didn't come as any real surprise to read in the
Guardian's Sunday edition (which in England is
spelled "Observer") that the UK is planning to
start pulling their troops out. One third of them
over the next six weeks. At this point nobody
with any common sense or awareness of what's on
the news thinks there's much hope for the US occupation
of Iraq. In fact the poor bastards that are over
there are pretty much reduced to huddling in their
enclaves (primarily "The Green Zone") and waiting
either for someone to bail them out, or for a
missile to come sailing in that has a warhead,
or a biochemical weapon, which finishes them off.
Iraq Survey Group's final report has leaked in
Washington. The Group was engaged in a 15-month
hunt in Iraq for weapons of mass destruction,
which folks will remember was Putsch's primary
rationale for attacking Iraq in the first place.
The group concluded that Iraq's weapons program
consisted pretty much of whatever poisons Saddam
might have had in his medicine cabinet for political
opponents, and that was about it. Oh, he THOUGHT
about WMDs, just as most leaders do these days,
faced with a rogue United States.
continues to sit in a cell, guarded and fed (and
probably gang-raped) by American soldiers, but
officially, he's an Iraqi prisoner. But one of
the other reasons Putsch attacked Iraq was to
"liberate" the Iraqi people from Saddam. OK, they're
liberated. Much more liberation like this, and
they'll be extinct. So since Saddam is out of
the picture, why are American soldiers still gunning
down Iraqi civilians?
Annan explicitly called the occupation of Iraq
illegal the other day. This sort of put a dent
in right wing claims that the world wanted America
to attack Iraq, or that the UN supported it any
way. A pity that Annan hadn't been as direct back
in March of 2003. Of course, the right wing smear
machine was running full blast at that time, smearing
anyone who questioned the need to attack Iraq,
which included Annan, Hans Blix, France, and Democrats.
Washington, an intelligence analysis of Iraq suggests
that the most optimistic scenario would be that
things would stay pretty much as bad as they are
now. Mind you, that was the ROSY scenario. Over
the past three weeks, along with 65 US troops
killed and a couple of hundred maimed, several
hundred Iraqis, all civilians (there is no Iraqi
military) were killed, and thousands wounded.
There are so many bombings and attacks that they
all run together, and headlines that read "Car
bombs kill dozens in Baghdad" might refer to one
or three of a half-dozen such incidents on any
given day. The military admitted that larger portions
of Iraq, including most of the cities, were no
longer under "coalition" control, and even large
chunks of Baghdad were out of control. The other
two scenarios involved complete chaos (as if the
current situation was anything other than that
already), and civil war.
clear to the British government, as it is to the
rest of the world, that the situation in Iraq
is lost, and the only thing left to do is get
the hell out, and let the UN work with Iraqis
to try and bring some peace to that benighted
how is America's "strong, resolute, and Churchillian"
president dealing with this?
told the Manchester Union Leader that he was "pleased
with the progress in Iraq."
he said that this week. No, I don't think he was
talking about some other Iraq.
he serious? Well, he doesn't read newspapers,
he tells us. And his aides probably don't distract
him with bad news because he has to stay focused
enough to give his campaign speeches about how
strong and masterful he is, and he can't do that
if he's standing in a big puddle of flopsweat.
maybe he was just lying. He's been known to do
that, too. He is still chirping happy babble about
free elections and democracy in Iraq. He can't
even manage that in Afghanistan, and the situation
there, while bad, is nothing like the cascading
chaos that has enveloped Iraq. Hell, most people
doubt we're going to see freedom and democracy
in America after this year.
There is one thing about that intelligence analysis,
the "optimistic" one that hoped things wouldnąt
be any worse than they are now. It was largely
based on projections of what would happen if the
US attacked, invaded and occupied Iraq, and it
was done, in large measure, in January of 2003.
It hoped things wouldnąt get as bad as they are
now, since in their estimation that would have
made the US incursion a military and political
US occupation of Iraq is a military and political
failure. The US needs to get out, and get out
now. If we wait, we're just going to see a lot
of people die, and they will die for no discernable
reason beyond the crazed delusions of a bunch
of discredited neo-con chickenhawks, and a crackpot
president who is trying to prove his pecker is
bigger than daddy's.
media still supports Putsch, of course. CBS/NY
Times just released a poll that showed Putsch
with a nine point lead over Kerry, giving the
rest of the right wing media the opportunity to
prattle on about how the Kerry campaign was disintegrating,
and to quote happily from the poll, which showed
that 40% of respondents felt Kerry should spend
less time attacking the President. (And I would
bet that this 40% all supported Putsch in the
deep in the fine print of the 35 page poll was
the question, "Who did you vote for last time?"
Putsch led in that question, too, by nine point.
In other words, the poll was weighted by nearly
ten points in favor of Putsch (who trailed in
the popular vote last time by a half point), so
the ten point lead that the right wing is shouting
"ta da!" about doesn't actually exist. It's a
crooked result from a bent poll.
the Smearvets pretty well discredited everywhere
except the very trashiest elements of the far
right, and the Dan Rather memogate thrown into
confusion by the Mrs. Landinghamesque Marian Knox,
who said, "I did not type those memos, but I did
type memos essentially identical in content,"
the right wing smear campaign needs more ways
to distract from the chaos of Iraq, and the fact
that Putsch's vast tax cuts not only failed to
stimulate the economy, but added trillions in
the latest was a picture of a thuggish guy in
a union T-shirt grabbing a "Bush/Cheney" sign
from a crying three year old girl named Sophia
and tearing it up. Oh, the horror.
first it came to light through the blogs that
daddy Phil Parlock, upon whose shoulders the little
girl sat, had "been attacked" at Democratic rallies
in 1996 and 2000. Given his track record, one
might wonder why he would drag his three-year
old girl along. Was she supposed to be a shield
in case someone threw a rock at him or something?
it's come to light at another blog
that the "union assailant" was the guy's son,
and the little girl's older brother.
blogs are getting kinda handy, doing all the stuff
that our "lazy, arrogant and bitchy" mainstream
media will no longer do.
it's worth looking at the picture of the crying
three year old, and considering her lucky, even
if daddy is a rather vile political operative.
After all, she isn't crying because her home just
got blown up by an American bombing run. She isn't
crying because her mother was just killed in a
car bombing, and she isn't crying because she
just had a foot blown off. She isn't crying because
Daddy just lost his life over in Iraq, and she
isn't crying because she's hungry because the
unemployment ran out, and her folks can't find
one of the lucky ones.
Posted: September 20, 2004