Saturday, March 22, 2003 Live From Boston I was in Boston today for a peace rally. People gathered to hear speakers at the Park Street T stop on the corner of Boston Common at 12:30. I believe the event was planned by International ANSWER. After about an hour or so, the rally turned into a march and progressed around the common and eventually took a looping route all the way to harvard square, where it concluded at about 6:00. It's difficult to put a number on the crowd because it fluctuated so much at different points along the march. It probably varied from well above a thousand people to a few hundred near the end. A few times during the march the group was stopped by the police and sat down in the street. The Boston police adapted well over the course of the day and each time the march was brought to a halt, the leaders were able to negotiate with the police and we were allowed to continue on down the road. I didn't see any problems all afternoon. A handfull of "counter protestors" hurled profanity and other choice remarks from the sidewalk at a few points, but they were few and far between. I'd count this as a successful event.
Posted by Graham,
8:19 PM
-
Are they coming or going?
It's still unclear whether Turkey is going to send troops into Northern Iraq. The latest reports of 1000 Turkish troops crossing the border turned out to be false.
Either way, it looks like the US is not too keen on selling out the Kurds, refusing to accomodate Turkey's demands(story here):
Up to 200 U.S. Special Forces will set up a staging area in eastern Jordan near the border with Iraq, the sources said, where they will fly the airborne troops into the region.
Sources say the operation is the result of American exasperation with Turkey's demands that it should be able to put its troops into northern Iraq at same time as U.S. troops would go into the region.
Posted by Brad Plumer,
1:57 PM
-
Friday, March 21, 2003
Crap if you're against the war
At 7th & Mish, by the U.S. Court House, I sat in a van driven by Nathaniel Shelton, who transports patients to and from Saint Francis Memorial Hospital. We were stuck, along with a fleet of Fed Ex drivers, just after 9 a.m., as demonstrators rode bikes in a circle in the intersection, closed it off with colored string, and berated the truck drivers. "It's almost as if they were protesting us," said Shelton. Indeed, the enmity and ridicule of the protesters was directed at working people trying to get their work done. The massive Court House, a seat of government power, was ignored. At the Civic Center, a group of demonstrators defecated. Then they left, leaving the mess to be cleaned up by others. Not only disgusting, but this idiocy belittles the proud tradition of civic protest in our national history ... Sigh ...
(via Andrew Sullivan)
Posted by Timothy,
6:23 PM
-
Protests DO (still) make a difference This e-mail posting from Boston-based activist Jaclyn Friedman explains very simply why protests still matter:
"However atrocious W's war is and will be, it will be many times worse if he thinks no one's going to blow the whistle on him. Just think - he wanted to go to war in January. We made him wait and wait. The pressure of global activists in support of peaceful governments always has an impact, even if it's not as much as we'd like it to be. We have to keep the pressure on more now than ever."
Nikhil raises a good point below that obnoxious protesters can alienate the undecided--especially those who are already leaning pro-war. But the show of numbers and expression of anti-war sentiments can also encourage undecideds to wonder why so many people ARE anti-war and give that viewpoint more thought. It also legitimizes the sentiments of the quieter, less outspoken anti-war folks: they are not alone, they are not freaks for being anti-war. The key lies in being loud, passionate and outspoken without being destructive.
Posted by Ms. Anthrope,
5:31 PM
-
More Impact Than I Expected The Washington Post website features a profile of the anti-war movement [link here]. I think it's pretty balanced, and I have to admit to being surprised by the amount of attention devoted to peace demonstrators during these past few days. The continued divisions, both domestically and abroad, remain in the headlines. I would have expected the media to fall in with the administration pretty quickly... Evidence of the movement's success, in a small way?
Posted by Karsten Barde,
2:27 PM
-
First Iraq, then Iran?
This encouraging story comes from The Guardian, no less:
According to Hassan Rowhani, secretary of the Supreme National Security Council, Washington is preparing to launch an elaborate "software war" against Iran. "After Iraq, the US administration plans to wage a media war against Iran, involving killing people's beliefs and changing their behaviour, to damage and destroy our national unity," Rowhani was quoted as saying. [...]
