When They Go Forward...

O'Reilly's Foiled Us Again!

2007-12-13T21:38:00.000-05:00

FUCK!

From ThinkProgress:

Celebrating Rep. Steve King’s (R-IA) House resolution on the “importance of Christmas and the Christian faith,” Fox News host Bill O’Reilly declared victory in the “war on Christmas” last night. He called his show’s reporting on the issue “one of the most important things we’ve done,” and bragged, “We won” and secular progressives “lost.”

Goddamn you, Bill O’Reilly.

After all these years of preparation, anonymous threats to corporate marketing executives, and the amassing of a small arsenal of weaponry, there was one thing the Secular Progressive movement couldn't prepare for: your behemoth fucking super powers. Curses!

We’ll have to find another holiday to destroy, ladies and gentleman – but, with superhuman defenders of justice like Bill O’Reilly, I’d say our hopes are pretty limited.

He has a point about it being one of the most important things his show has tackled, though.

The OC Weekly Burns Me

2007-12-13T17:13:00.000-05:00

Quite rightly. They think they're so great...

God Bless All of Us

2007-12-09T18:33:00.000-05:00

From Rasmussen Reports:

Just 18% of American voters believe that Iran has halted its nuclear weapons program. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 66% disagree and say Iran has not stopped its nuclear weapons program. Twenty-one percent (21%) of men believe Iran has stopped the weapons development along with 16% of women.

The power of propaganda never fails to amaze.
We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program -- National Intelligence Estimate, 2007

...

"Since 2002, pretty much all the intelligence that's come to us has proved to be wrong," said a senior diplomat at the IAEA -- San Francisco Chronicle

Why, when so many experts agree on the lack of an Iranian attempt to develop a nuclear weapon, does such ignorance abound?

Oh, yeah.

OC Blog Could Use a Good Shame

2007-12-09T14:31:00.000-05:00

Jonathan Constantine over at www.redcounty.com has posted an "interview" with Israeli Zionist filmmaker Pierre Rehov. I put "interview" in quotes because, to be technical, it is more of a fawning gesture of unyielding worship than a constructive interview.

I just don't get the folks over at OC Blog: they, all ideological caveats aside, do a great job. Why then, offer Rehov so much airtime when it comes to an issue as important as the Middle East? Their standards are easily leaps and bounds over Rehov's pathetic analyses.

I'm inclined to think it stems from their ideological abhorrence at the UCI Muslim Student Union, but it's going to take a lot more than that to make this bullshit glimmer. Here are some super gems from the "interview":

Jonathan: What inspired you to film this movie?
Pierre: Very simple. I hated hearing that the Israeli army had committed a massacre, and war crimes there. Everybody who knows Tsahal and its very strict rules knows that it is impossible for a soldier to behave poorly.

Psst: the thing is, "everyone who knows" anything about Israel/Palestine knows that Israeli soldiers, to put it charitably, "behave poorly" -- on a regular basis.

Think carefully about the depth of the delusion embedded in that statement, and ask yourself -- what would Red County (correctly) say about an MSU speaker who said the same thing about Palestinian "martyrs"? This guy is a flagrant right-wing nationalist.

Jonathan: Is what happened at Jenin a general microcosm for the Palestinian-Israeli conflict?
Pierre: I think so, yes. Palestinians commit a massacre, by sending a suicide bomber. Israel retaliates, playing fair, trying to target only the villains. [note: to be fair, the word "civilians" is a lot like "villains"] Palestinians lie about what happened.

...

Jonathan: Based on your experiences, is the refugee problem a political ploy used by the Palestinians and Arab nations?
Pierre: I made another film on that. It took me one year and to visit many refugee camps with my team to understand that this is a dangerous myth.

And so forth. OC Blog, why give airtime to this demonstrable racist kook? If you want to sprout the likudnik party line, that's fine -- at least find someone vaguely grounded in reality, so I don't have to waste my Sunday mornings pointing it out.

The Union Leader: Muskie's Not the Only One Crying

2007-08-16T02:38:00.000-05:00

I think there is a special place in hell for disingenuous editorial boards:

U.S. HOUSE Majority Whip James Clyburn, D-S.C., acknowledged on Monday that his party has called for withdrawing from Iraq while victory, or at least a better situation than exists now, might yet be attained.

I'm sorry, what? "Or at least a better situation than exists now might yet be attained?" Could the UL shove any more vague caveats into this tautological joke of a criticism?

Not to flip out here, but what the hell does that even mean, anyway? "(Clyburn acknowledged that) a better situation than exists now might yet be attained"?

So what: four car bombs a day? 100-200 dead civilians instead of 300-500? Who would soberly argue that we should spend $18 billion in Iraq a month -- not to mention the human toll -- to achieve a shred of progress?

