« The Dogs of War | Main | Who Cares About the Voting Rights Act? »
Pike's Point?
I found Mr. Pike’s article “The Truth about WP” interesting, and in general, I do agree that we need to hold the Bush administration responsible for its missteps and horrific results. But I also think Mr. Pike missed a golden opportunity to address legitimate concerns in his pronouncements in the LA Times and the New York Times.
A number of people have researched this area and cited their findings from US Government sources as well as other reliable sources. That information has been enlightening and identified some legitimate issues to be considered.
In the end, this can be said about white phosphorus: it is both incendiary and toxic. In its solid form it burns through skin to the bone and does not stop unless deprived of oxygen which it can obtain from the moisture in tissue. That is evidently considered to be an incendiary effect. The gas it produces attacks the mucous membranes, the eyes and the lungs. To the extent that it is used to disable humans where both incendiary and toxic effects occur, it is illegal because of its toxic effects according to protocols and treaties which the United States Government has signed (see 1925 Geneva Protocol and Chemical Weapon Convention references below).
If, in fact, it was used solely for its incendiary properties in Fallujah, is Mr. Pike saying that there is no other armament available that would have achieved the same result without the toxicity of WP on humans?
When Saddam Hussein used WP on Iraqi's, the US government called it a chemical weapon then. SO why is it NOT a chemical weapon when the US military uses it in Iraq just as Saddam did?
These are legitimate questions and Mr. Pike with all his supposed expertise (which was not identified in any way in the articles other than saying that he was an expert with a website), missed the opportunity to point out any fallacious reasoning or misunderstanding. I am sorry that he did so because it would have been a real contribution to the clarity of the discussion.
If Mr. Pike's real point in writing the article was to point out what a poor job the administration did in "managing" this story and the damage to the remaining tatters of the US reputation overseas, then he sabotaged himself by spending any vitriol on those he considers misguided and mistaken.
-----
Here are some of the documents, articles and diaries, etc. that I read. There's much more material to read if you follow the links and then follow the embedded links in those articles as well. Let me know what you think after reading them yourself.
Diary #1 - 3 excerpts from a diary that quote or are drawn directly from US government sources...
EXCERPT #1 -END OF EXCERPTS from this diary......the US Government's own Center for Disease Control, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry in the Toxicological Profile for white phosphorus. Section 2, Health Effects (PDF) vividly describes the chemical lethality of WP as follows:
White phosphorus is the most active allotropic form and is extremely toxic when inhaled, ingested, or absorbed through burned areas... White phosphorus can cause thermal injury and hygroscopic damage by absorbing water from surrounding tissues. It reacts with oxygen and water to form strong acids (H3PO2, H3PO3) and combines with metals like copper to form dark-colored inactive salts (Eldad and Simon 1991).High mortality rates seen following white phosphorus burns can be due to its absorption from the burned surface, which may result in multi-organ failure (mainly liver and kidneys), hyperphosphatemia, hypocalcemia, and electrocardiogram (ECG) abnormalities (ST depression, QT elongation, microvoltage of QRS and bradycardia)... Only tap water irrigations were found to be effective in preventing death after white phosphorus burns....
If phosphorus is absorbed as the gas phosphine (PH3), death can occur rapidly due to cardiac collapse (Blanke 1970)....
The smoke generated from burning white phosphorus consists primarily of oxidation and hydrolysis products of phosphorus, including phosphorus pentoxide and phosphorus trioxide. The moisture in the air reacts with these phosphorus oxides to produce a dynamic mixture of polyphosphoric acids that eventually transform into orthophosphoric acid, pyrophosphoric acid, and orthophosphorus acid. Wind-tunnel tests in which white phosphorus was burned and oxygen was non-limiting produced an average aerosol mass concentration between 2,500 and 3,000 mg/m3, with the major components being polyphosphates, phosphine, and elemental phosphorus (Van Voris et al. 1987).
There's much more- it's an exhaustive section that leaves no doubt that wp is extremely toxic, regardless of how exposure occurs.
EXCERPT #2The US army knows that its use as a weapon is illegal. In the Battle Book, published by the US Command and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, [it states]: "It is against the law of land warfare to employ WP against personnel targets."Excerpt #3
...the Chemical Weapons Convention document, and in Definitions of Chemical Weapons, Article II, paragraphs (1) and (2) state:
1. "Chemical Weapons" means the following, together or separately:(a) Toxic chemicals and their precursors, except where intended for purposes not prohibited under this Convention, as long as the types and quantities are consistent with such purposes;
(b) Munitions and devices, specifically designed to cause death or other harm through the toxic properties of those toxic chemicals specified in subparagraph (a), which would be released as a result of the employment of such munitions and devices;
2. "Toxic Chemical" means:
Any chemical which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm to humans or animals. This includes all such chemicals, regardless of their origin or of their method of production, and regardless of whether they are produced in facilities, in munitions or elsewhere.
~snip~The US has not signed the Convention on Conventional Weapons, but we are pledged to the protocols of the Chemical Weapons Convention,(cited in excerpt #3), having signed on 01-13-93. It became binding on 04-25-97 when we ratified it, and continues in force to the present day. A confirmatory source, the US Government Chemical Weapons Convention Web Site, prominently features an official quote dated Nov. 8 of this year that is funny, hypocritical, and ironic in light of these recent events, beginning: "[I]t is critical that the Conference take a decision on how to ensure universal compliance with the Convention. It is critical that this decision contain not only positive measures of assistance, but clear standards: timelines, milestones, and consequences where those are warranted...
From Diary #2 on this topic:
Specifically, the 1925 Geneva Protocol (which is different from Protocol III) prohibits "the use in war of asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases". The U.S. has ratified the 1925 Protocol.
The 1925 Protocol is part of the Geneva Conventions. The War Crimes Act of 1996, in turn, specifically makes it a crime to commit a "grave breach in any of the international conventions signed at Geneva 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party." See Section (c)(1) of the War Crimes Act of 1996.
Another excerpt from diary #2:
The U.S. National Safety Council states that "White phosphorus is a poison . . . If its combustion occurs in a confined space, white phosphorus will remove the oxygen from the air and render the air unfit to support life . . . It is considered a dangerous disaster hazard because it emits highly toxic fumes. The EPA has listed white phosphorus as a Hazardous Air Pollutant.
End of excerpts from diary #2 (see embedded links for signatory information)...
Then there is this item from ThinkProgress:
A formerly classified 1995 Pentagon intelligence document titled “Possible Use of Phosphorous Chemical” describes the use of white phosphorus by Saddam Hussein on Kurdish fighters:IRAQ HAS POSSIBLY EMPLOYED PHOSPHOROUS CHEMICAL WEAPONS AGAINST THE KURDISH POPULATION IN AREAS ALONG THE IRAQI-TURKISH-IRANIAN BORDERS. […] IN LATE FEBRUARY 1991, FOLLOWING THE COALITION FORCES’ OVERWHELMING VICTORY OVER IRAQ, KURDISH REBELS STEPPED UP THEIR STRUGGLE AGAINST IRAQI FORCES IN NORTHERN IRAQ. DURING THE BRUTAL CRACKDOWN THAT FOLLOWED THE KURDISH UPRISING, IRAQI FORCES LOYAL TO PRESIDENT SADDAM ((HUSSEIN)) MAY HAVE POSSIBLY USED WHITE PHOSPHOROUS (WP) CHEMICAL WEAPONS AGAINST KURDISH REBELS AND THE POPULACE IN ERBIL (GEOCOORD:3412N/04401E) (VICINITY OF IRANIAN BORDER) AND DOHUK (GEOCOORD:3652N/04301E) (VICINITY OF IRAQI BORDER) PROVINCES, IRAQ.In other words, the Pentagon does refer to white phosphorus rounds as chemical weapons — at least if they’re used by our enemies.
From the Guardian
An account from US soldiers in the March 2005 issue of Field Artillery documents its use in "shake and bake" missions against insurgent positions in Falluja in November 2004, explaining how the white phosphorus would "flush out" enemy fighters who were then killed with high explosives.
End of excerpts
*ahem*
'nuff said, y'all...
Listen to the people crying
Hoping for the day they'll be free
I don’t have to tell you we're dying
Just wake up, take a look, what do you see?
I see young men my own age in coffins
And mothers in tears for their sons
And sweethearts and wives
Alone with their memories
And golden ribbons
Those fortunes of war
Thousands and thousands
Shall gather together
To seek and find the way we all need
And the son will bring us together
Hallelujah, rid ourselves of the pain we all see
We see young men our own age in coffins
And mothers in tears for their sons
And sweethearts and wives
Alone with their memories
And golden ribbons
Those fortunes of war
What does it
Avail a man
To gain a fortune
And lose his soul?
-- Jim Messina, "Golden Ribbons" (circa 1974)
war! what is it good for? good god, y'all! absolutely nuthin!,
Otter
http://followmetodc.com/
Help us get rid of Joe "prom dress" Barton and send a progressive, Democrat, Iraq Vet to DC!
