:15:00.000-08:00

As long as I am posting movie reviews, here is one of a movie I rented last night.

If you haven't seen League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, DON'T. It was horrible. I can't find anything good to say about this movie. The character development relied on knowing who the characters were from literature. I didn't care about any of them or their problems or 'secret past' that they all seem to have but didn't explain. The story was minimally interesting and formulaic. The drama was melodramatic. The special effects were crappy. A lot of it was just unbelievable. The 'high tech' of 1899 was anachronistic. Radio? Tanks? Missiles? The automobile was invented, but the style in the movie was about 1920. How the hell did they fit a submarine the size of a nuclear sub in the canals of Venice or the Amur River? Why was it snowing in Mongolia in summer? Even the action scenes were unbelievable. It was painful. Halfway through, I was hoping it was going to be over soon.

It finally did end with a closing scene that reminded me of the Dungeons and Dragons movie. The scene started off seeming like a opening to a sequel and ended up making no sense. Is Alan Quartermain going to rise from the dead for a sequel? Let's hope not. The movie should have been buried with him. It was so bad, I didn't even want to sit through the special features on the DVD. I 'm the kind of guy that always watches the special features. I even watched the special features on the Beyond Reanimator DVD. The only thing that kept my interest through League was wondering what movies I had seen Peta Wilson in before because she looked familiar. It turns out she was La Femme Nikita in the TV show.

I am so glad they decided not to use Stuart Townsend as Aragorn in Lord of the Rings. It is ironic that he was cast as Dorian Gray when the reason for not using him as Aragorn was that he was too young.

Of course, all the main characters were drawn from 19th century literature.

If you want to read more about Dorian Gray, read 'Picture of Dorian Gray'.
Also:
Captain Nemo: "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea" Jules Verne
Mina Harker: "Dracula" Bram Stoker
Tom Sawyer: obvious
Alan Quartermain: "King Solomon's Mines" by H. Rider Haggard
Jeckyll & Hyde: "Dr. Jeckyll and Mr. Hyde" by Robert Louis Stevenson
Invisible Man: "Invisible Man" H.G. Wells. Not by Ralph Ellison; that is a completely different book about race in America.

Spending a week reading any of these books or even the comic book has got to be a better use of time than the two hours I wasted on the film.

2004-01-19T18:13:00.000-08:00

I have not been paying much attention to events in Iraq or politics recently. I follow it, but usually with no more attention to detail than any other news items. After my move, I found I had much more work to do, so I spent less time at work surfing the news outlets on the web. I know few people in the area, so I rent a lot of movies. I recently saw Return of the King (twice, actually.) Here is a reprint of a review I sent out by e-mail to some friends.

A newspaper in San Francisco called the Lord of the Rings "The Greatest Movie Trilogy of All Times." They said it with an apology to Francis Ford Coppolla (did he do the Godfather trilogy?) Their opinion was that it trumps Star Wars, the Godfather and (of course) the Matrix.

If you haven't seen it yet, don't read on.

I can't say which was my favorite scene, but Shelob's Lair exceeded my expectation. Leave it to a horror film director to draw out the horror scenes. For drama, nothing beats the Ride of the Rohirrim and the fall of Theoden. To see Theoden rallying his troops was one of the most amazing scenes I have seen on film. It was Shakespearean in scope and delivery. I am sure Bernard Hill is trained as a Shakespearean actor. Even in The Two Towers, I thought he was the most kingly person I had seen protrayed in film. In fact, I think Aragorn learned what it is to be a king from Theoden. Witness Aragorn's rallying the troops at the black gate. While it was stirring, it was a pale copy of Theoden's speech.

Arise, arise, Riders of Theoden!
Fell deeds awake, fire and slaughter!
spear shall be shaken, shield be splintered,
a sword-day, a red day, ere the sun rises!
Ride now, ride now! Ride to Gondor!

From that to Eowyn's slaying of the Witch King. "I am no man!" The geek-fan theater goers cheered for that line. The last scene between Theoden and Eowyn brought me to tears. It was not from the book, which proves that the magic of these movies is not just from Tolkien, but from the movie-makers as well. Whatever deviations from the book there were, I not only forgive, but embrace.

Can anyone not be moved by the scene of Pippin singing over the charge of Faramir's suicide mission while Denthor devoured his food? The juxtaposition of the impending slaughter of the Gondorian cavalry against Denethor's indifference while he ate overlain with the haunting melody of Pippin's song proves Peter Jackson's skill as a filmmaker.

John Noble played Denethor to the fullest as a madman. I would have liked to have seen more of his nobility, but one can find more of that on the Extended Edition DVD of The Two Towers. The audience gasped when he answered Faramir's question. "Do you wish Boromir were here and I were dead?" Quietly, Denethor whispered, "Yes." I get shivers from thinking of it.

The general quality of the acting in this film was phenomenal. No one actor shone above the rest. All displayed their talents to their best. Elijah wood showed the psychological torture of Frodo and his capture by the ring, Andy Serkis portrayed the pathos of Gollum, Sean Astin brought out the steadfastness and bravery of Sam, Orlando Bloom's bravura turned Legolas into a matinee-idol hero, John Rhys-Davies played Gimli to his comic best, Viggo Mortensen brought Aragorn to the height of nobility, Bernard Hill and Mirando Otto turned Theoden and Eowyn into Shakespearean figures. They all deserve the best actor nomination.

My only complaint was that it was too short. It was so fast paced, it seemed to be racing from scene to scene. It was obvious that Jackson planned on putting more in, given the sudden scene changes. By that I mean things like Sam having picked up Galadriel's light and Sting, Frodo and Sam losing the orc armor, Faramir and Eowyn standing together happily at the end of the movie. There were no scenes to explain these items, so I expect to see them on the DVD. (Next year. One more year to wait, then I will have no more Lord of the Rings to look forward to.)

___________________
Michael Tedin
Smeagol died for your sins.

2003-12-14T11:13:00.000-08:00

Saddam Hussein is captured. It is certainly a feather in President Bush's cap. Just this morning I was wondering what happened to the search for both Hussein and Osama bin Laden. One man down and another to go.

In the picture in the New York Times, he has a long beard and looks very tired. It appears he was able to keep some dignity, though he was found in a hole. It seems appropriate that Hussein be treated with dignity as a former head of state.

He was captured with $750,000 and a handgun in a hole beneath a walled compound in Ad Dwar, 10 miles from Tikrit. Two other Iraqis were captured at the same time with AK-47's. Hussein surrendered without a fight, apparently resigned to his capture. His identity was confirmed with a DNA test. It is not clear where they got the DNA to compare to, however.

At news of the announcement, Iraqis across the country celebrated by dancing in the streets.

What this means for violent resistance to US occupation is unclear. Hussein was not captured with any communications equipment, leading military observers to conclude he was not coordinating the insurgency. This means that the insurgency is decentralized and will likely continue for some time. He is apparently being talkative and cooperating with his captors, so much more information will probably come to light regarding coordination of the insurgency, other Baathists still at large, and, importantly for President Bush and Prime Minister Blair, WMD's.

He will likely be tried for his crimes, but it is unclear what powers will sit in judgment. Members of the Iraqi Governing Council expect him to be turned over to an Iraqi tribunal formed to try former Baathists for their crimes.

2003-12-11T09:44:00.000-08:00

Life has been very hectic for me over the past month. I moved to a new city the day after my 40th birthday. I began a slightly new job for the same company in a new city, so there was a lot of setup for that as well as moving all my stuff into an apartment.

I have not really paid a lot of attention to current events, but this caught my eye.

It seems the Bush Administration screwed up again. The day after the Paul Wolfowitz at the Pentagon announced that France, Germany, Russia and Canada will be cut out of any contracts in Iraq, the President asked those countries to forgive Iraq's debt to them. Bush was described as "distinctly unhappy" that he had to deal with foreign leaders who had just found out about being excluded from contracts.

Bush's unhappiness is understandable, given that the pentagon just threw away the administration's bargaining chips for dealing with Iraq's debt. In addition, this is likely to set back further the improvement of already strained relations with the anti-Iraq coalition governments.

Wolfowitz claims that the policy is not punitive, but forward looking. According to the directive, "Limiting competition for prime contracts will encourage the expansion of international cooperation in Iraq and in future efforts." Also, limiting the competition will "encourage the continued cooperation of coalition members." Talking Points Memo, December 10, 2003

The conflicting directives coming out of the Bush administration are tearing the government apart, as well as hampering reconstruction in Iraq and trampling 50-plus-year-old alliances with France, Germany and Canada. Josua Marshall at Talking Points Memo put forth an idea, tongue firmly in cheek. That is that we need a new executive branch foreign policy coordinator to "ride herd" over interagency disputes. Marhsall also suggested a name for the position, something like National Security Advisor. He has a point. I have given Condoleeza Rice the benefit of the doubt for a long time, but the breakdown of cooperation between the State Department, CIA, Pentagon and the Vice-President's office should never have happened, especially when all of these agencies needed to be united to fight an overseas war. Rice just has not been able to keep them all in line. Perhaps it is time to start looking elsewhere for someone who can.

2003-11-01T18:33:00.000-08:00

Here is a great article David Rieff in the New York Times Magazine that analyses the causes of the postwar mess in Iraq. The conclusion says it all:

Call it liberation or occupation, a dominating American presence in Iraq was probably destined to be more difficult, and more costly in money and in blood, than administration officials claimed in the months leading up to the war. But it need not have been this difficult. Had the military been as meticulous in planning its strategy and tactics for the postwar as it was in planning its actions on the battlefield, the looting of Baghdad, with all its disastrous material and institutional and psychological consequences, might have been stopped before it got out of control. Had the collective knowledge embedded in the Future of Iraq Project been seized upon, rather than repudiated by, the Pentagon after it gained effective control of the war and postwar planning a few months before the war began, a genuine collaboration between the American authorities and Iraqis, both within the country and from the exiles, might have evolved. And had the lessons of nation-building -- its practice but also its inevitability in the wars of the 21st century -- been embraced by the Bush administration, rather than dismissed out of hand, then the opportunities that did exist in postwar Iraq would not have been squandered as, in fact, they were.

The real lesson of the postwar mess is that while occupying and reconstructing Iraq was bound to be difficult, the fact that it may be turning into a quagmire is not a result of fate, but rather (as quagmires usually are) a result of poor planning and wishful thinking. Both have been in evidence to a troubling degree in American policy almost from the moment the decision was made to overthrow Saddam Hussein's bestial dictatorship.

2003-10-23T10:51:00.000-07:00

Thomas Friedman has a new editorial in the New York Times with specific suggestions to bring stability to Iraq. He directs his remarks to Republicans because Democrats have no voice in the administration or in Congress. Read his editorial here. His specific recommendations are:

1. Do not accept Turkish troops as peacekeepers in Iraq. Iraqis remember them as rulers before WWI. They have even less legitimacy in Iraqi eyes than do the Americans. This alienates mainly the Kurds, who have the biggest interest in keeping the Turks out.

2. Republicans need to recognize that attacks on Americans are rising in Iraq. We are not just conducting mop-up operations, but waging a full-on guerilla war.

3. We need to accept former Baath party members into mid-level Iraqi government jobs. Most of them joined the party to get the better jobs and are vital to American interests as the technocrats who can run the country. They make up the majority of the secular middle class and come mainly from the Sunni community, which the US is alienating through de-Baathification. By taking them out of the running for government jobs, the Americans take away any incentive they have in reconstruction. If former Baath party members perceive that they have no stake in reconstruction, then the Sunni community will continue to be opposed to the American occupation and violent resistance will continue.

4. The most difficult objective for the American administration is to prevent the growing split in the Shiite community between the moderates who are willing to give the Americans a chance and the more militant clerics who challenge American rule.

The bottom line is that America needs to promote a moderate political center in Iraq. This is the strategy that succeeded in Germany and Japan. It was not enough to drop money on those countries and $87 billion alone won't be enough to make us succeed in Iraq. As Thomas Friedman says, we need a strategy that will help establish a moderate political center and a middle class that has an stake in Iraqi reconstruction.

2003-10-16T11:01:00.000-07:00

Life has been quite busy for me in the past month. I have been getting ready to move out of town (into another state.) Here is the text of a letter I sent to my current and future Senators and Congressional Representatives.

Dear Senator,

I believe it is necessary to appropriate reconstruction money as well as money to support our troops in Iraq. I was against the war in Iraq and still think it was a bad idea. However, at this point, I feel the US has a responsibility to continue the job that we started. But I am not happy about it.

However, I think that $87 billion dollars is an outrageous amount. The Bush administration was not upfront about the costs of the war before beginning it. The administration undercut any international support for our actions by its arrogant go-it-alone attitude. Finally, the administration made it more difficult to pay for this war by drastically cutting taxes and putting the Federal government in deficit. I feel as if I was sold a car that I did not want and am now forced to take out a second mortgage on my house to pay for it. I am not happy about this.

I hope you bring this information to the rest of the Senate and hold the Bush administration accountable for its diplomatic and policy failures.

2003-09-14T10:11:00.000-07:00

Is it time to give up on the idea of a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Thomas Friedman brings up this idea in the New York Times today. Friedman argues that it is only a matter of time before Palestinians in the West Bank start demanding a voice in the government that rules them. That is the government of Israel. He argues that it will be difficult for Israelis and their supporters to argue against the principle of one man, one vote.

I had never thought of the implications until he brought it up today. It would give Palestinians a stake in the government that actually rules them today. It would ease the problems of the right of return issue, since most Palestinians are already within the boundaries of the one state. It would make the West Bank settler problem irrelevant. The security barrier would be unnecessary. It would bring peace and prosperity to the whole country.

Why not a one-state solution? The only problem is that we would have to give up on the concept of a Jewish state in the Middle East. This means that there would be no country founded on the basis of providing a homeland for members of the Jewish religion. Is this so bad? America is founded on the concept of separation of church and state and the idea that government is a secular institution. But our policy in the Middle East is that of backing the state of Israel as a Jewish state. Of course, bringing up this idea opens one up to the charges of anti-semitism. But if US policy in Iraq and Afghanistan is to provide an environment in which a secular government, independent of Islamic clerical influences, can be created, why is our policy towards Israel different?

There are other problems, of course. If there were one state within the borders of Palestine, Arabs would outnumber Jews. It is uncertain whether a state with a predominance of Arabs would continue to allow Jews to immigrate. It is unlikely that Israel would even agree to bring the Palestinians into the state of Israel under these conditions. Issues such as the right of return for Palestinians outside of Palestine would still be unsettled. What about the claims of Palestinian refugees' lost lands? These are lost lands that they either left or were thrown out of in the partition of 1948. That is over 50 years ago and the Palestinian refugees still remember them.

2003-09-12T15:14:00.000-07:00

Here is a fascinating article in the New York Times analysing the tax system in America. The main theme of the article is that the tax burden on the American middle class is lower than the rest of the industrialized world and has not been reduced over the past 30 years by either the Reagan or Bush I & II's tax cuts. In fact, the tax cuts were gifts mainly to the richest in America and have reduced the total amount of income taken in by the federal government with no appreciable impact in stimulating the economy.