Oh, right, the biggest newspaper in New Hampshire.

If Gen. David Petraeus delivers a September progress report showing real gains, instead of the mixed report many have expected, it would "be a real big problem for us," Clyburn told The Washington Post.

Why would American success in Iraq be "a real big problem" for Democrats?

Well, as anyone serious about answering this question would do, you'd ask Clyburn. Barring that, you'd Google his name and find his remarks on the matter -- you know, the remarks you've been using to piece together this slipshod hit-job?

In fact, Union Leader, just look at the HEADLINE! The Headline is right there! The Headline says it! It's right there! Transcend your myopia for just a second and read it:

Clyburn: Positive Report by Petraeus Could Split House Democrats on War

...

Clyburn noted that Petraeus carries significant weight among the 47 members of the Blue Dog caucus in the House, a group of moderate to conservative Democrats. Without their support, he said, Democratic leaders would find it virtually impossible to pass legislation setting a timetable for withdrawal.

"I think there would be enough support in that group to want to stay the course and if the Republicans were to stay united as they have been, then it would be a problem for us," Clyburn said. "We, by and large, would be wise to wait on the report."

Okay, that seems pretty clear...and obvious.

So, how did the UL explain it?

Oh, yeah. They've already called the war "lost" (Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid), have tried seven times this year to end it, and have staked their majority in Congress and their hopes for winning the White House on an American failure there.

But all of a sudden things are starting to look a little more positive in Iraq -- the "surge" is producing results -- and some Democrats are getting nervous.

Oh.

"We, by and large, would be wise to wait on the report," Clyburn said of any more Democratic calls for specific action in Iraq.

Now there's an idea. Wait to see if the new strategy is working before demanding an end to the war. Why didn't the Democratic leadership try that before?

Oh, right. Because pledging to end the war was more politically beneficial. Now that sticking around and trying to win might, just might, turn out to be the better political choice, Clyburn suggests that his party gather all the facts before making the call.

Okay, so now the Union Leader is scolding people to gather "all the facts" (i.e. a single, White House-prepared report "by" General Petraeus due this September) on Iraq, before making a hasty rush towards policy considerations.

That's quite ripe, Union Leader. Ripe like a million dead Iraqis.

Of course, Clytus has voted several times to withdraw troops from Iraq, and never indicated that it might be a "better political choice" to "stick around and try to win." This incredible distortion and decontextualization of language isn't new for Fergus Cullen and the NH GOP -- in fact, it's quite reminiscent of a ridiculous accusation from Cullen that Carol Shea-Porter once questioned "whether Freedom and Liberty are core American values worth fighting for." (sic)

Here is the transcript and response from Shea-Porter's office.

Dick Cheney: Guest V-Blogger

2007-08-14T08:00:00.001-05:00

"Doublethink is the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. ... To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed.

...by using the word, one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth." -- George Orwell, 1984

UPDATE: Drew Legendre counters that, as Cheney is most likely lucid here, and therefore simply being an expedient liar, this would not qualify as doublethink. He thinks he's so great...

Can't Nobody Hold Me Down

2007-08-14T07:43:00.000-05:00

Keep checking up for some updates and perhaps some brand new CONTENT very SOON.

If, that is, you can handle it. pffffft.

State of the LOON-yian, Am I Right?

2007-01-23T23:56:00.000-05:00

Well, okay. Bush sure cleans up nice. Did anyone else see Cheney's huge laugh after Bush called for reducing gasoline consumption by 20% in ten years? Sooo good.

Talking Points Memo shares what they claim to be seemingly authentic GOP talking points about the speech. Keep them in mind when you watch the talking heads tomorrow:

• Tonight, the President will go in front of Congress and the American people to talk about a series of domestic issues and the War on Terror.
• The President is exuberant and determined. The President will tackle the big topics in an innovative and bold way that will capture people's imagination.

• The President is also going to address another question many Americans have – whether their leaders in Washington can work together. The President realizes there's an outcry to get things done, and believes both parties can find common ground without either party compromising its principles. The Democrats' reaction will be a test of their imagination, determination, and political courage.

Aside from my usual darker fantasies, I'm not sure the President "captured my imagination" tonight. I should hope not -- he'd probably torture it! LOL

So much of the speech was transparently designed to put the Democrats in an awkward position -- e.g. caging the President's policy in phrases that Democrats couldn't help but applaud, such as his poetics about engaging terrorists (his euphemism for the occupation of Iraq, which every intelligence agency acknowledges has only increased the threat of Islamic terrorism) or even ludicrously framing his troop surge as a measure to "support the troops."

It is a Rovian/Machiavellian turn that I have to say I am sort of impressed by: Bush is going to talk about bipartisanship, praise the Democrats, and then let them fail -- at anything, as long as it can be properly twisted as a failure of the party. Mark my words: you'll hear Hannity say "This President offered the Democrats an olive branch, and they didn't take it" and 60% of the public will believe it.