NPR was so good tonight - I'm sending them money.
- interview with Muhrta
- expose on lying neocon Feith
- interview with Trent Lott
Substance (for US media)
Even though I was at work in more or less "news blackout" mode, I did learn the following:
- South Africa will allow gay marriage
- US will execute it's 1000th person, a Vietnam
vet (we need a "Wall of Shame")
- Singapore will hang a foreigner for drug crime
So now who is the more progressive - how times change!
- Bush is in a pool such that he could be called for jury duty
- Kerry spent a week as a common juror
Such an interesting world ..
- Yesterday NPR did a follow-up special on the
riots in France.
- They followed it up with a special on the
immigration issues in US.
There are such important parallels - anti
immigrant sentiment can be used to drum up
support for repressive policies, but alot of
the jobs in both cultures - France & US - that used to be done by immigrants still learning the language, etc. HAVE BEEN OUTSOURCED TO CHINA.
(It was Andree who first reminded me of this)
A friend of mine who served in Vietnam told this story today at lunch. He saw a fellow soldier accidentally exposed to white phosphorus. There was a trip wire that was to set off a flare if pulled. The soldier was standing near the wire and got jolted somehow by some work he was doing and tripped the wire. The flare went up right through his leg and he was exposed. The group he was in, including my friend, dug up some mud and coated his leg in it to try to stop the burning. The soldier was then airlifted out and they never saw him again or heard what happened to him.
BTW, not that I disagree with all of dwahzon's points, but here are John Pike's credentials:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/staff/pike.htm
Bush avoids combat service and jury duty. What a role model for our children.
JFK goes to Vietnam and serves as jury foreman.
La Dee Da. Things never seem to change do they DiAnne.
Happy 70th Woody; boy that's hard to say.
not exactly hard news but fun reading
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com
snip
Barbara Bush is allegedly TICKED off at Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, Andy Card, nearly all of them -- except Karen Hughes -- for how her boy is faring in the hearts and minds of Americans.
The matriarch of the Bush clan is colder than North Pole ice right now to those around her son who she thinks have undermined him. I'll tell who my sources are if Patrick Fitzgerald gives a call and makes me -- but the sources are very close to Poppa Bush (41), who has been traveling a bit with some of his old entourage, including Brent Scowcroft and others of the first Bush regime.
While TWN has been able to confirm that Laura Bush's mother-in-law wants to do more than put coal in the stockings of the Vice President and the other top handlers of her son's White House, we have not been able to confirm a slightly stronger bit of the rumor, which is that Barbara -- not Laura -- was planning to call on Nancy Reagan just to get a refresher lesson on how she took on and kicked out then Chief-of-Staff Donald Regan. (I embellish here; Barbara Bush is not going to take lessons from Nancy, it just sounded good. My source told me that Barbara was about to "pull a Nancy Reagan" on these attendants.)
snip
where was that popcorn?
So where do we stand on this John Pike thing, and White Phosphorous?
Is the issue that John Pike was kind of covering the illegality of it's use? The cruelty of it's use?
Ann, very well organized presentation of the description and uses of WP, and the treaties and laws and documents regarding it's use.
It is cruel and inhumane. What have we turned in to?
rant on next post.........
Here's what I want to know:
WHY ARE WE USING THIS CHEMICAL WEAPON OF WP OVER IN IRAQ?
In my opinion, it is illegal, and it violates codes posted above in Ann's article.
WHY ARE WE KILLING INNOCENT CHILDREN AND CIVILIANS IN IRAQ??? WHY DO WE NEED TO DO THAT TO "RESTORE" THEIR COUNTRY???
WHY ARE WE HIRING MERCENARIES TO DO OUR DIRTY WORK OF KILLING AND MUTILATING AND TORTURING SUNNIS AND OTHERS?
WHY ARE WE FLYING "SUSPECTED TERRORISTS" TO OTHER COUNTRIES AND TORTURING THEM THERE??? WHO ARE
THEY??? WHO IS BUSHCO AND RUMSFELD ACCOUNABLE TO TO TELL US WHO THEY ARE TORTURING AND WHY?
WHY ARE WE FINDING INNOCENT IRAQIS AND OTHER YOUNG MEN TRAVELING TO IRAQ TO BECOME MERCENARIES BEING TREATED VERY BADLY, AND SOME EVEN TORTURED AND KILLED THEMSELVES?
WHY IS NOT THIS NATION ALL STANDING AT ONCE, ALL DAY, EVERY DAY, FOR SIXTEEN HOURS A DAY UNTIL WE GET THE ANSWERS TO THIS?
WE NEED TO DEMAND ANSWERS ANY WAY WE CAN!!
WE NEED TO SHUT THIS COUNTRY DOWN ONE PERSON AT A TIME AND REFUSE TO WORK, REFUSE TO DO A DARN THING BUT STAND AT ATTENTION FOR SIXTEEN HOURS A DAY EVERY DAY, NOT SPENDING A DIME MORE THAN NEEDED FOR ABSOLUTE ESSENTIALS UNTIL WE THREATEN THIS ECONOMY SO BADLY WE EITHER GET SOME ANSWERS OR THE BIG CORPORATIONS LOSE BIG MONEY.
WHEN WILL WE REACH A LEVEL WHERE WE HAVE ENOUGH PEOPLE ACROSS THIS COUNTRY THAT WE JUST HAVE A MASS STAND UP AGAINST THE BUSH REGIME DAY.
WOULD IT, COULD IT HAPPEN? BECAUSE I THINK A MASS PROTEST LIKE THAT IS THE ONLY THING THAT WILL WORK IN AMERICA RIGHT NOW.
WE ARE ALL WE HAVE. IT'S JUST US, FOLKS. WHEN I GRASPED THE ENORMITY OF WHAT WE ARE FACING AND THE MIGHTY STRONG POWERFUL FORCES WE HAVE TO STAND AGAINST, I REALIZED THEN AND THERE THAT PEOPLE POWER IS ALL WE HAVE THAT WILL DO IT. PURE PEOPLE POWER. AND THAT IS ALL WE HAVE.
CAN WE DO IT? WE NEED TO DO IT SOON, AND DEMAND ACCOUNTABILITY. DEMAND PLANS, OR WE PARK OUR BUTTS UNTIL WE GET SOME?
What do ya think?
Truth Shall Prevail
I think you are right.
You know what? Every now and again it's refreshing to read a little bit of good news, too:
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20051202/D8E7QFA00.html
not *always* a grumpaluptus,
Otter
Interesting article Ann.
I can see why you felt Mr. Pike lost focus about the real opportunity. Though perhaps, Mr. Pike intended to focus more on the Bush regimes propaganda and coverup.
However, perhaps, the golden opportunity to educate people about the real effects of White Phosphorus was indeed lost.
As I sit here and think about comments about 'liberals' like "We just hate Bush" I am asking myself, "Which style of article would draw the most comprehension toward the real human rights violation?"
If pointing out human rights violations takes precidence over more propaganda from the White House, then the comments you made above would be more effective in promoting passion and anger from those who normally just sit on the fence.
Yes, upon reflection, I too believe the golden moment was lost to the wrong point, and I believe those readers will not exit Mr. Pike's article with an understanding of just how vile White Phosphorus is, but instead will consider it just another bashing Bush piece.
Posted by: Truth Shall Prevail at December 2, 2005 12:00 AM
The point of Mr. Pike's article on the prior thread is that WP is not a chemical weapon and that the international news coverage blew its use in Fallujah all out of proportion and that the Bush administration did not respond correctly, and indeed, attempted to cover up where no cover up was necessary in his opinion, because nothing illegal had been done. His goal was to give the Bush administration and the Pentagon's civilian managers a tough time in how they managed the release of information on what exactly happened in Fallujah. But that doesn't occur until the bottom third of his article, and he's pretty much alienated any readers unfamiliar with chemical weapons conventions and horrified by the occurrences in Fallujah by the time he gets to his point.
He states that WP is only an incendiary weapon, and therefore, not illegal for the US to use as we have not signed the one protocol that would prohibit us from using it in the manner that we did. Evidently, in the world of experts on weapons protocols and conventions, WP is viewed solely as an incendiary device and they have agreed to ignore the toxic properties and effects on humans and other living beings. At least that's how I understand Mr. Pike's reference to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons which he describes as the ultimate authority as the international agency responsible for supervising the global destruction of chemical weapons.
That is the authority that he quotes and considers the final word on declaring WP a purely incendiary device and therefore not in violation of any treaty or convention. He then excuses any further consideration by saying 'War is nasty.'
The question that others have raised is whether the toxic gases that are formed when WP is used constitute a chemical, not incendiary, weapon, and are therefore prohibited by both the 1925 Geneva Convention and the Chemical Weapons Protocol, both of which we have signed. He misses the opportunity to answer that question and to educate by snidely declaring bloggers thought they found something but "Closer reading revealed nothing of the sort."
