Farewell Angelina
Farewell Angelina
The bells of the crown
Are being stolen by bandits
I must follow the sound
The triangle tingles
And the music plays slow
But, farewell Angelina
The night is on fire
And I must go.
There is no use in talking
There's no need for blame
There's nothing to prove
Ev'rything still is the same
The table stands empty
By the edge of the stream
Farewell Angelina
The sky is changing colors
And I must leave.
The jacks and the queens
They forsake the courtyard
Fifty-two gypsies
Now file past the guards
In the space where the deuce
And the ace once ran wild
Farewell Angelina
The sky is folding
I'll see you after a while.
See the cross-eyed pirates sit
Perched in the sun
Shooting tin cans
With a sawed-off shotgun
And the corporals and neighbors clap
And cheer with each blast
Farewell Angelina
The sky it is trembling
And I must leave fast.
King Kong, little elves
On the rooftoops they dance
Valentino-type tangos
While the hero’s clean hands
Shut the eyes of the dead
Not to embarrass anyone
Farewell Angelina
The sky is flooding over
And I must be gone.
The camouflaged parrot
He flutters from fear
When something he doesn’t know about
Suddenly appears
What cannot be imitated perfect
Must die
Farewell Angelina
The sky is flooding over
And I must go where it is dry
Machine guns are roaring
The puppets heave rocks
At misunderstood visions
And at the faces of clocks
Call me any name you like
I will never deny it
But farewell Angelina
The sky is erupting
I must go where it is quiet
--Bob Dylan
Friday, February 14, 2003
Baghdad Snapshot Action
On February 13, 2003, teams of artists and activists began postering New York City with snapshots from Baghdad. Quiet and casual, the snapshots show a part of Baghdad we rarely see: the part with people in it.
The snapshots were taken by a friend of ours who just got back from Baghdad working with the Iraq Peace Team. Yes, he saw Iraqis suffering and struggling. But he also saw Iraqis dancing and laughing. This moved him because laughing under the weight of the UN sanctions and the threat of an absurd war is no easy task. We were moved because the people in the pictures remind us of our friends & family.
Thousands of snapshot posters now pepper Manhattan, Brooklyn, and Queens.
We want to show New York the people who will get both liberty and death in one fatal stroke if this war begins. We want you to show them in your city. The entire snapshot collection is online as pdfs. Print them out and poster them anywhere and everywhere.
The snapshots were taken by a friend of ours who just got back from Baghdad working with the Iraq Peace Team. Yes, he saw Iraqis suffering and struggling. But he also saw Iraqis dancing and laughing. This moved him because laughing under the weight of the UN sanctions and the threat of an absurd war is no easy task. We were moved because the people in the pictures remind us of our friends & family.
Thousands of snapshot posters now pepper Manhattan, Brooklyn, and Queens.
We want to show New York the people who will get both liberty and death in one fatal stroke if this war begins. We want you to show them in your city. The entire snapshot collection is online as pdfs. Print them out and poster them anywhere and everywhere.
Thursday, February 13, 2003
Dulce et Decorum Est
Bent double, like old beggars under sacks,
Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through sludge,
Till on the haunting flares we turned our backs
And towards our distant rest began to trudge.
Men marched asleep. Many had lost their boots
But limped on, blood-shod. All went lame; all blind;
Drunk with fatigue; deaf even to the hoots
Of tired, outstripped Five-Nines that dropped behind.
Gas! Gas! Quick, boys!--An ecstasy of fumbling,
Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time;
But someone still was yelling out and stumbling,
And flound'ring like a man in fire or lime . . .
Dim, through the misty panes and thick green light,
As under a green sea, I saw him drowning.
In all my dreams, before my helpless sight,
He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning.
If in some smothering dreams you too could pace
Behind the wagon that we flung him in,
And watch the white eyes writhing in his face,
His hanging face, like a devil's sick of sin;
If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
Obscene as cancer, bitter as cud
Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,--
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est
Pro patria mori.
--Wilfred Owen
This poem was originally dedicated to Jessie Pope, author of children's books and of books such as *Jessie Pope's War Poems* and *Simple Rhymes for Stirring Times*. Title: Horace, Odes, 3.2.13. "The famous Latin tag means of course 'It is sweet and meet to die for one's country. Sweet! and decorous!'" (letter from Owen to his mother)
Bent double, like old beggars under sacks,
Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through sludge,
Till on the haunting flares we turned our backs
And towards our distant rest began to trudge.
Men marched asleep. Many had lost their boots
But limped on, blood-shod. All went lame; all blind;
Drunk with fatigue; deaf even to the hoots
Of tired, outstripped Five-Nines that dropped behind.
Gas! Gas! Quick, boys!--An ecstasy of fumbling,
Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time;
But someone still was yelling out and stumbling,
And flound'ring like a man in fire or lime . . .
Dim, through the misty panes and thick green light,
As under a green sea, I saw him drowning.
In all my dreams, before my helpless sight,
He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning.
If in some smothering dreams you too could pace
Behind the wagon that we flung him in,
And watch the white eyes writhing in his face,
His hanging face, like a devil's sick of sin;
If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
Obscene as cancer, bitter as cud
Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,--
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est
Pro patria mori.
--Wilfred Owen
This poem was originally dedicated to Jessie Pope, author of children's books and of books such as *Jessie Pope's War Poems* and *Simple Rhymes for Stirring Times*. Title: Horace, Odes, 3.2.13. "The famous Latin tag means of course 'It is sweet and meet to die for one's country. Sweet! and decorous!'" (letter from Owen to his mother)
US Senator Robert Byrd, D-West Virginia
Senate Floor Speech
Wednesday, February 12, 2003
To contemplate war is to think about the most horrible of human experiences.On this February day, as this nation stands at the brink of battle, every American on some level must be contemplating the horrors of war.
Yet, this Chamber is, for the most part, silent -- ominously, dreadfully silent. There is no debate, no discussion, no attempt to lay out for the nation the pros and cons of this particular war. There is nothing.