They'd be utterly insane to believe a man schizophrenic enough to claim that a Democratic majority would be a victory for "the terrorists" could also sincerely believe that they are also respectable colleagues and care about the security of the country. Be careful.

By the way, what was that stuff about Hezbollah? Are we attacking Iran, or what?

For Christ's Sake

2007-01-22T18:43:00.000-05:00

I know, it's pretty lazy just to post commentary published in other places. But, my good friend Tim Mathews decided he would coax me from the depths again, and now I have to shame the crap out of him.

From Foster's Daily Democrat (News you can Lose):

Reader Response: 'Deliberate irony' misses the point about Iraq

By Tim Mathews
Washington, D.C.

On Jan. 13, Mr. Chris Caesar published a response to my Jan. 8 letter. In it, he accused me of "tired rhetoric" and "lazy rhetorical gesture" while characterizing my letter as "laughable contention," "no longer effective at duping the public," and "outrageous claims." I hail Mr. Caesar's good-humored use of deliberate irony.

I do not, however, see any humor in the assertion that my letter was written "hardly out of any sincere interest in the Iraqi or American people" or that it is "military apologetics for an illegal occupation." I was not surprised that some would disagree with what I wrote, but I was surprised that my motivations and integrity were questioned.

Almost everyone realizes that there is a tremendous camaraderie that forms between soldiers who endure combat together. So I am as incredulous at Mr. Caesar's letter as he is to mine. It is baffling to think that I could fight beside Iraqi soldiers and then somehow not have a sincere interest in their fate. To the assertion that I do not have the sincere interests of the American people at heart, a polite response does not come to mind.

I am not sure what he meant by "military apologetics." Perhaps the assumption is that my view is peculiar to the military, in which case I disagree and fail to see the point, unless it is intended to appeal to anti-military bigotry. Far from being an apologist for past actions, I wanted to make people aware of the consequences of prematurely withdrawing. I sought to outline cases in support of standing by the Iraqi people that I have not heard elsewhere, so I disagree with Mr. Caesar's characterization of my letter as "tired rhetoric." In contrast, his repeated characterizations of the war as "illegal" and "tyrannical" are common, dare I say tired rhetoric used to distort and distract.

Mr. Caesar compared my contentions "to the evidence readily available in the public record," criticizing my prediction of intensified violence if we prematurely withdraw, on account that "it is the American occupation itself that has fueled the sectarian and nationalist violence." Though his tone implies otherwise, "the evidence readily available in the public record" is firmly on my side. The dramatic increase in sectarian violence was fueled by the bombing of the al-Askari Mosque in Samarra. No reasonable and informed person could go on the record as disagreeing with this and expect to be taken seriously, so I assume that Mr. Caesar overlooked this widely reported incident.

He quotes Gen. Casey's testimony that troop reductions are required to "take away one of the elements that fuels the insurgency." While that is correct, its significance is negligible. The motivation of any insurgency is political power. Our footprint will not change that. Also, in reference to this quote, Mr. Caesar seems to assume that troop reductions equate to complete withdrawal, which is not what Gen. Casey suggested.

Mr. Caesar suggests that Sunni militants "would cease operations and integrate" if only we would leave. I disagree. Sunni death squads formed in response to the surge of Shia retaliations after the al-Askari Mosque bombing. The non-militant Sunni population is now supportive of our presence because they fear the wrath of a vengeful Shia majority left unchecked by the government. They understand that Sunni militants will not likely relent in their slaughter of Shia and that Shia retaliation will not likely take care to distinguish militants from innocents.

In response to my quote of Thomas Paine, Mr. Caesar asserts that Paine "would denounce those who sat back and quietly submitted as their government brazenly and, dare I say, tyrannically continued to escalate an unpopular war without the consent of its people." I do not believe that any reasonable person views the war in this way or views our attempts to form an Iraqi government as tyrannical.

I would also point out that the Revolutionary War was as unpopular as today's war in Iraq. In its bleakest hours, it only enjoyed the support of one-third of the colonists. In writing of the summer soldier and sunshine patriot, Paine was bemoaning the other two-thirds.

We are fortunate that the determined minority ignored the naysayers and defeatists in that unpopular war.

He can bomb Iraq, but he can't bomb the facts. My response will be posted soon enough.

In Another Feat of Self-Worship...

2007-01-15T04:17:00.000-05:00

The Wire Magazine, in Portsmouth, NH, graciously granted me a cover story in their issue last week -- though they just put it up on their website today, however.

Nevertheless, read the full thing here.