Some analysts say that if Iraq emerges as a more open, democratic society than Iran, the conservatives will find it hard to suppress dissent or fend off calls for fundamental change to the theocratic system. The potential revival of Shia theological centres in Iraq could also provide an alternative platform for more moderate Islamic clergy in Iran who have called for limits on clerical political authority.
Of couse, there are a few pesky caveats:
For reformists locked in a power struggle with the conservatives, Washington's plan for a military administration in Iraq is not a particularly helpful advertisement for western-style democracy. They fear the US-led war could provide a pretext for conservatives to stage a decisive crackdown against all public criticism.
Despite Iran's official condemnation of Washington's move against Iraq, the Tehran leadership has kept its options open in hopes of influencing a post-Saddam Iraq.
If the US is serious about both security and regime change, it should do everything it can to undermine the Ayatollah's regime. That includes building a functional popular government in Iraq as quickly as possible, and shutting the Iranian conservatives out. Then, concentrate on supporting the student movements. Iran is on the verge of going nuclear, and it would be prudent to make sure that when that happens, Tehran is home to a democratic government.
Zimbabweans are carrying out a nationwide strike, aimed at undermining Mugabe's reign and bringing about democracy to a country in crisis.
The two-day strike which began Tuesday and a series of demonstrations in outlying townships were called by the main opposition Movement for Democratic Change to protest alleged government repression and acute shortages of food and gasoline.
In clandestinely distributed fliers, the opposition called for peaceful protests carried out with "utmost discipline." [...]
The opposition hoped the action would paralyze the economy and force Mugabe to step down ahead of new internationally supervised elections, said spokesman, Paul Themba Nyathi
I don't think peaceful protest has ever brought down a dictator, but this does look promising. And just think, if our government supported movements like these, it might actually look serious about spreading democracy. (This goes for European nations too...)
Posted by Brad Plumer,
12:38 PM
-
Protesting I would have posted this as a comment but somehow it wouldn't go through... thus:
I wonder, Jared, if a more acceptable opposition to the type of peace protest that occured in Toronto yesterday, for example, where maybe five-hundred people blocked the city's largest intersection, do more to frustrate people than to convince them of any argument. If I was trying to get home in 5pm rush hour, didn't have a strong opinion either way on the war, and had a two hour commute because of a bunch of over-excited high-school kids I would be more inclined to turn away from the liberal viewpoint than towards it. That is to say, through mass-protesting the liberal viewpoint is associated with chaos, and also casts itself away from accepted, rational political discussion quite literally into the street. When the protesters are also almost exclusively students (from where I was standing, high-school students had the greatest presence in terms of banners and signs), I can't see how their presence forwards any anti-war arguments rather than simply assigning it the connotations of radical/immature/student in the popular imagination. Basically: these protests aren't just futile, they may also be counterproductive.
Posted by Nikhil,
9:39 AM
-
Hell Yeah In Bellingham, Wash., at least 15 law firms shut down for the day, posting signs in their windows: "Closed in honor of those now being killed in Iraq." This from the recent NYTimes Article about those who were stopping business as usual. A few recent posts have exposed - a verb I usually reserve for our friends at Fox News - the idiocy and impracticality of the silly and futile protestors. Well, screw you. Obviously protesting the war after the bombs are dropping is futile. At least it's not as stupid as the assumption that those protesting it are only trying to stop the war. Maybe they have some outrage, some frustration, and some hope to express And, it's not as futile as pretending that we can convince our own dictator that we should be nice to these people whose babies we're burning. That would be like pleading with someone not to set a child on fire, watching them do it, and then hoping to recoup the losses by making sure they help pitch in for the funeral. The Iraqi people are paying for their own funeral - quite literally. Every building that turns to rubble - metal, cement, flesh, blood, and hope - is going to be rebuilt quite nicely by major US companies [who are already in the process of submitting bids] who'll be bank-rolled by Iraq's oil and Federal Treasuries. But you can't rebuild life, even if you do justify its loss by the unrelated loss of a few [a mere few] thousand of your own. You can't rebuild the trust, the mutual respect of other nations that we've build for half a century to watch crumble in a few months. Shame on you. The blood of innocent Iraqis and US service people is on your hands. We are all stained, and we will all be stained for longer than next term's election and longer than some pathetic rebuilding project. It's one thing to stay at home, to choose the apathy and the disconnectedness that's helped weaken the Progressive Voice [helped cripple it] as the Right and business and everyone else have grown stronger. That's your choice, and that's your safety. And it's not productive to rant, to cry out at the prick of injustice. But how dare you question those whose passions are incited. Who are you that you can watch the blood flow into thick black pools of oil which becomes money and power for a few and not care? Who are you that you can't empathize with some of the rage that those with blood and hearts to move it possess? Stay at home and plan your little elections and your meaningless political games. The Democratic Party has obviously done a bloody good job of that very strategy. The people in the streets, though, they're your last hope. They deserve respect if not admiration, and by no means do you have the right to judge them. They are your last link to the passion and the rage and the single binding thread of hope -the only thing that makes [some] of us progressive liberal bleeding heart pinko socialist or even just willing to try to make the world a better place - caring about other people.