We stand passively mute in the United States Senate, paralyzed by our own uncertainty, seemingly stunned by the sheer turmoil of events. Only on the
editorial pages of our newspapers is there much substantive discussion of the prudence or imprudence of engaging in this particular war.
And this is no small conflagration we contemplate. This is no simple attempt to defang a villain. No. This coming battle, if it materializes, represents a turning point in U.S. foreign policy and possibly a turning point in the recent history of the world.
This nation is about to embark upon the first test of a revolutionary doctrine applied in an extraordinary way at an unfortunate time. The doctrine of preemption -- the idea that the United States or any other nation can legitimately attack a nation that is not imminently threatening but may be threatening in the future -- is a radical new twist on the traditional idea of self defense. It appears to be in contravention of international law and the UN Charter. And it is being tested at a time of world-wide terrorism, making many countries around the globe wonder if they will soon be on our -- or some other nation's -- hit list. High level Administration figures recently refused to take nuclear weapons off of the table when discussing a possible attack against Iraq. What could be more destabilizing and unwise than this type of uncertainty, particularly in a world where globalism has tied the vital economic and security interests of many nations so closely together? There are huge cracks emerging in our time-honored alliances, and U.S. intentions are suddenly subject to damaging worldwide speculation. Anti-Americanism based on mistrust, misinformation, suspicion, and alarming rhetoric from U.S. leaders is fracturing the once solid alliance against global terrorism which existed after September 11.
Here at home, people are warned of imminent terrorist attacks with little guidance as to when or where such attacks might occur. Family members are
being called to active military duty, with no idea of the duration of their stay or what horrors they may face. Communities are being left with less than adequate police and fire protection. Other essential services are also short-staffed. The mood of the nation is grim. The economy is stumbling. Fuel prices are rising and may soon spike higher.
This Administration, now in power for a little over two years, must be judged on its record. I believe that that record is dismal.
In that scant two years, this Administration has squandered a large projected surplus of some $5.6 trillion over the next decade and taken us to projected deficits as far as the eye can see. This Administration's domestic policy has put many of our states in dire financial condition, under funding scores of essential programs for our people. This Administration has fostered policies which have slowed economic growth. This Administration has ignored urgent matters such as the crisis in health care for our elderly. This Administration has been slow to provide adequate funding for homeland security. This Administration has been reluctant to better protect our long and porous borders.
In foreign policy, this Administration has failed to find Osama bin Laden. In fact, just yesterday we heard from him again marshaling his forces and urging them to kill. This Administration has split traditional alliances, possibly crippling, for all time, International order-keeping entities like the United Nations and NATO. This Administration has called into question the traditional worldwide perception of the United States as well-intentioned, peacekeeper. This Administration has turned the patient art of diplomacy into threats, labeling, and name calling of the sort that reflects quite poorly on the intelligence and sensitivity of our leaders, and which will have consequences for years to come.
Calling heads of state pygmies, labeling whole countries as evil, denigrating powerful European allies as irrelevant -- these types of crude insensitivities can do our great nation no good. We may have massive military might, but we cannot fight a global war on terrorism alone. We need the cooperation and friendship of our time-honored allies as well as the newer found friends whom we can attract with our wealth. Our awesome military machine will do us little good if we suffer another devastating attack on our homeland which severely damages our economy. Our military manpower is already stretched thin and we will need the augmenting support of those nations who can supply troop strength, not just sign letters cheering us on.
The war in Afghanistan has cost us $37 billion so far, yet there is evidence that terrorism may already be starting to regain its hold in that region. We have not found bin Laden, and unless we secure the peace in Afghanistan, the dark dens of terrorism may yet again flourish in that remote and devastated
land.
Pakistan as well is at risk of destabilizing forces. This Administration has not finished the first war against terrorism and yet it is eager to embark on another conflict with perils much greater than those in Afghanistan. Is our attention span that short? Have we not learned that after winning the war one must always secure the peace?
And yet we hear little about the aftermath of war in Iraq. In the absence of plans, speculation abroad is rife. Will we seize Iraq's oil fields, becoming an occupying power which controls the price and supply of that nation's oil for the foreseeable future? To whom do we propose to hand the reigns of power after Saddam Hussein?
Will our war inflame the Muslim world resulting in devastating attacks on Israel? Will Israel retaliate with its own nuclear arsenal? Will the Jordanian and Saudi Arabian governments be toppled by radicals, bolstered by Iran which has much closer ties to terrorism than Iraq?
Could a disruption of the world's oil supply lead to a world-wide recession? Has our senselessly bellicose language and our callous disregard of the interests and opinions of other nations increased the global race to join the nuclear club and made proliferation an even more lucrative practice for
nations which need the income?
In only the space of two short years this reckless and arrogant Administration has initiated policies which may reap disastrous consequences for years.
One can understand the anger and shock of any President after the savage attacks of September 11. One can appreciate the frustration of having only a shadow to chase and an amorphous, fleeting enemy on which it is nearly impossible to exact retribution.
But to turn one's frustration and anger into the kind of extremely destabilizing and dangerous foreign policy debacle that the world is currently witnessing is inexcusable from any Administration charged with the awesome power and responsibility of guiding the destiny of the greatest superpower on the planet. Frankly many of the pronouncements made by this Administration are outrageous. There is no other word.
Yet this chamber is hauntingly silent. On what is possibly the eve of horrific infliction of death and destruction on the population of the nation of Iraq -- a population, I might add, of which over 50% is under age 15 -- this chamber is silent. On what is possibly only days before we send thousands of our own citizens to face unimagined horrors of chemical and biological warfare -- this chamber is silent. On the eve of what could possibly be a vicious terrorist attack in retaliation for our attack on Iraq, it is business as usual in the United States Senate.
We are truly "sleepwalking through history." In my heart of hearts I pray that this great nation and its good and trusting citizens are not in for a rudest of awakenings.
To engage in war is always to pick a wild card. And war must always be a last resort, not a first choice. I truly must question the judgment of any President who can say that a massive unprovoked military attack on a nation which is over 50% children is "in the highest moral traditions of our country". This war is not necessary at this time. Pressure appears to be having a good result in Iraq. Our mistake was to put ourselves in a corner
so quickly. Our challenge is to now find a graceful way out of a box of our own making. Perhaps there is still a way if we allow more time.
