Saturday, March 29, 2003 "A millon Mogadishus" Andrew Sullivan writes on salon:
Columbia University professor Nicholas De Genova hoped at an "antiwar teach-in," hosted by left-wing writer and historian Eric Foner, that there would be "a million Mogadishus" in this war. To translate: This guy wants to see a million young American troops subjected to war crimes, shot and mutilated, and paraded through the streets. No one in the crowd objected. "The only true heroes are those who find ways that help defeat the U.S. military," he elaborated. And to loud cheers from an Ivy League college audience, he thundered, "If we really [believe] that this war is criminal ... then we have to believe in the victory of the Iraqi people and the defeat of the U.S. war machine."
Sullivan is right that no one objected to the repulsive Mogadishu line: I sat there astonished De Genova was even saying that. But it is bullshit to say the final line of De Genova's speech drew "loud cheers from an Ivy League audience." I did not see Sullivan there, so I assume he was misinformed, but this tiny distortion is arguably unimportant. A significant portion of the room (I'd guess a quarter) did start clapping at the end of the speech, but I heard no cheers, much less loud cheers. Of course, I was in shock, hissing, shaking my head that ANYONE was clapping rather than booing. I can tell you that I paid close attention to see if further speakers over the next few hours would repudiate those comments. And when two speakers (including Eric Foner) disagreed with some statements made by De Genova the applause was louder than it had been for De Genova. It says something that Columbia students are not willing to stand up en masse and disagree with such disgusting comments, but it does not say that most of them agree with what was said. De Genova certainly was not representative of the other professors. On the contrary, the speaker was a last minute addition replacing someone who was sick, and De Genova was alone in the type of comments he made. (I might note that as far as I remember, De Gonova was the only speaker who made statements that any other speaker, let alone more than one speaker, specifically and publically distanced themselves from). I'll have more updates on this.
Newsday ignored all the other speeches and focused only on De Gonova's comments, which Foner called 'idiotic' in an interview:
At least two of the speakers who followed De Genova distanced themselves from his comments. One of them was teach-in organizer Eric Foner, a history professor, who disagreed with De Genova's assertion that Americans who called themselves "patriots" also were white supremacists. In a telephone interview Thursday, Foner went further in his criticism, calling De Genova's statements "idiotic." "I thought that was completely uncalled for," Foner said, referring to De Genova's allusion to the Mogadishu ambush and firefight, portrayed in the film "Black Hawk Down" and known for the graphic image of a slain American soldier being dragged through the streets. "We do not desire the deaths of American soldiers." Foner said that because of the university's tradition of freedom of speech, it was unlikely De Genova would suffer professionally in any way because of what he said. "A person's politics have no impact on their employment status here, whether they are promoted, whether they are fired or whether they get tenure," Foner said. Foner said he did not know whether De Genova had tenure.
History professor Eric Foner, who helped organize the teach-in and spoke after De Genova, said Friday, ``I disagreed strongly and I said so. If I had known what he was going to say I would have been reluctant to have him speak.'' He said De Genova was a last-minute invitee, was just one of about 25 speakers and ``did not represent the general tone of the event, which was highly educational.''
The New York Times writes about the repudiation of De Genova by the President of Columbia:
"Under well-established principles of the First Amendment, this is within a person's right to free speech," Lee C. Bollinger, the president of Columbia, said in an interview. "Not for a second, however, does that insulate it from criticism. I am shocked that someone would make such statements. I am especially saddened for the families of those whose lives are now at risk." ... "Professor De Genova's speech did not represent the views of the organizers," said Eric Foner, a history professor who was one of the teach-in's organizers. "I personally found it quite reprehensible. The antiwar movement does not desire the death of American soldiers. We do not accept his view of what it means to be a patriot. I began my talk, which came later, by repudiating his definition of patriotism, saying the teach-in was a patriotic act, that I believe patriots are those who seek to improve their country."
Posted by Timothy,
9:45 PM
-
Myths of the Right-wing Empire (In Defense of Columbia Prof. Jack Snyder)
Columbia student Matthew Continetti is either a dishonest polemicist or someone who acquieses to bad editing for the perverted pleasure of being published in the National Review Online. Continetti says in his piece: "And political scientist Jack Snyder found room in his speech to compare the Bush administration with, in chronological order, Napoleon, Kaiser Wilhelm, Hitler, and Tojo. " I have to laugh at the ridiculousness of portraying Jack Snyder as if he was Noam Chomsky. I have seen Synder criticize radical international relations theories in a graduate seminar I took with him last term and he is, for better or worse, very much a mainstream International Relations scholar. Julia Fuma (of The Filibuster, The Columbia Political Review's blog) correctly notes that "Snyder also uses Great Britain in India and pakistan and America in Vietnam. His final point is that some nations like US in Vietnam realize they are getting bogged down in this type of offensive war and retrench." Though I do not think he mentioned this in the speech, in the 1990s, Snyder wrote a book called "Myths of Empire" in which he detailed the remarkeable similarities between the ideologies in each of these cases which justified expansionist wars and wars on the periphery. Recently Snyder was asked to write an article detailing how the Bush administration national security stragedy contains some of these same myths of empire, and that is where the remarks of his speech are drawn. Julia Fuma did not take notes at the speech and based her comments on Snyder's article. Perhaps for that reason she only mildly criticizes Continetti, saying we should take his article with a grain of salt. Here is my fairly complete summary of Prof. Snyder's remarks.