It seems that tax cut advocates have convinced Americans that their taxes are too high so that American will accept a reduced government. The point of cutting taxes is to "starve the beast" or according to Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, ''I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.'' The point of reducing taxes is to create exactly the fiscal crisis that we are now facing in order to make it politically acceptable to reduce services.

But the benefits of tax cuts have not gone to the middle class. Any tax cuts for the middle class have been minimal and essentially a cover for radical cuts in taxes for the rich. The core of tax cutting plans have been cuts in dividend taxes, capital gains taxes, drastic reductions in tax rates on the highest incomes and repeal of estate taxes. The benefit of all of these tax cuts accrue disproportionally to the rich. According to this article, taxes were not cut for the middle class precisely in order to get the middle class angry that their taxes were too high. This way, the tax cut advocates could sell their plan of massive tax cuts for the rich by buying off the middle class with minimal tax cuts. So long as the middle class was getting something out of the deal, a tax cut package for the rich could sail through congress.

Essentially, "Tax Cuts" means "Cuts in Government Services." The question in the fiscal crisis we are now facing is whether we as middle class Americans want to cut services such as Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Police, Fire protection, and Schools or whether the minimal tax relief we receive is worth the loss of these services.

The conclusion of the New York Times article paints a frightening picture for middle-class Americans, especially those who are thinking about their retirement years or have already entered those years.

"If Grover Norquist is right -- and he has been right about a lot -- the coming crisis will allow conservatives to move the nation a long way back toward the kind of limited government we had before Franklin Roosevelt. Lack of revenue, he says, will make it possible for conservative politicians -- in the name of fiscal necessity -- to dismantle immensely popular government programs that would otherwise have been untouchable.

"In Norquist's vision, America a couple of decades from now will be a place in which elderly people make up a disproportionate share of the poor, as they did before Social Security. It will also be a country in which even middle-class elderly Americans are, in many cases, unable to afford expensive medical procedures or prescription drugs and in which poor Americans generally go without even basic health care. And it may well be a place in which only those who can afford expensive private schools can give their children a decent education.

"But as Governor Riley of Alabama reminds us, that's a choice, not a necessity. The tax-cut crusade has created a situation in which something must give. But what gives -- whether we decide that the New Deal and the Great Society must go or that taxes aren't such a bad thing after all -- is up to us. The American people must decide what kind of a country we want to be."

2003-09-12T09:20:00.000-07:00

This editorial was in the New York Times today. I think it is a true assessment of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

"You cannot equate blowing up children on a bus with building on land someone else considers his. But you needn't do so to recognize that the one step Israel can and must take now is to freeze the construction of settlements and dismantle the newer settler outposts. This is the necessary course not only because the American-sponsored peace plan, or road map, requires it, and not only because such a move might drive the Palestinians to do something significant on their side, like arrest or disarm a few terrorists. Ending settlement in the occupied lands is central to the survival of the Jewish state." New York Times, Sept 12, 2003

The Bush administration has been pressuring the Palestinians to crack down on terror groups in Gaza and the West Bank, but where is the pressure on the Israelis? They have to do something to make cracking down on terror worthwhile for the moderates in the Palestinian government. The moderates are only now beginning to gain some leverage within Palestinian society.

Unfortunately, rather than making a gesture of conciliation, the Israelis have decided to exile Yassir Arafat. While Arafat might not win a political beauty contest in Palestine, promising to expel him from the West Bank would do exactly the opposite of what is needed. It would unite the moderates and radicals in Palestinian society behind Arafat and further delay any crackdown on terrorism within Palestinian society. In such a situation, the radicals will have the upper hand and the ascendancy of the moderates will be delayed.

2003-09-07T11:11:00.000-07:00

It appears the Saudi Embassy is working overtime in its P.R. department. There was an advertisement in The New Republic describing the various Actions and Arrests made by the Saudi Government since September 11. Most the actions and arrests were made this year since May 12, when al Qaeda set off a series of bombs in Riyadh. The advertisement claimed that 500 individuals with suspected ties to terrorism were arrested since September 11, 2001, but it doesn’t say when those arrests were made. I suspect that most were made since the May 12, 2003.

As much as this advertisement shows that the Saudis are very concerned with American public opinion towards their country, it shows that they have gotten serious about terrorism in the wake of their own bombing earlier this year.

Among the specific arrests and actions:
Yousif Salih Fahad Al-Ayeeri, aka Swift Sword, was killed on May 31. He was a major al Qaeda operational planner and fundraiser.

Ali Abdulrahman Said Alfagsi Al-Ghamdi, aka Abu Bakr Al-Azdi surrendered. He is a top al Qaeda agent in Saudi Arabia and is suspected of being behind the May 12 bombings in Riyadh.

Turki Nasser Mishaal Aldandany was killed on July 3 with three other suspects. He was another mastermind of the May 12 bombings.

16 members of terrorist cells in Riyadh, Qasim and the Eastern Provinces were arrested on July 21.

Three men were arrested at a checkpoint in Makkah on July 25 for possessing a “religious edict” in support of terrorist acts against Western targets.

Six terrorist suspects were killed and 4 arrested on July 28 in Qasim Province north of Riyadh. The six killed were Ahmed Nasser Abdullah Al-Dakheel, Karim Olayan Al-Ramthan Al-Faridi Al-Harbi, Saud Aamer Suleiman Al-Qurashi, Mohammad Ghazi Salim Al-Wafi Al-Harbi, Isa Kamal Yousuf Khater, and Isa Saleh Ali Ahmed. The four arrested were Abdullah Hilal Al-Harbi, Mohammad Hilal Al-Harbi, Dhaifallah Hilal Al-Harbi, and Abdul-Elah Hilal Al-Harbi.

Three clerics, Ali Fahd Al-Khudair, Ahmed Hamoud Mufreh Al-Khaledi and Nasir Ahmed Al-Fuhaid, were arrested after calling for support for the Riyadh bombers.

I am curious about two of these actions. Those are the arrest of the three men at the checkpoint on July 25 and the arrest of the three clerics. Were these people arrested for anything more than carrying radical papers and speaking out publicly in support of terrorists? Did they do anything other than exercise freedom of speech and freedom of the press? I don’t know the details of any of these cases, but while we press Saudi Arabia for more in the war on terrorism, we must also encourage them to respect the basic freedoms we claim to enjoy in the United States as well. Security is important, but so are basic human rights and freedom.

2003-08-28T09:57:00.000-07:00

Deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan in the last two weeks, from Central Command Press releases:

August 28, 2003
CAMP ARIFJAN, Kuwait – A U.S. soldier with the 304th Civil Affairs Brigade died of undetermined causes at approximately 11 a.m. on Aug. 27 at Camp Arifjan, Kuwait. The soldier was off duty and in the living quarters at the time. After the soldier appeared unresponsive, fellow soldiers administered cardio-pulmonary resuscitation. Other attempts at reviving the soldier were made without success at a nearby medical clinic. The cause of death is under investigation.

August 27, 2003
BAGHDAD, Iraq-One 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment soldier was killed and three were wounded in an improvised explosive device attack in Al Fallujah at approximately 7:10 a.m. on Aug. 27. The soldiers were evacuated to a nearby medical facility for treatment. One soldier later died of wounds received.

BAGHDAD, Iraq – One 205th Military Intelligence Brigade soldier was killed and two were wounded in an improvised explosive device attack on a military convoy in Baghdad at approximately 7:45 a.m. on Aug. 27. The soldiers were taken to a nearby combat support hospital.

August 26, 2003
BAGHDAD, Iraq – One 3rd Corps Support Command soldier was killed and two wounded in an improvised explosive device attack on a military convoy near the town of Hamariyah at approximately 9:30 a.m. on Aug. 26. The soldiers were transported to the 28th Combat Support Hospital for treatment.

TIKRIT AND BALAD, IRAQ - A 4th Infantry Division soldier died as a result of injuries sustained in a traffic accident between Tikrit and Forward Operating Base Anaconda in Balad at approximately 6:40 p.m. on Aug. 25. The vehicle the soldier was riding in had a flat tire causing the convoy to stop along side the road to replace the flat. While changing the tire, a passing Iraqi vehicle was involved in a traffic collision, which caused it to spin out of control and strike the soldier. The soldier was evacuated to the 21st Combat Support Hospital for treatment. The soldier died of injuries received at approximately 10 p.m.

BAGHDAD, Iraq - A 130th Engineer Brigade Soldier died on August 25 from a non-hostile gunshot wound. The soldier was evacuated to the 21st Combat Support Hospital, where he later died. The incident is under investigation.

August 25, 2003
BAGRAM, Afghanistan - Coalition special operations forces and Afghan militia forces repelled an attack early this morning by anti-coalition forces leaving more than 14 enemy dead and no coalition casualties. The attack occurred in the vicinity of Tarin Kowt in the Kandahar Province with anti-coalition forces using small arms and rocket-propelled grenades. Coalition forces used ground and air assets in response to enemy fire. Coalition aircraft engaged the enemy forces with laser guided munitions and 25mm ammunition.

August 24, 2003
BAGHDAD, Iraq - A 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment soldier died on August 23 from a non-hostile gunshot wound. The soldier was evacuated to the 28th Combat Support Hospital, where he later died.

AR RAMADI, Iraq – A soldier from the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment drowned in the Euphrates River at approximately 8:30 p.m. Aug. 23 near the Hadithah Dam, west of Ar Ramadi. After a thorough search of the area the soldier’s body was found and positively identified at approximately 11 a.m. Aug. 24.

August 22, 2003
AL HILLAH, Iraq – A U.S. service member on duty with the I Marine Expeditionary Force died after being shot on Aug 21 in Al Hillah by an unidentified gunman. The service member was a passenger in a sport-utility vehicle that had been slowed by traffic congestion in a crowded area of the city. According to initial reports, a male approached the vehicle, shot the service member, and ran into a crowded market area nearby. The service member was taken to the Forward Resuscitation Surgical System at Camp Babylon, where he was pronounced dead.

BAGHDAD, Iraq– A 1st Armored Division soldier died, and six others were wounded in a small arms range fire. The fire broke out at a range in Baghdad’s Karadah district at 4:30 p.m. on August 21. The injured soldiers were medically evacuated to the 21st Combat Support Hospital, the 407th Forward Support Battalion and an Air Force medical facility. One soldier was pronounced dead at approximately 4:50 p.m. as a result of burns and smoke inhalation. Nineteen other soldiers at the scene were medically checked at the Battalion Aid Station and returned to duty.

August 21, 2003
MACDILL AFB, Tampa – A special operations service member died as a result of injuries received during operations in the vicinity of Orgun, in Paktika Province, AFGHANISTAN yesterday.

BAGHDAD, Iraq – A 1st Armored Division solider was killed and two were wounded by an improvised explosive device in the Karkah district of Baghdad at 11 p.m. on Aug. 20. The soldiers were evacuated to the 47th Forward Support Battalion for treatment. One soldier was pronounced dead at 11:50 p.m. The incident is under investigation.

August 20, 2003
BAGHDAD, Iraq – One U.S. citizen working as a contracted interpreter was killed and two U.S. soldiers were wounded in a small arms fire and rocket-propelled grenade attack in Tikrit on Aug. 20. The victims were all evacuated to the 28th Combat Support Hospital for treatment. The interpreter died of wounds received. The incident is under investigation.

BAGHDAD, Iraq – One 3rd Corps Support Command soldier was killed and another injured in a two-vehicle accident while driving south on the main supply route southeast of the town of Ad Diwaniyah. The soldiers were driving in a supply convoy of Palletized Loading System (PLS) vehicles when they received small arms fire and struck another vehicle. Both soldiers are attached to the 3rd COSCOM operating out of Kuwait. Security, medical and recovery assets were dispatched to the scene. One soldier died as a result of the accident. The other soldier was treated and returned to duty. The incident is under investigation.

August 18, 2003
BAGHDAD, Iraq – A 1st Armored Division soldier was killed by an explosive device on August 18. The incident took place in the Karadah District at 2p.m. The soldier was medically evacuated to the 28th Combat Support Hospital where he was pronounced dead at 3:15 p.m.

August 17, 2003
BAGHDAD, Iraq - Coalition forces engaged an individual in the vicinity of the Abu Ghyriab prison Aug 17. The individual was later identified as a reporter. The individual was evacuated to the 28th Combat Support Hospital and was pronounced dead on arrival. The incident is currently under investigation.

August 14, 2003
BASRA, Iraq - One British soldier has been killed and two others injured in an explosives attack in southern Iraq, the Ministry of Defence has confirmed. The soldiers were caught in the blast of an "improvised explosive device" hidden next to a lamppost.

BASRA, Iraq - In an unrelated incident, the MoD confirmed a British soldier had been found dead in bed on Wednesday night. An investigation into the death of Private Jason Smith, 32, part of the 52nd Lowland Regiment Territorial Army Battalion and serving with the 1st Battalion King's Own Scottish Borders, is under way. The MoD said there was no suggestion he had been attacked nor that his death was suspicious, and said it may have been related to a medical issue.

August 13, 2003
During the riots in Basra over the weekend, Twenty-one British soldiers were wounded by stab wounds or thrown bricks or rocks during the riots, Colonel Mendonca said. At least one Iraqi was killed, and on Sunday a security guard working for the civil authority here was shot and killed by unknown gunmen. New York Times

MOSUL, Iraq – A soldier from the 101st Airborne Division was killed and a civilian interpreter was injured August 12 when their vehicle was hit by a taxi. The soldier was evacuated to a nearby medical facility. The interpreter was evacuated to the 21st Combat Support Hospital.

BAGHDAD, Iraq – One 4th Infantry Division soldier was killed and two were wounded at approximately 6:15 p.m. Aug. 12 when their convoy was attacked by an improvised explosive device in the vicinity of Al Taji. The wounded soldiers were evacuated to a nearby medical facility.

TIKRIT, Iraq – One 4th Infantry Division soldier was killed and one wounded when the M-113 armored personnel carrier they were riding in struck an explosive device near the town of Ad Dwar at approximately 6:30 a.m. on Aug. 13. The wounded soldiers were evacuated to the 28th Combat Support Hospital. One soldier died of wounds received.

2003-08-28T09:30:00.000-07:00

It seems that things have been heating up in Afghanistan lately. Perhaps the anti-American forces there think that the US is bogged down in Iraq and will make a better target in Afghanistan. Two weeks ago, up to 90 people were killed by guerilla and terrorist activity there. The Taliban was blamed for the attacks, but it is likely that things are more complex than that. The Afghan government normally blames the Taliban for many things they might not actually be involved in. There are three factions to watch in Afghanistan. First is the remnants of the Taliban. They probably have more support among the populace than most people think. Their support comes mainly from the Pashtun south where fundamentalist Islam runs strong. Second is al Qaeda and the foreign, mainly Arab and Pakistani fighters that have come to Afghanistan to fight the US. These people are closely allied with the Taliban and share their philosophy. The third is the forces of rebel warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, a member of the Pashtun ethnic group who is also a former Afghan prime minister. His alliance with the Taliban is probably more out of convenience.