Senate Floor Speech
Wednesday, February 12, 2003
To contemplate war is to think about the most horrible of human experiences.On this February day, as this nation stands at the brink of battle, every American on some level must be contemplating the horrors of war.
Yet, this Chamber is, for the most part, silent -- ominously, dreadfully silent. There is no debate, no discussion, no attempt to lay out for the nation the pros and cons of this particular war. There is nothing.
We stand passively mute in the United States Senate, paralyzed by our own uncertainty, seemingly stunned by the sheer turmoil of events. Only on the
editorial pages of our newspapers is there much substantive discussion of the prudence or imprudence of engaging in this particular war.
And this is no small conflagration we contemplate. This is no simple attempt to defang a villain. No. This coming battle, if it materializes, represents a turning point in U.S. foreign policy and possibly a turning point in the recent history of the world.
This nation is about to embark upon the first test of a revolutionary doctrine applied in an extraordinary way at an unfortunate time. The doctrine of preemption -- the idea that the United States or any other nation can legitimately attack a nation that is not imminently threatening but may be threatening in the future -- is a radical new twist on the traditional idea of self defense. It appears to be in contravention of international law and the UN Charter. And it is being tested at a time of world-wide terrorism, making many countries around the globe wonder if they will soon be on our -- or some other nation's -- hit list. High level Administration figures recently refused to take nuclear weapons off of the table when discussing a possible attack against Iraq. What could be more destabilizing and unwise than this type of uncertainty, particularly in a world where globalism has tied the vital economic and security interests of many nations so closely together? There are huge cracks emerging in our time-honored alliances, and U.S. intentions are suddenly subject to damaging worldwide speculation. Anti-Americanism based on mistrust, misinformation, suspicion, and alarming rhetoric from U.S. leaders is fracturing the once solid alliance against global terrorism which existed after September 11.
Here at home, people are warned of imminent terrorist attacks with little guidance as to when or where such attacks might occur. Family members are
being called to active military duty, with no idea of the duration of their stay or what horrors they may face. Communities are being left with less than adequate police and fire protection. Other essential services are also short-staffed. The mood of the nation is grim. The economy is stumbling. Fuel prices are rising and may soon spike higher.
This Administration, now in power for a little over two years, must be judged on its record. I believe that that record is dismal.
In that scant two years, this Administration has squandered a large projected surplus of some $5.6 trillion over the next decade and taken us to projected deficits as far as the eye can see. This Administration's domestic policy has put many of our states in dire financial condition, under funding scores of essential programs for our people. This Administration has fostered policies which have slowed economic growth. This Administration has ignored urgent matters such as the crisis in health care for our elderly. This Administration has been slow to provide adequate funding for homeland security. This Administration has been reluctant to better protect our long and porous borders.
In foreign policy, this Administration has failed to find Osama bin Laden. In fact, just yesterday we heard from him again marshaling his forces and urging them to kill. This Administration has split traditional alliances, possibly crippling, for all time, International order-keeping entities like the United Nations and NATO. This Administration has called into question the traditional worldwide perception of the United States as well-intentioned, peacekeeper. This Administration has turned the patient art of diplomacy into threats, labeling, and name calling of the sort that reflects quite poorly on the intelligence and sensitivity of our leaders, and which will have consequences for years to come.
Calling heads of state pygmies, labeling whole countries as evil, denigrating powerful European allies as irrelevant -- these types of crude insensitivities can do our great nation no good. We may have massive military might, but we cannot fight a global war on terrorism alone. We need the cooperation and friendship of our time-honored allies as well as the newer found friends whom we can attract with our wealth. Our awesome military machine will do us little good if we suffer another devastating attack on our homeland which severely damages our economy. Our military manpower is already stretched thin and we will need the augmenting support of those nations who can supply troop strength, not just sign letters cheering us on.
The war in Afghanistan has cost us $37 billion so far, yet there is evidence that terrorism may already be starting to regain its hold in that region. We have not found bin Laden, and unless we secure the peace in Afghanistan, the dark dens of terrorism may yet again flourish in that remote and devastated
land.
Pakistan as well is at risk of destabilizing forces. This Administration has not finished the first war against terrorism and yet it is eager to embark on another conflict with perils much greater than those in Afghanistan. Is our attention span that short? Have we not learned that after winning the war one must always secure the peace?
And yet we hear little about the aftermath of war in Iraq. In the absence of plans, speculation abroad is rife. Will we seize Iraq's oil fields, becoming an occupying power which controls the price and supply of that nation's oil for the foreseeable future? To whom do we propose to hand the reigns of power after Saddam Hussein?
Will our war inflame the Muslim world resulting in devastating attacks on Israel? Will Israel retaliate with its own nuclear arsenal? Will the Jordanian and Saudi Arabian governments be toppled by radicals, bolstered by Iran which has much closer ties to terrorism than Iraq?
Could a disruption of the world's oil supply lead to a world-wide recession? Has our senselessly bellicose language and our callous disregard of the interests and opinions of other nations increased the global race to join the nuclear club and made proliferation an even more lucrative practice for
nations which need the income?
In only the space of two short years this reckless and arrogant Administration has initiated policies which may reap disastrous consequences for years.
One can understand the anger and shock of any President after the savage attacks of September 11. One can appreciate the frustration of having only a shadow to chase and an amorphous, fleeting enemy on which it is nearly impossible to exact retribution.
But to turn one's frustration and anger into the kind of extremely destabilizing and dangerous foreign policy debacle that the world is currently witnessing is inexcusable from any Administration charged with the awesome power and responsibility of guiding the destiny of the greatest superpower on the planet. Frankly many of the pronouncements made by this Administration are outrageous. There is no other word.
Yet this chamber is hauntingly silent. On what is possibly the eve of horrific infliction of death and destruction on the population of the nation of Iraq -- a population, I might add, of which over 50% is under age 15 -- this chamber is silent. On what is possibly only days before we send thousands of our own citizens to face unimagined horrors of chemical and biological warfare -- this chamber is silent. On the eve of what could possibly be a vicious terrorist attack in retaliation for our attack on Iraq, it is business as usual in the United States Senate.