I think that his point about how the Bush administration mis-managed the release of information regarding Fallujah is valid and needed to be made. What I regret is that he did not take full advantage of the tremendous platform he was given by the LA Times and NY Times to clarify why WP is not a chemical weapon from the viewpoint of chemical weapons experts. Instead he chose to offer sarcasm to those not initiated into the chemical weapons fraternity, who are most likely the largest group of civilians in recent times to focus on the conventions and protocols. He lost the opportunity to build a better-educated populace in favor of making snarky comments about non-experts who, in his viewpoint, are wasting time and energy on a non-issue.
What can one do to follow up? Find out the answer to the question about why white phosphorus is considered solely an incendiary weapon by many experts despite its obviously toxic qualities and effects. Ask about who oversees the experts and agencies responsible for managing the protocols and conventions. Truly following this track will require a tremendous amount of time, and I would suggest, starting with looking for any NGO groups out there who already have taken on the mission of monitoring what occurs in the world of weapons protocols and finding out what they are doing.
Wow -- Ann -- that's an impressive write up!
Also, great to see Otter and Marc Trager on here plus some new folks!
Also, given out CinC is pushing the idea that we will continue a de-facto occupation and administration of Iraq until it becomes a veritable Switzerland in Mesopotamia, I found these two articles useful:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/113005F.shtml
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/113005L.shtml
Finally, in the larger sense of "what to do" about Iraq, I think the recent moves by Sharon and Perez in Israel interesting.
Chuck in Doha
Oops -- left the old verb of being out of my last sentence
Chuck in Doha
The CIA Planes
2 planes stopped in France
http://www.lefigaro.fr/international/20051202.FIG0239.html
(from Andree - whether you read French or not, scroll through this. It will chill you to the bone, just from the words you recognize that share Latin roots with English)
There should be companion stories in the Guardian and the New Yorker. As I read, I can hear NPR from downstairs and my ears alerted at the word "torture."
Also, we executed the 1000th, a Vietnam vet.
We reinstated the death penalty as most countries were abolishing it.
Sparrow
For people to care about "human rights violations," they first have to agree that other humans are as valid as we are. I'm not sure some people even do that. (& they may call themselves Christians!)
Same mentality quickly lets them believe things like "white phosphorus" and "waterboarding" are justifiable if not used on them, their family or people who look and act like them.
There was another country about half a century ago who taught that some people were less human than others, and there people later said they were "just following orders" or hadn't realized what was going on.
I am shocked at the anti-immigrant feeling, for example, that is coming out from under the rug in US and in Europe - supposedly civilized places, as well as racism toward minorities (think NOLA/Katrina).
Right on!
Paul Krugman: Bullet Points over Baghdad
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/120205Z.shtml
Paul Krugman writes: The National Security Council document released this week under the grandiose title "National Strategy for Victory in Iraq" is neither an analytical report nor a policy statement. It's simply the same old talking points - "victory in Iraq is a vital US interest;" "failure is not an option" - repackaged in the style of a slide presentation for a business meeting.
Hey all, just checking in
I thought this was worth posting. One the way home from work, I stopped at a hotel steakhouse here in Doha, and, low and behold, Internet Connectivity on wireless as I sit here and wait for my chicken basket! And listening to Bob Marley!
Just thought that was worth sharing!
Chuck in Doha
PS to DiAnne: Racism = Terrorism in the heart
PPS: The Marley song was "War": "Until the color of a man's skin, is of no more, significance, than the color of his eyes...."
PPPS: My connection aint so good so I'm atryin' again -- sorry if most of this posts twice! Technical Learning Curve....
Well, nothing seems to be posting -- maybe this is just a highly asynchronous situation...
Anyhoo, Not My President -- Thank God for Krugman! And I mean that. I wanted to point out just about everything that estimable man put in that article. Where there is life there is hope!
Chuck in Doha
Dear 'not my president':
Sure as hell ain't mine, either.
chimpeach that sonuvabush *now*,
Otter
(P.S. -- I hereby apologize in advance for my closing comment to anybody who thinks that it's politically incorrect for me to feel that way...)
chuck:
the front page of the Houston Chronicle has as their lead story another local corruption story. The story concluded that Tom DeLay's ReDistricting plan, that we now find to involve criminal conduct, was actually opposed by the Bush Justice Department because they concluded that it clearly violated the 1965 Voting Rights Act and would be struck down. Interestingly, political pressure was placed on the Justice Department and despite their internal memo opposing ReDistricting at the last minute they mysteriously endorsed it. Scholars who have studied the Justice Dept, according to this article, conclude that their internal memos are rarely if ever overridden by political maneuvering like this. Interestingly Bush yesterday gave a speech declaring that in honor of Rosa Parks we need to renew the 1965 Civil Rights Act that Delay, Rove and others were actively circumventing when it came up before the Justice Dept. in the form of handing over 5 Texas Democratic Congressional seats to Tom Delay.
Damn those memos how they keep popping up and embarassing this administration.
looks like a lot of old time bloggers suddenly came back this week. Does anyone remember Hard Rain and Wild Salmon?
This just in -- just a short while ago, another ten U.S. Marines were blown up in Fallujah.
This 'stay the course' bullcrap is insane. Not only that, it's criminal. And it has *got* to stop -- NOW.
They don't want us to be there. We don't want to be there.
So why in the hell *are* we still there, Mr. So-Called Commander In Chief?
With all of your vast military experience, can you please explain that to us?
And with all of your vast global-political experience, can you please explain that to the families of those additional ten soldiers who had had to die today, just for the sake of your own personal vainglorious playground of war??
May Goddess rest their souls, Mr. So-Called President... but may yours never, ever rest.
This is your hell. You've earned it. You broke it, you bought it, and you don't deserve to get a single night's sleep until you've paid for each and every shattered little shard.
bush *must* go -- NOW!!,
Otter
Hey Ira:
That story made msnbc too:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10287348/
Chuck in Doha (home now -- steakhouse wireless wasn't that great -- but I see now some posts did make it)
Hard Rain, Wild_Salmon -- we'll get them next time Ira! And many, many more. Our boy Hackett's doing OK too. Brown would also be a great improvement. Loved that Murtha moment.
Chuck in Doha
Ira:
Is that redistricting plan going through an appeals process? If so, might that not effect 2006 strategizing? From the WaPo article:
"J. Gerald 'Gerry' Hebert, one of the lawyers representing Texas Democrats who are challenging the redistricting in court...."
Inquiring minds want to know.
Chuck in Doha
Hey all, and off-topic again (sorry), I caught this on Josh Marshall's blog and as the DCP has as one of its founding principles the concept of getting the influence of big money out of democratic politics (I hope that is a fair representation), thought you all might like this about grass-roots action in Connecticut:
http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/12/1/101728/025
Chuck in Doha
Posted by: Karen at December 1, 2005 11:15 PM
Karen:
I don't agree with all of Ann's points either, but I will fight to the death for her right to disagree with me.
Chuck in Doha, hope that chicken basket was good. Were there fries in the mix?
Fe:
Yep, fries and tartar sauce. FRENCH FRIES we call them where I come from. I also miss Volkoban or however the heck you spell that on here and sckitty too. Also, I have to say Ann's rejoinder was very well constructed (08:49 am). On the larger issue, to be completely honest, if my family was killed by something that was technically a WMD or not, in either case, I imagine I would be distraught beyond words. Maybe I haven't followed this particular thread of thoughts closely enough.
Chuck in Doha
By the way, Ira, if you are still on here, wanted to repost something NativeTexan posted above:
http://followmetodc.com/
Linda Enterkin, if you see this, click this and wait a few moments at the top to see the General!
Chuck in Doha
So I'm a Jew, but this gave me chills:
Advent Reflection
++++++++++++++++++++++++
Remaining awake through a great revolution
by Duane Shank
Keep awake - for you do not know when the master of the house will come, in the evening, or at midnight, or at cockcrow, or at dawn, or else he may find you asleep when he comes suddenly. And what I say to you I say to all: Keep awake. - Mark 13:35-37
On March 31, 1968, at the Washington National Cathedral, Martin Luther King Jr. preached his final Sunday sermon. Four days later he was dead. The title of that sermon was "Remaining Awake Through a Great Revolution," and it is a good reminder as we reflect on Jesus' instruction to "Keep awake."
King began by telling the story of Rip Van Winkle, who went to sleep seeing a sign of King George and awoke to a sign of George Washington. He had slept through a revolution. The story, said King, tells us that "one of the great liabilities of life is that all too many people find themselves living amid a great period of social change, and yet they fail to develop the new attitudes, the new mental responses, that the new situation demands. They end up sleeping through a revolution."
He pointed out that there were three great revolutions taking place in the world - a technological revolution, a revolution in weaponry, and a human rights revolution. And, he said, "whenever anything new comes into history it brings with it new challenges and new opportunities." Then he spoke of several challenges. We are challenged to develop a world perspective; we are challenged to eradicate the last vestiges of racial injustice from our nation; we are challenged to rid our nation and the world of poverty; and we are challenged to find an alternative to war and bloodshed. These challenges are as urgent for us in 2005 as they were in 1968.