Posted by Jared,
3:48 AM
-
Thursday, March 20, 2003 Huh? Medea Benjamin, cofounder of the good organization Global Exchange, told TomPaine.com this morning:
Well, we’ve spent the morning dressing ourselves as victims of war, victims of collateral damage. We have blood all over our clothes. We’re wrapped in gauze and mud all over us. We have toys, babies, baby dolls with their heads and their arms blown off of them, and we are symbolizing the death and destruction that is going to come in Iraq.
We went through the halls of Congress this morning to say, "Shame on you. The blood of innocent Iraqis and U.S. service people is on your hands," and [we] marched through the halls of Congress mourning and wailing. Now we’re on our way to march to Donald Rumsfeld’s house, with the same message that the blood of war is on your hands.[link here]
My question is this: when did peace-loving, antiwar folks like Medea Benjamin become so silly? I came close to working for her organization during first-year summer. Why am I now so utterly unable to fathom her antics? Has she completely lost it, or what?
Posted by Karsten Barde,
7:17 PM
-
A critique of anti-war protests...
American Prospect's Tapped has a message for antiwar protesters: stop marching and start doing something useful. The war has started, and barricading bomb factories or lighting a few candles won't change anything. The next battle, the important battle will be fought in 2004, in the voting booths:
If the people who spend their time organizing and marching would spend even a fraction of that energy and time involving themselves in real electoral politics -- not futile, Naderite third-party runs, another form of political narcissism -- they could actually punish Bush for what he's done.
Oh, and here is the essay by Justin Raimondo that started it all, bashing current antiwar protesters for being narcissistic and egotistical, and not at all practical. Yes, it's ironic that you have to scroll through a huge 'tough-guy' picture of Raimondo himself before reading the essay, but read it anyways. He gets a little ridiculous at times, as when he worries that protests only give Ashcroft more reason to push Patriot Act II, but I think he makes an important point.
And following Mr. Raimondo's lead, the next step right now is to make sure that the war doesn't end when the last bombs fall, but rather when Iraq is rebuilt and democracy implemented. Everyone should be gearing up for this stage of the conflict, to hold Bush accountable for the reconstruction of Iraq. Unfortunately most of the sign-wavers on the left have never shown much inclination for this sort of thing (how many leftists worried about Vietnam after the US pulled out?), and the twits at Dartlog, The Weekly Standard, etc. certainly won't fret about the post-invasion part of this campaign. So unless the antiwar mainstream swallows its pride, gets its shit together and starts thinking practically, the Iraqi people may very well be screwed and forgotten yet again. And Bush will continue to run over his opponents.
Edit: For those wondering what I mean by the antiwar mainstream, I'm talking about The Nation, which has reduced itself to hysterical rantings and tales told by idiots. Or this moronic strategy for building a progressive campaign in 2004. Yes, it all makes me feel warm and fuzzy, but that's about it. The liberal media needs a new approach. And I'm also talking about the Democrats, who need to take a stand and stay put. Daschle, Kerry, Lieberman etc. have flip-flopped so much lately that they're losing credibility. To be honest, it doesn't really matter if the Republicans are hypocrites and Hannity is an idiot. What matters is that they're winning, and looking good.
Posted by Brad Plumer,
6:29 PM
-
Hmmm, that's a mystery!