The US and the Afghan government have pushed back against the insurgents in the last two weeks. Heavy fighting has been reported in the area of Daichopan in Zabul province in the southeast of the country. Two fighters arrested in the area two days ago told investigators they were recruited by the Taliban and fighters loyal to Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. Associated Press, reported in the Kansas City Star on August 28 Fighting has been going on since August 25. Afghan officials had already claimed 70 Taliban losses in the first three days of fighting and 40 more on the 28th. The U.S. military has confirmed only 14 dead in the clashes. Reuters, August 28

2003-08-14T21:18:00.000-07:00

I just finished a book whose central theme was Compassion. It starts as a simple fantasy story set in a fantasy Orient. By the end, it is a wonderful story mainly about compassion. It has political intrigue and action, but also a spiritual aspect based on Buddhist teachings. The central event is that a monk offers to cure an invading army of the plague if they agree to lay down their weapons. This simple act of compassion save the heroes and the empire, causing the heroes to become the leaders of the Empire after the corrupt emperor is killed by his consort. It is a set of two books, Initiate Brother and Gatherer of Clouds by Sean Russell.

I felt guilty after reading it today because of my own small noncompassionate act. I have had a hive of yellowjackets growing near my front door. I let them grow there, creating their hive within the walls of my house. It has been growing to the point that there were always at least two, sometimes three or more yellowjackets present. Occasionally, they would buzz my head, forcing me to duck. This did not bother me, but I felt that it was dangerous to visitors and the postal service. I bought pesiticides to kill them. The pesticides smelled evil, like gasoline. So far, it seems to have been effective, but I feel guilty about having killed a living organism. My karma is not tranquil tonight.

2003-08-12T11:33:00.000-07:00

There have been reports recently of soldiers dying of pneumonia in the Gulf region. It is not easy to tell from CentCom press releases how many have died in this manner. It is likely that the soldiers that have been dying in their sleep are succumbing to this illness. There was another soldier who died in his sleep yesterday and one who died in an attack in Ramadi north of Baghdad in the "Sunni Triangle". Temperatures remain high in the region, though they are cooler by a few degrees north of Baghdad. Forecasts for Baghdad show 118 fahrenheit and in Basra 120 fahrenheit.

August 12, 2003
AR RAMADI, Iraq – One 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment soldier was killed and another wounded at approximately 10:30 a.m. Aug. 12 when their convoy hit three improvised explosive devices as they were traveling north of Highway 1 in the vicinity of Ar Ramadi. The wounded soldiers were evacuated to the 28th Combat Support Hospital. One of the soldiers has since been returned to duty. The incident is under investigation.

AR RAMADI, Iraq – A soldier attached to the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment died while sleeping at a base camp in Ar Ramadi on Aug. 12. The incident is under investigation.

2003-08-11T15:21:00.000-07:00

It looks like there will be some issues to smooth over with Pakistan soon. Did American forces cross the border from Afghanistan into Pakistan when pursuing the enemy? It appears so. The anti-American parties in Pakistan will probably make some political hay with this.

American forces in Afghanistan are independent of the NATO forces that are acting as peacekeepers in Kabul.

August 11, 2003
MACDILL AFB, Tampa - Today at approximately 10:00am local, coalition forces on patrol in the vicinity of Orgun, in the Paktika Province of Afghanistan, were fired upon by several individuals. Coalition close air support was called in and responded to the enemy forces that were identified and fleeing towards the Pakistani border. The incident resulted in the unfortunate and unintended engagement of Pakistani security forces in the area. Initial reports indicate that two persons died and one was wounded as a result of the incident. The incident is currently under investigation.

2003-08-11T09:16:00.000-07:00

Over the weekend (Friday through Sunday), five soldiers died in Iraq. Two died of gunshot wounds, but three died either of heat stress, or while sleeping. The temperature in Iraq has been as high as 119 fahrenheit. The temperature drops to a cool 84 fahrenheit at night.

Heat is also causing tensions to rise. Residents of Basra rioted over the weekend to protest fuel shortages. The British were forced to import fuel into Basra by ship. Continuing sabotage, looting and shortages of electricity are being blamed for the lack of adequate supplies of kerosene and gasoline. This situation has continued since the end April. Apparently, Iraqis are fed up with the situation and temperatures approaching 125 fahrenheit have increased the tension.

August 11, 2003
TIKRIT, Iraq – One 4th Infantry Division soldier was killed and two were wounded in an improvised explosive attack near the Ba’qubah police station Aug. 10 at approximately 9:45 p.m. The soldiers were evacuated to the 21st Combat Support Hospital for treatment where one soldier subsequently died of wounds received.

August 10, 2003
BAGHDAD, Iraq – A 3rd Corps Support Command soldier died from apparent heat stress on Aug. 9, while riding in a convoy north of Ad Diwaniyah. The soldier was evacuated to a nearby medical facility, where he was pronounced dead. The incident is under investigation.

BAGHDAD, Iraq– A soldier with the 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment was found dead in troop living quarters at approximately 5:00 pm. Aug. 9. The soldier was taken to the unit medical facilities, but could not be resuscitated.

August 8, 2003
BAGHDAD, Iraq – An 82nd Airborne Division soldier died of a gunshot wound at approximately 9:45 pm on Aug. 7 while on guard duty in the Al Mansor District of Baghdad. The soldier was transported to a nearby medical facility for treatment and subsequently died from wounds received. The incident is under investigation.

BAGHDAD, Iraq – A 4th Infantry Division soldier died while sleeping at a base camp in the town of Kirkush on Aug. 8. The incident is under investigation.

2003-08-07T16:04:00.000-07:00

Here are the press releases from the latest deaths in Iraq this week. Two died in hostile actions in Baghdad. One died of a seizure and one of a heart attack in Kuwait and one fell off a roof. I wonder if the seizure and heart attack were caused by the heat? It was 112 degrees in Baghdad and 118 in Basra.

August 7, 2003
BAGHDAD, Iraq – Two 1st Armored Division soldiers were killed and one wounded in a small arms fire fight in the Al Rashid district here at approximately 11 p.m. on Aug. 6. The soldiers were evacuated to the 407th Forward Support Battalion medical facility. One soldier died on scene, the other died later from wounds received in the incident. An interpreter was also wounded in the incident and received treatment at the medical facility.

MOSUL, Iraq- A 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault) soldier died at approximately 9:30 p.m. Aug. 6 after developing a seizure while performing duties here. The soldier was evacuated to the 21st Combat Support Hospital.

August 6, 2003
BAGHDAD, Iraq – A soldier from the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault) was killed when he fell from the roof of a fixed site at approximately 7:30 p.m. Aug. 5 in Mosul. The soldier was evacuated to the 21st Combat Support Hospital and was pronounced dead at approximately 8:15 p.m.

August 5, 2003
CAMP DOHA, Kuwait – A US soldier assigned to Coalition Forces Land Component Command died earlier today from an apparent heart attack. The soldier complained of having chest pains while performing convoy duties between Camp Arifjan and Camp Arlington west of Camp Wolf. The soldier was taken to the Kuwaiti Defense base and transported to the 801st CSH.

2003-08-05T09:09:00.000-07:00

Here is a list of all the press releases from Central Command regarding fatalities in Iraq since May 13, 2003. President Bush declared major combat operations over on May 1. An analysis of the numbers show that deaths were fewest in June. They increased in July, especially after the death of Saddam Hussein's sons Uday and Qusay. Simply showing the numbers of deaths hides the fact that, as time goes on, the percentage of deaths caused by hostile action is increasing as well.

August 2, 2003
BAGHDAD, Iraq - An Iraqi woman was killed Aug. 1 when U.S. soldiers fired in self-defense during an attack in the Al Mansor district. Unknown assailants dropped an explosive device on a six-vehicle convoy from a highway overpass at approximately 6:45 p.m. The woman was near the location where the explosion occurred. Iraqi Police Services officers and soldiers from the 1st Armored Division secured the scene. Neighborhood residents brought the victim to a local hospital where she was pronounced dead.

BAGHDAD, Iraq - One 4th Infantry Division soldier was killed and three injured at approximately 10:30 p.m. on Aug. 1, when their convoy came under rocket-propelled grenade attack south of Shumayt. Soldiers were evacuated to the 28th Combat Support Hospital. The incident is under investigation.

August 1, 2003
BAGHDAD, Iraq – A 1st Armored Division soldier died August 1 of a gunshot wound received at approximately 7:30 p.m. on July 31. The soldier was standing outside when a bullet, fired from a celebrating Iraqi, struck him. The soldier was evacuated to the 28th Combat Support Hospital and subsequently died.

July 31, 2003
TIKRIT, Iraq – One 4th Infantry Division soldier was killed and two were wounded in a small arms attack at a tactical operation center July 30 at approximately 11:45 p.m. about 40 km east of Ba’qubah. The soldiers were evacuated to the 21st Combat Support Hospital for treatment.

BAGHDAD, Iraq – One 1st Armored Division soldier was killed and three were wounded when their M-113 Armored Personnel Carrier hit a landmine on a road in Baghdad at approximately 12:20 p.m. on July 31. The soldiers were evacuated to nearby medical facilities for treatment. The incident is under investigation.

Bagram Air Field, Afghanistan – U.S. military police fired into an Afghan taxi today wounding three Afghan males about 1:15 p.m. A two-vehicle MP convoy attempted to enter Gate 1 at Task Force Phoenix but the gate was closed due to previously discovered unexploded ordnance in the area. The MP vehicles continued on Jalalabad Road toward Gate 3 when they were approached from behind by a taxi driving aggressively. The MPs attempted to wave off the taxi, but the taxi continued to aggressively approach the convoy. An MP in the rear vehicle fired into the grill of the taxi with an M-16 rifle. When the taxi did not back off, the MP fired into the taxi. The taxi struck the rear of the MP vehicle when the MP vehicle stopped. Two Afghans were taken to the ISAF hospital and the third victim was treated at the scene. Earlier, a two vehicle CJTF180 Civil Affairs convoy was attacked by an improvised explosive device about 10 a.m. The convoy was about 26 kilometers Southwest of Kabul en route to a school project when it was hit by the devices. Three separate explosive devices apparently activated by remote control struck both vehicles. One vehicle was disabled. No personnel were wounded in the IED attack. No enemy personnel were seen at the attack location. Unexploded ordnance was discovered by ISAF security at 7:15 a.m. near the front gate of the Task Force Phoenix compound East of Kabul. The gate was closed temporarily while the ISAF explosive ordnance disposal removed the ordnance. All of the incidents are under investigation.

July 28, 2003
BAGHDAD, Iraq - A U.S. Army soldier died and one was injured in a vehicle accident at approximately 2:30 p.m. on July 28, while traveling south along Highway 1 north of An Nasiriyah. The soldiers were evacuated to a nearby medical facility. The incident is under investigation.

On Monday, a U.S. patrol was attacked with a grenade in broad daylight in central Baghdad, according to Reuters, and two soldiers were badly wounded.

BAGHDAD, Iraq--One 1st Armored Division soldier died and three others were wounded at approximately 11:40 a.m. July 28 when an unknown number of individuals dropped an improvised explosive device from an overpass onto their convoy as it was traveling through the Al Rashid district of Baghdad. The soldiers were taken to a nearby medical facility. Two of the soldiers have been returned to duty. The incident is under investigation.

July 27, 2003
BAGHDAD, Iraq – One soldier was killed and one was wounded July 27 at approximately 2:30 a.m. when a rocket-propelled grenade hit the patrol they were on in the northern Babil province near the village of Al Haswah. The soldiers, attached to the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force, were evacuated to 28th Combat Support Hospital.

BAGHDAD, Iraq – Press release 03-07-82 dated July 27, 2003 regarding a soldier killed in a rocket-propelled attack in the northern province of Babil near the village of Al Haswah described the soldier as being attached to the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force. This casualty was a soldier in the U.S. Army and therefore should not be described as a Marine, but as a soldier.

July 26, 2003
BA’QUBAH, Iraq – Three 4th Infantry Division soldiers guarding the Ba’qubah Children’s Hospital were killed and four were wounded in a grenade attack here at approximately 11 a.m. July 26. The soldiers were evacuated to a U.S. medical treatment facility.

BAGHDAD, Iraq – One soldier was killed and two were wounded when their convoy was attacked with small arms, rocket-propelled grenades and possibly an improvised explosive device on Highway 10 near Abu Ghuraib on July 26 at approximately 1:05 p.m. The soldiers were with an engineer unit attached to the 3rd Infantry Division. Two soldiers were evacuated to the 28th Combat Support Hospital for emergency treatment where one subsequently died and the other is in stable condition. A third soldier was treated on site and returned to duty. Three Iraqis were also wounded in the attack. An investigation is currently underway.

July 24, 2003
MOSUL, Iraq – Three 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault) soldiers were killed when their convoy was ambushed by small arms fire and rocket-propelled grenades, while traveling to Qayarrah West outside of Mosul, at approximately 2:30 a.m. July 24. The ambush site was secured and the soldiers were evacuated to a nearby medical facility. The unit found two RPG’s and an AK-47 at the site.