During Advent, we remember Jesus coming as an infant in a manger and we anticipate his coming as the culmination of the kingdom of God. We reflect on God's past, present, and future redemptive acts in history. We celebrate the coming of Jesus the Christ - whose life, ministry, death, and resurrection inaugurated the reign of God - and we await its fulfillment. That is what sustains us in a world that makes no sense. We know that Jesus has come as the fulfillment of God's promise, and we know that his ultimate reign will surely come.
As we await that ultimate reign, we are called to live as if it were already here. We are called, as Walter Brueggeman said, to be "a community rooted in energizing memories and summoned by radical hopes." We have the memories of the child born in the stable, and the hope of a new earth. We believe that in this in-between time, we are to live like Jesus, work for justice, work for peace, and create a new community that lives in the kingdom. And that by living in the kingdom, fulfilling its promise in our lives, we help hasten its culmination.
Preparing for the coming kingdom of God means beginning to live and work as if it were already here.
God will fulfill the promise. The kingdom is near. Justice and right will be in the land. Keep awake.
For this first week of Advent, I urge you to read and reflect on Dr. King's testimony. He remained awake, and he challenges us to do the same.
Duane Shank is policy adviser at Sojourners.
It looks like old home week here! Great to see everybody!
Anyway - with regard to the Human Rights Violations and White Phosphorus:
I think that "Human Rights Violations", like "liberal", patriotic" and others, is a term that has somehow been co-opted and demonized by the right wing. I think people hear it, immediately associate it with those crazy "liberals" and drop it at that.
Add to that the fact that most people associate it with other parts of the world that supposedly don't have anything to do with us, and uninformed people couldn't care less.
I think it's another framing issue to work on. Maybe something reflecting going against God....
Carol:
How about just plain right and wrong? How about framing it as just plain old "do the right thing"?
Chuck in Doha
PS: Is is getting like old times around here and the more the merrier!
Karen:
Is that King sermon in "Resources" on here? I'm off to check. If not, it might be something to consider.
Chuck in Doha
Fe:
See, it is all about contracts:
http://www.democrats.org/page/s/lamar
Chuck in Doha
Chuck:
I've signed the petition.
Lamar's is an indefensible breach. No fair criteria for refusal.
The DNC should take them to the cleaners.
http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/publications/sermons/680331.000_Remaining_Awake.html
Chuck in Doha
Karen:
I've got light skin and it choked me up too.
Chuck in Doha
Chuck I read the Jo Barton/Harris story. Barton is pretty entrenched and it will be pretty hard to defeat Barton and his good old boys.
When you get back lets do lunch and see if there is anything we can do to help the Lampson campaign. I would still like to see a billboard in Sugarland saying DeLay opposed entending the Bankruptcy bill for Hurricane Victims.
Perudu says he knows nothing about birthing babies
"U.S. troops "are birthing democracy in a very important part of the world," Perdue said."
didn't know anyone past the 1940s still spoke like that.
The ReDistricting Fiasco still gets under my skin and especially knowing that 65% of exans opposed it, apparently even the justice Dept.
Bush wants to extend the 1965 Voting Rights Legislation today while he did everything possible here in Texas to undermind it through reDistricting.
On balance, I must say that if WP is not a banned weapon, then maybe it should be. To the layman, its impact appears similar to that of other horrific chemical weapons.
I'm no expert on weaponry, but I wonder if WP isn't the substance that the US planes are dropping in that harrowing scene of the film, "We Were Soldiers", when the GI (Jimmy) who is about to become a father is torched by friendly fire.
As Mr. Pike points out, however, the Russians apparently used this same substance when fighting in Chechyna.
Weaponry that exploits WP or Depleted Uranium is yet another argument why America needs to go to war only when it has to, and not simply when the chickenhawks want to.
65% of all Texans opposed ReDistricting (including a large number of Texas Republicans).
Carol:
"Ultimately a great nation is a compassionate nation."
Martin Luther King, Jr.
March 31, 1968
(four days, I understand, before he was murdered).
Chuck in Doha
Posted by: chuck at December 2, 2005 01:20 PM
I found Dr. King's complete speech from March 31, 1968 here...
http://www.yonip.com/main/peace/revolution.html
Posted by: Fe at December 2, 2005 12:06 PM
I'm curious. What do you disagree with?
Carol:
We don't have to frame anything that hasn't been framed a thousand times before:
"We shall overcome because the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice."
Martin Luther King, Jr.
March 31, 1968
(four days, I understand, before he was murdered).
Chuck in Doha
Ira:
Roger wilco. Also, on Barton, even if it isn't a probable in the win column (I honestly don't know enough about the district to say), every time we take it on it helps. One day, one person, one voter, at a time. Some day we'll hit a tipping point.
That "birthing babies" thing cracks me up. I think that is from "Gone with the Wind." Not a bad theme, come to think on it.
Chuck in Doha
Thank Goddess we're only just Jewish and/or light-skinned and/or fully-fry-basketed here, rather than cranky and colicky.
After all, Miz Scarlett, I don't know nuthin' 'bout burpin' no babies.
frankly, my dear, I don't give an
Otter
Ann:
The disagreements are minor and have to deal with
Pike's credentials, which are both valid and well-respected. I also believe Pike's venture into the LA Times article was a caution to war critics to keep attuned to facts before drawing conclusions. That way if there are actual illegalities committed by US forces, they can be truly surfaced and proved instead of alleged and discounted as more leftist "propaganda" by the neocons.
I also am looking more deeply into the CWC and our involvement and responsibility, but I am at work and need more time. From what it appears looking at a first glance of the legislation, is that the legislation prohibits use of the chemicals in the US and/or on US citizens, but does not go into detail about use in other countries.
More later.
[Just for the sake of those folks who may not recall, or may never have heard, all the lyrics before:]
-------------
We shall overcome
We shall overcome
We shall overcome some day
Oh, deep in my heart
I do believe
We shall overcome some day
We'll walk hand in hand
We'll walk hand in hand
We'll walk hand in hand some day
Oh, deep in my heart
I do believe
We shall overcome some day
We shall all be free
We shall all be free
We shall all be free some day
Oh, deep in my heart
I do believe
We shall overcome some day
We are not afraid
We are not afraid
We are not afraid some day
Oh, deep in my heart
I do believe
We shall overcome some day
We are not alone
We are not alone
We are not alone some day
Oh, deep in my heart
I do believe
We shall overcome some day
The whole wide world around
The whole wide world around
The whole wide world around some day
Oh, deep in my heart
I do believe
We shall overcome some day
We shall overcome
We shall overcome
We shall overcome some day
Oh, deep in my heart
I do believe
We shall overcome some day
-------------
yes, we shall -- because we can, and we will -- and because we must,
Otter
Otter:
Yep, I like the image: an evil house of cards built over the foundation of our democracy just swept away, gone with the wind, as it were, and we wake up from a national nightmare renewed and refreshed and thankful....
Anyhow, I've got to be at work in 7 hours so sack time for me!
Thanks everybody, keep up the good work and GOTV 2006!
Chuck in Doha
ot but in the holiday spirit
According to the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, while both male and female reindeer grow antlers in the summer each year, male reindeer drop their antlers at the beginning of winter, usually late November to mid-December. Female reindeer retain their antlers till after they give birth in the spring.
Therefore, according to EVERY historical rendition depicting Santa's reindeer, EVERY single one of them, from Rudolph to Blitzen, had to be a girl.
We should've known...ONLY women would be able to drag a fat-assed man in a red velvet suit all around the world in one night and not get lost
Update on the Hampton students (from Five Minutes a Day of last two days):
According to a local reporter in Hampton, Virginia:
The hearing is over but the decision will not be announced until Monday or Tuesday. The hearing was closed to the public and the press. The students and their character witnesses were allowed to speak but not their lawyers. The director of Amnesty International went to the hearing and spoke on behalf of the students. The administration is saying the students won't be expelled but are still planning on disciplinary action. It could be anything from a letter or reprimand to community service.
The reporter, Beverly Williams, suggested looking at http://www.insidehighered.com and said that "everyone sees this as a free speech issue except Hampton University" and that the students have a lot of support from all over the country, especially other universities and including the Foundation for Individual Rights and Education.
Posted by: Fe at December 2, 2005 02:40 PM
Okay, for one, I cast no aspersions on Mr. Pike's credentials. I noted that they were NOT PRESENT AT ALL in the article. All it said was that he was an expert with a website. No further information of any sort was provided on his credentials within either article. No attempt was made to establish any credentials for him other than saying he was an expert with a website.
Second point: If Mr. Pike's article was actually meant as an admonition to war critics to get their facts straight, he made the job rather more difficult for himself by insulting them first.