So Saddam has armed his troops with chemical weapons and this morning (for us in the US) the Patriot anti-missile defense system shot down two incoming Scud missiles on trajectory for Kuwait. I thought Saddam didn't have either of these? Clearly he must be removed from power. I don't know about you all, but if I had had the opportunity to stop Hitler before he became powerful, I would have taken it. Saddam is in many ways as worse as Hitler, except Saddam has the potential to use truly horrifying weapons of mass destruction. And the entire conflict could have been avoided if it weren't for the French. Damn French.
According to a New York Times piece [link here], Artists United to Win Without War, part of the mainstream (read: more credible than A.N.S.W.E.R.) Win Without War coalition had planned for members to wear antiwar pins during Oscar night. Well, will they go ahead with it and directly defy a Commander-in-chief in full swing?
A source in the Times story said: "Californians love that sense of distinctiveness," said Peter Bart, editor of Variety. "We're not going to see the 60's again, but I think we are going to see a lot of rebellion against the mandates of Washington. This is an unpredictable and bizarre place, and I think we are definitely heading into an intensely politicized time in Hollywood."
Americans love their celebrities and few nights of the year are as closely watched as Oscar night... I'm interested to see what happens.
This first strike certainly has not been the "shock and awe" we expected. What's next? Peace activists were on street corners holding candlelight vigils Wednesday night, but what will they do Thursday, Friday and over the weekend? Will Bush get the neat surgical strike ("decapitation") that he wanted? Word is that the first missile strikes missed Saddam. Who else were we aiming for?
Visit the Win Without War website to send supportive messages to troops [link here].
Read the Nation editorial penned at the outbreak of hostilities [link here].
Posted by Karsten Barde,
3:50 AM
-
Wednesday, March 19, 2003 9/11 is Bush's FORMAL justification for invading Iraq?!
CBC: Bush cites al-Qaeda link to justify Iraq attack WASHINGTON - U.S. President George Bush on Wednesday sent Congress a formal justification for invading Iraq, citing the attacks on the U.S. on Sept. 11, 2001. Bush will make a televised speech if the U.S. attacks Iraq, a spokesperson said. The three-paragraph note justifying war said diplomacy has failed to guarantee America's security. The Constitution gives Bush authority to "take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001," the note said. White House spokesperson Sean McCormack said the reference is to Iraq. Bush has said Iraq has links with al-Qaeda, the organization blamed for the Sept. 11 attacks on New York and Washington. (via atrios)
UPDATE: Here's the text of the actual letter from George Bush:
Text of a Letter from the President to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate, March 18, 2003
Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:) Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that: (1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and (2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001. Sincerely, GEORGE W. BUSH (via tom tomorrow)
Reading the letter closely, it is not clear to me that 9-11 is a formal justification for invading Iraq. The second part of the letter says military action in Iraq is "consistent" with continuing to take actions against those who planned and aided the September 11 attacks. "Consistent" could mean war with Iraq is part and parcel of the mission to root out terrorists and those regimes (supposedly Iraq) who aided and abetted them. Or "consisent" could mean that it is possible to do two things at once: we can go after Iraq without being distracted from the war on terror (that latter assertion may or may not be true, but if that is the interpretation we draw from the letter, 9-11 is not being used to formally justify the war with Iraq.)
Posted by Timothy,
7:22 PM
-
Chickenhawks have no shame Republican Congressmen are attacking Daschle's patriotism for saying that Bush's diplomacy (or lack there of) has led us to the brink of war. Yet those idiots criticized the President, during the war in Kosovo. Read about the hypocrisy on dailykos.
Posted by Timothy,
4:07 PM
-
And in Case You Were Looking for Spiritual Comfort . . .
Be assured that even as God is on the side of Iraqi defense and even as God is blessing the United States of America, the Pope asserts that those participating in the war in Iraq (even those defending?) will answer to God.
Posted by Anthony,
4:03 PM
-
It's 1972 All Over Again Listening to the radio this morning, I heard a conservative commentator describe Howard Dean as a perfect re-incarnation of George McGovern. The GOP is hoping his surging popularity will lead to an even bigger split amongst the Dems in '04 over the war issue. The liberal co-host's reply: "If Howard Dean is our George McGovern, then that would make George W. Bush your Richard Nixon."