Prof. Synder began his speech at the Columbia anti-war teach-in by telling how, as a youth, he was taken off-stage mid-way through an anti-war speech he was giving at his father's Rotary club. He joked that he has not since given any speeches at Rotary clubs, and that this crowd looks a lot friendlier (see below if you, like the Columbia Spectator, wrongly think professors like Snyder only give speeches to those with whom he agrees). Prof. Snyder noted that powerful countries often develop "myths of empire," which lead them to fight costly wars. His examples included Napolean, Germany before WWI, Britain in the Boer War, Japan before WWII, and the U.S. in Vietnam. Snyder then said these past 'empires' developed a mindset that if rebellions of the periphery were not put down and pacified by force, the whole house of cards would collapse. "Security through expansion" was the only way empire could be secure. Synder noted that how an earlier speech at the teach-in by SIPA scholar Gary Sick had spoke about the National Security Doctrine paper and Snyder noted that all the myths of empire were there in the Bush administration's strategy. Here are the four myths of empire Snyder laid out:
1. The best defense is a good offense Snyder noted this defies basic common sense, as the defender usually has a 3:1 advantage. We usually see weaker countries stay on the defense. 2. There is no balance of power The viewpoint here is that people tend to bandwagon with the powerful state in the international system. Snyder noted that under Bush I, the administration was afraid that if Saddam got the slightest boost in status, people would bandwagon with him. In Bush II, the domino theory is reversed, in which a boost for the U.S. in this war will lead to clean sweep across the board: and Iraqi democracy will serve as a beacon, and favorable regime change will occur across the middle east. Snyder says that supporters of the regime change act as if they believed in realist power politics, when they mean the exact opposite. They say they are looking to create a favorable balance of power, but what they mean is they are looking to create an imbalance of power. 3. Empire can achieve security by attacking rising powers before they get too strong Snyder notes that this ignores historical reality. Bismark expanded Prussia's empire by not fighting preventative wars. Bismark was counseled by generals to attack when countries were building up, but he said to do that would result in neutrals allying against him. He wisely lured France into attacking first. 4. The enemy is a paper tiger Snyder used the example of how Japan thought that the U.S. was bound to fight Japan, yet would so weak-willed that it would collapse after a single strike at Pearl Harbor. Snyder noted that the news of the last 48 hours suggest the idea that the enemy is a paper tiger is also looking like a myth in the case of Iraq. Snyder ended his speech by saying that democracies like the U.S. and Britain have learned to retrench when faced with disasters, and he was optimistic that this period of overstretch would end soon.
Eugene Volokh quotes a Columbia Spectator editorial saying: "Professor Jack Snyder said he felt comfortable speaking at Low last night because he knew there would be little opposition. The speakers were not out to change anyone's mind about the war; instead, they reveled in an atmosphere of intellectual conformity." As I noted, Snyder began his speech by noting how as a youth, he was forced off stage in the middle of giving an anti-war speech to his father's rotary club. It hardly seems fair to tar Snyder with not tolerating dissent because he gave an example of how his youthful dissent was not tolerated at all. But it gave the Spectator an excuse to make their statement about intellectual conformity. It is understandable how the Spectator drew that inference from Snyder's remarks, but it also a wrong inference in Snyder's case. It assumes and implies that Snyder would not make the same remarks before another audience, when he has in fact done so in the past! A month or two ago, I attended an open event in which International Relations Professor Jack Snyder gave a presentation and answered numerous questions from the audience of Columbia students and other interested persons. Snyder is not a person afraid of a potentially hostile audience. Snyder's remarks at the rally were similar to what he said at this event, though they were longer and therefore more nuanced. Unlike at the rally, Snyder noted that it was possible the myths could be true today, and simply said the resemblance of the Bush administration's doctrines to past myths of empire should give us pause. If you want to criticize Snyder for not adding that scholarly caveat at the rally, fine. But do not pretend a mainstream, respected IR scholar like Snyder is representative of the loony left wishing to remain in their little cacoon of like-minded people or some other such nonsense.
Edit: I had said Julia Fuma was not present at Snyder's speech; she was, but since she did not take notes, she based her comments on Snyder's article.
Posted by Timothy,
7:32 PM
-
Interesting Quote America's 1.4 million-strong military seems to resemble the makeup of a two-year commuter or trade school outside Birmingham or Biloxi far more than that of a ghetto or barrio or four-year university in Boston. - NYTimes
Posted by Jared,
6:41 PM
-
More on the Columbia Teach-In Ira Katznelson began by speaking about how the Bush administration rejects international institutions, including the U.N. and at least some aspects of the Euro-U.S. alliance. The administration "mistakes coercive power for consent" and is "willing to flirt with one of the world's most hated possibility: colonialism." Katznelson said also that many brutal regimes around the world cynically deploy the rhetoric of anti-colonialism for own private obscene privilege. He was unhappy with the hubris on right, but also unhappy with those against the war who are too indifferent to the kind of regime that rules Iraq. Our first and primary responsibility should be to be accountable and trustworthy, and Bush has been a spectacular failure at that. Katznelson assailed how the reckless use of rhetoric was discrediting the language of freedom, and said how this debasement of language can have fateful consequences. The U.S. administration has shown profound disrespect for other countries, failed to build pluralism and consent, went to U.N. cynically and gave the process insufficient time. This administration abhors real politics, and the press have acquiesed and shown a terrifying lack of reasoned reporting. Katznelson also claimed that in addition to passing a resolution which supported the troops in the field, the Senate also unanimously expressed support for the leadership of President Bush. Katznelson ended by saying that "evil after all, can take more than one form."