We are truly "sleepwalking through history." In my heart of hearts I pray that this great nation and its good and trusting citizens are not in for a rudest of awakenings.
To engage in war is always to pick a wild card. And war must always be a last resort, not a first choice. I truly must question the judgment of any President who can say that a massive unprovoked military attack on a nation which is over 50% children is "in the highest moral traditions of our country". This war is not necessary at this time. Pressure appears to be having a good result in Iraq. Our mistake was to put ourselves in a corner
so quickly. Our challenge is to now find a graceful way out of a box of our own making. Perhaps there is still a way if we allow more time.
Wednesday, February 12, 2003
http://truthout.org/docs_02/021303A.htm
Osama Rallies Muslims, Condemns Hussein
By William Rivers Pitt
t r u t h o u t | Perspective
Wednesday 12 February 2003
Osama bin Laden rose from the dead yet again on Tuesday to prophesy doom and death for America. This is nothing new; he has been clawing his way out of various burial holes for seventeen months now, and always manages to strike fear into the American heart by way of the American media and the Bush administration at exactly the moment when incredibly important shifts in history are in the offing.
At this moment, George W. Bush stands almost completely alone in his desire to make pre-emptive war on the nation of Iraq. Several key NATO allies - France, Germany and Belgium among them - have thrown sand into the gears of battle by refusing to prepare Turkey for an immediate war they do not support nor deem necessary. As this incredible state of affairs unfolded, Americans found their ears ringing with orange-hued warnings of imminent death. Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge went so far as to tell people to load up on plastic sheeting and duct tape so as to bar their windows from chemical attack, but the administration he calls home made sure to tell people to live their lives normally and continue shopping.
And so it goes. This is fairly standard stuff within the American echo chamber. Let there be one important piece of legislation, or one highly embarrassing turn of events for the administration, and the word goes forth that the sky is falling. We have been dealing with this politically manufactured low-grade hysteria for many months now. Most Americans have reached a suspended state of disbelief about it all, and won't be taking these warnings seriously unless they see Osama bin Laden on their doorstep in a black cassock with scythe in hand. Bush and Ashcroft will soon run out of colors on the warning chart if this keeps up; the shade after red likely exists somewhere in the fourth dimension, visible only to ultraconservative war-hawks and media talking heads.
When the voice of Osama comes out of the television, however, things suddenly become much more serious. The Bush administration may have forgotten him entirely, but every single American still sleeps with visions of burning towers and plummeting bodies projected on the backs of their eyelids. Peter Bergen, noted terrorism expert, stated on CNN that such messages from bin Laden usually herald new attacks. If the Orange Alert was dubious on Monday, it was given new importance on Tuesday.
Secretary of State Colin Powell set the stage for this new bin Laden statement early on Tuesday, much to the surprise of CIA Director George Tenet. Powell, during testimony at a Senate Budget Committee meeting, let it drop that the Middle East news network Al Jazeera had in hand a tape of Osama bin Laden. Tenet, seated with the Intelligence Committee, had not heard of this tape. One is left wondering at Powell's sources, especially after the story unfolded.
Powell used the existence of this tape, and the words he claimed bin Laden had said on it, to further tie Saddam Hussein to international terrorism. He claimed bin Laden was clearly establishing a connection between himself and Hussein on the tape, beyond all question. "This nexus between terrorists and states that are developing weapons of mass destruction," said Powell, "can no longer be looked away from and ignored."
The actual tape, played and translated live on every major cable news channel, told a very different story. Osama bin Laden swore vengeance against America if Iraq was attacked, and demanded that the Muslim world stand in solidarity with the Muslim people of Iraq. In very clear words, Osama bin Laden told the people of Iraq to rise up against both American aggression and against "socialist" Saddam Hussein. If the translations that were provided were reliable, there is no ambiguity in bin Laden's words on the matter. So much, it seems, for Powell's case that Hussein and bin Laden are working together.
And this is where it gets interesting.
An MSNBC.com report on the bin Laden tape carried the following sentence: "At the same time, the message also called on Iraqis to rise up and oust Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, who is a secular leader." This clearly confirms the clarity of mind Osama bin Laden displayed in regard to Saddam Hussein, and conforms to the recorded message heard by millions and millions of people around the world.
Less than twenty minutes after this report appeared on MSNBC, that sentence was deleted from the report. A few intrepid Internet news junkies, including myself, preserved what is called a 'screen-grab' of the original article before it was scrubbed. The version of the article currently in existence has replaced the text above with this far more benign text: "The taped statement reflected Saddam, a secular leader, but made it clear that Saddam was not the immediate target." A similar story line, bereft of the portions describing bin Laden's wish that Hussein be killed, has appeared in virtually every mainstream news media report on the matter.
The manner in which this story unfolded brings forth a number of serious questions.
First of all, questions must be asked regarding Colin Powell's motives in this. The recording heard by the world diverged significantly from the spin Powell put on it before the Budget Committee. Osama bin Laden did not state an alliance with Saddam Hussein, but with the Muslim civilians in Iraq who will bear the bloody brunt of any American attack. In fact, bin Laden told the Iraqi people to rise up against Hussein. This is not the way allies deal with each other.
Why would Powell go to such lengths to stretch the glaringly obvious truth in this matter? He is already suffering from a deficit of credibility in the aftermath of the plagiarism scandal that is currently rocking Tony Blair's administration. Powell stood before the UN last week and praised a British intelligence dossier that contained cut-and-pasted pages and pages of an essay, with all spelling and grammatical errors intact, written by a postgraduate student from California. The data was years out of date, flat-out contradictory in several key areas, used without the student's awareness, and yet was offered as an up-to-the-minute assessment of Iraqi weapons capabilities.
This, in combination with Powell's obviously skewed interpretation of Tuesday's bin Laden recording, forces us to call into question every single word he and the Bush administration have said on the matter. The question of whether Saddam Hussein has ties to al Qaeda terrorism and Osama bin Laden can be put to bed now, it seems, alongside the tatters and shreds of honor and dignity formerly enjoyed by the Secretary of State.