I suspect he actually meant to disassociate himself from the "lunatic" crowd including anti-war critics and bloggers by criticizing them and pointing out how they had errored, in his judgment. And he did it so that his comments on how the Bush administration mismanaged the situation would not be taken as just more anti-war, Bush-bashing blather.
His point that the Bush administration did mismanage the situation is well-made and I cannot disagree.
As for the Chemical Weapons Convention, it most certainly is international in scope.
The following excerpt is taken from the introductory webpage of "the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) which is the international organisation that was established in 1997 by the countries that have joined the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) to make sure that the Convention works effectively and achieves its purpose."
"The Chemical Weapons Convention is an international treaty that bans the use of chemical weapons and aims to eliminate chemical weapons, everywhere in the world, forever."
"The Convention provides the basis for the OPCW to monitor the destruction of existing, declared stocks of chemical weapons and the facilities used to produce chemical weapons, as well as by checking industrial sites to ensure that chemicals monitored under the Convention are used in accordance with the chemical weapons ban. The OPCW also promotes international cooperation and the exchange of scientific and technical information so that people and governments can benefit from the peaceful uses of chemistry."
"Each country that is a member of the OPCW commits itself never to:
-- use chemical weapons;
-- develop, produce, acquire, or keep chemical weapons, or transfer chemical weapons to anyone, anywhere in the world; or,
-- assist or encourage, in any way, anything that is prohibited by the Convention."
"The destruction of all existing chemical weapons, and the destruction or conversion to peaceful purposes of the facilities used to produce them, is a primary goal of the Chemical Weapons Convention and an important aspect of the work of the OPCW. By destroying these weapons and the means of making them, the OPCW strives to ensure that chemical weapons cannot be produced and can never again injure or kill people anywhere in the world."
If you look at the list of member nations under the left sidebar heading, OPCW Members | Member States, you'll find that the US is one of 175 nations that have signed the treaty and the dates on which it was signed, ratified and went into effect in each nation.
Much more information is available on their site here...
http://www.opcw.org/
Ann:
Points on Pike agreed-including personal agreement on his methodology of trying to disassociate--which made him look a tad arrogant in the article.
On the OPCW and CWC there are passages I need to go back to and reference but I am in the middle of a contract prep to be done by close of business today.
The question is, which is the governing treaty?
e-mail me--I have other questions.
According to John Pike, the CWC is THE document and everything else that is contrary is simply wrong.
But I stand by my earlier sensibility: the stuff is horrific, no matter what you call it, and the Bush Administration is a bunch of liars.
It occurs to me that there may have been some confusion between the US government's website, http://www.cwc.gov/ , which says it is:
A joint site sponsored by:
The United States Department of State (DOS), Bureau of Arms Control and
The United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS)
and the Chemical Weapons Convention site which is maintained by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, which is the international agency referenced by Mr. Pike in his article as the supreme authority in this discussion.
The Chemical Weapons Convention site is found here: http://www.opcw.org/
The US government CWC webpage references the US's membership in the CWC and indicates that:
http://www.cwc.gov/overview/about_html
"The purpose of this site is to inform U.S. industry of its rights and obligations under Bureau of Industry and Security's (BIS) CWC regulations."
It is oriented towards US industry and manufacturers. The US website is a special purpose website developed specifically for use by US companies which must abide by the CWC terms.
The Chemical Weapons Convention site makes clear that it is an international organization. On the webpage, "What is the OPCW", it also says:
"The OPCW is an independent international organisation, working in the interests of its Member States. The OPCW cooperates with the United Nations and, like the United Nations, the six official languages of the OPCW are Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian, and Spanish."
Posted by: mkh at December 2, 2005 03:45 PM
Ha hahahaha. MKH, LOVED your reindeer story!
What does it
Avail a man
To rain down phosphors
And lose his soul?
forgive them not, father, for they know full well what they do...
Otter
Since my political life is young (I am about a "year and a half old"), and I am still very much in my learning curve, all I can say about WP and Mr. Pike's article is:
What matters to me is the cruelty of the use of WP. The fact that anyone would write an article trying to explain it's use or defend it's use as a non chemical weapon is to me, heartless.
I know Mr. Pike has respected credentials. What stood out to me the first time I read his article was (to ME) a brazenness. The fact that the U.S. is using it in the first place is shameful. To reduce the implications and impact of it's use to an article or document is inhumane, in my opinion.
The tone of Mr. Pike's article, to me, was a bit callous, and arrogant. As Ann said, to make insinuation that bloggers just didn't know what they were talking about, and that HE was the expert. Well, I know ONE thing the BLOGGERS are expert about: The use of it by the United States is shameful, and inhumane. I personally don't give a rat's rear end if it is legal or illegal. My point is: Bloggers are talking about it because the use of it is inhumane!!! Just like the torture is inhumane. Just like leaving Cindy Sheehan out on a dirt road with her memories of her son who died under the command of the coward hiding in the ranch house was inhumane!!! Just
like using poor men's lives to fatten rich men's bank accounts is inhumane!!!
Mr. Pike MISSED THE POINT. The bloggers didn't.
All in the name of semantics. I think (personally) Mr. Pike has a huge ego problem.
Ann, thanks for all the research. It looks like it's legality indeed hinges on which is the governing treaty.
I am glad we have had this discussion. The fact that we even have had to makes me wonder why, in America, this great "Christian" nation, we even have this topic before us to examine. What on earth are we allowing ourselves to become conditioned to?
I know any day now we are going to wake up and realize we were just having a bad dream.
NO? Okay, then....
Isn't it enough that today ten more marines were killed, and three were killed yesterday in the name of money, greed, and oil? What on earth has happened to us as a country that we sit here and take it?
(I know, it is alot easier to say than it is to do, but.....people power is ALL we have left.)
From Global Security - I think this is the document he referenced in the LA Times:
Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons
Protocol III
Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons.
Geneva, 10 October 1980
Article 1
Definitions
For the purpose of this Protocol:
Incendiary weapon" means any weapon or munition which is primarily designed to set fire to objects or to cause burn injury to persons through the action of flame, heat, or combination thereof, produced by a chemical reaction of a substance delivered on the target. (a) Incendiary weapons can take the form of, for example, flame throwers, fougasses, shells, rockets, grenades, mines, bombs and other containers of incendiary substances.
(b) Incendiary weapons do not include:
(i) Munitions which may have incidental incendiary effects, such as illuminants, tracers, smoke or signalling systems;
(ii) Munitions designed to combine penetration, blast or fragmentation effects with an additional incendiary effect, such as armour-piercing projectiles, fragmentation shells, explosive bombs and similar combined-effects munitions in which the incendiary effect is not specifically designed to cause burn injury to persons, but to be used against military objectives, such as armoured vehicles, aircraft and installations or facilities.
Concentration of civilians" means any concentration of civilians, be it permanent or temporary, such as in inhabited parts of cities, or inhabited towns or villages, or as in camps or columns of refugees or evacuees, or groups of nomads.
Military objective" means, so far as objects are concerned, any object which by its nature, location, purpose or use makes an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage.
Civilian objects" are all objects which are not military objectives as defined in paragraph 3.
Feasible precautions" are those precautions which are practicable or practically possible taking into account all circumstances ruling at the time, including humanitarian and military considerations.
Article 2
Protection of civilians and civilian objects
It is prohibited in all circumstances to make the civilian population as such, individual civilians or civilian objects the object of attack by incendiary weapons.
It is prohibited in all circumstances to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by air-delivered incendiary weapons.
It is further prohibited to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by means of incendiary weapons other than air-delivered incendiary weapons, except when such military objective is clearly separated from the concentration of civilians and all feasible precautions are taken with a view to limiting the incendiary effects to the military objective and to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects.
It is prohibited to make forests or other kinds of plant cover the object of attack by incendiary weapons except when such natural elements are used to cover, conceal or camouflage combatants or other military objectives, or are themselves military objectives.
According to John Pike, the CWC is THE document and everything else that is contrary is simply wrong.
Posted by: Karen at December 2, 2005 04:10 PM
This is the critical bit of the CWC treaty described on the OPCW website that Mr. Pike is basing his argument on:
Incendiary agents such as napalm and phosphorus are not considered to be CW agents since they achieve their effect mainly through thermal energy. Certain types of smoke screen may be poisonous in extremely high concentrations but, nonetheless, smoke ammunition is not classed as a chemical weapon since the poisonous effect is not the reason for their use.
The CWC source: http://www.opcw.org/resp/html/cwagents.html
From Mr. Pike's site:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/incendiary-legal.htm
Ok, so the CWC says that a material which has obvious toxic effects in addition to its incendiary effects is not to be considered a chemical weapon, period.
So even though the smoke is poisonous and acts in a chemical, not incendiary fashion, because its primary purpose is not the poisonous effect, it's ok to ignore it. And that pronouncement takes all discussion of toxic effects off the table forever?
[BTW, the "shake & bake" description in the Military Journal makes it pretty clear that they weren't using it for its smoke screen capability.]