Prof. Ratner said that there are two way you can use force is this world: self defense and with the authority of the Security Council: "this war is an aggressive war, a crime against peace, and [is] flatly illegal." One thing that Ratner talked about was the incredible hypocricy of the U.S. when it talks about how Iraq violated the Geneva conventions. Of course Iraq should follow it, but the U.S. would be a lot more credible if it itself were obeying these conventions. Shock and Awe, if it were practiced as advertised, would be a war crime.
Prof. Feltcher began by saying the beret may become the appropriate symbol of resistance. Fletcher also noted that legal scholars had questioned what Bush might ever use military tribunals for. A couple of weeks ago, the administration had been making noise about prosecuting the leaders of Iraq based on crimes they had committed a decade or so ago. Fletcher said he had wondered how U.S. courts could have jurisdiction over this (provisions in U.S. law penalize grave breaches of human rights which involve U.S. nationals). On February 28, the Defense Department published a list of crimes they intended to prosecute in military tribunals, and Fletcher think this list shows they intend to use the tribunals in Iraq, and it is very troubling if the death penalty can be imposed by a vote of three military officers.
The M.C. for the first panel, Jean Cohen ended by saying: "I have to say I'm utterly amazed at the solidarity of speakers in keeping to their time limits."
In a further post, I am going to talk about the Prof. who called for the U.S. to lose to war, which is all over the blogosphere. It is kind of ridiculous, in a sense, because his statement were entirely his, and not echoed by any of the other speakers.
Posted by Timothy,
6:25 PM
-
Perfidy This is interesting. It says, in a nutshell, that although we're accusing the Iraqis of treachery for such things as hiding in civilian clothing or feinging surrender, the "rules of war" governing those activities are located in the 1977 Geneva convention - ratified by neither Iraq nor the US. Read the Geneva protocols here.
Posted by Jonathan,
4:24 PM
-
Vindication If such was needed. All over the news today, even from the Stevenson-style centrists at CNN, it has become clear that this war wouldn't be easy. It has become clear that while Mr. Hussein was a vile dictator, many Iraqis, and certainly many in the rest of the Arab world, are more concerned with our own brand of Facism. The dream of hoardes of newly freed civilians who chant our praise have sort of turned out to be as much a fantasy as any of the other pretexts of this war. The freed child has become the suicide bomber - at least one familliar face in all this, and a foreshadowing of what will likely be the most clear and literal impetus for organized terrorism the world has ever seen. We've managed to drop mis-fired bombs on Turkey and now, recently, Saudi Arabia, killed our own in what is perversely called friendly fire, and, with the exception of the UK, watched even futher denigration of our National image. Are we going to leave? No. Bush wouldn't pull out now. But, every day, the lie that is this war, the munchausen by-proxy that we're suffering, is becoming more and more obvious. As the body-count rises, the questions can not be suppressed. Where are the weapons of mass destruction? Where are the chemical weapons? Where is the populace that longs for American Democracy? Where's the mitigation of the terrorist threat? The American People stll support the war, but unless things change soon, even Fox News will have to post some news about our failure in Iraq.
Posted by Jared,
2:28 PM
-
Cakewalk The new conservative spin seems to be that war is hell, didn't you people know that? Well, apparently conservatives did not know: they told us this war would be a cakewalk. This war may not become a quagmire, but prominent conservatives advocated for this war by in part saying how easy it would be. There is a difference between a cakewalk, a normal 'war', and a quagmire. Even if the U.S. wins this war in the next few weeks or months, and it does not become a 'quagmire,' it is becoming clearer how wrong Hawks were about easy it would be take down Saddam's regime. Salon had a list of pre-war quotes:
Richard Perle, recently resigned chairman of the Defense Policy Board, in a PBS interview July 11, 2002: "Saddam is much weaker than we think he is. He's weaker militarily. We know he's got about a third of what he had in 1991." "But it's a house of cards. He rules by fear because he knows there is no underlying support. Support for Saddam, including within his military organization, will collapse at the first whiff of gunpowder. "
Ken Adelman, former U.N. ambassador, in an Op-Ed for the Washington Post, Feb. 13, 2002: "I believe demolishing Hussein's military power and liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk. Let me give simple, responsible reasons: (1) It was a cakewalk last time; (2) they've become much weaker; (3) we've become much stronger; and (4) now we're playing for keeps.
Vice President Dick Cheney, on NBC's "Meet the Press" March 16: "The read we get on the people of Iraq is there is no question but that they want to get rid of Saddam Hussein and they will welcome as liberators the United States when we come to do that." "My guess is even significant elements of the Republican Guard are likely as well to want to avoid conflict with the U.S. forces and are likely to step aside."
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, in an interview with Wolf Blitzer on CNN March 23: "The course of this war is clear. The outcome is clear. The regime of Saddam Hussein is gone. It's over. It will not be there in a relatively reasonably predictable period of time." "And the people in Iraq need to know that: that it will not be long before they will be liberated."
Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, in a speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars March 11: "Over and over, we hear reports of Iraqis here in the United States who manage to communicate with their friends and families in Iraq, and what they are hearing is amazing. Their friends and relatives want to know what is taking the Americans so long. When are you coming?" "In a meeting last week at the White House, one of these Iraqi-Americans said, 'A war with Saddam Hussein would be a war for Iraq, not against Iraq.'" "The Iraqi people understand what this crisis is about. Like the people of France in the 1940s, they view us as their hoped-for liberator. They know that America will not come as a conqueror. Our plan -- as President Bush has said -- is to 'remain as long as necessary and not a day more.'"
Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in a breakfast meeting March 4, 2003: "What you'd like to do is have it be a short, short conflict. The best way to do that is have such a shock on the system, the Iraqi regime would have to assume early on the end is inevitable."
Christopher Hitchens, Vanity Fair writer, in a debate Jan. 28, 2003: "This will be no war -- there will be a fairly brief and ruthless military intervention. "The president will give an order. [The attack] will be rapid, accurate and dazzling ... It will be greeted by the majority of the Iraqi people as an emancipation. And I say, bring it on."
Posted by Timothy,
1:01 PM
-
Free to Choose The question is asked: Are libertarian parents hypocrites for sending their kids to public schools?
Posted by Timothy,
11:40 AM
-
Friday, March 28, 2003 Radio Radio! Bloggers Clint, Jared, and I, along with peace activist Natalie Allan will be on 1340 AM this evening at 5. We will be discussing many aspects of the war. Tune in if you get a chance.
Posted by Graham,
2:57 PM
-
Ah, what those Dartloggers find funny In a post titled "Heh," Emmett Hogan writes of this Washington Post article, remarking on the capture and renaming of an Iraqi airfield as "Bush International Airport." I would've hoped our liberating troops would not have been jingoistic enough to compromise their mission once by making this sort of mistake (as they did virtually at the outset with the raising of the US flag over Umm Qasr), but now they are doing it twice, by renaming Iraqi things after their ill-spoken commander-in-chief (who should stop giving joint conferences with Tony Blair so he does not look so blundering in juxtaposition, e.g. "We got to do something..." not even "we've," much less "we have").
Posted by Jonathan,
12:01 AM
-
Thursday, March 27, 2003 Iraqi blog
Somebody may have already posted this, but I don't follow this blog religiously ("praise the unitarian spirit and pass the latest Nation"), so I'm going to post it anyway at this risk of being redundant. Here's an interesting blog posted by an Iraqi, which regardless of your stance on the war provides an interesting worm's-eye-view of Iraq right now:
The New York Times is reporting that hawkish neocon Richard Perle is stepping down from the Defense Policy Board. [Link]. He is doing so because of some controversy stirred up by his business dealings, particularly with a company called Global Crossing. That company, for those of you who are unaware, was part of the wave of corporate scandals/bankruptcies that took place in the last year. Curiouser and curiouser...
Posted by Jonathan,
10:18 PM
-
Columbia anti-war teach-in "Tom Ridge has a faith based civil defense, also known as praise the lord and pass the duct tape." Yes, professors sometimes are enjoyable to listen to, which I was glad for as I sat through and took notes during the entire six hours of an anti-war teach-in held yesterday in Lowe Library at Columbia. Over 20 professors gave 10 minute speeches that were (for the most part) detailed and interesting and covered a variety of topics relating to Iraq, international law, civil liberties and the like. I'll be blogging on the speeches because I think many professors presented interesting points that have not been heard widely or at least have not been as well articulated elsewhere in such a condensed fashion. Keep in mind that these notes are my impressions of the speech and my summaries are necessarily selective, and I will update them. The event was organized by Prof. Jean Cohen (also my first-year advisor in the Political Science Ph.D. program), who introduced the event with remarks on how people are aware there is something serious and new going on the world today with the start of the war that many of us feel is illegitimate and illegal. Cohen lamented those who advocated Human Rights fundamentalism in a way that ended up serving the goals of power. Cohen noted that the legitimacy is generated through discussion, so people have to agree on action beforehand; the war cannot be legitimated ex post facto if, say, the U.S. army was welcomed by Iraqis as liberators, or if U.S. troops found stockpiles of Weapons of Mass Destruction. She feared domestically we were heading down a path that would "make McCarthyism seem like small talk." She smiled as she said that the teach-in was meant to be a learning expereience, so "if you need to be passionate, take it outside."