Wed, Jul 23, 2003
MOSUL, Iraq– One 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault) soldier was killed and seven 101st AD soldiers wounded when an improvised explosive device struck two military vehicles traveling on Highway 1 outside of Mosul July 23 at approximately 6 a.m. The soldiers were evacuated to the 21st Combat Support Hospital for treatment. Central Command News Release

AR RAMADI, Iraq – One 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment soldier was killed, and a soldier and a contractor were wounded when their convoy was attacked by an improvised explosive device on Highway 1 in Ar Ramadi July 23 at approximately 7:45 a.m. The soldiers and contractor were evacuated to Life Support Area Dogwood at approximately 8:30 a.m. for treatment. Central Command News Release

American troops first surrounded the property at 10 a.m. local time on Tuesday, the general said. He said they attempted to enter but were repelled by small-arms fire, which was believed to be from AK-47's fired by the suspects, who had barricaded themselves on the second-floor of the house. Four American soldiers were wounded in that initial foray, the general said.
During the next two hours, the Americans fired grenades and rockets at the structure and riddled it with 50-caliber machine-gun fire. At noon, the Americans tried again to enter the house but received rifle fire and withdrew, General Sanchez said. After pelting the suspects with more 50-caliber machine gun fire, the American commander of the operation called in a strike of 10 TOW anti-tank missiles fired from Humvees. The assault appeared to have killed three of the four suspects. The battle ended when soldiers stormed up the stairs to the second floor and shot the remaining suspect. New York Times, “U.S. Reaffirms Identification of Hussein's 2 Dead Sons” July 23, 2003

USAT notes that "in the confusion of gunfire" in the city, a unit of the Florida Army National Guard, believing it was coming under fire, shot a man twice in the chest and shot a girl who looked between 6 and 8 years old once in the head. Slate, “Dead Heir”, July 23, 2003

Tue Jul 22, 2003
A U.S. soldier was killed and another injured in an ambush along a dangerous road north of Baghdad in the so-called "Sunni Triangle," a center of anti-American resistance. His death brought to 153 the number of U.S. troops killed in action since the March 20 start of war -- six more than during the 1991 Gulf War. U.S. Central Command in Tampa, Fla., said the attackers used rocket-propelled grenades and small arms in the assault staged along the road between Balad, 50 miles north of Baghdad, and Ramadi, 60 miles west of the capital. It gave no other details. New York Times

AR RAMADI, Iraq – A soldier attached to the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment was killed and one was wounded when their vehicle convoy was hit with a rocket-propelled grenade and small arms fire in an ambush at approximately 9 a.m. July 22 on the road between Balad and Ar Ramadi. The soldiers were evacuated to 28th Combat Support Hospital. Central Command News Release

The U.S.-led coalition's military occupation of Iraq has been met by constant armed Iraqi resistance, resulting in almost daily deaths of American troops. Many recent assaults have been staged with remote-controlled roadside explosions. While the military has not released figures on the number of attacks on American forces each day, a senior officer told reporters last week that the attacks were averaging 12 a day. New York Times

A firefight erupted when U.S. forces surrounded the home of a cousin of Saddam Hussein in the northern city of Mosul on Tuesday, killing four people. U.S. officials in Washington said they were trying to determine whether Saddam's sons Odai and Qusai were among the dead. New York Times, “4 High-Ranking Allies of Hussein Are Killed, U.S. Military Says” July 22, 2003

Four coalition soldiers were wounded in the operation. Briefing in Baghdad by Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, July 22, 2003

The International Red Cross says one of its aid workers was shot dead and another wounded when their car came under fire south of Baghdad. BBC, “Saddam sons 'may be dead'”, July 20, 2003

July 22, 2003
NUMEROUS POTENTIAL SUBVERSIVE ATTACKS DETERRED
BAGHDAD, Iraq – Coalition forces prevented several potential subversive attacks bringing the country of Iraq closer to a safe and secure environment.
A 1st Armored Division unit identified an improvised explosive device outside of their detention cell. The device consisted of three pounds of plastic explosives with an electronic timer in a black bag. An explosive ordnance detonation team disabled the device without incident.
Also at the 1st AD detention center, an unidentified Iraqi man dropped off a black bag containing a bomb with a timing device on it. An EOD team neutralized the bomb and removed it for further investigation.
A 1st AD unit conducted a raid at a house in a Baghdad neighborhood and confiscated one AK-47, one rocket-propelled grenade, one G3 assault rifle and two 69 mm tubes. Two individuals were detained. Additional raids on three other houses yielded two AK-47s, and one 9 mm pistol.
Military police from the 1st AD responded to small arms fire at the new Baghdad police station detaining one Iraqi in a vehicle with an AK-47. There was several brass cartridges found on the front and rear seats of the vehicle. The Iraqi was taken to the local brigade support area detention area for questioning.
A 1st AD infantry sniper team on patrol spotted two Iraqis with AK-47s in a library. The patrol searched the library and found 6-60 mm mortar rounds, one 82 mortar round, three rocket-propelled grenade-7 warheads, one 14.5 anti-aircraft gun and two AK-47s. The Iraqis escaped prior to the arrival of the search patrol team.
Another 1st AD patrol in Baghdad identified and neutralized an improvised explosive device. The device was a fragmentation grenade placed in a plastic container that was filled with gasoline.
An EOD team in the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force area reported finding four 125 mm high explosive tank rounds evenly spaced and camouflaged by foliage. The devices were set for command detonation approximately 100 meters from the road using a small tractor battery. Only one of the four rounds detonated.
The 1st MEF responded to a reported looting at an agricultural factory in Iskandariayah. Six individuals were detained and three AK-47s, one 9 mm pistol and four grenades were confiscated. Additionally, 50 rocket-propelled grenades and one large bag of 7.62 mm link rounds were found in a closet at the factory.
Finally, in the 1st MEF area of operation, the Iraqi police along with military police conducted a joint raid in Ash Shafiiyah and confiscated 140 grenade fuses, 654 7.62 rounds, 43 hand grenades and four AK-47s. One individual was arrested.
First AD soldiers confiscated three million Iraqi dinars, counterfeiting equipment for fake license plates along with numerous fake license plates a typewriter, two printers and a key board. One individual was detained for questioning.
Elsewhere, Coalition forces continued aggressive patrols throughout the country over the last 24 hours conducting 23 raids, 1,126-day patrols and 928-night patrols. They also jointly patrolled with the Iraqi Police conducting 145-day patrols and 162-night patrols. Independently, the Iraqi Police conducted 11-day patrols and 10-night patrols.
The total raids and patrols resulted in 154 arrests for various criminal activities including two for murder, seven for car jacking, four for aggravated assault, eight for burglary and one for looting.

Mon, July 21, 2003
In the latest strike on Americans, a roadside bomb exploded today near a military convoy in northern Baghdad, killing one soldier and his Iraqi interpreter, The Associated Press reported. Three other members of the First Armored Division were wounded. New York Times, “Wolfowitz Sees Challenges, and Vindication, in Iraq” July 21, 2003

BAGHDAD, Iraq – One 1st Armored Division soldier was killed and three others wounded at approximately 10:30 a.m. July 21 when their vehicle hit an improvised explosive device and was subsequently engaged with small arms fire in the As Sulaykh district of Baghdad. An Iraqi interpreter working with Coalition soldiers was also killed in the incident. The three wounded soldiers were taken to a nearby medical facility. Central Command News Release

Kandahar Province, Afghanistan – Special Operations Forces killed approximately 22-24 enemy soldiers when an unknown element attacked a coalition convoy in the vicinity of the fire base at Spin Boldak Saturday. The coalition forces drove through the kill zone, requested close air support and engaged the enemy forces, killing approximately five enemy and pursuing the remaining forces into the surrounding hills. AH-64 Apaches provided the air support, making several passes on the hill, killing approximately 17-19 more enemy. Central Command News Release

Sun, July 20, 2003
BAGHDAD, Iraq – One soldier was killed and two were injured in a military vehicle rollover accident July 20 near Baghdad International Airport. One soldier died at the scene. The two injured soldiers were taken to the 47th Forward Support Battalion for treatment. Central Command News Release

MOSUL, Iraq — Two soldiers of the 101st Airborne Division were killed and one wounded when their unit was ambushed with rocket-propelled grenades and small arms fire near Tal Afar July 20. The soldiers were transported to the 21st Combat Support Hospital for treatment. Two soldiers later died of their wounds. There were no reported enemy casualties. Central Command News Release

July 19, 2003
Bagram Air Field, Afghanistan – Two coalition soldiers and one Afghan Military Forces soldier were wounded when their patrol was ambushed north of Orgun-E about 11 a.m. today. The wounded soldiers were evacuated to Forward Operating Base Salerno near Khowst. They are in stable condition and are being moved to the U.S. Army hospital at Bagram. Enemy forces that engaged the patrol were armed with AK-47 rifles and Rocket Propelled Grenades Central Command News Release

BAGHDAD, Iraq – A 1st Armored Division soldier died from injuries received from a small arms and rocket-propelled grenade attack that occurred in the Abu Ghuraib neighborhood July 19 at approximately 1:30 a.m. The soldier was providing fixed site security at a bank when the unit came under attack. The soldier was evacuated to a nearby aid station and subsequently died. Central Command News Release

July 18, 2003
FALLUJAH, Iraq – A 3rd Infantry Division soldier was killed today as his vehicle passed an Improvised Explosive Device west of Fallujah. The vehicle was traveling east near a traffic circle when a command-detonated IED exploded, causing a one-and-a-half foot crater in the road. The vehicle took the brunt of the impact. The vehicle crossed two lanes and went off the edge of the road. No other soldiers were wounded in the attack. Central Command News Release

AL HAMISHIYAH, Iraq -- A Navy sailor from the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force died yesterday from a non-hostile gunshot wound. The sailor was treated at the scene but died before arriving at a nearby medical facility. Central Command News Release

July 16, 2003
BAGHDAD, Iraq – A soldier from the 3rd Corps Support Command was killed and three others wounded at approximately 9:55 a.m. today in a rocket-propelled grenade attack on their convoy as it was traveling near Abu Ghuraib prison in the western part of Baghdad. The soldiers were evacuated to the 447th Forward Support Battalion for treatment. Central Command News Release

AL HILLAH, Iraq - A 1st Marine Expeditionary Force Marine died here July 15, as a result of injuries received after falling from the top of a building where he was standing guard duty. The Marine was immediately evacuated to a nearby military surgical unit where he died. Central Command News Release

July 14, 2003
BAGHDAD, Iraq – A soldier from 3rd Infantry Division was killed and 10 others were injured at approximately 7 a.m. July 13 when the convoy they were traveling in was attacked by multiple rocket-propelled grenades. The convoy was returning from a routine patrol mission when it began receiving fire. An RPG hit the two-and-a-half-ton truck in the convoy. The RPG passed through the driver’s cab into the engine causing the vehicle to catch on fire. A second RPG hit the high mobility multi-purpose wheeled vehicle in the side and passed all the way through the vehicle. Ten soldiers were injured in the attack, three of them seriously. The soldiers were evacuated to the 28th Combat Support Hospital for treatment. Seven soldiers were returned to duty. Both vehicles were destroyed in the ambush.

BAGHDAD, Iraq – A 3rd Infantry Division soldier was killed and six others were wounded here in the Al Mansor district at approximately 6 a.m. July 14 when the convoy they were traveling in was ambushed in a multiple rocket-propelled grenade attack. The soldiers were evacuated to 28th Combat Support Hospital for treatment. Central Command News Release

July 13, 2003
BAGHDAD, Iraq – One soldier was killed and two others injured at approximately 6:30 a.m. July 13 when a tractor trailer crashed into their military vehicle, which was parked at a check point outside of a base camp near the city of Ad Diwaniyah.

July 12, 2003
Bagram Air Base, Afghanistan – One suspected rocket impacted in the vicinity of the perimeter fence at about 12:25 p.m. EST here today. There were no injuries or damage to equipment.

BAGHDAD, Iraq – Two 4th Infantry Division soldiers were wounded and one subsequently died from a non-hostile gunshot incident. Both soldiers were evacuated to the 21st Combat Support Hospital for treatment. The names of the soldiers are being withheld pending notification of next of kin.

July 10, 2003
BALAD, Iraq – A 4th Infantry Division soldier died on July 9 from a non-hostile gunshot incident. The soldier was evacuated to the 21st Combat Support Hospital and pronounced dead.

BAGHDAD, Iraq – Two soldiers were killed and one wounded in two separate hostile incidents on July 9. A 3rd Corps Support Command soldier was shot and killed when a convoy was ambushed by small arms fire near the city of Al Mahmudiyah at approximately 6:30 p.m. In a second incident, a 4th Infantry Division soldier was killed and one wounded in a rocket-propelled grenade attack on their convoy at approximately 10:30 p.m. The soldiers were evacuated to a nearby medical facility for treatment.

Bagram Air Base, Afghanistan – A U.S. soldier died of a heart attack Wednesday night at Bagram Air Base.

July 8, 2003
BALAD, Iraq – A U.S. soldier attached to the 101st Airborne Division died of a gunshot wound in a non-combat incident on July 7.

July 7, 2003
BAGHDAD, Iraq – A 1st Armored Division soldier died during a firefight July 6 at about 9:30 p.m. and a second was killed by an explosion shortly before 1 a.m. July 7. The first soldier was part of a platoon patrolling in the Ad Hamiyah neighborhood when two Iraqi gunmen ambushed the patrol. Soldiers pursued the attackers and during an ensuing firefight, the soldier was killed. One gunman was killed and the other wounded. Another soldier was killed when an explosive device struck his vehicle during a routine patrol in the Kadhimyah neighborhood at about 1 a.m. this morning.

July 6, 2003
BAGHDAD, Iraq – A U.S. soldier from the 1st Armored Division died as a result of a hostile gunshot wound received on July 6, while guarding the Baghdad University. The soldier was evacuated to 28th Combat Support Hospital, where he was medically retired. He subsequently died from his injuries.

July 5, 2003
AR RAMADI, Iraq – Seven Iraqi police recruits were killed and 13 were wounded in an explosion outside the city police department in Ar Ramadi, Iraq on July 5. The newly trained city police recruits were attending their graduation ceremony when the explosion occurred. Investigation by 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment explosive ordnance specialists state the cause of the explosion was a command detonated device usually set off by an electronic component like a garage door opener. No Coalition forces were present at the time of the explosion. The 3rd Armory Cavalry Regiment dispatched a Quick Reaction Force team to the site and a Coalition forces explosive ordnance detachment, which later investigated the scene, confirmed the cause of the explosion. The incident is currently under investigation by Iraqi Police and U.S. military authorities.

July 4, 2003
BAGHDAD, Iraq -- An Iraqi civilian attempting to place a bomb near a center for humanitarian assistance in Ba’qubah died July 3 when the device detonated. The blast also injured three Iraqis, who were taken away by other Iraqi civilians. Iraqi police responded to the incident, but were chased from the scene by a crowd. The attack is evidence of opposition attempts to deny assistance to Iraqis and further stabilize the country. Soldiers from 2nd Brigade responded to the site and dispersed the crowd without incident. The Civil Military Operations Center acts as a central point for coordinating humanitarian assistance with governmental and nongovernmental organizations and suffered minor damage as windows were broken.

BAGHDAD, Iraq – Two soldiers in the 4th Infantry Division area of operations are in stable condition following a mortar attack at approximately 10 p.m. July 3 at a logistics camp near Balad. Fourteen other soldiers were treated for minor injuries and returned to duty. The two wounded soldiers were evacuated to the 21st Combat Support Hospital for treatment.

In a separate incident, a patrol from the 3/7 Cavalry defeated an ambush on Highway 1 near Balad early this morning killing all of the attackers. The attackers attempted to engage the patrol with small arms fire and rocket-propelled grenades but were all killed when the patrol returned fire. There were no injuries to U. S. forces or equipment.

BAGHDAD, Iraq – A 1st Armored Division soldier was shot and killed by small arms fire while protecting the Baghdad Museum at about 8:30 p.m. July 3. The soldier was in the gunner’s hatch of a Bradley Fighting Vehicle at a guard post in the Rushafa neighborhood when he was hit.