Posted by Dan,
8:48 AM
-
'Church votes to fire pastor who had service during Super Bowl'
The church that got irked at its pastor for calling a mandatory service on Super Bowl Sunday voted to fire him Monday night. New Salem Missionary Baptist Church of Birmingham voted 67-10 to fire the Rev. Stanley B. Hall Sr., pastor of New Salem since 1994. Hall filed a request for a temporary restraining order last week to stop the vote. At a hearing last week, Jefferson County Circuit Judge Helen Shores Lee said that the vote could take place, but would not be legally binding unless it abided by the church's bylaws. Luke Walker, chairman of the deacon board, said a court date before Lee has been set for March 31 at 9 a.m. "The court's going to have the final say, but the message has been sent to the circuit court," Walker said. Walker presided over the church meeting and did not allow questions. "This is not a trial tonight," he said. Efforts to reach Hall for comment were unsuccessful. "We want to try this in court, not in the press," said Gloria Brown Collins, Hall's attorney. Walker said that Hall requested that all deacons and trustees of the church attend a consecration service that started at kickoff time on Super Bowl Sunday, Jan. 26. He said deacons and trustees were warned by Hall that they had to attend. Three deacons and three trustees who didn't attend received a letter from the pastor, dismissing them from their positions as deacons and trustees. Yancey Williams, who said he supported Hall, objected that he was not allowed to ask questions at the meeting. "No one could speak on his behalf," Williams said. Brenda Axle said Hall was right to require deacons and trustees to attend a consecration service. "They chose the Super Bowl over this church," she said. "I will no longer stay if Rev. Hall is not pastor," she said. "My entire family will be leaving."
Posted by Timothy,
1:26 AM
-
Double Secret Coalition Building From the BBC:
US Secretary of State Colin Powell earlier said 45 nations had joined Mr Bush's "coalition of the willing" - 30 had promised concrete support whilst 15 preferred to remain unnamed at the moment.
Posted by Clint,
12:14 AM
-
Statehood Lite (TM) Sharon wants all references to an "independent" Palestine removed from Bush's new road map, to replaced with "certain attributes of sovereignty". Sharon would also like to avoid the removal of his country's illegal settlements.
Posted by Clint,
12:06 AM
-
The Land Down Under John Howard, Prime Minister of Australia, was interrupted by a member of parliment while giving his justification for war speech with a shout of "What about the hundreds of thousands that will die!?!? Murderers!!"
Posted by Clint,
12:00 AM
-
Tuesday, March 18, 2003 The Guardian's Guide to Anti-War sites: here.
Posted by Timothy,
11:23 PM
-
Probably 35-40 Day War
That's what one analyst and retired colonel in the US armed forces predicted in a News Hour interview (not yet posted on the Web). While the two other former personel and analysts both expected the war to last something around 14 days, it was argued that humanitarian assistance and avoiding the slaughter of the very people whom the US is supposed to be saving will take much time. The 35-40 day war estimate seems congruent with the intentions of the generals on the Kuwaiti border. Check out www.pbs.org and follow the links to News Hour.
Posted by Anthony,
8:53 PM
-
Advocate Interview with Howard Dean: Here.
Posted by Timothy,
8:52 PM
-
American Protester Run Over by Isreali Bulldozer in Gaza
>An American woman in Gaza to protest against Israeli operations was killed Sunday when she was run over by an Israeli bulldozer, witnesses and hospital officials said. Witnesses said Rachel Corrie, 23, from Olympia, Wash., was trying to stop the bulldozer from tearing down a building in the Rafah refugee camp, witnesses said, when she was run over. She was taken to Najar hospital in Rafah, where she died, said Dr. Ali Moussa, a hospital administrator. Greg Schnabel, 28, from Chicago, said the protesters were in the house of Dr. Samir Masri. "Rachel was alone in front of the house as we were trying to get them to stop," he said. "She waved for bulldozer to stop and waved. She fell down and the bulldozer kept going. We yelled 'stop, stop', and the bulldozer didn't stop at all. It had completely run over her and then it reversed and ran back over her," he said... Israel sends tanks and bulldozers into the area almost daily, destroying buildings near the Gaza-Egypt border. According to interim peace accords, Israel controls the border area. There are almost daily clashes between Palestinian gunmen and Israeli soldiers in the area.