Posted by Timothy,
6:55 PM
-
Anti-Sodomy Law and Bigotry on the Supreme Court
Before we get hung up in the nuts and bolts of Lawrence v. Texas, let's be clear: There are two kinds of homophobia, at least in Texas. The first is a hatred of all things homosexual. That's bad. The other involves a certain fondness for gay people—an acceptance that they are A-OK, so long as they don't commit any of those sex acts they're inclined toward. This sort of Will & Grace ("gays are so cute, but don't show me what they do in bed") homophobia seems not only to be defensible according to the state of Texas; it also appears to be the lynchpin of their argument in today's long-awaited gay sodomy case.The facts of Lawrence are straightforward and mostly undisputed: Texas police entered the apartment of Houston resident John Lawrence in response to a neighbor's fabricated claim that a man in there with a gun was "going crazy." What the cops actually found was Lawrence and Tyron Garner having anal sex, for which they were promptly arrested under a Texas law prohibiting "deviate sexual behavior" (i.e., oral or anal sex) between persons of the same gender. Pause here to consider that bestiality is not considered "deviate" under Texas law... Chief Justice William Rehnquist immediately challenges Smith on the claim that there is some longstanding privacy right to commit gay sodomy. This was the basis of the Bowers decision—a decision in which Rehnquist was in the majority. "The right has to have been recognized for a long time," he argues. Smith responds that laws banning homosexual conduct didn't even exist until the 19th century. Scalia argues that sodomy laws have been on the books from the beginning of the republic, they just included heterosexual and married couples. "It's conceded by the state of Texas that married couples can't be regulated in their private sexual decisions," says Smith. To which Scalia rejoins, "They may have conceded it, but I haven't." ... Smith explains that fundamental rights are understood to apply to decisions about "sexual relations in the home" and decisions about "procreation and non-procreation." Rehnquist interjects that the laws at issue have little to do with "non-procreation." Smith says these laws say "you can't have sexual activity at all" if you are gay and Scalia objects: "They just say you can't have sexual intimacy with a person of the same sex." See? No problem. Homosexuals remain perfectly at liberty to have heterosexual sex in Texas... Smith argues that there are neutral justifications for bigamy laws—but none for homosexual sodomy laws. And Rehnquist, in an odd little celebration of the narrow-minded and the judgmental, offers, "Almost all laws are based on disapproval of some people or some conduct. That's why people regulate." Smith explains that the anti-sodomy laws have pernicious secondary effects—keeping gay parents from gaining child visitation or custody or employment, for instance—and Rehnquist wonders whether, if these laws are stuck down, states can have laws "preferring non-homosexuals to homosexuals as kindergarten teachers." Smith replies that there would need to be some showing that gay kindergarten teachers produce harm to children. Scalia offers one: "Only that children might be induced to follow the path to homosexuality." -Slate.com
See more here on Scalia's question of flagpole sitting. Incredible.
Posted by Timothy,
1:19 PM
-
This war is only the beginning.... Josh Marshall has the goods on the crazy 'conservatives':
Imagine it's six months from now. The Iraq war is over. After an initial burst of joy and gratitude at being liberated from Saddam's rule, the people of Iraq are watching, and waiting, and beginning to chafe under American occupation. Across the border, in Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Iran, our conquering presence has brought street protests and escalating violence. The United Nations and NATO are in disarray, so America is pretty much on its own. Hemmed in by budget deficits at home and limited financial assistance from allies, the Bush administration is talking again about tapping Iraq's oil reserves to offset some of the costs of the American presence--talk that is further inflaming the region. Meanwhile, U.S. intelligence has discovered fresh evidence that, prior to the war, Saddam moved quantities of biological and chemical weapons to Syria. When Syria denies having such weapons, the administration starts massing troops on the Syrian border. But as they begin to move, there is an explosion: Hezbollah terrorists from southern Lebanon blow themselves up in a Baghdad restaurant, killing dozens of Western aid workers and journalists. Knowing that Hezbollah has cells in America, Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge puts the nation back on Orange Alert. FBI agents start sweeping through mosques, with a new round of arrests of Saudis, Pakistanis, Palestinians, and Yemenis. To most Americans, this would sound like a frightening state of affairs, the kind that would lead them to wonder how and why we had got ourselves into this mess in the first place. But to the Bush administration hawks who are guiding American foreign policy, this isn't the nightmare scenario. It's everything going as anticipated.
Posted by Timothy,
12:42 PM
-
Conservative Infighting! Here. You have to hand it the National Review guy for coming up with the term "paleoconservative" for the likes of Pat Buchanan. Of course, I can think of quite a few hawks who deserve that title.
Posted by Laura,
10:02 AM
-
Wednesday, March 26, 2003 Pro Patria Mori "You know, I don't know a whole lot about war, but in my heart, I don't believe it had to be that way," the grieving father said. "I think if it had been handled better, my son would still be here." - The Washington Post
Posted by Jonathan,
11:34 PM
-
Dulce Et Decorum Est "Bush is sending other people's children to war," she said. "He is telling people how honorably they might die. I would rather my son be a coward and in my arms than Bush's hero." - The Washington Post
Posted by Jonathan,
11:31 PM
-
The 50 Most Loathsome... Americans according to The Buffalo Beast and New Yorkers according to The New York Press. I'm not convinced this is a coincidence. For the record, the Beast was first--and funnier. Names common to both lists: Anne Coulter (Beast says #1, NYPress #4), Michael Moore (Beast #42, NYPress #3), and Bob Kerrey (Beast #18, NYPress #17).
Posted by Clint,
4:56 PM
-
Heard in the Jacko Office "The French and Italian Department is now to be known as the 'Freedom and Italian Department'" Apologies to Nic.
Posted by Clint,
2:50 PM
-
Gather For Peace Tonight 7 PM Peace Vigil on the Green 7:30 PM Open-mike forum on the war in Iraq @ 105 Dartmouth Hall, moderated by Professor Edsforth. The forum is sponsored by The War and Peace Studies program and Why War?