History in the Making:
N.H. 160th Congress is in Democrats' Hands

Written by Chris Caesar

In the weeks leading up to the 2006 mid-term elections, even the passive observer could feel the tension, palpable dread and denial that had befallen the National Republican Party as polls consistently predicted a catastrophic blow to their hegemony.

“I think I’d just commit suicide,” Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) remarked while stumping in Iowa. “I don’t want to face that eventuality (of a Democratic Congress), because I don’t think it’s going to happen.”

“You may end up with a different math, but you’re entitled to your math. I’m entitled to the math,” a Machiavellian Karl Rove swaggeringly told National Public Radio. “(Polls) add up to a Republican Senate and Republican House.”

Ooookay, Karl. As it turned out, the Democratic Party would win a historic lead over their foils: For the first time in a federal American election, no Democratic incumbent lost their office, and no Republicans captured an open seat previously held by a Democrat. The result was a Democratic House and Senate, along with a majority of state governorships—a resounding rebuff of the ruling party’s pervasive corruption and its support for a seemingly endless occupation of Iraq.

As the saying goes, all politics are local, and the turning tides of national politics couldn’t help but rock—or sink—New Hampshire’s boat. Indeed, the state Republicans found their once sizeable lead of 98 seats in the House drop to an emasculated deficit of nearly 78 seats, their Senate majority plummet from +8 to -4, and Executive Council leadership shift to the Democrats with a 3-2 majority.

For the first time since 1874—that is, prior to the invention of the light bulb—Democrats achieved de facto one party rule in the state of New Hampshire. The change stunned observers nationwide.

“I think I’d be misleading you if I said I wasn’t surprised on election night,” Republican strategist Michael Biundo told The Wire. “I think everybody was expecting that there could possibly be a swing in votes … but the extent of the shift was a little surprising.”
“The Republicans became too complacent,” Rep. Marshall Quandt (R-Exeter) said. “The Republicans became too complacent, too divided, and, in my opinion, we started losing touch with the core issues our constituents wanted. I think there are Republicans gone now that should have been gone four years ago.”

...

Read on at the link above. It's much better than say, this article.

Self-Praise to the Max

2007-01-14T11:30:00.000-05:00

Recent commentary published in the regrettable Foster's Daily Democrat -- that is, 19th century Democrat, that is, total right-wing lunacy, in ways that only New Hampshire could provide.

Opponents of Iraq War not defeatists
By Chris Caesar
Hampton

I read Mr. Mathews' recent community commentary, "We must defeat the defeatists among us," of Jan. 8 and felt incredulous enough to publicly respond.

His remarks lament the state of American public opinion vis-à-vis the occupation of Iraq, claiming that "defeatist" critics, both in the citizenry and national media, are "undermining" the American/Iraqi enterprise in Iraq.

Perhaps Mr. Mathews is unaware that his tired rhetoric — i.e. his laughable contention that the war's critics, a group now comprising the majority of Americans, "provide moral support to the radicals" and "whine" simply because they want to see the United States fail — is no longer effective at duping the public.

...

Read the rest here.

Corporate Media Case Study

2007-01-11T22:48:00.000-05:00

This is a story that I've been following for a bit.

This is, really, a tactic that was used by the Religious Right pretty extensively in the 1980s, to great annoyance. It's kind of fascinating to see the strategy go full-circle. After listening to Michael Savage one too many times (i.e., once), it's nice to see advertisers finally realize what the fuck they're sponsoring, already.

A series of events involving a local liberal blogger, a San Francisco conservative radio station and the reaction of two of the larger corporate advertisers in the country -- Bank of America and MasterCard -- is revealing how slippery freedom of speech has become in the digital age.

The tale of Spocko, a self-described "fifth-tier" blogger who lives in San Francisco, exemplifies how one person with a computer and an Internet hookup can challenge the views of a major media corporation -- and what a media corporation will do to stop him.

For the past year, Spocko has been e-mailing advertisers of KSFO-AM with audio clips from its shows and asking sponsors to examine what they're supporting. Some sponsors have pulled their ads, after hearing clips like one of KSFO's Lee Rodgers suggesting that a protester be "stomped to death right there. Just stomp their bleeping guts out."

...

Among the clips circulated to advertisers was one of morning show co-host Melanie Morgan saying of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, "We've got a bull's-eye painted on her big laughing eyes." Morgan said she has never called for anybody's assassination and was speaking merely in political terms, as she is researching Pelosi's background for a book proposal. "Yes, this is a freedom of speech issue, and this individual is entitled to say what he wants to," said Morgan. "But he's trying to take away my livelihood, and I'm not trying to take away his."
...

In one audio clip making the rounds, Sussman tells a caller: "I would take it that you're probably Muslim."

"No," the caller said, "I'm independent. I don't subscribe."

"Why don't you right now say Allah is a whore and that would prove it to me," Sussman said.