More ominously, why would a news network like MSNBC so obviously haul water for the failed allegations of the Bush administration? Events happen in seconds on the internet, but merely scrubbing uncomfortable sentences from articles cannot stop the tens of thousands of readers who are wise enough now to save the evidence before it evaporates in a cloud of silicon.
These deletions display a manifest breach of faith on behalf of MSNBC, and call to mind issues surrounding the conflict of interest that are inherent in the ownership of this network. MSNBC, along with NBC and CNBC, are owned by the corporate giant General Electric. GE is one of the largest defense contractors on the face of the earth, and will, bluntly, be paid a king's ransom in the event of a war. Following this line of questioning leads to some dark corners, indeed. How often is the data being manipulated by the corporate-owned media? Are we to rely solely on the nimble fingers of keyboarded citizens to get to the heart of the matter?
A report appearing later on Tuesday on MSNBC.com served to refute the claims of collusion between bin Laden and Hussein. "Although Powell sought to characterize the tape as a concrete link between al-Qaida and the Iraqi government," the MSNBC.com report read, "White House officials acknowledged later to NBC News that it did not. Powell did not know it had not been broadcast when he spoke to the committee and was 'a little on the front of his skis,' a government source said." These lines were buried deep within the report.
By Wednesday morning, this text had been completely removed from the article.
Finally, we must deal with Osama bin Laden himself. In a gross display of celestial irony, there was virtually no ambiguity in his words, as opposed to those of Powell and the members of the journalistic realm. His statement was a call to arms directed at the followers he has across the globe. If the United States attacks Iraq, Osama bin Laden will attack the United States. The Bush administration has done nothing of substance to defend us against such attacks except increase the stock value of companies that manufacture plastic sheeting and duct tape. We are not prepared to defend ourselves in this fight, period.
Virtually the entire global community stands against us today on the subject of this war, with nations willing and able to destroy NATO before allowing it to take place. The Bush administration has cut billions of dollars from street-level homeland defenders like police forces and fire houses, yet has the eagle screaming for a war that will be fought simultaneously in downtown Baghdad and in your utterly undefended neighborhood. They have the gall, simultaneously, to speak of trillion dollar tax cuts for rich people that will further debilitate our budgetary ability to defend ourselves. Links between Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein have proven to be not only false, but laughable. The credibility of the Bush administration has been destroyed.
And yet we go, with the news media whistling 'Onward Christian Soldiers' all the while. The Bush administration is ecstatic, believing they can spin bin Laden's statement of support for Iraqi civilians into a connection between the terrorist and Hussein.
You are being lied to, clumsily.
Pass it on.
-------
William Rivers Pitt is a New York Times bestselling author of two books - "War On Iraq" (with Scott Ritter) available now from Context Books, and "The Greatest Sedition is Silence," available in May 2003 from Pluto Press. He teaches high school in Boston, MA.
Scott Lowery contributed research to this report.
© : t r u t h o u t 2002
Osama Rallies Muslims, Condemns Hussein
By William Rivers Pitt
t r u t h o u t | Perspective
Wednesday 12 February 2003
Osama bin Laden rose from the dead yet again on Tuesday to prophesy doom and death for America. This is nothing new; he has been clawing his way out of various burial holes for seventeen months now, and always manages to strike fear into the American heart by way of the American media and the Bush administration at exactly the moment when incredibly important shifts in history are in the offing.
At this moment, George W. Bush stands almost completely alone in his desire to make pre-emptive war on the nation of Iraq. Several key NATO allies - France, Germany and Belgium among them - have thrown sand into the gears of battle by refusing to prepare Turkey for an immediate war they do not support nor deem necessary. As this incredible state of affairs unfolded, Americans found their ears ringing with orange-hued warnings of imminent death. Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge went so far as to tell people to load up on plastic sheeting and duct tape so as to bar their windows from chemical attack, but the administration he calls home made sure to tell people to live their lives normally and continue shopping.
And so it goes. This is fairly standard stuff within the American echo chamber. Let there be one important piece of legislation, or one highly embarrassing turn of events for the administration, and the word goes forth that the sky is falling. We have been dealing with this politically manufactured low-grade hysteria for many months now. Most Americans have reached a suspended state of disbelief about it all, and won't be taking these warnings seriously unless they see Osama bin Laden on their doorstep in a black cassock with scythe in hand. Bush and Ashcroft will soon run out of colors on the warning chart if this keeps up; the shade after red likely exists somewhere in the fourth dimension, visible only to ultraconservative war-hawks and media talking heads.
When the voice of Osama comes out of the television, however, things suddenly become much more serious. The Bush administration may have forgotten him entirely, but every single American still sleeps with visions of burning towers and plummeting bodies projected on the backs of their eyelids. Peter Bergen, noted terrorism expert, stated on CNN that such messages from bin Laden usually herald new attacks. If the Orange Alert was dubious on Monday, it was given new importance on Tuesday.
Secretary of State Colin Powell set the stage for this new bin Laden statement early on Tuesday, much to the surprise of CIA Director George Tenet. Powell, during testimony at a Senate Budget Committee meeting, let it drop that the Middle East news network Al Jazeera had in hand a tape of Osama bin Laden. Tenet, seated with the Intelligence Committee, had not heard of this tape. One is left wondering at Powell's sources, especially after the story unfolded.
Powell used the existence of this tape, and the words he claimed bin Laden had said on it, to further tie Saddam Hussein to international terrorism. He claimed bin Laden was clearly establishing a connection between himself and Hussein on the tape, beyond all question. "This nexus between terrorists and states that are developing weapons of mass destruction," said Powell, "can no longer be looked away from and ignored."
The actual tape, played and translated live on every major cable news channel, told a very different story. Osama bin Laden swore vengeance against America if Iraq was attacked, and demanded that the Muslim world stand in solidarity with the Muslim people of Iraq. In very clear words, Osama bin Laden told the people of Iraq to rise up against both American aggression and against "socialist" Saddam Hussein. If the translations that were provided were reliable, there is no ambiguity in bin Laden's words on the matter. So much, it seems, for Powell's case that Hussein and bin Laden are working together.