Posted by Graham,
1:05 PM
-
Weep, America, for your ridiculous (before your dead) "I think I was living in a pipe dream thinking no one would get killed," Shirley Johnson, 79, a registered Republican from Davenport, Iowa, said in a follow-up interview. "But all of a sudden people were getting killed, and I was horrified." - The New York Times
I was skeptical about the war in the first place. Now that it's started, though, we can't stop fighting it until we either 1) win or 2) lose. One should expect losses in war. This kind of nonsense from simpletons is what makes the world think we're soft and can't take losses. As another blogger pointed out on another blog (it escapes me), this many people probably died in one second on D-Day.
Posted by Jonathan,
8:47 AM
-
Tuesday, March 25, 2003 Where have gone, Steven Menashi? In my article in The Nation, Laura Dellatorre is cited saying how long after the fact, The Dartmouth Review senslessly revealed the name of woman who had anonymously complained about being harassed by fraternity brothers. On the Dartmouth Review website, Larry has a sad response to my piece, in which he again names the woman. The really strange thing is that he does not name the fraternity involved:
A group of fraternity brothers, who shall remain nameless, had gathered outside their house, whose name escapes me. After consuming a few beers, the brothers assembled on their lawn. School spirit overwhelmed them, and they burst into an impromptu recitation of the old Dartmouth football chant: “Wah-Hoo-Wah! Scalp ’em!” At this point, the accounts diverge.
Personally, I don't believe for a minute that the author of the Review article didn't know that Psi U was the house involved in the 'Psi U incident.' Alternatively, if Larry really showed no interest in looking up one of the most basic facts of the story, then he is practicing extremely shoddy journalism. Did he do any fact-checking or research of his own? I do not know why one should trust the facts outlined in a Review article whose author either lied in print or was admittedly journalistically lazy. Larry's article only adds to the Review's credibility problems. I would think past Review editors would have mounted a much better defense.
Posted by Timothy,
8:23 PM
-
Political Theory Blog politicaltheory.blogspot.com has some very interesting posts on why the left does not fund ideas. Scroll down a bit. (I'm so jealous this blog name was grabbed).
Paul Krugman, a New York Times columnist who has also worked on the faculty at Yale, MIT and Stanford, writes that Clear Channel communications, a San Antonio media conglomerate that runs over 1,200 stations, has taken a strong pro-war stance. A Clear Channel subsidiary banned the Dixie Chicks from their play-lists following the artists anti-war comments at a recent show in London and has also promoted a number of pro-war rallies on its stations. Members of the Clear Channel board, including Vice President Tom Hicks are said to have business contacts with the Bush family. Krugman suggests Clear Channel's actions may be a favor to the government prior to FCC's decision on further media deregulation that would allow the corporation to expand its broadcasting business into television. (WFRD/WDCR Newsroom)
Posted by Nikhil,
5:00 PM
-
A couple of interesting links:
And Iraqi Blogger Salaam Pax that slate believes is genuine.
Posted by Nikhil,
4:51 PM
-
What Would We Do Without Albania?
Why shoot, says the administration, we've got allies up to our eyeballs.... 30 nations have been so bold as to raise their hands and be named. ... Britain has promised the greatest number of troops -- ultimately 45,000 -- coming in at 12.9 percent of total "coalition" forces expected in Iraq. That's the good news. The bad news ... is that after Britain's contribution, 302,548 troops are still needed.
But not to worry. The leftover manpower burden doesn't all rest on the United States' shoulders ... allies other than Britain are committing 0.00842 percent of the necessary troop balance, leaving the United States to compensate for only 99.991 percent of the shortfall. ...
For instance our traditional ally, Albania, is sending a contingency of 70 troops. Poland is anteing 200 troops and Romania, not to be outdone by a bunch of Poles, is raising the 200 by 78 more. That's the kind of good-natured competition and can-do spirit that will see us through these troubled times.
Australia promises 2000 troops. And that rounds out the Willing Coalition list; members willing enough, that is, to commit ground forces. Other much-touted coalition brothers include Spain ... whose leadership has offered 0 troops; Turkey, 0; Italy, 0; Denmark, 0; and powerhouse Bulgaria, 0. ....
A few other less-touted coalition members are downright comical in description and symbolic of just how desperate the Bush administration has been to inflate its allied support.
Eritrea, for example ... its per capita GDP -- you really have to work to accomplish something like this -- is less than Afghanistan's. Though zero Eritreans will be marching off to the Iraqi War, the little nation devotes a whopping 19.8 percent of its miniscule GDP to military expenditures (ours is 3.2). ... Eritrea is experiencing a frightful territorial dispute with another Willing Coalition member, Ethiopia, which, hard as it is to imagine, actually ranks less than Eritrea in per capita GDP. The only reason both nations bothered to enlist as absentee warriors against Iraq is that both are currying favor with the U.S. as leverage in a land-conflict resolution.
Posted by Clint,
4:20 PM
-
He aughta know: Retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey, former chief of the U.S. Forces in Latin America and commander of an infantry division in the Gulf War, on what Baghdad's battle could look like:
"it's going to be brutal, dangerous work and we could take, bluntly, a couple to 3,000 casualties" ... "we've never done something like this with this modest a force at such a distance from its bases"
Posted by Clint,
3:45 PM
-
Wish they'd figured this out earlier:
The International Monetary Fund sounded more like its critics on Monday when it admitted there is little evidence globalization is helping poor countries. ..."Indeed, the process of capital account liberalization appears to have been accompanied in some cases by increased vulnerability to crises," the report said.