If only incendiary effects were needed in the Fallujah 'Shake & Bake', why was WP chosen over any other armament only capable of producing the required incendiary effects?
What laws apply when the WP munition is used specifically for its toxic properties?
Why does the CWC supercede the Geneva Convention, specifically the part about not using poisonous gas?
These are questions that still need answers.
And, just maybe the CWC needs to be revised...
Posted by: Fe at December 2, 2005 04:43 PM
Yes, that's the one that the US chose not to sign. It's known as:
The Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons
or the Incendiary Weapons Protocol
and is called Protocol III for short.
From Mr. Pike's site:
[Protocol III] is annexed to the Convention on Prohibitions or Restriction on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects (the Convention).
The Convention, including Protocol III, as well as two additional protocols, was concluded at Geneva on October 10, 1980. The United States ratified the Convention and expressed its consent to be bound by its Protocol II on Mines, Booby-traps and Other Devices, as well as its Protocol I on Non-Detectable Fragments, on March 24, 1995.
President Clinton, in submitting the Convention to the Senate for consideration in 1994, recommended that the United States exercise its right to ratify the Convention accepting only the first two Protocols and not the Incendiary Weapons Protocol [Protocol III].
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/incendiary-legal.htm
Shocking Poll Numbers from Zogby (from Hardball)
58% of Muslims polled believe that there was more democracy under Saddam than under the US-supported regime in Iraq.
"And, just maybe the CWC needs to be revised..."
Posted by: Ann Dietz at December 2, 2005 04:58 PM
My feelings, exactly. And as many of you know, I do not believe this will happen until this country regains its collective senses and demands change on a monumental scale.
I hope we can get way from John Pike and who values which document more. The issue really is: is this the government we want? Are they good at making humane decisions? Csn we PLEASE trade up?
Ann:
I think the immorality of the use of chemical weapons is not at issue. I think everyone--including Pike, agrees that their use is immoral and illegal.
What I think will be at issue will be the prosecution of the perpetrators if ever and when this goes before tribunal--either in the US or World Court. Personally, I think Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld should be tried at the Hague. It would be good to have the law on our side.
I also think progressives need to envision further along down the road as to the goals, the plans and the details in which the removal from the Iraq War engagement will entail. We need John Pikes and David Kays and all the experts we can muster to deliver fact for these ends. As Paul Hackett said--"pressure the President to cough up the end game and direct the Pentagon to come up with the plan and implement it."
If and when this war ends, the prices to pay are going to be huge, particularly if the justification of this war was a fabrication and an impeachable offense. Hopefully the guilty parties are going to pay.
I think the anti-war movement needs its passion as well as to be as stringent and exacting of ourselves as let's say, a Pat Fitzgerald, in the discovery and uncovering of facts related to the prosecution of this war, and its perps. Then we become impeccable and our integrity will not in any way be questioned.
Particularly now when our growing disaffection will need to turn to truthful answers after a near decade or more of lies--can't afford another post-Nixon-Watergate era--that one bred a Reagan further down the road.
I heard somewhere, can't remember, but somebody was calling out for America to have its own Truth and Reconciliation Commission, like they did in South Africa. I think that's a bold move.
The dividing factors, including the corporate interests that are destroying American democracy and a multi-party system need to be exposed. The citizens are growing up. We need to get the truth in un-filtered form in order to accept responsibility and move on.
In terms of whatever treaty or treaties or accords we have signed, I'm sure this war and the War on Terror has obliterated most governing principles of fair conduct in the prosecution of war. (aka TORTURE). I can only imagine that in so many instances not only are all bets off, but possibly new forms of horribleness have been perpetrated against the Iraqi civilians. I only hope we can find a way to never allow this to go unreported or unpunished, or to ever happen again--and make this the means to begin our journey as civilized citizens with the rest of the planet.
"Is that redistricting plan going through an appeals process? If so, might that not effect 2006 strategizing? From the WaPo article:"
Chuck the Ct of Appeals for the southern district turned down the Texas Dems appeal a year ago under violations of equal protection but I have read that the US Supreme Ct. has accepted cert and has agreed to hear a new appeal next year and I believe that violations of the 1965 Voting Rights Act may be the crux of their argument. Today's bombshell reported in the Washington Post regarding a memo opposing ReDistricting out of the AG's office hopefully will catch the Supreme Ct's attention.
ReDistricting is another very impt reason that we need to oppose Alito.
Apparently Sen. Collins, Snowe, and Chaffee are beginning to feel the heat in their upcoming elections and are starting to speak out against Alito. The filibuster has once again started to emerge as a topic of discussion among Senators.
Chuck those 5 Texas Congressional seats won't be effected by the ReDistricting rulings til '08 at best.
Posted by: Fe at December 2, 2005 05:33 PM
Fe, on that I can agree with you whole-heartedly.
I think the anti-war movement needs its passion as well as to be as stringent and exacting of ourselves as let's say, a Pat Fitzgerald, in the discovery and uncovering of facts related to the prosecution of this war, and its perps. Then we become impeccable and our integrity will not in any way be questioned.
Posted by: Fe at December 2, 2005 05:33 PM
Very good point. And, I don't think the examination of this was a waste, because we may need to know if a law was violated in the use of WP someday in the (hopefully) near future.
I'm really not a madman.
I just think that some of these "suits" need to spend about a week in combat.
I am getting to know a few more of you here. What a group of highly gifted, intelligent, and outstanding people you are.
Someone told me today we found each other for a reason. This can only lead to good.
Good things are happening, and I honestly think that forces beyond our humanity are at work on our behalf, (whatever you choose to call them).
truth:
I think we're a family.
Fe,
In soul and spirit and purpose, we are.
Long and lengthy reading but well worth the time. From Larry Wilkerson, Colin Powell's #2 guy, who's been more outspoken lately.
He launched his more verbal period with this speech and Q&A session in front of the New American Foundation, moderated by Steve Clemons of The Washington Note on October 19, 2005.
He gives incredible insight into how the internal mechanics of this administration work and some amuzingly and amazingly frank answers.
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/Wilkerson%20Speech%20--%20WEB.htm
We see young men our own age in coffins
And mothers in tears for their sons
And sweethearts and wives
Alone with their memories
And golden ribbons
Those fortunes of war
What does it
Avail a man
To gain a fortune
And lose his soul?
Excuses?
There are no excuses.
Period.
Full stop.
Paragraph.
Page.
--30--
...Otter
Want pics to go with this post...??
I have 'the other pics'..
You know, not the scorched ones that can also be mistaken for decomps but the ones of the MELTED bodies
Damn why do i always feel the need to take a shower lately
Here's a civilian dodging WP.
http://webpages.charter.net/micah/phosphorus.jpg
One that didn't make it.
http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:UCIMsfUY1qMJ:mindprod.com/images/iraqskeleton.jpg
"We are saddened by the loss of life, whether it's one soldier who loses his or her life, or 10 or 11, we are saddened to hear that news," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said of Thursday's incident.
"Our heart and prayers go out to the families, their loved ones paid the ultimate sacrifice for an important cause and we are forever grateful for their service and sacrifice," he said.
Rice to warn Europe to back off over detainees
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is expected to give allies in Europe a response next week to their pressure over Washington's treatment of terrorism suspects: back off.
For almost a month, the United States has been on the defensive, refusing to deny or confirm media reports the United States has held prisoners in secret in Eastern Europe and transported detainees incommunicado across the continent.
The European Union has demanded that Washington address the allegations to allay fears of illegal U.S. practices. The concerns are rampant in among the European public and parliaments, already critical of U.S. prisoner-abuse scandals in Iraq and Guantanamo, Cuba.
But Rice will shift to offense when she visits Europe next week, in a strategy that has emerged in recent days and been tested by her spokesman in public and in her private meetings with European visitors.
She will remind allies they themselves have been cooperating in U.S. operations and tell them to do more to win over their publics as a way to deflect criticism directed at the United States, diplomats and U.S. officials said.
"It's very clear they want European governments to stop pushing on this," said a European diplomat, who had contact with U.S. officials over the handling of the scandals. "They were stuck on the defensive for weeks, but suddenly the line has toughened up incredibly," the diplomat said.
Irish Foreign Minister Dermot Ahern said Rice told him in Washington she expected allies to trust that America does not allow rights abuses -- a sign she will avoid giving Europe a detailed response on U.S. intelligence work.
And she refused to give Ahern a personal assurance Ireland has not been used for secret prisoner transfers, saying he had already heard that denial from the U.S. ambassador, a senior State Department official said.
BLUNT BEHIND THE SCENES
Rice will deliver her message in private meetings with officials in Germany and at the EU headquarters in Brussels during a trip that starts on Monday and also includes a stop in Romania, which denies accusations it hosts a secret prison.
There are signs Europe has already begun to get the message to ease up on the controversy.
Ahern said he accepted the U.S. word. Germany, whose foreign minister also pressed Rice this week during a visit, said it would wait patiently for a U.S. response.