July 3, 2003
BAGHDAD, Iraq – Three soldiers from the 1st Armored Division were wounded when a rocket-propelled grenade hit their three-vehicle convoy in Baghdad’s Sheikh Marus neighborhood. The incident occurred at approximately 10 a.m. (local) July 3. The soldiers were taken to a military hospital. In a separate incident, at approximately 11 a.m. (local) a red Mercedes approached a Coalition checkpoint at a high rate of speed. The soldiers manning the checkpoint signaled for the vehicle to stop. The driver failed to follow instructions and increased the car’s speed. In response, the soldiers fired at the vehicle, wounding three adult occupants. A young male passenger was not harmed. The wounded were taken to a local hospital. A search of the vehicle did not produce any weapons.

BAGHDAD, Iraq – A soldier attached to the 1st Armored Division died of a gunshot wound in a non-combat incident July 3 in Baghdad. The incident is under investigation.

BAGHDAD, Iraq – A 1st Armored Division soldier and a 6-year-old boy were wounded during a firefight in the Kadhimyah neighborhood at about 2:30 a.m. July 3. Soldiers were conducting a routine nighttime patrol in a rural part of Baghdad when an Iraqi man attacked the patrol, shooting one of the soldiers. The soldiers returned fire in self defense, killing the gunman and wounding a boy who was with the gunman. The soldier and boy have been evacuated to the 28th Combat Support Hospital and are in stable condition.

July 2, 2003
KARBALA, Iraq – A Marine from the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force died and three were injured here at approx. 2 p.m. July 2 while conducting mine-clearing operations. An Iraqi fire department technician accompanying the Marines was also injured. All individuals were taken to a nearby medical facility.

BAGHDAD, Iraq – A U. S. Army 352nd Civil Affairs Command soldier died of wounds received July 1, when his convoy was hit by an improvised explosive device in Baghdad. The soldier had been transported to the 28th Combat Support Hospital, where he was receiving treatment but died despite efforts to save him.

June 28, 2003
Bagram Air Base, Afghanistan – A U.S. Army soldier assigned to Task Force Devil died this morning at approximately 6:15 a.m. at Bagram Air Base. The soldier was medically evacuated to Bagram after the vehicle he was riding in overturned in a ditch in the vicinity of the firebase at Orgun-E, in Paktika province. The soldier was the gunner in a 2 1/2 ton light mobility tactical vehicle. The soldier’s name is being withheld pending notification of next of kin.

BAGHDAD, Iraq – A 1ST Armored Division soldier was killed and four wounded following a grenade attack on their convoy in Baghdad’s Thawra neighborhood June 27. A civilian Iraqi interpreter traveling with the convoy was also injured. All six people were evacuated to the 28th Combat Support Hospital for treatment.

Coalition forces today recovered the remains of two U.S. Army soldiers missing since June 25. The soldiers were recovered approximately 20 miles northwest of Baghdad and have been positively identified.

June 27, 2003
BAGRAM Air Base, Afghanistan - Three special operations forces members were wounded during operations in the vicinity of Gardez, in Paktya province Wednesday. One of the three service members subsequently died of wounds in the Bagram Air Base hospital.

BAGHDAD, Iraq - A U.S. soldier attached to the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force was killed in an ambush attack near An Najaf June 26 while investigating a car theft. Medical evacuation was immediately called but the soldier died prior to its arrival. The incident is currently under investigation.

June 26, 2003
BAGHDAD, Iraq – A search is currently underway to locate two U.S. soldiers, assigned to Combined Joint Task Force-Seven, who were reported missing June 25 from their post approximately 40 kilometers north of Baghdad. The soldiers were discovered missing when they failed to respond to a communications check. Upon arriving on location, a search patrol found no trace of the soldiers or their high mobility multi-wheeled vehicle (HMMWV). Ground patrols along with aerial assets are actively searching the area and surrounding vicinity where the soldiers were last seen.

BAGHDAD, Iraq – One special operations force service member was killed and eight injured in a hostile fire incident on the morning of June 26 in southwest Baghdad.

AL HILLAH, Iraq – A Marine died and two others were injured here June 25 when the light armored vehicle they were traveling in rolled over on a soft shoulder of the road. The Marines, part of the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force, were part of a quick reaction force responding to Marines who were engaged by hostile forces. The vehicle accident occurred prior to arriving at the ambush site. Three Marines were also wounded as a result of the ambush. All six Marines were immediately evacuated to a nearby military surgical unit.

June 25, 2003
BAGHDAD, Iraq – A soldier in the 1st Armored Division died June 24 in a noncombat incident. The incident is under investigation

June 23, 2003
BAGHDAD, Iraq- One U.S. soldier was killed and one injured in a grenade attack on a military convoy south of Baghdad, in Khan Azad, Sunday. The two soldiers were medically evacuated by ground ambulance to the 28th Combat Support Hospital. The soldier was pronounced dead shortly after arriving at the hospital. The names of the soldiers, who were assigned to the 1st Armored Division, are being withheld pending next-of-kin notification.

June 22, 2003
CAMP LEMONIER, Djibouti -- One U.S. Marine was killed and eight other U.S. service members were injured this morning by an explosion that may have been caused by a bomb dropped from a B-52 Stratofortress that landed near forces at Godoria Range, along the northern coast of Djibouti. The names of the service members are being withheld pending notification of next-of-kin. Two service members received minor injuries, were treated by medical personnel at Camp Lemonier and returned to their units. The other six injured service members were transported to Bouffard Hospital in Djibouti for treatment. Two CH-53E Super Stallion helicopters supporting the exercise and parked near the range were damaged in the accident. Forces supporting Combined Joint Task Force-Horn of Africa were participating in a Supporting Arms Training Exercise (SATEX), part of routine training for personnel here. The accident is currently under investigation.

June 19, 2003
BAGHDAD, Iraq – One 804th Medical Brigade soldier was killed and two injured in a rocket propelled grenade attack on a military ambulance June 19 in an area north of Camp Dogwood in the town of Al Iskandariyah. The ambulance was enroute to the 28th Combat Army Support Hospital transporting a patient injured in an unrelated incident.

BAGHDAD, Iraq - A Civil Military Operations Center (CMOC) in Samarra was hit by an 82mm mortar round June 18, killing one Iraqi and injuring 12 other Iraqis. Soldiers from the 4th Infantry Division reported hearing three explosions and contacted the Samarra police station to investigate the incident. Samarra police reported finding those injured and killed in the attack. Soldiers were unable to respond or find the perpetrators. This is one of numerous incidents recently where Iraqi resistors have attacked Coalition forces or Coalition Provisional Authority locations and injured or killed Iraqi citizens. The mission of the CMOC is to coordinate the military and civilian aspects of the humanitarian assistance effort by providing the linkage between the military commander and the other governmental agencies and non-governmental organizations in Iraq. No U.S. troops were injured during the attack. The incident is still under investigation.

June 18, 2003
BAGHDAD, Iraq – U.S. forces from the 204th Military Police Company responded in self-defense to a demonstration outside of the Office of Coalition Provisional Authority compound this morning when it became violent. A military convoy was entering the compound when demonstrators began throwing rocks. One demonstrator pulled out a weapon and began shooting. U.S. Forces responded killing two of the demonstrators. The two Iraqis were evacuated to 1st Armored Division Battalion Aid Station and confirmed dead. The demonstration, at a site of regular gatherings, was being held to protest the lack of jobs.

BAGHDAD, Iraq – A 1st Armored Division soldier was killed and one wounded in an shooting attack this morning at a petroleum gas distribution plant in Baghdad. The soldiers were evacuated to the 28th Combat Army Surgical Hospital.

June 17, 2003
Baghdad Iraq -- A soldier assigned to the First Armored Division died of a gunshot wound from enemy gunfire early this morning in the Northwest section of Baghdad. The soldier, taking part in a patrol, was sitting in a military vehicle, when he was struck in the back by a small caliber bullet at about 11:50pm (local). The patrol leader immediately secured the area and a combat medic began first aid to the wounded soldier. The patrol then transported the soldier to a nearby military compound where he was transferred to a ground ambulance and transported to the 501st forward support batallion aid station where he later died.

June 16, 2003
BAGHDAD, Iraq - A U.S. soldier died Sunday in an apparent non-hostile incident in the Taji area of Iraq. The soldier was evacuated to an Army medical facility for treatment, where he later died. The incident is currently under investigation.

BAGHDAD, Iraq – A U.S. Marine from the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force died at approximately 8:45 p.m. in An Najaf June 15 as a result of a non-hostile gunshot wound. The individual was evacuated to the combat support hospital at Ad Diwaniyah. The incident is currently under investigation.

June 13, 2003
CAMP DOHA, Kuwait -- One V Corps soldier died and eight others were injured in an armored vehicle roll over accident 20 kilometers south of Al Asad Air Base, Iraq at approximately 8:00 a.m. today. The personnel were traveling in an M113 Armored Personnel Carrier on a mission when they encountered a four-foot drop off on the side of the road that caused the vehicle to throw a track and roll over. One soldier was pronounced dead at the scene. Two others were flown by MEDEVAC to Al Asad Air Base for treatment. One soldier was immediately returned to duty and the remaining five are expected to be returned to duty later today.

CAMP DOHA, Kuwait -- A Coalition soldier was found dead in a lake contained within a military compound near Fallujah this afternoon. On Thursday at 5 p.m. (local Baghdad time) the soldier was reported missing and had been swimming. Fellow Coalition soldiers found some of the soldier's personal gear and clothing at the edge of the lake. These discoveries then led to a search of the lake and immediate area until it became too dark to continue. A thorough search of the lake and surrounding areas continued at first light this morning using of helicopters and Army divers.

June 12, 2003
MACDILL AFB, FL - Two prisoners being held by Coalition Forces at the Baghdad International Airport holding area tried to escape early today. One prisoner was subsequently transported to an Iraqi hospital where he died from gunshot wounds sustained in the incident. The other prisoner who tried to escape was re-captured.

DEPLOYED AIR BASE NEAR IRAQ — A U.S. Air Force F-16CG fighter aircraft crashed at approximately 6:30 a.m. local time today southwest of Baghdad. The aircraft was flying from a forward-deployed air base in Southwest Asia supporting operations in Iraq. The pilot ejected safely from the single-seat aircraft and was rescued at approximately 7:30 a.m. He was transported to the nearest facility for medical care. The cause of the incident is unknown at this time and will be investigated.

CAMP DOHA, Kuwait -- One AH-64 Apache was apparently shot down by hostile fire today in Western Iraq. Coalition ground forces were able to recover the uninjured two-member crew almost immediately and secure the crash site. Two additional Apache helicopters assisted in engaging irregular forces in the vicinity of the downed aircraft. All helicopters involved belong to the 101st Airborne Division.

June 11, 2003
MACDILL, AFB, FL-On June 6, an Iraqi detainee being held at a Coalition facility in the vicinity of An Nasiriyah was found deceased. The detainee had been in Coalition custody since May 3. A full and thorough investigation into the death is being conducted by the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, and the findings of the investigation will be released when the investigation is complete.

June 10, 2003
CAMP DOHA, Kuwait -- One paratrooper from the 82nd Airborne Division’s 2nd Brigade Combat Team was killed and a second injured Tuesday afternoon in a rocket-propelled grenade (RPG) attack while operating a trash collection point in southwest Baghdad. The soldiers were evacuated to a field medical facility for treatment, and one soldier later died of his injuries. The injured soldier is listed in critical condition. The soldiers were manning the trash collection point when a van with four passengers stopped in a nearby alleyway approximately 250 meters from their location. Two attackers exited the van, and each fired a rocket-propelled grenade at the squad. One RPG struck a vehicle and the other landed short of the soldiers’ location. Eyewitnesses at the scene of the attack said the attackers fled down the alleyway. U.S. Forces increased patrols and searches in an effort to find the assailants.

June 9, 2003
AD DIWANIYAH, Iraq -- An explosion at an Iraqi ammunition supply facility here killed three Iraqis and injured two others here Monday morning. Coalition forces sustained no casualties and evacuated the injured Iraqis to medical facilities for treatment of their injuries. An Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) team was directed to the scene to perform an assessment, and establish a protective buffer zone in the event of follow-on explosions. EOD personnel will assist in clearing the site Tuesday when it is declared safe. An investigation of the explosion is underway.

KARBALA, Iraq - A fire caused a series of explosions at a Coalition ammunition supply point here late Monday afternoon. There were no reported Iraqi or U.S. casualties and the fire was localized. The fire is not suspected to be a result of hostile action. Coalition forces evacuated the area and established a 4 kilometer buffer zone around the location. Explosive ordnance disposal experts will conduct an assessment to determine when the site is safe to be cleared of unexploded ordnance. The incident is under investigation.

AL QAIM, Iraq – One U.S. soldier was killed by small arms fire late Sunday evening while manning a traffic control point here. An undetermined number of assailants pulled up to the checkpoint in a vehicle and requested help for a "sick" person in the car. Two people armed with pistols then exited the vehicle and shot the soldier. Soldiers at the checkpoint returned fire, killing one assailant, and capturing a second. At least one other assailant fled in the vehicle. A search is currently underway to locate the vehicle and additional suspect(s) and bring them to justice. An investigation of the incident is underway.

June 8, 2003
CAMP DOHA, Kuwait -- Task Force 3-15 was engaged by small arms fire from a Mosque today near Fallujah. Based from intelligence reports of plans to attack U.S. forces, Task Force 3-15 conducted aggressive patrols in the area to gain contact with enemy forces. However, the Task Force did not engage the attackers in the Mosque. The unit came into contact with an enemy force of an unknown size firing from the same mosque the unit had contact from yesterday. No Coalition forces were injured, but they did detain two individuals. Pockets of resistance remain in the region between Fallujah and Ar Ramadi and they appear to be coordinated at the local level. Coalition forces continue to conduct active patrols to locate these pockets and destroy or capture the remnants of the former regime.

June 7, 2003
BAGHDAD, IRAQ -- Task Force 3/15 soldiers received automatic weapons fire from unknown assailants near a mosque in Fallujah, Iraq, yesterday at approximately 11:30 p.m. Additionally, TF 3/15 soldiers received rocket propelled grenade (RPG) fire from another location on the opposite side of the street. Task Force soldiers immediately returned fire, killing one individual, while the other attacker fled the scene. No Coalition forces were injured. The soldiers were patrolling on the northern edge of town when the ambush occurred. Pockets of resistance remain in the region between Fallujah and Ar Ramadi and they appear to be coordinated at the local level. Coalition forces continue to conduct active patrols to locate these pockets and destroy or capture the remnants of the former regime.

CAMP DOHA, Kuwait -- One soldier was killed and two injured yesterday, June 6, 2003, in a vehicle accident about 35 kilometers north of Baghdad. They were providing security escort to Coalition Provisional Authority personnel at the time of the accident. The wounded soldiers were evacuated to the 28th Combat Support Hospital for treatment.

CAMP DOHA, Kuwait -- One U.S. soldier was killed and four were wounded this morning near Tikrit, Iraq by rocket-propelled grenade and small arms fire. The injured soldiers were medically evacuated by helicopter and ground ambulance to military medical facilities in the area.

