From Across the Ocean

I'm watching the Oxford Union debate - "Should Pres. Bush be Re-elected."
Will Hutton, the former editor of The Observer, gave a fiery speech. It was not just aimed against George Bush, but was for John Kerry. One good question Hutton touched on was "Why was this a war on terror, not terrorists or terrorism? It was a deliberate ploy" to create fear in America.

Grover Norquist is speaking in favor of Bush and his view on economics. He just said Bush is up in the polls. I wonder which ones??

I recently read an article in Harper's on the Left Behind series. In that article, the author mentions the sense of victimization that pervades, not just the novels, but certain social groups in America. They are those middle or upper-middle class (white, Christian) people who drive SUVs, etc. etc. It seems as if these people want to find an excuse to feel victimized. Feeling as if they, poor Christians, have been pushed aside by society.
When we look at those people supporting Bush, and speaking with glassy stares about not "fighting them on our soil" and who almost revel in their fearfulness, those are the people that seek victimization. They act as if Bush is struggling against great powers (including, perhaps, the liberal media?). What better way to feel victimized than to assume that the world is against you. There cannot be diplomatic solutions, only absolute solutions. This makes them right and, by extension, makes them righteous.

Richard Dreyfuss is now making jokes that fall horribly flat. He looks drunk, and has mentioned Revelations and the establishment of Israel marking the end of the world (that being the motive for Bush's support of Israel). "Mr. Bush, you are no Ronald Reagan. . . and neither was Ronald Reagan."
Dreyfuss is making some sense, but it would be better if he wasn't clearly soused. Then again, I can't really blame him.
"This election marks something particularly dangerous. . ."

I try to avoid thinking that way, but it seems unavoidable. Even to the most realistic mind, the world appears changing. There will likely be no great destruction or paradigm shift in the next four years. But it is coming, slowly. I can only hope that it will be a gentle shift.

Flailing Against the Facts

From Media Matters - "In an October 28 article, Washington Times defense and national security reporter Bill Gertz cited John A. "Jack" Shaw, the Pentagon's deputy undersecretary for international technology and security, to assert as fact that "Russian troops, working with Iraqi intelligence, 'almost certainly' removed the high-explosive material that went missing from the Al-Qaqaa facility." Although senior Pentagon officials have distanced themselves from Shaw's claims, The Washington Times article was featured on The Drudge Report; cited by radio host Rush Limbaugh; and cited on FOX News Channel by Newt Gingrich and radio host Monica Crowley. Radio host G. Gordon Liddy and FOX News Channel political analyst Dick Morris also proffered the same claim made in the Times article."

Not to mention ABC Phoenix and Dick Morris on recent talk shows (clips of which were shown on two of my Fox affiliates).

"The claims made in the Washington Times article have been further discredited. As CNN noted on October 29, "Asked about Shaw's comments during an interview on WABC radio in New York, [Secretary of Defense Donald] Rumsfeld said, 'No, I have no information on that at all and cannot validate that even slightly.'" CNN also reported, "Di Rita said Shaw was not speaking for the Pentagon and that his views were not those of senior defense officials." Di Rita also noted that "Shaw's superiors were talking to him about his comments.""

Aha!

_40467125_russiadolls
Originally uploaded by ccmoira.

Maybe the explosives were hidden in these.

Missing: Arms and a Brain

The issue of the missing explosives should be a negative for Bush, no matter what. The fact that there were ever questions about something so important is damning.
It won't be enough to sway many people but, there you have it. Many people are stupid.
This includes the people at The Washington Times (as if we didn't all know that already).

"John A. Shaw, the deputy undersecretary of defense for international technology security, said in an interview that he believes the Russian troops, working with Iraqi intelligence, "almost certainly" removed the high-explosive material that went missing from the Al-Qaqaa facility, south of Baghdad."

Urm, ok?

"Mr. Shaw, who was in charge of cataloging the tons of conventional arms provided to Iraq by foreign suppliers, said he recently obtained reliable information on the arms-dispersal program from two European intelligence services that have detailed knowledge of the Russian-Iraqi weapons collaboration"."

Oh, well as long as the Washington Times says that this guy says his information is reliable . . .
I'm not even denying that this maybe, could be true. But this type of reporting is pathetic. It is especially pathetic that my AZ ABC show from last night mentioned this story (due to come out today) - and mentioned it as if it dispelled any lingering questions.

"Al-Qaqaa, a known Iraqi weapons site, was monitored closely, Mr. Shaw said.
"That was such a pivotal location, Number 1, that the mere fact of [special explosives] disappearing was impossible," Mr. Shaw said. "And Number 2, if the stuff disappeared, it had to have gone before we got there.""