See a picture of Rachel about to get run over by a bulldozer here.
Posted by Timothy,
7:00 PM
-
7 Day War? Fox News Military Analyst, err, I mean, Dartlog Blogger Christian Hummel predicts that "Baghdad will fall at D-Day +7". Read this and other exciting predictions here.
Posted by Richie Jay,
9:54 AM
-
Myth/Fact Myth: Acting unilaterally will ruffle feathers but not have any real effects on the international community's relations with the US. Fact: (from this NYTimes article) "In Moscow, meanwhile, the Russian Parliament put off a vote on ratification of a United States-Russia treaty that would slash nuclear arsenals, in a display of anger at being ignored by the United States over Iraq." (The vote has not been rescheduled)
Posted by Sarah,
9:28 AM
-
About Half of Americans think that Saddam Hussein "was personally involved in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks." According to the same Gallup poll, 50% of Americans oppose invading Iraq if "The U.S. decides NOT to offer the resolution to the United Nations and says it will proceed with military action without any new vote in the U.N."
Posted by Clint,
12:28 AM
-
Monday, March 17, 2003 A Bright Spot CNN's crawl is reporting that the senior dem on some Senate committee is asking the FBI to investigate how our Secretary of State came to rely on faked evidence on Iraq's "Purchase" of atomic supplies from an African nation. Can't find a source now, but this could be interesting, if the US has to admit just after the war that it had faked documents that helped grease the skids.
UPDATE: The post is complete thanks to Jon's comment: Jay Rockefeller of W-VA, ranking dem on Intelligence Committee. Article here.
Posted by Clint,
10:48 PM
-
Re: Fox News is Amazing, and Re: In Fact
I've been having the same recurrent nausea all day from cable news. One low point came when CNN said "Most Americans support the President's postion" as they flashed a poll result showing that, indeed, less than half of America supports his position without UN support. War is Peace.
For the last coupla hours I've been watching PBS. Sure, it's not exactly breaking news, but Frontline has been retrospecting their last 20 years of Iraq coverage, and right Now (pun intended) Bill Moyers is discussing the dubious case for post war democracy, with Simon friggin Schama as a guest.
Posted by Clint,
10:41 PM
-
The Other Bomb Making Factory: It is about to become Iraq talk, every day, all the time. Just a reminder: by the end of spring, the North Korea will be able, and will be, producing nuclear weapons at a horrific rate. (It has already been producing chemical weapons at the rate of 18 TONS per day, as reported in Jane's Sentinel 2002) (If you want more great pictures, they are here.)
Posted by Kumar,
10:11 PM
-
In fact... I was watching the news today, and the only thing that came close to news was CSPAN, and that's just 'cause you can't lie with live coverage. In contrast, MSNBC actually had this guy - I thought it was a point counterpoint, but it turned out he was the regular guy, just commenting - talking about how some factions of people are against the country. Against the country? He was referring to the protests against the war. It's just dumb.
Posted by Jared,
9:43 PM
-
Fox News is Amazing: I call it the Howard Stern effect: the more they baffle me, the more I watch. I just saw the Fox News analysis of Bush's "war in 48 hours" speech, and I was just amazed that some of the comments were being made with a straight face. (In the world of intelligent op-eds and quality bloggers, you sometimes forget how ridiculous and unsubstantiated TV analysis can be) A couple of quick examples: 1) "Fox analyst" Newt Gingrich proclaimed that he figures that "there is a 1 in 20 chance that Saddam will flee and a 1 in 10 chance that Saddam will pre-empt the US attack with chemical weapons." Suddenly, the bottom of the screen starts flashing: 10 percent chance of chemical use! Where does Gingrich get the nerve to come up with odds? Based on what source? 2) Brit Hume and his co-horts joke that the US should kill all the Saddam look-alikes. Alright, I respect those who serve in the military a great deal and think it is a truly noble calling, but these chicken-hawks sitting around, laughing about killing people is just sick. 3) O'Reilly telling Americans who disagree to shut up now that the war is starting. I don't get how you say that with a straight face.