Posted by Clint,
3:27 PM
-
Great Guardian Quote: "It is unwise to eat raw meat or smell raw sewage and it may be equally foolish to consume raw news coverage." Here's the article. Passing though the Collis TV room today, it struck me as somehow morally repugnant to be viewing the bombing of Baghdad or wherever over your Collis omelette, essentially as entertainment. I know that historically the spectacle of war has always attracted voyeurs, but the infotainment that currently masquerades as news coverage adds a whole new layer of distancing that wasn't there before. Is this a trade-off for "democratized" journalism?
Posted by Laura,
1:35 PM
-
Boycott Brand America From Reuters, it seems that many of those who aren't busy sucking Bush's dick are boycotting American goods in protest of the war. The sad truth is that since most of our economic base is foreign, notably our more dispensible capital, the only people who will actually feel it are working in sweatshops already. That's the new economy. Regardless, stocks could feel something like this, and it would be a great message to our "president" and his no tax, much spend economy. I already boycott companies like Coca Cola and Nike, so it seems like I'll have to find something more obscure, like Trojan.
Posted by Jared,
12:32 PM
-
Monday, March 24, 2003 Eyewitness reporting from hospital in Iraq From UK site The Independent -With the title: "This is the reality of war. We bomb. They suffer: Veteran war reporter Robert Fisk tours the Baghdad hospital to see the wounded after a devastating night of air strikes. Here. -Biased or just sensational? Interesting quote: "It's not about legitimacy. It's about something much more seductive, something Saddam himself understands all too well, a special kind of power, the same power that every conqueror of Iraq wished to demonstrate as he smashed his way into the land of this ancient civilisation."
Posted by Peter,
11:26 PM
-
Close vote -To prevent drilling in the ANWR; FY2004 Congressional Budget Resolution Vote Passed (52-48) -During the budget resolution debate, the Senate narrowly passed this amendment stripping the provision that would have ended the ban on oil development in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. -In English: By 52 yeas to 48 nays (Vote No. 59), Boxer Amendment No. 272, to prevent consideration of drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in a fast-track budget reconciliation bill. -More information
Posted by Peter,
11:22 PM
-
Poster Project I missed Michael Moore's (Bowling for Columbine, Stupid White Men) Oscar acceptance speech tonight, though I heard it was answered with many boos. Of course, we'll note that the audience in the Oscars is mic'd on entirely different channels than the speakers are. That means that someone made a conscious effort to make those boos clear. Regardless, I was looking for the speech on his site which is great unless you're a Fox Newser or Karsten/Brad (it advocates for a passionate outcry against war) and I found a link to the Poster Project at NationalPhilistine.Com. This is really simple. They have a bunch of pics, like this, of just average people in Iraq. You go to the site, print out the image, and just post is up with your favorite anti-imperialist perversion of sense slogan, and show people what the face of a ghost looks like. I think it's a good idea. Edit: Two people Blitzed me to say that the speech is in the most obvious place it can be - here.
Posted by Jared,
1:26 AM
-
Sunday, March 23, 2003 Brave Voice I highly recommend taking a look at Senator Byrd's speech which he delivered shortly before the outbreak of war.
We need more strong voices in Congress against Bush's new imperialism. I say support the troops, bring them home. Our government has chosen to engage in this tragedy and I hope people will continue to speak out against it. Would anyone sacrifice their father or brother or mother or sister or friends for this war against Iraq? Many Americans are being asked to do just that. Here's a piece written by a woman whose father died in Vietnam. Each "statistic" is a real person. This can never be hidden by any justification for war. The arrogance of George Bush is forcing many American families to face tragedy. This is a crisis. America has chosen war, we have not been forced to it. Action must be taken immediately to set the American legacy back on track.
This war has been sold all along in a grossly over-simplified form, as "against Saddam." Thousands of missiles are not required to kill one man. An entire population is under attack and in the first few days of combat the war has already turned unpredictable, with fighting breaking out in cities deemed already captured and disparate groups fighting in northern Iraq. How much bloodshed does the near future hold? How can anyone be deterred from speaking out? As real patriots, we must be appalled by the bastardization of our role as a global superpower and by the transformation of many of our young men and women into killers or into casualties.
The vision of a peaceful, secure world does not require so-called "Pax Americana" style military enforcement. Serious policy (and personel) change is required in Washington. While there is no evidence linking Iraq to the 9/11/01 terrorist attacks, those attacks have reshaped the global outlook of many Americans. Certainly, we have been challenged by a new set of threats. The important thing now is to find a way to respond with character, not with aggression. So far, Bush has shown that he is not capable of appropriately meeting the challenge. He has mostly provided superficial protection at home and misguided violence abroad. All the while, valuable alliances in the war against terrorism have been smashed and global sympathy for Americans has been undermined. This is all going on as health coverage (even for veterans; support those troops, George!) is rolled back at a time when we should be figuring out how to provide universal care and schools in too many districts are reducing the school year when we should be talking about reducing class size. It is time for serious change. This is the challenge presented to all of us. The ideals that America was founded on and has represented in the past must be brought back to the forefront.
Aggressive war is not compatible with liberty, democracy, or freedom.
Posted by Graham,
11:03 PM
-
When the Americans meet the Destructicons...