June 6, 2003
CAMP DOHA, Kuwait - A U.S. Navy Seabee serving with the First Marine Expeditionary Force died early Friday morning in Al Kut after handling unexploded ordnance near a barracks. The sailor was killed instantly and three others were injured and are in stable condition.

June 5, 2003
CAMP DOHA, Kuwait -- A U.S. soldier injured four Iraqis when he unintentionally discharged several rounds (exact count unknown) from his M-240 medium machine gun while picking the weapon up in Baghdad Wednesday afternoon. The four victims were struck in the legs, and one also received a grazing wound to the ear. All were evacuated to an Iraqi hospital for treatment of their injuries, which were not life threatening. The unit commander is conducting an investigation.

June 3, 2003
Bagram Air Field, Afghanistan – An Army AH-64 Apache helicopter crashed about 4:00 a.m. EDT (1:30 p.m. local Afghanistan time) today near Orgun-E in the Paktika Province in Southeast Afghanistan while supporting combat operations. The two pilots on board were not injured during the incident, however, the aircraft was significantly damaged. Security forces sent to secure the crash site picked up both pilots. The pilots will be evaluated at the U.S. Army Combat Support Hospital at Bagram. It is not believed the crash was caused by hostile fire, however the cause of the incident is under investigation.

CAMP DOHA, Kuwait -- A soldier assigned to the U.S. Army's Fourth Infantry Division died Monday evening as a result of wounds received when a checkpoint near Balad was attacked by unknown assailants. The attack was carried out with small arms and rocket-propelled grenades.

CAMP DOHA, Kuwait – At approximately 3:15 p.m. (Kuwait) Monday, Coalition Forces reported four soldiers from the U.S. Army’s 1092nd Engineer Company, a U.S. Army contractor from Kellogg, Brown and Root (KBR), and two civilian boat captains were found after they had been reported missing Sunday evening. When transiting up the Shatt Al Arab (SAA) waterway, they were taken detained by Iranians. They were not physically abused. The four soldiers and three of the civilians were escorted and released back onto their boats. The U.S. patrol craft, U.S.S. CHINOOK located them in the vicinity of the SAA at approximately 2:45 p.m. (local) Monday. The two drivers remain detained. Initial medical examination of the returned personnel indicates no injuries or signs of physical abuse. The returnees are en route to Kuwait onboard the U.S. naval vessel, U.S.S. FIREBOLT. Their boats are being driven back by U.S. Navy crewmembers in company with the FIREBOLT. The four soldiers, the contractor and two civilian boat captains were expected to return to the Mina Al-Bakr platform at approximately 11 a.m. Sunday. They were reported missing Sunday evening, when they failed to return to the platform Sunday.

May 31, 2003
CAMP DOHA, Kuwait -- Another soldier died early this morning as the result of injuries sustained from a motor vehicle accident that occurred yesterday in Iraq. This brings the total to three soldiers who died, and six who were injured as a result of the accident. Two soldiers died at the scene of the traffic accident yesterday afternoon between Mosul and Tikrit when their light-medium tactical vehicle (LMTV) rolled over. The soldiers were part of a unit attached to the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault). The injured soldiers were medically evacuated to the 21st Combat Support Hospital. The third soldier died while undergoing treatment at the facility. An investigation into the cause of the accident is currently underway.

May 30, 2003
CAMP DOHA, Kuwait -- Two soldiers were killed and seven injured when a light-medium tactical vehicle (LMTV) was involved in a traffic accident between Mosul and Tikrit today. The soldiers were part of a unit attached to the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault). The injured soldiers were medically evacuated to the 21st Combat Support Hospital for treatment.

CAMP DOHA, Kuwait -- Two soldiers driving in a U.S. Army Palatized Load System (PLS) supply vehicle accidentally struck and killed an Iraqi child while traveling south on the Main Supply Route Tampa (Highway 1), 20 miles north of Tallil, at about 11:30 a.m., today. Initial reports indicate the child was crossing the road and was hit by a cargo trailer. The soldiers called for an emergency medical evacuation helicopter immediately; however,the child died before the aircraft arrived at the scene. Coalition Forces continue to stress safety to its service members and keeping the Iraqi population informed about the dangers of crossing the main supply routes where military convoys travel.

May 29, 2003
CAMP DOHA, Kuwait -- Two civilians were killed and two were injured in Samarra late Wednesday night when they attempted to drive their vehicle through a Coalition checkpoint. At about 11:00 p.m., a vehicle moving an estimated 40 mph tried to drive through a well-established and well-lit checkpoint guarded by Coalition soldiers and three tanks. Soldiers fired numerous warning shots but the vehicle continued onward, forcing soldiers on the ground to jump out of the way. The soldiers then fired at it with a tank-mounted machine gun, killing two civilians inside the vehicle. Two other civilians in the vehicle were injured and taken to the Samarra Hospital. No coalition soldiers were injured in the attack.

SAMARRA, IRAQ -- On Monday at approximately 10:45 p.m., soldiers from the 4th Infantry Division conducting a patrol observed the occupants of three white trucks firing weapons in public. Based on initial reporting, two of the trucks passed by the soldiers without incident. The third truck fired shots directly at the soldiers, who returned fire in accordance with their inherent right of self-defense. The truck exited the area at a high rate of speed. No coalition injuries were reported from the incident. At approximately 11:10 p.m., soldiers were sent to the hospital to check for civilian injuries, in accordance with unit standard Operating Procedures after soldier exchange gunfire with hostile forces. The hospital reported that three dead young adult males had recently been brought to the hospital. The exact cause of their deaths is unknown at this time. Fourth Infantry Division commanders have met with local officials and tribal leaders to discuss the incident. The U.S. Army V Corps is conducting an investigation of the incident.

ANACONDA, Iraq – A U.S. soldier was killed by hostile fire while traveling on a main supply route in Iraq today. The soldier was evacuated to 21st Combat Support Hospital where he was pronounced dead. V Corps is conducting an investigation of the incident.

May 27, 2003
CAMP DOHA, Kuwait -- An updated report confirmed that another soldier was killed and two more injured following the attack on a U.S. Army unit in Al Fallujah early this morning. An initial report indicated only one soldier was killed and seven others wounded. This brings the total to two soldiers killed and nine wounded. The attack began when a hostile force of unknown size attacked a U.S. Army unit in Al Fallujah earlier this morning with rocket-propelled grenades and small arms. U.S. Army soldiers responded decisively with concentrated fire from Bradley Fighting Vehicles, crew-served weapons and small arms. They killed two attackers and captured six others. Initial reports indicate the attackers fired from a mosque in the city. The wounded soldiers were evacuated by both ground and air to military aid stations in the area. A U.S. Army medical evacuation helicopter was damaged during the fight when a Bradley Fighting Vehicle inadvertently struck it while maneuvering into a firing position. The use of a religious site, such as a mosque or church, as cover for military purposes is a violation of the Law of War. Coalition Forces strive to honor and respect the sanctity of religious places and locations like an Islamic Mosque. A fighting force, however, has an inherent right to defend itself from an attack. Coalition Forces will always defend themselves in a manner that minimizes harm to innocent life, protected sites and civilian property.

May 26, 2003
CAMP VICTORY, IRAQ -- A U.S. soldier drowned Monday afternoon after diving into an aqueduct south of Kirkuk, Iraq. Members of his squad retrieved the soldier when he did not resurface. Medical personnel attempted to revive the soldier when they arrived at the scene, and he was transported via helicopter to a field medical facility, where he subsequently died. The soldier's name and unit are being withheld pending next-of-kin notification. The U.S. Army is investigating the accident.

BAGHDAD, Iraq – One U.S. soldier was killed and three injured this afternoon when a High-Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV) ran over a landmine or unexploded ordnance on Highway 8. The incident occurred at approximately 5 p.m. local time, and appears to be a result of hostile action, though the specific circumstances of the incident are unconfirmed. Other patrols in the area came directly to the aid of the soldiers. The injured were medically evacuated by helicopter to military aid stations in the area for treatment of their injuries

CAMP VICTORY, IRAQ -- One soldier was killed and two injured while traveling down a main supply route northwest of Talil today. A tractor-trailer collided with a high mobility multi-purpose wheeled vehicle (HMMWV). The soldiers were evacuated to a military medical treatment facility.

CAMP DOHA, Kuwait -- One U.S. soldier was killed this morning, and another wounded when a 3d Armored Cavalry Regiment convoy was attacked this morning near Hadithah, a town about 120 miles northwest of Baghdad. The eight-vehicle convoy was conducting a resupply mission from Al Asad Air Base to Al Qaim when it was attacked at about 6:15 a.m. (11:15 p.m., May 25 EST). An unknown number of attackers fired small arms, rocket-propelled grenades and heavy machine guns at the convoy. Attack helicopters and ground forces were immediately brought in to secure the area and seek out the attackers. The injured soldier was evacuated by helicopter.

May 25, 2003
AD DIWANIYAH, IRAQ – One U.S. soldier was killed and another injured Sunday in an explosion at facility which contained Iraqi ammunition here. The explosion occurred at approximately 9:00 a.m. (2 a.m. EST), and is not thought to be a result of hostile action. The soldiers were performing guard duties at the time of the explosion. The injured soldier was transported to a field medical hospital, where he underwent surgery for his injuries. An investigation is underway into the cause of the explosion.

May 21, 2003
CAMP DOHA, Kuwait - A Task Force Ironhorse soldier was killed early this morning near Baqubah, approximately 30 miles north of Baghdad. The soldier was involved in a mounted force protection patrol when the High-Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV) he was riding in rolled over. One passenger suffered a bruised leg and the driver of the vehicle was not injured. The incident is under investigation.

May 20, 2003
Al Hillah, Iraq - A 1st Marine Expeditionary Force Ch-46 Sea-Knight helicopter crashed shortly after take-off yesterday afternoon in the Shat Al Hillah Canal. The helicopter and crew of four went down shortly before 4 p.m. (local time), while conducting a re-supply mission in support of civil military operations. No survivors have been found. Two Marines on the bank of the canal entered the water and one drowned attempting a rescue of the crewmembers. Local Iraqis and Marines assisted in recovering the Marines who attempted the rescue and they were subsequently evacuated. Remaining Marines in the area immediately secured the crash site and summoned assistance. A recovery effort is underway and a dive teams are en-route to the site. The cause of the mishap is under investigation.

BAGHDAD, Iraq – A 3rd Infantry Division (Mechanized) soldier was shot in the chest at a traffic control point Monday evening. The soldier is in stable condition a Forward Surgical Team facility. The soldier's name is being withheld pending notification of next of kin. The incident is under investigation.

BAGRAM AIR BASE, Afghanistan – A U.S. Soldier died of unknown causes Sunday in Kabul after completing a physical training run.Sgt. 1st Class John E. Taylor, 31, of Wichita Falls, Texas was pronounced dead at the International Security Assistance Force Hospital in Kabul, after U.S. and coalition medical personnel provided emergency medical treatment.Taylor was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 3rd Special Forces Group from Fort Bragg, North Carolina.

May 19, 2003
CAMP DOHA, Kuwait - A U.S. soldier and an Iraqi citizen were killed Monday afternoon in a multi-vehicle accident on Highway 8 near Safwan, Iraq. Two High-Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles (HMMWV) and one civilian truck were involved in the accident. Two soldiers who were injured in the accident were evacuated to a field hospital for treatment of their injuries.

May 18, 2003
CAMP DOHA, Kuwait – A 1 Marine Expeditionary Force Marine died and one Marine was injured today in a truck accident.The Marines were traveling in a large transport truck (LVS - Logistics Vehicle System) when it rolled over approximately 30 km. southeast of Al Samawah. The Marines were traveling to a pumping station while in support of civil military operations when the accident occurred.Both Marines were flown via helicopter to 28th Combat Support Hospital. One Marine died of his injuries enroute to the hospital and one is listed in stable condition and expected to fully recover. The cause of the accident is under investigation.

CAMP DOHA, Kuwait – A U.S. soldier from the Fourth Infantry Division died at approximately 10:00 a.m. today in Iraq as a result of a non-hostile gunshot would. The soldier was medically evacuated by air to an army medical treatment facility. An investigation is currently being conducted.

CAMP DOHA, Kuwait – One V Corps solider was killed and three others injured in the detonation of a piece of unexploded ordnance in Baghdad on Saturday. No further details on the circumstances of the accident are available. The injured soldiers were evacuated to a field medical facility for treatment of their injuries. An investigation of the incident is underway.

CAMP DOHA, Kuwait – A Rocket-Propelled Grenade (RPG) destroyed a U.S. Army tanker truck at Iraqi fuel storage depot in Baghdad Saturday evening. There were no Coalition or civilian casualties, though the vehicle was destroyed in the attack. The vehicle was on a humanitarian assistance fuel mission at the time of the attack. United States Marines apprehended and detained four Iraqis for questioning. On Saturday, two soldiers were injured when an RPG struck their U.S. Army 5-ton truck near Habbaniyah. They were transported to a field medical hospital for treatment of their injuries, which were not life threatening. The search for the perpetrators of the attack is ongoing.

May 15, 2003
CAMP DOHA, Kuwait -- One soldier was killed and two were injured at 12:04 p.m. May 14 when a five-ton vehicle in a unit attached to the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault) was involved in a traffic accident on Highway 2 near Irbil, Iraq. A preliminary investigation indicates that the driver of the vehicle swerved to avoid a civilian vehicle, and this action caused them to head toward a child. The soldier then swerved to avoid the child, and the truck rolled over. A more thorough investigation is being conducted. The injured soldiers sustained minor injuries.

May 14, 2003
AL HILLAH, Iraq – A First Marine Expeditionary Force Marine died yesterday afternoon when he was trapped in a munitions bunker that caught fire and exploded. The Marine was loading ammunition from an Iraqi bunker near Al Hillah onto a vehicle when the incident occurred. The circumstances surrounding the incident are under investigation. Unused enemy ammunition and unexploded ordnance is being collected and destroyed by Marine Expeditionary Force units to make the country safer for the people of Iraq.

May 13, 2003
TAJI, Iraq -- Fourth Infantry Division soldiers moving barrels in order to get to ammunition in a warehouse in the vicinity of Taji this afternoon were exposed to an unknown industrial chemical that leaked out of a 55-gallon drum. All soldiers involved were decontaminated at the scene. Twenty-two soldiers were medically evacuated to the 21st Combat Support Hospital for evaluation and treatment, and four are being held for observation at the battalion aid station. A FOX chemical detection vehicle dispatched to the site indicated the chemical was not a nerve, blister or blood chemical agent and confirmed it as an industrial toxin. Further tests on the chemical are being conducted.

CAMP CHESTY, IRAQ – Two First Marine Expeditionary Force Marines died May 12 of wounds inflicted when unexploded ordnance they were handling detonated. The Marines received immediate medical attention, but died from their injuries. The incident is under investigation.