It's impressive to see how much flak just one person can levy with a blog and an audio recorder in the 21st century. God eat me out when I can get Disney to sue me over this blog.

Uh....

2007-01-07T05:00:00.000-05:00

Here's one for the "How to end the world in 30 days" file.

From the London Times:

ISRAEL has drawn up secret plans to destroy Iran’s uranium enrichment facilities with tactical nuclear weapons. Two Israeli air force squadrons are training to blow up an Iranian facility using low-yield nuclear “bunker-busters”, according to several Israeli military sources.

The attack would be the first with nuclear weapons since 1945, when the United States dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Israeli weapons would each have a force equivalent to one-fifteenth of the Hiroshima bomb.

Read the article in full here.

It's pretty hard to imagine what the fallout from such a campaign would be, but I think it should be pretty elementary to assume -- especially post-2003 -- that the last thing it would provide is world peace and 1,000 years without terrorism.

In fact, I can scarcely imagine a worse scenario -- that Israeli commanders admit such plans are being practiced is astounding, not to mention terrifying. I shudder to imagine how the press will justify this criminal activity over the coming days; that is, if the American press deigns to cover it at all.

Iran hasn't invaded another country in centuries, and no evidence exists that they ever plan to. No evidence -- including the tenuous and ideologically manufactured -- exists that the regime pursues or plans to pursue WMD. There is no brutal dictatorship from which to free the Iranian people, and imposing a democracy would be redundant: indeed, parliamentary elections in Iran were held quite recently. Incredibly, not even the drop-dead tenuous bullshit they threw together to justify hurling Iraq back to the stone-age applies to Iran.

Developing nuclear energy is not an act of war -- a first-strike nuclear attack, on the other hand, most ceratinly is. The gravity of such a brazenly illegal attack is hard to put into words: the strike would not only be a belligerent attack against the sovereign nation of Iran, it would be an attack on the mechanisms, institutions, and customs of international law and the international community, and would place global stability into serious jeopardy. It would be a disaster, with possible economic and social ramifications that could last for decades.

But, who cares. America and it's clients want the world to know that they consider themselves free to do whatever they please, to whomever they want, to get whatever they desire. So, get the fuck out the way -- follow orders (Saddam Hussein, 1982), or get killed (Saddam Hussein, 2006).

PS Another reason I'm so scared of 2007: why the fuck was it 75 degrees today? Are we all dying?

Guantanamo Bay FBI Inquiry Released

2007-01-03T11:32:00.000-05:00

The FBI on January 2, 2007 released documents related to an internal inquiry in 2004 of FBI personnel who had served at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba since September 11, 2001 and had observed any aggressive interview techniques, interrogations, or mistreatment of detainees by representatives of law enforcement, the military, or the FBI. There were no documented incidents involving FBI personnel. These documents include summaries of what FBI personnel observed.

On several occasions, witness ("W") saw detainees ("ds") in interrogation rooms chained hand and foot in fetal position to floor w/no chair/ food/water; most urinated or defecated on selves, and were left there 18, 24 hrs or more. Once, the air conditioning was so low that the barefoot d was shaking with cold. Another time, it was off so the unventilated room was over 100 degrees, d was almost unconscious on floor with a pile of hair next to him (he had apparently been pulling it out throughout the night).

Someone laughingly told the W "you have to see this" and took him to an interrogation room where Witness saw a detainee with a full beard whose head was wrapped in duct tape.

After hearing what sounded like "thunder," W saw 2 individuals dressed in BDUs standing and an inmate kneeling on a bloody floor with his forehead on the ground, holding his nose and crying. They said d become upset and threw himself on floor.

A detainee brought into interview shack at Camp x-ray appeared to have broken fingers and facial injuries. W was told that d exhibited noncompliance w/prison guard and rapid reaction team was brought in to bring d into compliance. He was in a plywood shack adjacent to "dog cages". D had black eye, facial cuts around nose, and taped fingers. He motioned to guards and said "they". Handwritten note "yes - Do interview so we will have a formal record. I think I know what all he saw."

Yep, we sure fucking do, don't we.

What Happens When Two Butchers of Baghdad Touch?

2006-12-30T02:06:00.000-05:00

http://thismodernworld.com/3423

Why can't all the deaths in Iraq be this cool?

Not Eaten By Wolves, but...

2006-12-27T19:52:00.001-05:00


Will this ever be on TV again?

Merry Christmas!

2006-12-26T02:37:00.001-05:00

What do you think George Bush and Dick Cheney got for Christmas this year?
AP: U.S. deaths in Iraq exceed 9-11 count

I guess we all knew that was coming, but it is certainly cause for reflection. In and out, greeted as liberators and all that.