A member of Ohio's 5694th National Guard Unit in Mansfield legally changed his name to a Transformers toy. Optimus Prime is heading out to the Middle East with his guard unit on Wednesday to provide fire protection for airfields under combat. . . . Prime took his name from the leader of the Autobots Transformers, which were popular toys and a children's cartoon in the 1980s. He legally changed his name on his 30th birthday and now it's on everything from his driver's licence, to his military ID, to his uniform. "They razzed me for three months to no end," said Prime. "They really dug into me about it." "I got a letter from a general at the Pentagon when the name change went through and he says it was great to have the employ of the commander of the Autobots in the National Guard." Prime says the toy actually filled a void in his life when it came out. "My dad passed away the year before and I didn't have anybody really around, so I really latched onto him when I was a kid," he said. (via volokh)
Posted by Timothy,
2:54 PM
-
Attack on the 101st What some reports are missing is that the soldier being held as a suspect, aside from being a Muslim, was reprimanded immediately before the incident for some misbehavior, and told he would not move forward when the 101st attacked Iraq.
I wonder why dixie flatline doesn't suspect the same of some American Christians, who want to control America's foreign policy towards Israel not to make it "the best for America," but rather so they can bring about the Rapture and the Second Coming of Christ (scroll to paragraph beginning "Peace at all cost [sic]").
Meanwhile, I wonder what Ann Coulter will have to say about this.
In other news... Grossman at Dartlog reports on an article in the British Telegraph (it's actually an opinion column, which changes its status somewhat) about a human shield turned pro-war. Grossman quotes part of it, but I thought this part was interesting:
The driver's most emphatic statement was: "All Iraqi people want this war." He seemed convinced that civilian casualties would be small; he had such enormous faith in the American war machine to follow through on its promises. Certainly more faith than any of us had.
Perhaps the most crushing thing we learned was that most ordinary Iraqis thought Saddam Hussein had paid us to come to protest in Iraq. Although we explained that this was categorically not the case, I don't think he believed us. Later he asked me: "Really, how much did Saddam pay you to come?"
This correlates well with a report NYTimes correspondent John Burns gave on the air to CNN, in which he indicated that some Iraqis practically brought lawn chairs to the banks of the Tigris to watch "shock and awe" (this is such a stupid way of describing it, but I've bought into media hysteria) unfold on government buildings, of whose purpose no Iraqi really seemed aware. Such was their confidence in US precision weaponry. While CNN's putzy Aaron Brown couldn't say much except to comment on how good Burns's reporting was (it was better than most of the CNN field stuff), commentator Gen. Wesley Clark (former Supreme Allied Commander) offered some of his usual insightful commentary. The guy's sharp. I like him, which is all the more interesting considering a rumor I heard suggesting that he might run for the Democratic Presidential Nomination. Anyone else know anything about that?
Also... CNN is reporting The missile that Iran claims hit something in its Southwest is apparently Iraqi, not American. Nevertheless, we are apparently investigating other TLAMs that might've gone astray and landed somewhere in Iran. Speaking of missiles, I'd also like to correct the misperception here (and if Dartlog has employed it as well, they should take note) that Iraq has used Scuds against us. They have fired smaller, solid-fueled missiles at us. It turns out, though, that some of the missiles exceeded the mileage limitation anyway.
Posted by Jonathan,
10:31 AM
-
Bigots Instapundit, king of the bloggers, provides a link to this blogger post by dixie flatline:
As of 6:48pm central time, Fox is reporting that the attack on the 101st HQ in Kuwait may have been carried out by a US soldier who is now unaccounted for. If this story proves true, I offer ten-to-one odds that this soldier is a Muslim. Any takers, email me. As of 7:36pm CT, Fox is reporting that they've caught the soldier, who has been shot in the leg during his capture. Any takers? UPDATE--8:01, Fox is reporting the captured soldier is a Muslim American. I'm angry right now, and I may regret these words. But, I think it is entirely reasonable for Americans to suspect the loyalty of American Muslims.. There is substantial evidence that their allegiances lie not with their country, but with their god. When an American soldier, trusted, respected, takes three grenades and attempts to murder his leaders while they plan and execute a war to secure American interests, suspicion is justified. You can call me a bigot, or a racist, or an ignorant fool. But you can't call me wrong. Not when Muslim FBI agents refuse to follow orders, not when American soldiers of the Muslim faith attempt to execute their commanding officers during wartime. What has this disgusting, vile faith wrought?
Oliver Willis responds (and it is sad that there are such sentiments to respond to). The comments on Willis' site also note that no one says we should round up all Irish Catholics because some belong to the I.R.A. or that we should suspect all Christians because some bomb abortion clinics out of religious conviction. I'm shocked by these reports, but 'shocked' is the operative word. I hope, but I am not sure, that only a few bigots will have expected this and use one incident to declare that their suspicions about a group of people are confirmed.
(CBS) An American Muslim soldier is among three people being questioned in connection with a grenade and small-arms attack that injured at least 10 U.S. soldiers at Camp Pennsylvania in northern Kuwait, reports CBS News Correspondent Mark Strassman. Strassmann said three grenades were rolled into three officers' tents at the camp. When officers ran from the tents, they were hit by small arms fire. George Heath, spokesman at Fort Campbell, home base of the 101st, said 10 people were wounded, six seriously. Strassman said three suspects were being held for questioning: two Kuwaitis who served as translators and an American soldier described as a black Muslim.