2003-07-24T16:17:00.000-07:00

Edward Said has an interesting column in Al Ahram today. In it, he argues that imperial policy is supported by an imperial perspective on the part of the controlling power. This perspective is "that way of looking at a distant foreign reality by subordinating it to one's gaze, constructing its history from one's own point of view, seeing its people as subjects whose fate is to be decided not by them but by what distant administrators think is best for them." Al Ahram, "Imperial perspectives", July 24, 2003

"[American views of Arabs] are so incompetent and ideological; they provide Americans not with ideas about Arabs and Muslims, but rather with the way they would like Arabs and Muslims to be. For a great and enormously wealthy country to be producing the kind of mismanaged, poorly prepared and incredibly incompetent occupation of Iraq that is taking place today is a travesty, on intellectual grounds, and how a moderately intelligent bureaucrat like Paul Wolfowitz could be running policies of such colossal incompetence and, at the same time, convincing people that he knows what he is doing, boggles the mind." Al Ahram, "Imperial perspectives", July 24, 2003

Edward Said is a historian and author who writes mainly about Arab affairs. He is highly critical of the most popular western orientalist, Bernard Lewis, for distorting Arab culture and history and creating the "imperial perspective" with which Americans view the Arab world.

2003-07-23T09:30:00.000-07:00

Apparently, the death of Uday and Qusay will not stop attacks on US soldiers, at least in the short run. One soldier was killed and seven wounded this morning when two vehicles were struck by a bomb while traveling on a road outside Mosul. In another attack about an hour and a half later, a soldier was killed when his convoy was hit by a bomb in Ar Ramadi. Another soldier and a contractor working with the American military were wounded. New York Times, “U.S. Reaffirms Identification of Hussein's 2 Dead Sons” July 23, 2003

More details on the attack on the building in Mosul where Saddam Hussein's sons, Uday and Qusay were killed: American troops first surrounded the property at 10 a.m. local time on Tuesday, the general said. He said they attempted to enter but were repelled by small-arms fire, which was believed to be from AK-47's fired by the suspects, who had barricaded themselves on the second-floor of the house. Four American soldiers were wounded in that initial foray, the general said.
During the next two hours, the Americans fired grenades and rockets at the structure and riddled it with 50-caliber machine-gun fire. At noon, the Americans tried again to enter the house but received rifle fire and withdrew, General Sanchez said. After pelting the suspects with more 50-caliber machine gun fire, the American commander of the operation called in a strike of 10 TOW anti-tank missiles fired from Humvees. The assault appeared to have killed three of the four suspects. The battle ended when soldiers stormed up the stairs to the second floor and shot the remaining suspect. New York Times, “U.S. Reaffirms Identification of Hussein's 2 Dead Sons” July 23, 2003

2003-07-22T10:46:00.000-07:00

The BBC is reporting that Saddam Hussein's two sons, Uday and Qusay might have been killed in a US raid on a tribal leader's home in Mosul. "Details of the raid remain sketchy but it is understood that, following a tip-off, about 200 US soldiers surrounded a large house belonging to a local tribal leader. A four-hour gun fight ensued and the house was destroyed. The bodies of four Iraqis were then recovered." BBC, "Saddam sons 'may be dead'", July 20, 2003

A unnamed US official in Iraq told Associated Press that investigators were "awaiting positive DNA testing" to confirm the identities of the bodies, while a US official told Reuters two corpses bore a "strong resemblance" to Saddam's sons. He said the bodies were not in the best condition - but "there is optimism within the ranks."

If the report is true, it would be a major accomplishment for coalition forces in Iraq. It is bound to improve US soldier's sagging morale as well as encourage anti-Baathists to come forward.

2003-07-22T10:11:00.000-07:00

I am going to start reporting on deaths and attacks among Coalition forces in Iraq. I am curious to know whether attacks are increasing or decreasing in intensity. Perhaps the number will be higher during the summer, when high temperatures increase tensions.

2003-07-22T10:09:00.000-07:00

A U.S. soldier was killed and another injured in an ambush along a dangerous road north of Baghdad in the so-called "Sunni Triangle," a center of anti-American resistance. His death brought to 153 the number of U.S. troops killed in action since the March 20 start of war -- six more than during the 1991 Gulf War. U.S. Central Command in Tampa, Fla., said the attackers used rocket-propelled grenades and small arms in the assault staged along the road between Balad, 50 miles north of Baghdad, and Ramadi, 60 miles west of the capital. It gave no other details. New York Times

2003-07-18T09:03:00.000-07:00

Washington has been in a tizzy over the past week about whom to blame for the African Uranium intelligence fiasco. Here's an interesting site that might shed some light on the subject. http://www.whitehouse.gov/stateoftheunion/behindthescenes/05.html

2003-07-17T12:02:00.000-07:00

Is the President a liar or just stupid? OK, that is a harsh question, but how do you explain some of the patently false statements that come out of his mouth? I am not speaking of the whole Uranium in Africa affair (dubbed Urain'tium by some bloggers). Rather, there seems to be a pervasive culture of misinformation and suppression of information at the White House.

July 14, 2003: "And we gave him [Saddam Hussein] a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power, along with other nations, so as to make sure he was not a threat to the United States and our friends and allies in the region." George Bush

But Saddam Hussein did allow the inspectors unconditional and unfettered access to facilities in Iraq. It was because the Bush administration didn't believe that the inspectors could uncover WMD that the US decided to remove Hussein from power.

May 30, 2003: "We've found the weapons of mass destruction. You know, we found biological laboratories. You remember when Colin Powell stood up in front of the world and he said Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons. They're illegal. They're against the United Nations' resolutions and we've so far discovered two." George Bush

But these 'mobile labs' had no evidence of biological agents in them at all. It has yet to be proved that these mobile labs were used or designed to be used for biological weapons, but George Bush stated that they are as if it had been proved.

April 26, 2003: "My jobs and growth plan would reduce tax rates for everyone who pays income tax." George Bush

In fact, over 8 million people who pay taxes will receive no tax cut at all.

February 3, 2003 "The budget would be in double digit deficit if had there never been a tax cut in 2001. The budget returned to deficit because of war, recession and emergencies associated with the terrorist attacks of September 11th." Fact Sheet: President Bush's 2004 Budget

In fact, "The deterioration in the performance of the economy together with income tax relief … produced a drop in the surplus to $127.1 billion (1.3% of GDP) and a return to deficits." This was written by the White House Office of Management and Budget. Quoted in Slate, Why This Bush Lie? Part 1, July 15, 2003. What is concerning about this mistruth is that it is unlikely to be a factor of the low intelligence of the President and indicates a deliberate pattern of mistruth in the White House.

June 19, 2003 The Bush Administration is accused of "heavy handed" censorship of an EPA's draft report. The White House Council on Environmental Quality ordered sections removed from the report long sections describing the risks of global warming. NY Times, "REPORT BY E.P.A. LEAVES OUT DATA ON CLIMATE CHANGE"

Is seems misinformation is widespread at the White House, and not just regarding the War in Iraq.

2003-07-17T11:34:00.000-07:00

Poor Planning Keeps Troops on the Ground in Iraq

The US Army recently announced that all of the 3rd Infantry Division, the soldiers who seized Baghdad from Saddam Hussein’s regime, would be home by the end of September. Now we hear that the homecoming date has been changed to indefinite. These soldiers who were on the front lines, and still are, have been away from their families for about a year. Neither they nor their families know when they will see each other again. Why the confusion and uncertainty? We can blame it again on failed diplomacy by the Bush administration.

Most observers agree at this point that the US needs to keep up troop levels in Iraq in order to maintain security and to combat what the commander of US forces in Iraq, General John Abazaid, calls "a classical guerrilla-type campaign". NY Times, “U.S. Commander in Iraq Says Yearlong Tours Are Option to Combat 'Guerrilla' War” July 17, 2003. Some are even calling for more troops. However, the US has none to spare and many are saying that US forces are already spread thin across the world. The US has 33 active-duty combat brigades and 21 are on duty. Sixteen are in Iraq and two in Afghanistan. Two are in Korea and one in the Balkans. NY Times, July 17, 2003. Congress is putting pressure on the Bush administration to find some way of sharing the cost of policing Iraq. Last week, Donald Rumsfeld admitted that the cost of the occupation in Iraq was as high as $3.9 billion per month. LA Times, “U.S. May Seek U.N. Assistance in Volatile Iraq”, July 17, 2003

Earlier this month, the US went, hat in hand, looking for allies to contribute more than 17,000 troops to a security force for Iraq, but got rebuffed. France and India specifically said that they would not contribute forces without a UN resolution authorizing it. LA Times, July 17, 2003 Colin Powell is discussing the possibility of a UN resolution for this purpose, but it is not clear how likely such a resolution will be received, given the cold shoulder the US has given the UN in the past 6 month. The US has limited U.N. activities in Iraq to humanitarian relief and has sought assistance from other countries on a nation-by-nation basis. Undoubtedly, countries such as France, Germany and Russia will be looking for some concessions from the US in return for shouldering part of the security burden in Iraq. Some concessions likely to be sought would be that any peacekeeping and reconstruction would be done under UN auspices, rather than controlled completely by the US. NY Times, Europe Weighs Helping Out in Iraq, but Under Its Own Terms, July 15, 2003 Even so, it is unlikely Germany or France will contribute troops, even with a UN mandate. LA Times, July 17, 2003

Much has been made by media pundits of the poor planning that went into post-war occupation of Iraq. It is widely accepted that the US Defense Department did not expect the level of resistance to be this high after the fall of Saddam Hussein’s regime. Some at the Pentagon claim that the chaos now seen in Iraq is a natural result of a winning war strategy. NY Times, A Perfect War?, July 11, 2003 This argument seems to be, “We won the war, so don’t get so hung up on winning the peace.” But it is the post-war situation that could cause greater instability in the middle east and the world in the long run. While the war plan was sound and very successful, the Bush administration gave short shrift to how it planned to transform Iraq into a liberal democratic nation. Part of the poor planning was the failure to bring allies on board. The only significant ally that we were able to bring along was Britain. While we may have gotten troops from Australia and Poland and gotten political support from Spain and Italy, this is not enough to keep the peace and reconstruct Iraq. Now, because of the obstinate refusal to take into account the concerns of the international community before the war, the US is isolated and cannot gain the support it needs to do the job it needs to do in Iraq. Perhaps this will be a lesson to the hawks in the Bush administration. Somehow, I doubt it.

2003-07-16T14:47:00.000-07:00

According to Central Command:
34 American soldiers have have been killed in combat actions since President Bush declared the end of major combat operations in Iraq on May 1
49 have died in other incidents such as traffic accidents and weapons discharges
Before today, 300 American soldiers had been wounded in combat and 315 in noncombat incidents since May 1.
New York Times

2003-07-12T13:07:00.000-07:00

There has been a lot of discussion in the media recently about the quality of the intelligence used to support the war against Iraq. Why is this important? The war is over and most people thought it was a good idea or at least the results of the war were positive. Why go back and revisit issues that were discussed six months ago?

Because democratic processes are subverted when intelligence is manipulated to affect decisions by elected officials and the public. The doctrine of preemptive war “requires the public to base its support or opposition on expert intelligence to which it has no direct access. It is up to the president and his administration--with a deep interest in a given policy outcome--nonetheless to portray the intelligence community's findings honestly. If an administration represents the intelligence unfairly, it effectively forecloses an informed choice about the most important question a nation faces: whether or not to go to war.” The New Republic, "The First Casualty", June 30, 2003

In a Washington DC based blog, talkingpointsmemo.com Joshua Micah Marshall dissects the debate about the bogus African uranium claims President Bush used in his 2003 State of the Union speech. The most interesting part of his reports is how the information got into the speech in the first place and why it did not make it into Colin Powell’s speech to the United Nations a week later. What is interesting about the story is what it reveals about the Bush Administration’s manipulation of intelligence information that it knew to be false in order to sell a war to the American people.

Yesterday, Condoleeza Rice laid the blame on George Tenet, director of the CIA, for failing to take the information out of the speech. It is apparent once one looks at what happened in January 2003 that George Tenet is getting the blame for an entire process that was controlled by the White House.

When White House staffers were drafting the speech in January, they found some information floating about Iraq seeking 500 pounds of yellowcake uranium in the central African country of Niger. The CIA had known for months that the information was probably false. It is unclear who was the original source of the report, but it made it into both American and British intelligence reports.

During the drafting of the speech, the CIA had objected to the use of the information to support Bush’s claims, citing its unreliability. But the Bush administration wanted to keep it in. According to Colin Powell, they decided that “such a statement was not totally outrageous or not to be believed or not to be appropriately used.” talkingpointsmemo.com, July 11th, 2003 -- 12:56 PM EDT This seems to be a fairly low standard of truthfulness with which to judge evidence supporting the case for war.

The CIA objected anyway, but George Tenet finally agreed to allow the statement to be used so long as it did not have any specific information regarding how much uranium and where it was sought and so long as the statement was attributed to the British. Tenet, in a statement accepting responsibility for the fiasco, said that the CIA agreed to the final wording because “the text in the speech was factually correct that the British government report said that Iraq sought uranium from Africa.” Associated Press, 7/11/2003 18:29, reported in Boston.com

This rationalization is legalistic hair-splitting on the level of Bill Clinton saying it depends on what the definition of the word ‘is’ is. It is true that the statement “the British government report said that Iraq sought uranium from Africa” is factually correct standing alone. But a statement presented as evidence to support a proposition must be more than just factually correct. The test of truth of a statement relies on the context in which it is made. In this case, the statement was not presented to support the contention that the British said something, but that Iraq sought uranium from Africa. If the statement were used to support an argument that British intelligence was unreliable, then the statement could be accepted as true in that context. But it was not. It was used to support an argument that Iraq was actively working on its nuclear program. In this context, the statement is not true and those who argued for and approved its use should have known this.