Posted by Kumar,
9:36 PM
-
Daschle calls out Bush... Sort of Tom Dashcle said today: "I'm saddened....Saddened that this president failed so miserably at diplomacy that we're now forced to war. Saddened that we have to give up one life because this president couldn't create the kind of diplomatic effort that was so critical for our country. But we will work, and we will do all we can to get through this crisis like we've gotten through so many."
This sounds like a harsh criticism of the President, but ultimately it is an endorsement of going to war now. It cowardly allows Daschle to criticize the President in this way and not argue that we could have diplomacy to allow a longer time frame for inspections. Don't get me wrong: it is great he has the guts to criticize Bush, but he acts like the hands of the U.S. are tied. Maybe other options are a bad idea because Bush's actions have changed the cost/benefit scenarios (credibility, etc.), but 'forced to go to war' is a little strong, don't you think?
Posted by Timothy,
7:03 PM
-
Robin Cook in parliament Robin Cook resigned from the Cabinet and gave an impassioned speech against a war in Iraq. More here (via atrios: click on the right for the audio). When I was watching Cook's speech on C-Span, midway through the screen went to those funny rainbow bars and the screen said in white letters 'fox news' and some place in the Middle East (Dobai? I can't remember the spelling of it exactly). They then went to Colin Powell's speech. My roommate, who is not usually conspiracy inclined, started grumbling....
Posted by Timothy,
6:53 PM
-
I see your true colors shining through Maybe those far-lefist conspiracy nutbags don't have it all wrong. Josh Marshall is reporting on this, a plan in which the "rebuilding" of Iraq is done, in the first year, with $1.5 billion to private companies, and about $50 million to NGOs, minimum UN involvement. I think that summary's accurate. Look at the article and see. Is Harken Energy still around?
Posted by Jonathan,
3:13 PM
-
Greens Caused the War? Thought this guy had an interesting point. To summarize, if Nader voters had supported Gore instead of voting for Nader, we wouldn't have the ban on partial birth abortions, etc. I'm not sure what to think about this--I believe it shows that each vote has consequences we may not take into account. Watch the ad and read the opinion piece!
Posted by Neha,
1:19 PM
-
"Peace in Ireland, No War in Iraq"
And this was the message worn by many at the parade yesterday, in Montreal. Unruly Catholics and United Empire Loyalists marched in the same parade. And this made me think back to Great Britain and Ireland and their terrorist woes. Yes, military incursions took place and there was violence on both sides, but during all of this, diplomacy was always seen as the way to peace. Not only this, but the UK really did negotiate with Sinn Fein who really did have links to terrorist organisations (like the IRA). This war is a big mistake.
Posted by Anthony,
12:40 PM
-
While no-one's looking... I feel like this is a bit creepy.
Posted by Jared,
9:39 AM
-
I knew it was coming, but fuck Bush. At this point, I kind of wish France would launch a little bomg at Penn. Ave.
Posted by Jared,
9:38 AM
-
Smackdown! Sorry. I got a little too excited. But it's on. It's definitely on. We just told the inspectors to pack up. Boy, as soon as the sun rose on Monday Bush sure did begin the end of his diplomacy. He wasn't bullshitting about that (you can debate if there ever actually was any diplomacy).
Posted by Jonathan,
6:02 AM
-
I'm for it... An interesting link from Garg's post below. This site is about boycotting Israeli products, spefically those from companies who collaborate with the Israeli government to oppress the Palestinians. Now, as many of you know, I think both sides are wrong here, but Israel really has an ass-kicking coming. This is a good start.
Posted by Jared,
12:08 AM
-
Sunday, March 16, 2003 She was asking for it. While commenting on this post, I thought about something interesting. There are plenty of people I know that, claiming to be "down with it" vis-a-vis women, will defend (ardently) the proposition that, in some just barely non-trivial sense, some women who are sexually assualted "ask for it." I personally find this mindboggling, even moreso when some of the people that defend the proposition are women (and even more than that, when women are the ones that defend it in something more than a "just barely non-trivial sense")! I wonder if there is anyone ballsy (read: willing to be pilloried) enough to defend it here - or better yet, on Dartlog, or the Observer. Takers?
