Notes From The Overground
Created by Tom
The Memory Hole
This Modern World
Axis of Justice
NYU Department of Culture and Communication
The Daily Show With Jon Stewart
New York Times
Feed.com (World News)
Yahoo! News (all the wire stuff)
Pop Culture Links
Rolling Stone Magazine
Movie Poop Shoot
Good Music Links
All Music Guide
Ultimate Band List/Artist Direct
@U2: U2 Fan Site
System of a Down
Nancies.org: DMB Fan Site
Blogs Against War
Thursday, March 13, 2003
Preemptive Preemptive Strike
ABC News reports that Hussein may launch a preemptive strike against U.S. forces once Bush gives the signal that our preemptive war is inevitable.
— U.S. officials fear that once President Bush signals the U.S. is headed to war, Saddam Hussein will strike pre-emptively, administration sources told ABCNEWS.
To clarify, if the U.S. preemptive strike appears imminent, Saddam will launch a preemptive strike against the U.S. forces. So, based on fears of Saddam's preemptive strike, the U.S. may preemptively take action to stop an Iraqi first strike -- action that would likely lead to war.
Thus, the originally preemptive war of the U.S. will be scrapped in favor of a preemptive strike against Saddam's preemption of American preemption. Either way, this will all likely lead to some post-emptive death and destruction on both sides.
Really, who needs the U.N. (That irrelevant "debating society") when you have logic like this?
Freedom of Speech and You
The American Prospect examines the American media's refusal to cover the U.N. bugging allegations. The story only gets stranger: Great Britain's Observer reported that an employee of Government Communications Headquarters was arrested on suspicion of leaking the information.
In yet another case of stifling information, chairman of the Defense Policy Board (a Defense Department advisory group) Richard Perle is suing Seymour Hersh of the New Yorker for libel. Hersh's offending story points out conflicts of interest involving Perle and alleges that he is using his position at the Pentagon to benefit financially from the war on Iraq and the broader war on terrorism. Perle brought the suit to the U.K. where there is no First Amendment protection of the press, libel laws are much friendlier to the plaintiff and the burden of proof lies on the defendant.
New York City Council Takes Stand Against Iraq War
New York joined almost 150 other U.S. cities and counties by passing a resolution against the Iraq war.
The City Council passed a controversial anti-war resolution yesterday, following passionate debate about whether the action is anti-American.
Of course there were the inevitable cries of "anti-Americanism" and irrational ties to 9/11 and democracy by the hawks in the council...
However, other council members expressed shame in the resolution and called it "anti-American." They said it was an unseemly action in New York especially, since the city bore the brunt of the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.
Jennings' actions and words illustrate the myopic narrow-mindedness of those who support this war. There is no connection between Iraq and the events of 9/11/01. Using the specter of 9/11 to support Bush's folly is nakedly ignorant revenge-mongering; it is an attempt to tap into an irrationally visceral emotion to create a connection that does not exist.
Yet there are still those who believe that Saddam must be disarmed in order to prevent future 9/11s (despite the fact that he has no connection to the perpetrators of those terror attacks). The idea that a war with Iraq would prevent future attacks does not stand up to scrutiny as there are other countries that harbor and support Islamic fundamentalists of bin Laden's ilk. Remember that a wide majority of the alleged 9/11 bombers were Saudi Arabian nationals (Saudi Arabia being a "friendly" ally and trade partner). As has been claimed time and again, violent action against Iraq could solidify anti-Americanism in the Arab world and fuel the hatred that led to 9/11.
"Our troops are in the Middle East at this time to fight for our democracy," Jennings said. "I think this resolution sends the wrong message to our men and women in uniform."
Bush's actions have nothing to do with democracy and everything to do with the narrow interests of his cabal. To suggest that this resolution sends a "wrong message" to the troops on the front lines is a disgusting perversion of truth. The resolution represents a stand against the policies of those in charge. It is a stand against policies that will put the "men and women in uniform" in harm's way. To suggest that being against the war means being against the men and women on the front-lines is propagandistic manipulation and irrelevant to the truth.
Wednesday, March 12, 2003
Reuters reports that Pakistan has been accused of staging the arrest of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed:
ISLAMABAD (Reuters) - A grainy video purporting to show the arrest of two al Qaeda leaders has done little to deflect accusations that Pakistan may have staged this month's raid to give it leeway to abstain in a U.N. vote on an Iraq war.