Oh yeah, and a number that's not entirely insignificant:
The Lancet Medical Journal: 655,000 Iraqis dead since April 2003 invasion

655,000 dead Iraqis. 655,000 dead Iraqis. How many 9/11's is that, you fucking scumbag?

"Well, ya see, not nearly enough, heh-heh-heh." -- GWB

As Americans, I think the time has come to sincerely ask ourselves: Just how horny for fucking death is George W. Bush? If this is all "just a comma", I don't want to see the money shot.

The World v. Israel, pt. 326

2006-12-22T13:47:00.000-05:00

From Human Rights Watch:

"During the Israel-Hezbollah war, Israel was accused by Human Rights Watch and numerous local and international media outlets of attacking two Lebanese Red Cross ambulances in Qana on July 23, 2006. Following these accusations, some websites claimed that the attack on the ambulances "never happened" and was a Hezbollah-orchestrated "hoax," a charge picked up by conservative commentators such as Oliver North. These claims attracted renewed attention when the Australian foreign minister stated that 'it is beyond serious dispute that this episode has all the makings of a hoax.' "

Exhibit A: Hilarious. Looks like American weapons really work -- when you aim them.

"In response, Human Rights Watch researchers carried out a more in-depth investigation of the Qana ambulance attacks. Our investigation involved detailed interviews with four of the six ambulance staff and the three wounded people in the ambulance, on-site visits to the Tibnine and Tyre Red Cross offices from which the ambulances originated to review their records and meet with supervisors, an examination of the ambulances that were struck, an on-site visit to the Qana site where the attack took place, and interviews with others such as international officials with the International Committee of the Red Cross who were involved in responding to the attack on the night it happened.

"On the basis of this investigation, we conclude that the attack on the ambulances was not a hoax: Israeli forces attacked two Lebanese Red Cross ambulances that night in Qana, almost certainly with missiles fired from an Israeli drone flying overhead. The physical and testimonial evidence collected by Human Rights Watch disproves the allegations of a "hoax," made by persons who never visited Lebanon and had no opportunity to assess the evidence first-hand. Those claiming a hoax relied on faulty conjectures based on a limited number of photographs of one of the ambulances."

This wouldn't be the first time Israel's crimes have been (fraudulently) explained away as photographic "hoaxes" aimed at impugning the Israeli Defense Forces. The other, more serious crime in Qana was also downplayed by right-wing/Zionist bloggers as a plot to embarass Israel: I mean, why else would all those people be in a bomb shelter during Israeli raids?

The purpose of such campaigns is clear: to put the onus on Hezbollah, Hamas, et al. for the IDF's own brazen disregard for human -- I mean, uh, Arab -- life.

Where Can I Sign Up?

2006-12-22T06:59:00.000-05:00

View That Vid Here

Note: Took out the embedded video because it constantly played, to the bemusement of all. It was totally annoying, and a huge web faux pas to have shitty music accompanying a subpar webpage. Fuck you, Flurl, you YouTube wannabes.

I can only beg for apologies, and offer a promise it won't happen again.

...

Cool footage of U.S. military contractors killing Iraqi civilians for sport. The Elvis music was, surprisingly or not, spliced in by the directors of the video (i.e. the soldiers), not by some shrewd satirist.

This trophy video epitomizes the sick state of nature into which Iraq has descended. Life under American occupation, in a nut shell.

"There has never been an [American] army as violent and murderous as our army has been in Iraq.” -- Seymour Hersh

What's the Coolest Thing About Torture?

2006-12-21T15:17:00.000-05:00

Hm.

That there are over 14,000 people humiliated and brutalized everyday in Iraq’s Grand Experiment that are detained without due cause? Think about it and admit: kind of funny.

Or, could it be that US forces are so cruelly arbitrary in their enforcement of occupation that 70-90% of Iraqi detainees are arrested “by mistake?”

I mean, US prisons are probably palaces compared to the pits these mud-savages are living in, am I right? Who’s gonna put your feet up and connect your testicles to a car battery when you want to relax at home?

Actually, the thing that makes my smile burn the fucking hardest about torture is that Congress “compromised” with the White House, and made all of this behavior legal in the United States! How cool is that!? It's like we don’t even need a Congress anymore! Or attornies, since you, uh, won't be having one.

You know what they say: you gotta break international law to enforce it, spend money to make money, and such such. You understand. Here’s to hoping that the Democratic Congress will buck the trend, but here’s to them…not .

For your information: This video is extremely, extremely graphic and horrifying, but I do feel an obligation to propagate such moving accounts of our tax-dollars at work. This is not for children, group viewings, or to whip out at work. I am totally serious; this will terrify you. In fact, I’m not even embedding it because I fear it inadvertently starting and ruining an unknowing reader’s life: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6J5JVQkBQdw

All in all, Donald Rumsfeld should be rotting in his own shit at The Hague, or better yet, Abu Ghraib.

