It's interesting to see the backlash against celebrities speaking out on the war:

--VISA has pulled its commercials featuring Martin Sheen. And apparently, ratings for "The West Wing" have not been so great...although, this season has been a clunker overall anyway.

--Don Cherry, host of CBC's Hockey Night in Canada, went into a 7-minute pro-US tirade 2 weeks ago during his "Coach's Corner" segment. CBC has apparently pulled that audio file off its site, and he has received both praise and criticism for his remarks. In his defense, he was basically goaded by co-host Ron MacLean to speak out about the war.

--Many country stations are refusing to play songs by the Dixie Chicks, after singer Natalie Maines said she was embarrassed that the president is from her home state of Texas, to an audience in London last month.

--A sign was hung on a statue of Wayne Gretzky outside Skyreach Centre in Edmonton that read "U$ Lackey." Gretzky is a vocal supporter of Dubya and the war in Iraq.

I understand that celebrities are under a microscope, and they should know that what they say could be subject to scrutiny. But in the end...who really cares what a celebrity thinks about the war? They're not fighting it, they're not involved in it, they're really no different than you or me in the end.

Fortunately, I have not yet received a backlash for my anti-war stance...and for that, I thank you.

Not that anyone really cares what I say either. :)

I found this article from Al-Jazeera's English site amusing: France worried over rise in anti-Americanism

From Al-Jazeera: Some interesting quotes culled under the heading "Reasons for War Examined."

Pistol Pete apparently isn't having a hard time finding new jobs.

NBC's David Bloom, embedded with the 3rd Infantry Division near Baghdad, died of an apparent pulmonary embolism at age 39.

Of all the embedded reporters, I was particularly impressed with his field reports...they gave me the impression that he really knew his stuff. I suspect that sitting and laying down for long periods of time in the field may have contributed to his death.

A real shame.

Whooboy! Where do we start?

Rummy was sporting his war woody today...as he spoke, you could almost hear the orgasm. Relish that folks...that's the happiest you'll ever see him.

I'm happy for the Iraqi people, given it's the first time they've been this free in at least 23 years. It's all uphill from here...

Two issues concern me at the moment, now that the stupor is wearing off...

--Looting: Becoming a serious problem in Basra and Baghdad. Judging from what I heard and read today, the military doesn't seem very concerned about it...or at least, not as much as I think they should be. As I see it, those Iraqis were carrying off their future, not to mention causing economic harm to their fellow Iraqis. And I don't want to see us putting any more money into this than we need to. And in the end, the US military or some authority is going to have to start playing policemen.

--Arab reaction: Other than Iraq, Kuwait, and the US, the rest of the Arab world seemed to be in utter disbelief. Some spoke of feeling humiliated, the lowest point in Arab history, etc. On NPR today, they discussed how people in Egypt were signing up to go to Iraq to fight COW forces...until the Egyptian government put some pressure on them. Not the first time I've heard this...before that, it was going on in Jordan. These are the folks that we need to keep an eye on. Maybe our handling of post-war Iraq will change minds...but I suspect not.

In my initial thread, I discussed how some view this as a war on Islam. And judging by what I heard today, that sentiment is still pretty fresh. It's sad really...as much as I hate this war, it would seem that the US is doing a pretty good job in the overall handling of things thus far.

But it's all uphill from here...

No offense, but I think this is just about the dumbest thing you've said since I've known you.

I've an idea. We're going to put you in charge of curbing shoplifting at the local Wal*Mart, and then I'm going to hide around and shoot at you.

The military isn't concerned about looting because Ba'ath part coffee tables are less important than American lives. They're still fighting over there, so pardon them if a couple chairs get stolen. They'll get to it when they get to it.

As I see it, if the COW forces have an area under control, then keeping order in the area should be the next objective, besides rooting out any remaining resistance. The people should be taken care of physically (food, water, the sick and injured treated, etc.), and they need to be protected.