This revelation just adds to the shroud of mystery. The details of Sheikh Mohammed's capture are ambiguous and questionable. An article published in Asia Times last October suggests that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was killed in a September 11, 2002 raid in Karachi. Yet his supposed capture (alive) publicized in March 2003 has great P.R. and propaganda value for both the United States' "War on Terror" and Pakistani leverage. Regardless, the paradox, misdirection and intrigue surrounding Khalid Sheikh Mohammed suggests that his purpose as a propaganda tool equals or supercedes all other function.
Echoes of George Orwell's Emanuel Goldstein?
Tuesday, March 11, 2003
Britain Stepping Back?
America's closest ally in Bush's Iraqi folly may still back out. At the very least, Britain is looking to extend Hussein's deadline and shift more focus to disarmament as Tony Blair's political future is in turmoil over strong anti-war sentiment in the UK. CBS News reports:
Great Britain – America's closest ally – may find it politically impossible to commit its military to a U.S.-led attack on Saddam Hussein. And that could force the United States to go it alone in Iraq.
Get ready for the new breakfast snack: Liberty Muffins.
What's Next? Give Back the Statue of Liberty?
More from the "Freedom" front...
Republican lawmakers successfully lobbied to have "French Fries" and "French Toast" changed to "Freedom Fries" and "Freedom Toast" in three House cafeterias.
It's refreshing to know that our nation is governed by solemn maturity and that our lawmakers are not distracted by more important matters in these trying times.
Monday, March 10, 2003
One Story (of many) You're Not Hearing from the American Mass Media
U.K.'s Observer reports that the U.N. has begun a "top level" investigation into the United States' bugging of delegations.
The leak [of the NSA documents that suggest the bugging] was described as 'more timely and potentially more important than the Pentagon Papers' by Daniel Ellsberg, the most celebrated whistleblower in recent American history.
Writing for FAIR.org (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting), Norman Solomon examines the frightening implications of the American media's refusal to cover the story in a timely manner. While noting that "belated coverage would be better than none at all," Solomon asserts that this information is vital to a well-informed American citizenry. If widely publicized by the mass media this information could turn more Americans against the war and ultimately save lives.
But perhaps we are expecting too much from a corporate media institution that has worked as a virtual megaphone for the Bush administration's propaganda.
There is a website devoted to pro-war poetry called, shockingly, "Poets for The War." One would think that being "poets" they would have come up with a prettier or catchier moniker. Perhaps, "Tomahawk Cruise Troubadours" or "Poets for Punishment." How about the painfully realist "Poets For the Death and Destruction of Innocents"?
Poets for the War
This is a site for poets who support and understand President Bush's policies, the war on terrorism...
You see?! All us naysayers just don't understand because we don't have that poetic touch. But seriously, any person or "poet" who actually understands Bush's policies and the war on terror and still supports them must be mentally ill. I can almost wrap my head around the countless misinformed brainwashed who follow like sheep because they don't understand. I can write them off as, "well if they understood, they'd see the evil hypocrisy..." But to understand Bush's sadistic, cold-heartedly evil, anti-democratic policies and still support them? Frightening. But this begs the question: do they understand? Most likely what they understand is the surface propaganda, the patriotic decoy of "compassion" and "love" -- as T.S. Elliot or Marshall McLuhan would say, "the juicy piece of meat that distracts the watchdog of the mind." This must be the case for I find it hard to believe that only a handful of people with a vested interest in an America that has forsaken democracy would be able to understand and support Dubya.
Getting back to the poetry of it all...
Check out the scathing anti-French ode to "Freedom Fries." (In case you're out of the loop, a North Carolina restaurant owner renamed his French fries, "freedom fries" to show his solidarity with the troops.)
Well I guess it's all a step up from "There once was a man from..."
The Goose-step Towards War Continues Despite Obstacles
The AP reports that France and Russia have vowed to used their veto power to stop the U.S. war resolution.
Yet the point may be moot as the Cowboy in Chief has claimed the U.S. will go in with or without the U.N.
Here's one reason why.
Sunday, March 09, 2003
The Washington Post reports that the U.N.'s chief nuclear inspector claimed certain documents that link Iraq to a nuclear weapons program were fabricated.