Posted by Jonathan,
10:38 PM
-
Should the first Democratic primary be in DC? Howard Kurtz, media critic extraordinaire, points out the important reason why not: it would be boring. (Here)
Posted by Kumar,
8:00 PM
-
Eye of the Beholder: It's amazing how perspective is so important in how you look at things. For a look at how the Arab media sees our actions around the world, check out this site.
Posted by Kumar,
7:56 PM
-
Meddling in Other People's Business: I know I should keep my mouth shut but I can't resist complaining about the cost of the Stonefence Magazine. In the publications office, I saw a Winter 1995 issue which was done in cardstock. It had the same layout, and was filled with literary work. The latest issue costs almost four thousand dollars to print 800 copies, half of which have yet to be delivered. On the old cardstock, similar quality of literary work could reach this campus for less than a thousand dollars. I know everyone likes to be pretty but is this really worth it?
Posted by Kumar,
7:51 PM
-
Fashion, Pictures, Sexism and Anti-War: This was brought up at a Free Press meeting and I wonder what everyone thinks about the nude anti-war protests, with many nude women laying on the ground to spell an anti-war slogan. Is it done because it's eye-catching? If so, is that a good enough reason? Fellow Free Dartmouth blogger Laura Dellatorre brought up the question of sexism: whether these images are just liked guys because they are nude women. Or maybe I used this post as an excuse to get some images up on our blog (I can post more if people want). Thoughts?
Posted by Jonathan,
4:12 PM
-
Bush Live from the Azores I was watching the "president" on CNN talking about how tomorrow is the moment of truth. Besides his stuttering and his dramatic pauses - he makes Clinton look honest - he's standing there talking about how Saddam is cabable if committing any crime, and I'm thinking, well, in theory, so am I, and obviously, so is Bush. Then he starts talking about how Iraq has weapons that are capable of committing mass murder. I mean, if it weren't obvious that he didn't in fact have any such weapons, you'd think that he meant weapons of mass destruction. Funny how Bush doesn't use the term - at least he's not lying per-se - but obviously wants to get as close to saying so as possible. Anyway, if Waligore wouldn't keep on removing them, I'd definitely say once again how happy I'd be if I could [gently kiss] the man. Of course, I'd have to get the next...4?...- I never remember the order of succession - in line as well. Ho hum.
[The part of the post in brackets has been edited by the 'Make Love, Not War' administrative contingent of Free Dartmouth-TW]
Posted by Jared,
1:55 PM
-
Sexist Medical Procedures
You wanna talk about medical experimentation that is cruel to women? How about this one:
researchers collected samples from the underarms of men who refrained from using deodorant for four weeks. The extracts were then blended and applied to the upper lips of 18 women, aged 25 to 45.
Do we have any female volunteers?
Disclaimer: This is actually excerpted from a legitimate study. Seriously. Read about it here.
Posted by Jonathan,
1:05 PM
-
A Tree Fell With No One Around
"My daughter was ready to die for the United States," Colonel Shafer said. "She knew she could have been captured by an enemy, raped and pillaged in war. She did not expect to be raped and pillaged at the United States Air Force Academy. It's just unbelievable how she was taken advantage of. It makes me sick." [From The New York Times]
Perhaps some of you thought this was bound to happen in a place that is de facto pro-masculine and at best indifferent to women. I still think it's interesting that it's been front page news for over a week and I can't recall it being mentioned here at all.
The Other Bomb Making Factory: It is about to become Iraq talk, every day, all the time. Just a reminder: by the end of spring, the North Korea will be able, and will be, producing nuclear weapons at a horrific rate. (It has already been producing chemical weapons at the rate of 18 TONS per day, as reported in Jane's Sentinel 2002) (If you want more great pictures, they are 
Fashion, Pictures, Sexism and Anti-War: This was brought up at a Free Press meeting and I wonder what everyone thinks about the nude anti-war protests, with many nude women laying on the ground to spell an anti-war slogan. Is it done because it's eye-catching? If so, is that a good enough reason? Fellow Free Dartmouth blogger Laura Dellatorre brought up the question of sexism: whether these images are just liked guys because they are nude women. Or maybe I used this post as an excuse to get some images up on our blog (I can post more if people want). Thoughts?