And this is where it gets interesting.
An MSNBC.com report on the bin Laden tape carried the following sentence: "At the same time, the message also called on Iraqis to rise up and oust Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, who is a secular leader." This clearly confirms the clarity of mind Osama bin Laden displayed in regard to Saddam Hussein, and conforms to the recorded message heard by millions and millions of people around the world.
Less than twenty minutes after this report appeared on MSNBC, that sentence was deleted from the report. A few intrepid Internet news junkies, including myself, preserved what is called a 'screen-grab' of the original article before it was scrubbed. The version of the article currently in existence has replaced the text above with this far more benign text: "The taped statement reflected Saddam, a secular leader, but made it clear that Saddam was not the immediate target." A similar story line, bereft of the portions describing bin Laden's wish that Hussein be killed, has appeared in virtually every mainstream news media report on the matter.
The manner in which this story unfolded brings forth a number of serious questions.
First of all, questions must be asked regarding Colin Powell's motives in this. The recording heard by the world diverged significantly from the spin Powell put on it before the Budget Committee. Osama bin Laden did not state an alliance with Saddam Hussein, but with the Muslim civilians in Iraq who will bear the bloody brunt of any American attack. In fact, bin Laden told the Iraqi people to rise up against Hussein. This is not the way allies deal with each other.
Why would Powell go to such lengths to stretch the glaringly obvious truth in this matter? He is already suffering from a deficit of credibility in the aftermath of the plagiarism scandal that is currently rocking Tony Blair's administration. Powell stood before the UN last week and praised a British intelligence dossier that contained cut-and-pasted pages and pages of an essay, with all spelling and grammatical errors intact, written by a postgraduate student from California. The data was years out of date, flat-out contradictory in several key areas, used without the student's awareness, and yet was offered as an up-to-the-minute assessment of Iraqi weapons capabilities.
This, in combination with Powell's obviously skewed interpretation of Tuesday's bin Laden recording, forces us to call into question every single word he and the Bush administration have said on the matter. The question of whether Saddam Hussein has ties to al Qaeda terrorism and Osama bin Laden can be put to bed now, it seems, alongside the tatters and shreds of honor and dignity formerly enjoyed by the Secretary of State.
More ominously, why would a news network like MSNBC so obviously haul water for the failed allegations of the Bush administration? Events happen in seconds on the internet, but merely scrubbing uncomfortable sentences from articles cannot stop the tens of thousands of readers who are wise enough now to save the evidence before it evaporates in a cloud of silicon.
These deletions display a manifest breach of faith on behalf of MSNBC, and call to mind issues surrounding the conflict of interest that are inherent in the ownership of this network. MSNBC, along with NBC and CNBC, are owned by the corporate giant General Electric. GE is one of the largest defense contractors on the face of the earth, and will, bluntly, be paid a king's ransom in the event of a war. Following this line of questioning leads to some dark corners, indeed. How often is the data being manipulated by the corporate-owned media? Are we to rely solely on the nimble fingers of keyboarded citizens to get to the heart of the matter?
A report appearing later on Tuesday on MSNBC.com served to refute the claims of collusion between bin Laden and Hussein. "Although Powell sought to characterize the tape as a concrete link between al-Qaida and the Iraqi government," the MSNBC.com report read, "White House officials acknowledged later to NBC News that it did not. Powell did not know it had not been broadcast when he spoke to the committee and was 'a little on the front of his skis,' a government source said." These lines were buried deep within the report.
By Wednesday morning, this text had been completely removed from the article.
Finally, we must deal with Osama bin Laden himself. In a gross display of celestial irony, there was virtually no ambiguity in his words, as opposed to those of Powell and the members of the journalistic realm. His statement was a call to arms directed at the followers he has across the globe. If the United States attacks Iraq, Osama bin Laden will attack the United States. The Bush administration has done nothing of substance to defend us against such attacks except increase the stock value of companies that manufacture plastic sheeting and duct tape. We are not prepared to defend ourselves in this fight, period.
Virtually the entire global community stands against us today on the subject of this war, with nations willing and able to destroy NATO before allowing it to take place. The Bush administration has cut billions of dollars from street-level homeland defenders like police forces and fire houses, yet has the eagle screaming for a war that will be fought simultaneously in downtown Baghdad and in your utterly undefended neighborhood. They have the gall, simultaneously, to speak of trillion dollar tax cuts for rich people that will further debilitate our budgetary ability to defend ourselves. Links between Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein have proven to be not only false, but laughable. The credibility of the Bush administration has been destroyed.
And yet we go, with the news media whistling 'Onward Christian Soldiers' all the while. The Bush administration is ecstatic, believing they can spin bin Laden's statement of support for Iraqi civilians into a connection between the terrorist and Hussein.
You are being lied to, clumsily.
Pass it on.
-------
William Rivers Pitt is a New York Times bestselling author of two books - "War On Iraq" (with Scott Ritter) available now from Context Books, and "The Greatest Sedition is Silence," available in May 2003 from Pluto Press. He teaches high school in Boston, MA.
Scott Lowery contributed research to this report.
© : t r u t h o u t 2002
Convenient bit of Al Jazeera finding this Osama Bin Laden tape imploring Iraqis to rise up against the United States.
We haven't heard from this guy since when? Since he was in Afghanistan's mountains? We really haven't heard from him since we last saw one of his video tapes early on in the US invasion of Afghanistan. Everything that has been attributed to him and sporadically so has been on audio tape. There can be no proof there.
So, now the White House basically parades this guy out for the world to see? What you want us to believe that?
There's one thing I will say about this guy IF HE'S ALIVE. He's smart. Why would he do something as stupid as this? The US is taking such a hit in the world court of opinions and EVERYBODY has said they still have not been convinced that there are any connections between Iraq and Al Qaida. Why? Why then? Why could Bin Laden do this NOW? He wouldn't. That's why.