I’ve always wondered, Donny: Is blood hard to get out of your fingernails?

Borat, and Everything

2006-12-18T00:10:00.000-05:00

So. I saw Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan this weekend.

To be honest, I'm not much of a film buff. In fact, this was my first trip to the cinema in about three years, and prior to that, the lull had been much longer. I don't know if it stems from being abhorred at Hollywood, $11 Cokes, or the plush spectacle of corporate multiplexes, but something started to feel terribly wrong about going to the movies every weekend, and I abruptly stopped sometime in High School. Therefore, you'll have to excuse any residual maladroitness I bring to this humble review.

Everybody has an opinion on this movie, and you can't really find one that's ambivalent -- indeed, Cohen has gotten a lot of heat from the left and the right (e.g. the awkward criticism here), though I'm not sure a lot of it is justified. The movie is indeed quite mind-blowingly offensive if taken at face-value -- Borat's anti-Semitism, mysogyny and racism are all expressed pretty explicitly -- but I can't imagine the heavy satire could elude even the dumbest of viewers. If the American public truly thinks that the (obviously fake) Kazakh tradition "The Running of the Jew" is funny because it bashes Jews, we might be facing a bigger problem than I ever thought.

What I particularly liked about the film was its use of a reprehensibly ignorant (though strangely endearing) character to expose some disgraceful bits & pieces of American culture. Sure, there are some parts that are less didactic than others (e.g. Borat's interview with a panel of feminists whom he encourages to "give me a smile, baby!"), but I think it was pretty clear that Cohen was trying to use Borat and his fictionalized Kazakhstan to make a comparative point about American culture, not just to bash Central Asia or be nihilistically goofy.

Indeed, Borat's provocative comments find some surprising parallels in the people he interviews -- the proprietor of a rodeo encouraging Borat to shave his moustache so he'll look less like an Arab, or agreeing with Kazakh's (fictionalized) policy of executing homosexuals come to mind. "That's what we're trying to do here," he says with a wink and a John Wayne grin. Fucking yikes. And that's not satire.

All things considered, I'd say it's definitely worth checking out: I RoFL, for honest. One of the funniest films in years.

Grown-Up Stuff

2006-12-17T22:52:00.000-05:00

While I have severe doubts anyone noticed or remotely gave a shit about my extended reclusion, I'm happy to announce I'm going to try to revive this little bogger-wogger: my new internship at The Wire magazine in Portsmouth affords me a new, healthy chunk of your mindshare...and, by God, I am going to exploit it.

So, when I get my first comment/visitor, just remember -- you knew me when I was an even bigger loser.

"My Goodness, I Meant the Southern Hemisphere!"

2006-10-02T23:02:00.000-05:00

MANAGUA, Nicaragua - The recent military build-up in Venezuela by U.S. nemesis President Hugo Chavez has other countries in the region worried that the weapons could end up in the hands of terrorists, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Monday.

"I can understand neighbors being concerned," said Rumsfeld, who is attending a meeting of Western hemisphere military leaders here this week.

Asked whether he believes Venezuelan officials' contention that the weapon buys are strictly for defense and not a threat to the region, Rumsfeld said, "I don't know of anyone threatening Venezuela — anyone in this hemisphere."

A Q/A with Norman Finkelstein

2006-09-19T01:00:00.000-05:00

"What do you believe is the cause of anger and so-called terrorism, particularly from the Muslim world?"

"I don't think you need great powers of perception to figure that out. Look at the degradations of the United States and Israel throughout the Arab world. Since the Bush Administration came to power, they have demolished Afghanistan, they have demolished Iraq, they have demolished Palestine, they have demolished Lebanon. These are vandals, straight out of the thirteenth century, like Genghis Khan. And to wonder why, is just a level of blindness, which really is very difficult to comprehend."

Read the rest here.

"Thank You For Your Vote!"

2006-09-18T16:57:00.001-05:00

See? I Support Some of the Troops...

2006-09-16T05:50:00.000-05:00

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060715/ap_on_re_us/bush_vandalism

It Gets Worse!

2006-09-16T05:35:00.001-05:00

Following the lamentable incursion by Hezbollah into Northern Israel which saw two Israeli soldiers kidnapped, Israeli responded -- again with a remarkable disregard for proportionality -- by attacking civilian targets in Lebanon and blockading the country's sea and air access.

According to Israeli Air Force Brigadier-General Amri Eshel, the blockade will only cease when the Israeli soldiers are recovered.

"We should not consider this a matter of days. This is going to be long," he emphasized, raising fears that the conflict could potentially escalate. So far, the operation has taken over 50 civilian lives in Lebanon, with Hezbollah's retaliatory Katyusha (missile) attacks causing two civilian deaths in Northern Israel.