But the State Department also plans a stronger defense of its policies to try to reframe a debate in Europe that threatens to undo some of the repair Rice has made this year to transatlantic ties that were frayed over the Iraq war.
Rice will stress in public that Washington does not violate allies' sovereignty or break international law, and she will remind publics their governments are cooperating in a fight against militants who have bombed commuters in Madrid and London, senior U.S. officials said.
"It is the responsibility, also, of governments to explain as clearly as possible to their publics and publics around the world what it is that they are doing in fighting the war on terrorism," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said.
Rice began the year on her first foreign trip as secretary of state wooing European allies with a charm offensive that set a new tone for relations after disputes over Iraq.
But the top diplomat from the sole superpower can also get tough with her European counterparts.
U.S. diplomats recount how her successful stance against EU plans to lift an arms embargo against China unnerved Europeans, as she sternly told them not to sell weapons that could end up being aimed at U.S. forces in Asia.
One foreign minister spilled his drink when she delivered that warning over coffee in Brussels, a senior U.S. official said.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051202/pl_nm/security_europe_rice_dc
Another relative news blackout day because of work, but the following leaked through:
(This is my paraphrase, my impression, my recollection)
10 (then heard 11) killed in Iraq, more wounded
General Odom was on NPR and said hey - why not just reinstate Saddam - he kept the Sunnies, Shiites, Kurds in blance - the only other alternative is a Shiite fundamentalist govt such as Iran!
They also featured Muhrta, making a great deal of sense. No one could really make a good rebuttal. One of the reporters (NPR) had spent recent time in the field, with officers and with enlisted men. He received the same sort of word - that what they say publicly and what they say off-the-record are two different things.
One officer was questioned by a Senator as to whether he could account for why troops weren't being trained more rapidly. The guy told the Senator he should have thought of that before sending them over there.
Muhrta also implied that the buck stopped with Bush administration, not military officers, whereas Bush seems repeatedly to talk as tough he is the loyal civil servant of military officers.
& when he appears with military or vets, especially in a uniform, & pretends to have an assocation with them - it is offensive, as pointed out in a letter today in the conservative Everett Herald.
On NPR, they also read a letter from military mag Stars & Stripes where a young soldier said that HE might enjoy Britney Spears & McDonalds, but doubted very much whether most in the mideast would choose that lifestyle.
NPR may not be as balanced as it used to be, but I learn more in my drive to work and home than I did watching cable news much of the day at my mom's, esp. if I can also catch a BBC broadcast.
This is the letter in the Everett Herald:
Bush has nothing in common with vets
I am appalled that President Bush and Vice President Cheney, the occupants of the two highest offices of our country, seldom miss an opportunity to be seen with veterans or with active members of the United States military, and often go out of their way to manufacture such "photo-ops." Apparently Bush and Cheney think they can whitewash history by pretending they have something in common with our distinguished veterans and active military personnel, who sacrificed lives and limbs for this great country. But these two both chose to dodge the military draft during the Vietnam War in order for them to stay out of harm's way and to advance their careers.
It disgusts me that Bush and Cheney work to create the impression that they support the troops' and veterans' causes while at the same time slashing funding for these groups. Indeed, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives recently voted "no" on a bill that would have increased our National Guardsmen's monthly salary. Bush and Cheney relish being photographed and seen at veteran's and military events although they both purposefully avoided active military service in a time of war. They talk the talk, but did not walk the walk. They do not, nor ever will, belong to this club.
Monkey
"She (Rice) will remind allies they themselves have been cooperating in U.S. operations and tell them to do more to win over their publics as a way to deflect criticism directed at the United States, diplomats and U.S. officials said."
-- this is one of the biggest jokes ever. Bush can't do it (win over the public) and neither can Chirac, Merkel, Berlusconi etc!!! Blair? hahaha
U.S. Military Admits Planting Stories In Iraqi Press
UPDATED: 6:06 pm EST December 2, 2005
WASHINGTON -- Military officials in Baghdad for the first time Friday described a Pentagon program that pays to plant stories in the Iraqi media, an effort the top U.S. military commander said was part of an effort to "get the truth out" there.
The U.S. officials in Iraq said articles had been offered and published in Iraqi newspapers "as a function of buying advertising and opinion/editorial space, as is customary in Iraq."
The idea has been criticized in the United States, and John Warner, the Republican chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, went to the Pentagon Friday for an explanation. President George W. Bush's spokesman said the White House was "very concerned."
Lt. Col. Barry Johnson, a military spokesman in Iraq, said that third parties -- which would include the Washington-based Lincoln Group -- were used to market the stories to reduce the risk to the publishers.
"If any part of our process does not have our full confidence, we will examine that activity and take appropriate action," he said in a statement. "If any contractor is failing to perform as we have intended, we will take appropriate action.
He also defended the program as critical to the war effort.
"The information battlespace in Iraq is contested at all times and is filled with misinformation and propaganda by an enemy intent on discrediting the Iraqi government and the coalition, and who are taking every opportunity to instill fear and intimidate the Iraqi people," his statement said.
Leaving a Pentagon meeting with Defense Department officials in Washington, Warner, R-Va., said the program was a serious problem.
But Warner told The Associated Press that, "Things like this happen. It's a war. The disinformation that's going on in that country is really affecting the effectiveness of what we're achieving, and we have no recourse but to try and do some rebuttal information."
And Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, added that, "We want to get the facts out. We want to get the truth out."
Warner met with chief Pentagon spokesman Lawrence Di Rita and members of Pace's staff, but only bumped into Pace on his way out of the building.
Meanwhile, a Pentagon spokesman said Friday it was not clear whether the program violated the law or Pentagon policy, a Defense Department spokesman said Friday.
"You can do something perfectly legal, but that is inconsistent with the policy or procedures of the department. Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's the right thing to do," said spokesman Bryan Whitman.
He said the department is still gathering information on the matter.
Warner initially requested a Capitol Hill briefing for the committee, but committee spokesman John Ullyot said those plans were changed "at the Pentagon's request."
Whitman said the department was still gathering information about the program and the multimillion-dollar contracts that included paying Iraqi newspapers and journalists to plant favorable stories about the war and the rebuilding effort.
"We don't have all the facts," he said, including whether or not defense officials in Iraq knew exactly what was happening or whether they believed any of it was improper.
Military officials in Iraq say the program is a critical tool on the Iraq battleground.
"The purpose of this program is to ensure factual information is provided to the Iraqi public," Lt. Col. Barry Johnson, a U.S. military spokesman, said in Iraq.
But Congress members and the White House have expressed concern.
"A free and independent press is critical to the functioning of a democracy, and I am concerned about any actions which may erode the independence of the Iraqi media," Warner said earlier.
more... http://www.thechamplainchannel.com/news/5454573/detail.html
Ask not for whom the bells toll, they toll for thee.
Chimpservants, every man's (and woman's) death diminishes ye.
get bush out of washington and the US out of Iraq *now*,
Otter
Please call your Senators.
The 2006 elections will be close and hard-fought, as many elections have been in the past few years. Because of this, it is likely that we will see the return of some of the despicable and underhanded tactics used in past elections to stop people, especially minorities, from voting.
For example, voters waiting in long lines have been arbitrarily told that there was no point in waiting and that they should just go home, even though polls wouldn't close for hours. Fliers have been distributed listing the wrong day for the election, or saying Republicans should vote on Tuesday and Democrats should vote on Wednesday.
Senator Barack
Obama (D-IL) Voters have been told that traffic violations made it illegal for them to vote and that all parking tickets and overdue rent had to be paid before voting. Voters have received mailings claiming that anyone registered by the NAACP was not allowed to vote.
Now, Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) is working to eliminate this significant problem. He has introduced a bill, S. 1975, The Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act of 2005. The bill would create a criminal penalty for deceptive practices, with penalties of up to $100,000, one year imprisonment, or both. Here's the letter he sent to his colleagues about the bill. The legislation would also require the attorney general, in conjunction with the federal Election Assistance Commission, to provide accurate election information when allegations of deceptive practices are confirmed.
We need your help to round up cosponsors for the bill. We hope to see it signed into law before the 2006 elections. Building support for this bill is a critical first step.
Please call your Senator today and urge them to cosponsor S. 1975.
After the 2004 election we released a report based on phone calls from voters reporting problems they faced. Sen. Obama's bill will help put a stop to these violations of Americans' voting rights.
This is a simple, straightforward bill, but it will face stiff opposition from many in Congress. We need your help. So does Senator Obama.
Please call your Senator today and urge them to cosponsor S. 1975.
Click here to find your representative: www.commoncause.org/FindElectedOfficials
Russia selling missiles to Iran,
Spain selling them to Venezuela ..
is the Cold War really over?
Oh gee look...
BREAKING NEWS NBC: Al-Qaida No. 3 leader killed in Pakistan, U.S. and Pakistani officials say
Bush, Greenspan split on economy outlook
President's upbeat remarks about economy tempered by Greenspan's federal budget concerns.