Meanwhile, we get these bogus orange alerts and new declarations of heightened security.
REMEMBER:
EVERYTHING TASTES BETTER WITH ARMAGEDDON ON IT.
And, as you go out into the world today (those of us in the US), Leah says, "Be on Alert, and Go About Your Business Normally."
We haven't heard from this guy since when? Since he was in Afghanistan's mountains? We really haven't heard from him since we last saw one of his video tapes early on in the US invasion of Afghanistan. Everything that has been attributed to him and sporadically so has been on audio tape. There can be no proof there.
So, now the White House basically parades this guy out for the world to see? What you want us to believe that?
There's one thing I will say about this guy IF HE'S ALIVE. He's smart. Why would he do something as stupid as this? The US is taking such a hit in the world court of opinions and EVERYBODY has said they still have not been convinced that there are any connections between Iraq and Al Qaida. Why? Why then? Why could Bin Laden do this NOW? He wouldn't. That's why.
Meanwhile, we get these bogus orange alerts and new declarations of heightened security.
REMEMBER:
EVERYTHING TASTES BETTER WITH ARMAGEDDON ON IT.
And, as you go out into the world today (those of us in the US), Leah says, "Be on Alert, and Go About Your Business Normally."
Tuesday, February 11, 2003
More notes:
Place = specific to it <--> the capacity to hold and situate things; to give them local habituation
Navajo cosmogony lays down piece of emergence --> underworlds that are both located [under the visible world] + locating [of all that is on and in the upper world]. The purpose of this: to establish place right at the beginning when the void gets described. It's a "topocosmic" move.
This "move" checkmates the Void at creation's "beginning" and place becomes central and explicit. It's not inferred.
Topogenesis
Topocosmos created from the debris maps of Columbia. Place that wasn't there. Icarus falling off the side of the painting. Auden's poem. WCW's poem. No water but the Gulf of Mexico.
These maps establish themselves as matrices. Thinking game theory here. Zero sum game. Winner will be the institution that absolves itself of fault. Loser gets sued into the void. Matrix creates place -- elemental matter. Hell, Edward S. Casey's The Fate of Place is good reading.
Dhammai (northern India) Creation Myth: Before there was anything, there existed Shuzanghu and his wife, Zumaing-Nui. In time she gave birth to a girl (earth) and a boy (sky). Sky and earth mated and gave birth to the mountains. Then they produced two frogs who married and made the first humans. These humans were covered with thick hair, but when they mated they produced people as they are now.
Place = specific to it <--> the capacity to hold and situate things; to give them local habituation
Navajo cosmogony lays down piece of emergence --> underworlds that are both located [under the visible world] + locating [of all that is on and in the upper world]. The purpose of this: to establish place right at the beginning when the void gets described. It's a "topocosmic" move.
This "move" checkmates the Void at creation's "beginning" and place becomes central and explicit. It's not inferred.
Topogenesis
Topocosmos created from the debris maps of Columbia. Place that wasn't there. Icarus falling off the side of the painting. Auden's poem. WCW's poem. No water but the Gulf of Mexico.
These maps establish themselves as matrices. Thinking game theory here. Zero sum game. Winner will be the institution that absolves itself of fault. Loser gets sued into the void. Matrix creates place -- elemental matter. Hell, Edward S. Casey's The Fate of Place is good reading.
Dhammai (northern India) Creation Myth: Before there was anything, there existed Shuzanghu and his wife, Zumaing-Nui. In time she gave birth to a girl (earth) and a boy (sky). Sky and earth mated and gave birth to the mountains. Then they produced two frogs who married and made the first humans. These humans were covered with thick hair, but when they mated they produced people as they are now.
from today's Times
At a private Washington dinner for the South Korean visitors last week, which was intended as a frank, off-the-record exchange, several American participants said mouths dropped open when a senior South Korean envoy said that if it had to choose, the incoming government would prefer that North Korea had nuclear weapons to seeing it collapse. "Their responses were so far out that all the other planets were all closer to each other than they were to any of the Koreans," said one participant in the dinner. "I sense major trouble ahead in the relationship. The impression I got is that for Roh and his generation, the ultimate goal is to reunite their country and get us off the peninsula."
At a private Washington dinner for the South Korean visitors last week, which was intended as a frank, off-the-record exchange, several American participants said mouths dropped open when a senior South Korean envoy said that if it had to choose, the incoming government would prefer that North Korea had nuclear weapons to seeing it collapse. "Their responses were so far out that all the other planets were all closer to each other than they were to any of the Koreans," said one participant in the dinner. "I sense major trouble ahead in the relationship. The impression I got is that for Roh and his generation, the ultimate goal is to reunite their country and get us off the peninsula."
Monday, February 10, 2003
"Federal Judge Barbara Jones ruled this morning that the City of New York can deny United for Peace and Justice a permit to march on February 15. Citing 'heightened security concerns,' she ruled that we may only hold a stationary rally, for which we have been granted a permit for First Avenue stretching north from 49th Street."
NATO Rift Widens Over Defense of Turkey in Case of Iraq War
By STEVEN R. WEISMAN with TERENCE NEILAN
10:17 AM ET
WASHINGTON, Feb. 10 — France, Germany and Belgium opened a division within NATO today by blocking proposals to increase Turkey's defenses in case of a war on Iraq, a move that Secretary of Defense Ronald H. Rumsfeld termed a mistake but one that would not interfere with any planning for possible military action.
"It is unfortunate that they are in stark disagreement with the rest of their NATO allies," Mr. Rumsfeld said at a Pentagon news conference with Prime Minister John Howard of Australia.
"There's three countries," he said. "They are 19 countries in NATO. So it's 16 to 3. I think it's a mistake. And what we have to do for the United States is make sure that that planning does go forward, preferably within NATO but, if not, bilaterally or multiple bilaterals. And we are already going about that task."
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/10/international/worldspecial/10cnd-dipl.html
10:17 AM ET
WASHINGTON, Feb. 10 — France, Germany and Belgium opened a division within NATO today by blocking proposals to increase Turkey's defenses in case of a war on Iraq, a move that Secretary of Defense Ronald H. Rumsfeld termed a mistake but one that would not interfere with any planning for possible military action.