In his statement, Tenet agreed that whether the statement was factually correct “should not have been the test for clearing a presidential address. This did not rise to the level of certainty which should be required for presidential speeches, and CIA should have ensured that it was removed.” Associated Press, 7/11/2003 18:29, reported in Boston.com

Ya got that right. My question is why the information was included in the first place. The speechwriters and many in the White House knew the information was bogus. According to NPR reporter Tom Gjelten, it was White House staffers who suggested that the claim be attributed to the British. If the story is true, then it is clear that the White House wanted to get the information into the speech, no matter whether it was true or not. The Hill, "A Rose is a Rose is as Rose", June 25, 2003

Colin Powell seemed to have some knowledge of the bogus nature of the information. In fact, it is widely reported he used a “famous barnyard epithet” to describe it. Upon reading the first draft of his speech to the UN, Powell was so upset at the weakness of some of the evidence that he lost his temper, throwing several pages in the air and declaring, "I'm not reading this. This is bullshit." US News and World Report, "Truth and Consequences", June 9, 2003

Vice President Dick Cheney knew the information was bogus, but his office included it in the first draft of Powell’s speech to the UN anyway, only days after the CIA judged the information to be inaccurate. Cheney sent Ambassador Joe Wilson to Niger in February 2002, a year before the State of the Union address, to determine whether Iraq was trying to purchase uranium materials there. Wilson's report went into great detail about how the uranium ore was processed, how the processing was regulated, and most particularly who had physical custody of the product from the time it was in the ground to the time it was delivered to the customer. Wilson adduced various findings relating to the custody, oversight and regulation of the state uranium mining industry which, in his view, made the alleged sale highly unlikely. Wilson concluded in a recent New York Times Op-Ed that "I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat." talkingpointsmemo.com, July 12th, 2003 -- 11:53 AM EDT

It is clear that the White House knew the information was bogus and kept it in the State of the Union anyway. It was so important to keep in the State of the Union speech because there was no other information available to support the contention that Iraq was pursuing a nuclear capability. In January 2002 the CIA reported on global weapons-technology proliferation, but did not mention a nuclear threat from Iraq. The review said only, "We believe that Iraq has probably continued at least low-level theoretical R&D [research and development] associated with its nuclear program." In addition, the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) “never assessed that there was good evidence that Iraq was reconstituting or getting really serious about its nuclear weapons program." The New Republic "The First Casualty", June 30, 2003

Yet it was important to the White House to keep the evidence of Iraq’s nuclear proliferation in the State of the Union speech because the Bush administration had decided to go to war and needed to rally the American people behind its plans. A famous propaganda tactic to get people to support a war is to scare them into believing they are being attacked. Herman Goering said at the Nuremberg trials that "the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger." For those of us who opposed the war in January through March of this year, Goering’s quote sounds uncomfortably real.

2003-07-06T18:15:00.000-07:00

With the Iraqi war dragging on anticlimacticly into its fourth month, the anti-American rumor-mill is in full swing in Iraq. According to the propaganda, the Americans are responsible for all the problems in Iraqi society. The most common accusation is that the US is not doing anything to restore electricity and is actually preventing its restoration. Such rumors can be expected, given that the US is responsible for restoring electricity and it is not happening.

Even more disturbing, though, is the prevalence of rumors that the US is responsible for bombings against Iraqis. First was the mosque bombing in Falluja, a hotbed of anti-American activity. Local residents have accused US fighter planes of dropping bombs on the mosque. Others, including the US Central Command have accused anti-American activists within the mosque of accidently setting off bombs they were making during a bomb-making class. The local intelligence officer for the US Army said he knew nothing about a bomb-making class, but a local resident says he saw someone target the mosque. "I saw a green laser pointing on Sheikh Leith's room from two cars. Then the cars drove away and the plane dropped the bomb," said 73-year-old resident Abdullah Jassem Ensayif. Seattle Post-Intelligencer.

In Ramadi, where seven Iraqis were killed by a bomb at a graduation of US-trained police cadets, locals are actually accusing the Americans of setting off the blast. The reasoning given is that the US wants to keep Iraq unstable so as to keep the Iraqis fighting amongst themselves so the US can rule the country longer. For more, see this article in the New York Times or this one from the Associated Press in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer.

Other anti-American rumors reported by the Associated press:

- The Assaah newspaper claimed that the Israeli government modified its export laws to flood Iraq with Israeli goods. The paper urged Iraqis to carefully check Taiwanese or Chinese-made appliances for hidden Stars of David.

- The same paper recently reported that American helicopters swooped down on construction stores in the southern city of Nasiriyah to steal building supplies.

- Word is traveling on Iraqi streets that U.S. patrols are blaring messages from loudspeakers telling people they won't have electricity until attacks on Americans stop.

- An Iraqi group calling itself "Wakefullness and Holy War" issued a statement on Iranian TV claiming responsibility for recent attacks and announcing that Jews have arrived in Baghdad to spread "sex, prostitution and drugs among young people."

Such rumors, whether true or not, will undermine support for the US in its effort to rebuild Iraq. So long as the Americans are viewed as responsible for the chaos, support will grow for anti-American groups within the country. If support grows for these groups, it will become harder for Iraqis to cooperate with the American occupation. Any government set up under American rule will be suspect. Attacks will continue against American and British troops as well as against Iraqis viewed as collaborating with the occupiers.

2003-06-29T21:26:00.000-07:00

We have passed a landmark in Iraq. Over 200 soldiers have died in the war since it began March 20. At least 63 American soldiers have died in Iraq since major combat was declared over May 1. Do not think that the war is over just because George Bush declared major combat over. U.S. forces kicked off operation Sidewinder Sunday, raiding more than 20 towns across a wide swath of Iraq and netting at least 60 suspects in a show of air and infantry power designed to crush resistance and stem a wave of deadly attacks on American troops. But I guess it wasn't 'major combat.'

Are the anti-American forces organized? Insurgents have stepped up their attacks against U.S. troops in recent days, but U.S. officials have said repeatedly that there is no centralized Iraqi resistance to American rule. Commanders on the ground suggest some organization. A substantial amount of the damage to Iraq's services is the result of organized elements out to undermine allied administration of Iraq. Much of the organization seems to be centered in the Sunni areas most loyal to the Baathists and Saddam Hussein. This brings up the question of whether Saddam is still alive and coordinating attacks on Americans.

Allied officials say they recently obtained a document prepared by the Iraqi Intelligence Service calling for a sabotage campaign in case of Saddam Hussein's defeat. The plan outlines 11 steps to spread chaos in Iraq to discredit the occupiers, including looting and burning government offices, sabotaging power plants, cutting communication lines and attacking water purification plants. More in this article in the New York Times.

2003-06-28T23:28:00.000-07:00

Are we seeing the establishment of a new American Empire? The term has been showing up quite a bit in the news and in popular discourse lately. One can often see bumper stickers in more liberal neighborhoods that state "No Empire" in place of the "No War in Iraq" signs. Do a Google search for "American Empire" and you can get over 100 results in the news, including The Globe and Mail, Canada; Seattle Post Intelligencer; The Financial Times of London; New Zealand Herald; Vancouver Sun, Canada; London Daily Telegraph; and The Nation. There are many more.

Currently, we have two countries under occupation as a result of war, Iraq and Afghanistan, and are fighting to control them. We rule directly in Iraq, but through a government we sponsor in Afghanistan. We have troops fighting insugency movements in Colombia and the Phillipines. We have troops based on every continent, mainly to keep the peace and to maintain an environment conducive to free trade, which supports the US economy. Often, these troops are based in places to protect shipping routes for oil, without which the American economy would collapse.

Is the focus on Empire a function of the growing importance of the US military in reshaping the world, of its power within the Bush administration? Perhaps it is the changed circumstances in American life post-September 11? The fear of terrorism has created a situation where Americans are willing to trade away civil liberties in return for security. This concentrates more power in the hands of those who hold the reins of the security apparatus in Washington. Isn't the main requirement of empire having an emperor?

There is an article asking the question of whether American is now an Empire in the New York Journal News. Conservative columnist Georgie Ann Geyer at the Boston Globe disagrees. For others, the question of whether the US now controls an Empire seems to be settled. The question being asked now is not whether we control an empire or even whether we should. William Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard and a leading proponent of American empire, claims that there is nothing wrong with dominance as long as it is for the "right values." Given that the US now control Iraq and is the predominant power throughout the world, the question more commonly asked now is how do we manage the empire? This is the subject of an interview with Robert Kaplan in the Atlantic Monthly for July/August. There is a host of articles by Franz Schurmann at the Pacific News Service exploring the Politics of Empire.

2003-06-18T20:46:00.000-07:00

In a new article in the New York Times, the Bush Administration is accused of editing a paper on the state of the environment to remove a discussion of the risks of rising global temperatures. Jeremy Symons, a climate policy expert at the National Wildlife Federation said "This is like the White House directing the secretary of labor to alter unemployment data to paint a rosy economic picture." To use another analogy, it is like directing the CIA to alter intelligence information in order to gain public and international support for going to war.

2003-06-18T20:22:00.000-07:00

Events of interest in the past week:

Today, US Forces caught the highest ranking Baath Party member, the Ace of Diamonds, Abid Hamid Mahmoud al-Tikriti. Read about it in the New York Times.

Chaos has continued throughout Iraq as the US tries to get a handle on it. Services are slowly being restored, but former Iraqi Army soldiers are demonstrating about the lack of work. Today, the US fired on one such demonstration in Baghdad, killing two. The US had sponsored a planned election of local officials in Najaf. Paul Bremer III, the head of the American military occupation in Iraq, decreed that conditions in Najaf were not appropriate for an election. What this likely means is that the winner would likely be someone that Mr. Bremer did not approve of. New York Times again.

Students have been demonstrating against the government in Tehran, Iran for the past week. It is unclear what effect it is having on the government or whether the protests are beginning to die down or increase. The government sent police to break up demonstrations, but pro-government militias have been attacking the demonstrators, often beating them. Protests have spread to the provincial cities of Hamedan, Mashhad, Karaj, Isfahan, Kerman, Kermanshahr and Tabriz as well. The official news in Iran describes them as small. BBC has more.

In addition to the pressure on the Mullahs by students and other demonstrators, there has been international pressure on Iran for its pursuit of nuclear technology. BBC and New York Times. This week, the EU and Russia have both stated concerns that the program is leading to the development of nuclear weapons. The International Atomic Energy Agency has demanded more rigorous inspections to ensure compliance with the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty. The treaty is designed to prevent the spread of nuclear weapon technology throughout the world. A consequence of this is that only a few countries have nuclear weapons and they have a stranglehold on the power that comes with it. Included on the list are the US, Britain, France, Russia, China, India, Pakistan and Israel. For this reason, many smaller countries either have rejected the treaty, like North Korea, or are secretly violating it, like Iran is now and Pakistan did in the 1990's. The nuclear countries do not want to see any other countries gain nuclear weapons because it represents a quantum increase in their political power. Nuclear armed countries cannot be bullied or threatened into toeing the line if they have a nuclear deterrent. This is the reason that the North Koreans have given for developing them.

The Israel-Palestinian conflict is in chaos after attacks and counterattacks by Hamas and the Israeli government. It seems that, in the deadlocked political situation, a radical organization can use violence to define the terms of the debate. It seems that neither Hamas nor right-wing Israelis want peace. The goal on each side is total victory. On the Israeli right, the radicals want nothing more than a Jewish state over all of Palestine, including the territories of Judea and Samaria, as they call the West Bank. They can gain this only if there is a war against the Arabs in the occupied territories. If there is peace, then Israel must give up its claims to the land, which the ultra-right adamantly opposes. In the current political climate, they can keep the war going by forcing the government to continue assassinating high level Hamas or Islamic Jihad leaders.

On the other side, Hamas has a goal of total victory as well. Many of their leaders have publicly stated that they will drive the Zionists into the sea. Given the imbalance of power, it seems unlikely that this will happen. However, violence is their only tool to keep the debate on their terms. All Palestinian politicians at least give lip service to the demand that all of Palestine should be controlled by the Palestinians, from the Jordan to the Mediterranean. To say otherwise would be political suicide. Of course, such an arrangement would not mean that all Jews must leave, but it would require the end of the State of Israel, which is defined as a Jewish state.

It appears that much is happening behind the scenes. There are conflicting reports every day as to whether Hamas will agree to a truce, whether Israel will give up its policy of assassination. We hear about high level Egyptian and American envoys meeting with factions on both sides. There has even been talk of freeing Marwan Barghouti, a very popular Palestinian Fatah politician who has been suggested as a successor to Yassir Arafat. Arial Sharon seems to be making minor concessions under American pressure. Nothing is clear, especially whether progress is being made. I expect that, if anything happens, it may happen as a sudden flood. More at the BBC.

From the Palestinian perspective, the biggest sticking point in getting to peace is the Right of Return. That is the right of Palestinian refugees, or their descendants, to return to their homes in what is now Israel from which they were expelled in 1948 at the foundation of the State of Israel. Hamas opposes the Road Map to Peace because it requires the Palestinians to give up their most powerful tool, violence, without any decision on the Right of Return. Israel opposes the Return because it would require that millions of Arabs be settled on land in Israel. But this land is occupied by Jews, many of whom were expelled from Arab countries in 1948 or arrived since then. In addition, if the Palestinians were allowed to return or even if the West Bank were reunited with Israel, the Arabs would overwhelm the Jews with their larger number, endangering the Jewish nature of the State of Israel.

The other sticking point is the Jewish nature of the State of Israel. Americans generally have no problem with this, in spite of our tradition of religious tolerance. The thinking goes that, all the other major religions (in the American mind, those are Christianity, Islam and Judaism) have their own countries, then the Jews should as well. Europeans, however, are less comfortable with this notion because it sounds so much like nationalism which has caused so much trouble in Europe in the Nineteenth and Twentieth centuries. In fact, the wars in the Balkans in the 1990's and the Troubles in northern Ireland are nationalist movements. Europeans are now going through a process of suppressing nationalist tendencies in Europe through the strenghtening of the European Union. But can Israel give up its Jewish nature and unite with Arabs in one state? The notion seems unthinkable except for the most idealistic political scientist.

2003-06-18T19:48:00.000-07:00

I haven't been writing for the past two weeks because I have been sick, it has been really hot here, there has been too much going on in my life, etc. I can come up with a million excuses. It is certainly not because there has been no news. But there has also been a problem of writer's block. I suppose all writers come to a point when they say to themselves, "there is so much that has been written, what can I say that is different?" So I'm just not sure what to write that hasn't already been written about current events.

I have been reading a book entitled "The Beginnings of Wisdom" about the philosophy behind the book of Genesis. It is fairly dense reading, so I have been going slowly. One of the main points is that the bible was not necessarily written as a historical document, but has a certain point of view that it is putting forward. I cannot sum it up in a simple and trite formula, but the book begins from the assumption that the inconsistencies and oddities of the bible story are placed there for a reason.

Here is sample of one of the point about the creation. When god created the world, he created light and separated day and night before he created the sun. This seems inconsistent with the natural world based on observance of the sun and how it works, even for the ancients. The reason, according to the author, is to demote the sun in the pantheon of creatures in the universe. At the time of the writing of the Bible, there were people across the earth, most notably in Egypt and Mesopotamia, who worshipped the sun. The Hebrews wanted to reject this sun worship, so demoted the sun by saying it was created after plants. Also, by listing the order of creation in the way it does, at odds with our observed and deduced knowledge of the universe, the Genesis writer states from the beginning that one cannot understand the world through observation and deduction, but through revelation by God.

As I said, the book is dense and takes each part of the story and analyses it from two to three different angles, the historical view, which is the most superficial view; the analytical view, breaking down the meaning of the words, the order in which things are presented, etc.; and the moral view, what is being taught by the text.

I do not agree with all of what he says but it is an interesting and educational read. He seems preoccupied in the footnotes with the idea that creation and evolution are not necessarily at odds with one another because the creation story is not necessarily a historical account, but a pedagogical account.