The White House urged Israel to use restraint "in its activities of self-defense," though, given the public sentiments of the Israeli leadership, this could very well be the extent of Israeli restraint: "Nothing is safe," Israel's military chief of staff Lt. Gen. Dan Halutz told reporters today, one of many Israeli officials this week to publicly indict themselves as war criminals. PM Olmert himself vowed a "very, very, very painful response," and characterized Hezbollah's attacks as an "act of war."

Lebanon has, of course, denied responsibility for the attacks, calling for a cease-fire Thursday morning.

Further compromising the crisis, Iran has warned of a "fierce response" if the "Zionist regime commits another stupid move and attacks Syria," warning that such a move would be considered an "attack on the whole Islamic world." Israel has been conducting sonic boom raids over Damascus in the past few weeks, intensifying the already shaky relations between the two countries.

Clearly, the situation has reached a terrifying intensity -- all sides should immediately make efforts to de-escalate the situation. Hostage-taking is explicitly forbidden under the Geneva Conventions, and Hamas and Hezbollah should release the Israeli soldiers immediately. These tactics are maladroit at best and suicidal at worst.

Nevertheless, it should go without saying that they in no way whatsoever entitle Israel to commit far more horrific war crimes of their own. The civilians of the Gaza Strip and Lebanon are not to blame here.

A correspondent of mine passionately defended the incursion, insisting that "Israel has the right to defend itself." He is, of course, absolutely correct, though he -- and the Likudniks he's parroting -- omit a crucial point: the same legal framework that provides Israel with a right to defend itself explicitly prohibits calculated attacks on civilians. A military attack on Israel does not justify -- legally, morally, or otherwise -- calculated attacks on universities, civilian airports, energy infrastructure, public health facilities, the deliberate implementation of a humanitarian crisis, and other attempts to terrorize civilian populations. Similar behavior by enemy states is often correctly denounced as state terrorism; I see no qualitative difference here.

Its worth noting that we're witnessing a entirely logical extension of the Bush Doctrine here: Lebanon, 'harboring' Hezbollah, is now just as guilty as Hezbollah for its actions; Syria, for those of Hamas. It's sheer uselessness as a deterrence mechanism against terrorism, once only exemplified in Iraq, is demonstrated quite effectively here -- though with a potentially far worse outcome, if we can even begin to think in these terms.

I hope the situation calms, though, frankly, I have little hope it will. We'll see the news tomorrow.

Operation Summer Rain

2006-09-16T05:30:00.000-05:00

"I take personal responsibility for what is happening in Gaza. I want no one to sleep at night in Gaza. I want them to know what it feels like.” – Israeli PM Ehud Olmert, publicly indicting himself as a war criminal.

Last August saw the Israeli “withdrawal” from the Gaza Strip, prompting widespread eulogy and sympathy for the Israeli ‘plight’: now, no longer enabled to maintain its brazenly illegal development on Palestinian land, the question in the American press became not “why just the Gaza Strip?,” but “how will the Palestinians screw up this generous opportunity?” as most Israeli gestures, even the most token and trifle, are often received.

Not to say the withdrawal was trifle or insignificant. Perhaps inspired by the de facto free-fire zone it had created in the Strip, the Israelis have unleashed a remarkable degree of brutality upon the Gazan population, despite the Tahdiya (ceasefire, or “calm”) declared by Hamas in March of 2005. It reached its head earlier this month with the abduction of IDF Corporal Gilad Shalit, providing Israel with a dubious pretext – finally – to utterly devastate the Gaza Strip.

Ehud Olmert assured the world that this was not meant to be “punishment” for the abduction (despite the sentiment he expressed above), but a means to “ apply pressure so that the abducted soldier will be freed…to create a new equation — freeing the abducted soldier in return for lessening the pressure on the Palestinians.” Olmert forgets – or more plausibly, ignores – the irrefutable illegality of systematic attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure, no matter the aim (Art. 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, Article(b)(ii) of the Rome Statute of the International Court, and so on).

One wonders how the international community would respond to a reciprocal gesture by the Palestinian Authorities: Israel already has over 1000 administrative detainees – would Hamas be entitled to subject the Israeli population to a devastating “humanitarian catastrophe” (Jan Egeland) to apply some “pressure”? Would anyone be entitled to that?

Shall Hamas bomb Israel’s main power plants and leave half of Israel’s population without power, devastating its public health system? Shall Hamas close food, medicine, and water shipments to the Israeli population? Deny them fuel and render their sewage systems inoperable?

The profoundly disproportionate war crimes that continue in the Gaza Strip as I write demand immediate attention, yet, as always, the American press is far too craven to talk about it in any substantive way. What a travesty.