"It is unfortunate that they are in stark disagreement with the rest of their NATO allies," Mr. Rumsfeld said at a Pentagon news conference with Prime Minister John Howard of Australia.
"There's three countries," he said. "They are 19 countries in NATO. So it's 16 to 3. I think it's a mistake. And what we have to do for the United States is make sure that that planning does go forward, preferably within NATO but, if not, bilaterally or multiple bilaterals. And we are already going about that task."
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/10/international/worldspecial/10cnd-dipl.html
Those of you interested in politics/technology/privacy issues, check out Declan McCullagh's Politech list.
Here's the beginning of Declan's weekly column...
http://news.com.com/2010-1071-983921.html
Perspectives: Ashcroft's worrisome spy plans
By Declan McCullagh
February 10, 2003, 4:00 AM PT
WASHINGTON--Attorney General John Ashcroft wants even more power to snoop on the Internet, spy on private conversations and install secret microphones, spyware and keystroke loggers.
Ashcroft's Justice Department has quietly crafted a whopping 120-page proposal that represents the boldest attack yet on our electronic privacy in the name of thwarting future terrorist attacks. The nonpartisan Center for Public Integrity posted the draft legislation, which reads like J. Edgar Hoover's wish list, on its Web site Friday.
Called the Domestic Security Enhancement Act (DSEA), the legislation has not been formally introduced in Congress, and a representative for Ashcroft indicated on Friday that it's a work in progress. But the fact that the legislation is under consideration already, before we know the effects of its USA Patriot Act predecessor, should make us realize that the Bush administration thinks "homeland security" is the root password to the Constitution.
Don't believe me? Keep reading and peruse some of DSEA's highlights:
o The FBI and state police would be able to eavesdrop on what Web
sites you visit, what you search for with Google and with whom you
chat through e-mail and instant messaging--all without a court order
for up to 48 hours. That's if you're suspected of what would become a
new offense of "activities threatening the national security
interest."
o Currently police can seek a warrant to "require the disclosure by a
provider of electronic communication service of the contents of an
electronic communication." Under existing law, police must notify the
target of an investigation except in rare cases such as when witnesses
may be intimidated or a prospective defendant might flee. DSEA allows
police to delay notification for three months simply by citing
"national security."
Here's the beginning of Declan's weekly column...
http://news.com.com/2010-1071-983921.html
Perspectives: Ashcroft's worrisome spy plans
By Declan McCullagh
February 10, 2003, 4:00 AM PT
WASHINGTON--Attorney General John Ashcroft wants even more power to snoop on the Internet, spy on private conversations and install secret microphones, spyware and keystroke loggers.
Ashcroft's Justice Department has quietly crafted a whopping 120-page proposal that represents the boldest attack yet on our electronic privacy in the name of thwarting future terrorist attacks. The nonpartisan Center for Public Integrity posted the draft legislation, which reads like J. Edgar Hoover's wish list, on its Web site Friday.
Called the Domestic Security Enhancement Act (DSEA), the legislation has not been formally introduced in Congress, and a representative for Ashcroft indicated on Friday that it's a work in progress. But the fact that the legislation is under consideration already, before we know the effects of its USA Patriot Act predecessor, should make us realize that the Bush administration thinks "homeland security" is the root password to the Constitution.
Don't believe me? Keep reading and peruse some of DSEA's highlights:
o The FBI and state police would be able to eavesdrop on what Web
sites you visit, what you search for with Google and with whom you
chat through e-mail and instant messaging--all without a court order
for up to 48 hours. That's if you're suspected of what would become a
new offense of "activities threatening the national security
interest."
o Currently police can seek a warrant to "require the disclosure by a
provider of electronic communication service of the contents of an
electronic communication." Under existing law, police must notify the
target of an investigation except in rare cases such as when witnesses
may be intimidated or a prospective defendant might flee. DSEA allows
police to delay notification for three months simply by citing
"national security."
Sunday, February 09, 2003
Months. Months that I've tried to get into Heather Fuller's Dovecote. The book's alienation of the reader has kept me away from it. Last night, I spoke to Gary about the war, the conservative media, the poets' White House protest, India, Flushing's Dhosa Hut, Bollywood, etc., and so, today I returned to Fuller's book because of her social themes.
"Quarter" got through to me, finally..
when the sheriff came round
the back of the broke shovel
fit the knot on every head in town
"Quarter" is a series of five poems, and each poem has drawings of different types of barbed wire at the top of the page. Wire that keeps people out of places hurting them when making unwelcomed attempts to illegally enter. Barbed wire lines country roads
Crandals Champeen
is a type of barbed wire and
I am eat up with bloodshed
of country road entanglements
on the wine train of brothers
I don't know him, but can I get an applause for Rod Smith? Is he a good publisher/editor or whah? Edge Books: handsome books, high quality contemporary poetry.
"Quarter" got through to me, finally..
when the sheriff came round
the back of the broke shovel
fit the knot on every head in town
"Quarter" is a series of five poems, and each poem has drawings of different types of barbed wire at the top of the page. Wire that keeps people out of places hurting them when making unwelcomed attempts to illegally enter. Barbed wire lines country roads
Crandals Champeen
is a type of barbed wire and
I am eat up with bloodshed
of country road entanglements
on the wine train of brothers
I don't know him, but can I get an applause for Rod Smith? Is he a good publisher/editor or whah? Edge Books: handsome books, high quality contemporary poetry.
Let me get this straight. The United States fabricates a deadline and a motive to invade Iraq. Meanwhile, former allies question the U.S. timeline and motives, and Rummy has the audacity to go to Munich and school them? He rebukes NATO, Belgium, France, and his host Germany...
And people have to ask why Americans are hated overseas?
I cannot think of poems of late. I can write them or write what I think of a poem, but I cannot consider poetics at the moment.
And people have to ask why Americans are hated overseas?
I cannot think of poems of late. I can write them or write what I think of a poem, but I cannot consider poetics at the moment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)