It was impossible! It could not possibly have happened. Ok then as long as we all agree to shut our eyes and forget everything. . .
According to the article, the UN had sealed the facility in January of 2003. The Pentagon says there was no "evidence of movement of explosives from the facility after April 6." The Army's 75th Exploitation Task Force (what kind of name is that?) inspected the area in early May.
The article has no mention of the 2nd Brigade of the Army's 3rd Infantry Division, which apparently did not inspect the site when they arrived April 3rd. Trusted Iraqis have also claimed that "it is impossible that these materials could have been taken from this site before the regime's fall." (See Daily Kos for more on this).

The Washington Times believes that the Russians were supplying arms to Saddam Hussein, but began an arms-removal program when "Yevgeny Primakov, the former Russian intelligence chief, could not persuade Saddam to give in to U.S. and Western demands, this official said."

". Shaw said he believes that the withdrawal of Russian-made weapons and explosives from Iraq was part of plan by Saddam to set up a "redoubt" in Syria that could be used as a base for launching pro-Saddam insurgency operations in Iraq.
[. . .]
Documents reviewed by the official included itineraries of military units involved in the truck shipments to Syria. The materials outlined in the documents included missile components, MiG jet parts, tank parts and chemicals used to make chemical weapons, the official said.
[. . .]
Defense officials said the Russians can provide information on what happened to the Iraqi weapons and explosives that were transported out of the country. Officials believe the Russians also can explain what happened to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs."

How does that first point even seem like a reasonable hypothesis? And isn't it difficult to move chemical weapons without leaving some kind of trace? And, again, if we were so sure that Saddam Hussein had these weapons, why weren't we monitoring these kinds of movements more closely? Wasn't the whole point to avoid the explosives falling into the wrong hands?
Someone help me before my head explodes.

UPDATE: From the New York Times.

Looters stormed the weapons site at Al Qaqaa in the days after American troops swept through the area in early April 2003 on their way to Baghdad, gutting office buildings, carrying off munitions and even dismantling heavy machinery, three Iraqi witnesses and a regional security chief said Wednesday.
The Iraqis described an orgy of theft so extensive that enterprising residents rented their trucks to looters. But some looting was clearly indiscriminate, with people grabbing anything they could find and later heaving unwanted items off the trucks.

Bullshit's Deep In Here

bullshit
Originally uploaded by ccmoira.

From James Wolcott:

"[Diane] West claimed that a Newsweek editor had opined that the pro-Kerry bias in the media could swing the election five points in his favor.
[. . .]
Any newsmagazine that employs the Bush-licking Howard Fineman shouldn't talk squat about bias.
[. . .]
There are no coincidences at Fox News. Three times today, and the day is still relatively young, Fox hit the note of liberal bias to sound the theme that the press is "in the tank" for Kerry, and that any victory he gets will be a tainted gift from the media elite."

Meanwhile, consumer confidence has fallen and there are still nearly 380 missing tons of explosives.

Wear This Donkey Outfit

"A poll by Primetime Live revealed that 56% of Republicans are very satisfied with their sex lives, but only 47% of Democrats are. More Republicans have worn something sexy to enhance their sex life, but more Democrats have faked and orgasm." - ABC News/The Economist.

Maybe this might explain it.

". . . Another sex professional, 25-year-old Eve, says, “I don’t want to single out the Republicans, but they are majority male and a fairly wealthy group of people.”"

Painful Withdrawal

"A man does not often change his deepest convictions. But it is not unusual for a man to change his calculation of risk." - The Economist

Bush might want to consider that; but this is actually in reference to Ariel Sharon, who recently got the approval of the Knesset (barely) for the withdrawal of Jewish settlers in Gaza.
Many that supported Sharon's plan want a referendum on the issue, but Sharon is fighting it.

"A person can change their mind from time to time but not give in to pressures and ultimatums," [Sharon] told Haaretz newspaper.
"My position on the referendum is unchanged - I am opposed because it will lead to terrible tensions and a rupture in the public."

People are already divided within Gaza, with some even being targeted by vandals for their views about leaving. This situation will only get worse, as members of the Likud Party and other government officials have threatened to leave the government if a referendum is not called.

It seems like such an odd move for Sharon to push this withdrawal plan. I have no doubt that it is an appeasement effort. Many Palestinians suspect that this withdrawal is just a distraction as Israel takes tighter control of the West Bank.
I remember that after I first heard of the proposal (and doubted its motives) there followed several assassinations of Palestinian leaders. - Pay no attention to the gun I am holding in my other hand.

Still, Sharon seems intent on this plan and I will not pretend to understand the machinations in this situation.

"In the end, the dark and inner thoughts of these geriatric war-horses are unknowable and scarcely matter (not least because neither is likely to be around for the end). What does matter is what they do or can be forced to do while they have power, and whether their actioins look likely to make things better or not. Measured by that yardstick, Mr. Sharon's plan to quit Gaza is a good thing, no matter what his true motives." - The Economist

I am frustrated by the US treatment of the situation. Both Bush and Kerry seem intent on ignoring Yassir Arafat, a fact which has more to do with national politics than any sense that it will help things over there.