December 2, 2005
WASHINGTON (CNN) - President Bush on Friday credited "good old-fashioned American hard work" for what he called the current "vibrant" state of the economy.
"Our economic horizon is as bright as it's been in a long time," the president said in brief remarks in the Rose Garden at the White House, citing the latest job creation and unemployment figures released earlier in the day.
But the president's rosy outlook differed from that of Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, who said hours earlier in videotaped remarks that the United States' "budget position will substantially worsen in the coming years unless major deficit-reducing actions are taken."
"I do not mean to suggest that the nation's budget problems will be solved simply by adopting a new set of budgeting rules," Greenspan said in his speech to the policy forum of the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia.
"The fundamental fiscal issue is the need to make difficult choices among budget priorities, and this need is becoming ever more pressing in light of the unprecedented number of individuals approaching retirement age.
"For example, future congresses and presidents will have to weigh the benefits of continued access, on current terms, to advances in medical technology against other fiscal initiatives," the chairman said.
Greenspan warned that the "soaring cost of medical care" for the country's aging population will place a burden on the budget that "economic growth alone is unlikely to eliminate."
Bush declared that the country's economy continues to gain strength and momentum, "thanks to good old-fashioned American hard work, and productivity, innovation and sound economic policies of cutting taxes and restraining spending."
He cited a government report Friday that showed 215,000 jobs were added in the month of November, and that unemployment remained steady at 5 percent.
"That's in spite of the fact that we had hurricanes and high gas prices," the president said.
Bush said the foundation for growth in the country is strong, and is "based on low taxes, restrained government spending, legal reform and incentives for saving and investment."
"This economy is in good shape," he told reporters. "We're not going to rest until every American who wants a job can find one."
Greenspan also declared that the country's economic activity was "expanding at a reasonably good pace" as 2006 approached, but he said the positive short-term outlook is tempered by "a backdrop of concern about the prospects for the federal budget over the longer run."
The chairman called for the reinstatement of restraints on the budget-making process, like those in the now-expired Budget Enforcement Act of 1990.
Any new legislation should also include provisions to deal with unanticipated budget outcomes, Greenspan said.
The president didn't address future budget legislation. His brief remarks ended with a promise to continue to push for pro-growth policies.
He then walked briskly away from the podium, ignoring shouted questions from reporters.
U.S. Stands Alone in U.N. Budget Demand, at Odds With Europe and Developing World
By EDITH M. LEDERER Associated Press Writer
The Associated Press
UNITED NATIONS - The United States stood alone Friday in calling for an interim U.N. budget, at odds with Europe and the entire developing world, and Secretary-General Kofi Annan launched urgent talks to try to bridge the divide.
The fight over the U.N. budget, which runs out on Dec. 31, has become entwined with battle over implementing the broad reforms that world leaders agreed to at a U.N. summit in September.
U.S. Ambassador John Bolton wants reform to drive the budget process "not the other way around" and has called for the United Nations to approve a budget for three or four months rather than the usual two-year budget so the 191 U.N. member states would have time to consider management reforms expected early in the year.
"Our priority is we do not want to miss the opportunity for reform. We do not want to adopt a two-year budget that makes it, as a practical matter, impossible to implement reforms for another two years," Bolton said.
But the secretary-general, the European Union and developing countries who constitute the vast majority of U.N. members want a two-year budget adopted by the end of the year. Japan, the second largest contributor to the United Nations behind the United States, shares many U.S. concerns but hasn't taken a position on the length of the budget.
During an hour-long meeting with leaders of regional groups and key negotiators, Annan said he called for agreement by the end of the year on a Peacebuilding Commission to help countries emerging from conflict, progress on a new Human Rights Council, and support for management reforms he has proposed which will be discussed starting Tuesday.
"At the end, everyone agreed that ... we must have a budget, but at the same time we should find some means of maintaining the pressure for reform on," Annan said.
Algeria's U.N. Ambassador Abdallah Baali, a Security Council member, said "everybody wants a two-year budget" except for the United States and cited a U.N. Secretariat assessment that a three-month budget would create a financial crisis.
Britain's U.N. Ambassador Emyr Jones Parry, whose country holds the European Union presidency, said the EU opposes any "formal linkage" between reform and the budget. He said he was also convinced that a temporary solution would make it harder for "the U.N. to carry out essential functions."
The way forward, he said, is a two-year budget with "a clear statement in which we all commit ourselves to put in place a whole series of changes next year and a timetable for doing those and in the light of that, to actually then review the budget that we would by then have adopted."
Bolton said the United States is open to other suggestions.
"I haven't given up on the possibility that sweet reason will prevail," he said.
Monkey - Is this why he wants the budget under
his control now?!
http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/02/peas-in-a-pod/
Radical right’s James Dobson meets with ambassador John Bolton over U.N. policy. Dobson: “We had an opportunity to talk to him about the possibilty of Focus on the Family working with the United Nations. That really did excite me.“ December 2, 2005
re our rosy economy, on Marketplace, they broke the unemployment figures down by manufacturing vs service sectors & think don't look nearly as good.
Also read the Greenspan (Financial Times), after looking over Bush's "rosy" scenario about the economy - the two don't jibe at all
Monkey
Forgot about this (from an astute reader over at Think Progress):
Maybe Bolton can take Brother Dobson around to Plato’s closet for a few introductions. Nudge nudge wink wink say no more.
from Dobson's site:
Focus on the Family has elected to end its banking relationship with Wells Fargo, motivated primarily by the bank's ongoing efforts to advance the radical homosexual agenda.
(..who knew?!)
Also possibly of interest:
Eight Points That Show, Christian or Not, He's Still a Guy
Once a man becomes a Christian, he doesn't change his distinctly male traits.
College and Beyond
Beware of the College Bubble
It's easy to get caught up in campus life
On Guard (Staying Safe in the Chat Room)
Internet chat rooms are often useful and fun. But they're virtually no safer than a dark alley.
--on Bolton (from Center for American Progress)
He has been called a "treaty-killer" and a "guided missile." He is known as the "undersecretary for chads" and the "anti-diplomat." Recently he called concerns over how many nuclear weapons North Korea possesses "quibbling." And, former Sen. Jesse Helms thinks of him as "the kind of man with whom I would want to stand at the gates of Armageddon." "If [the UN Secretariat building] lost 10 stories,” Bolton once quipped, “it wouldn't make a bit of difference."
Preventing a nuclear Armageddon is what John Bolton's last job entailed. Bolton's job included coordinating arms control, nonproliferation policy, military assistance for State Department and foreign assistance. Sen. Biden said, "I have always voted against nominees who oppose the avowed purpose of the position for which they have been nominated." A former colleague from American Enterprise Institute notes that "Bolton rejects completely the notion that foreign policies are good to the extent that the Belgians like them."
Bolton's first campaign experience came during Goldwater's campaign, for which he volunteered in high school, then on to Yale Young Republicans. Bolton rode into the Reagan administration on James Baker's coattails. He conducted a review for the Justice Department to determine if any administration officials were involved in supplying arms to the Nicaraguan Contras. He served as point-person in nomination of Robert Bork to the Supreme Court. Under George H.W. Bush he advanced to assistant secretary of state for international organization affairs.
Like other exiled neo-cons, Bolton spent the eight years of the Clinton presidency working in Washington on the outskirts of the government. From calling support of the International Criminal Court the product of "fuzzy-minded romanticism [that] is not just naïve, but dangerous" to discussing North Korean policy by saying that "sounder U.S. policy would start by making it clear to the North that we are indifferent to whether we ever have 'normal' diplomatic relations with it,"
After working as a lawyer with the Republican team in Florida, he grabbed reporters' attention when he burst into a Tallahassee library announcing ''I'm with the Bush-Cheney team, and I'm here to stop the count."
It is because of Jesse Helms that he secured a position in the Bush administration. On the eve of talks with North Korea about their nuclear weapons, Bolton called King Jong Il a "tyrannical dictator" and an "evil regime." North Korea responded by calling Bolton "human scum" and stating their objection to negotiating with him.
In his first one-and-a half years in office the U.S. pulled out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty with Russia, scuttled a protocol to the biological-weapons ban, ousted the head of the organization that oversees the chemical-weapons treaty, watered down an accord on small-arms trafficking and refused to submit the nuclear test-ban treaty for Senate ratification. At this point it is clear that the world Bolton has left us four years later is one that is more dangerous. He can only do more damage from a position of greater power.
Oh gee look...
BREAKING NEWS NBC: Al-Qaida No. 3 leader killed in Pakistan, U.S. and Pakistani officials say
Posted by: monkey at December 3, 2005 12:26 AM
How many times they gonna kill that guy?
.....and what was he doing in Pakistan???
Radical right’s James Dobson meets with ambassador John Bolton over U.N. policy. Dobson: “We had an opportunity to talk to him about the possibilty of Focus on the Family working with the United Nations. That really did excite me.“ December 2, 2005
Posted by: DiAnne at December 3, 2005 12:59 AM
Oh good Lord.