And that involves property as well. I mean, we're not just talking tables here. I would hate to see something along the lines of the 1968 riots here in the States, where people virtually destroyed their own areas, and rebuilding is either nonexistant or just taking shape (e.g. DC's U Street corridor). Or Los Angeles 1992.

I don't know what it's like not to have freedom...so I can't even begin to imagine how most of Iraq is feeling. And I'd want to celebrate and go apeshit probably...but there simply has to be some order. Hopefully COW forces will know when to say when before things get too out of control.

I don't think what I said was dumb at all.

Relax, we're not going to saddle them with Marion Barry!

Seriously, the looting will be a problem and will have to be stopped before rebuilding will begin, but compared to the years of Saddam's rule and the bombings and shellings the looting damage will be fairly small in the scheme of things.

Or, as Scrappleface puts it,

I hope so Matt, on all counts.

Thanks Griff, for this post.

There is a group that wants to do weapons inspections...in the US.

Stop laughing.

The Phrase
 

You've heard it...you know it...and it could become the new catch phrase...if I have it my way.

The phrase is, of course, "at a time of our choosing."

This could sweep the nation! Observe...

Rho: "Terry, could you take out the trash?"

Syc: "Sure thing...at a time of my choosing."

Syc's boss: "Terry, I need you to run those last couple months of microfiche."

Syc: "I will...at a time of my choosing."

Not only is it funny, but it could cause our society to completely shut down. Which really isn't funny...but in a way, it is.

And with that, I will return...at a time of my choosing.

Actually, I find it somewhat chilling.

(They are welcome to inspect my weapons. Barrel first.*)

*please note that I appear to have awakened a little early this morning, have not finished my minimum RDA of caffiene, and am just generally grumpy from lack of sleep. Or mebbe it's something in the air up here in Slangsylvania.

As a FURTHER aside ... Haven't they ever heard of cat's eyes up in the wilds of Grifftopia?? Drove through at night, in fog, couldn't find the damn road. I suppose you all think it's either "quaint" or "rustic" or something ... or is this part of your (sensible, IMHO) plan to discourage tourism ... or is it just to see to it that travellers get lured to the roadside motel where they make sausages out of people? (Note to self. Don't listen to "Twin Peaks Soundtrack" during this drive ever again.)

Topped off, I trust, with a slice of some damn fine pie?

That goes without saying. (although unlike Agent Cooper, I prefer Blueberry or Strawberry to Cherry)

And, for the 2000th post in the Manifestos, I bring you this, as featured on CNN this afternoon.

Man, that is <b>funny</b>.

that one made me giggle.

His obsessionwith shoes is amusing -

About Bush and Rumsfeld: "Those only deserve to be hit with shoes."

Britain "is not worth an old shoe"

"We will welcome them with bullets and shoes."

To be touched by the bottom of the shoe is very insulting in the Arab world, which is why you saw all those Iraqis attacking the Saddam statue with their shoes.

MSS throughout history is good too...particularly the one about the Alamo.

Thats pretty sweet.

"When we were making the law, when we were writing the literature and the mathematics the grandfathers of Blair and little Bush were scratching around in caves"

That one actually is kinda true.

Man, Brent Sadler is fucking <i>crazy</i>. He and his CNN convoy decided to enter Tikrit without a military convoy, just because it would be an interesting story. They were all nearly killed on live TV!


http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=...3-011131-2528r

Re: The Phrase
 

*Gives you the evil eye....* :D

I *could* "go there", but I'll behave...for now. <huge grin>

The war...FINALLY explained! (slightly tongue-in-cheek)
 

WARMONGER EXPLAINS WAR TO PEACENIK
Author Unknown

PN: Why did you say we are we invading Iraq?

WM: We are invading Iraq because it is in violation of
security council resolution 1441. A country cannot be
allowed to violate security council resolutions.

PN: But I thought many of our allies, including
Israel, were in violation of more security council
resolutions than Iraq.

WM: It's not just about UN resolutions. The main point
is that Iraq could have weapons of mass destruction,
and the first sign of a smoking gun could well be a
mushroom cloud over NY.

PN: Mushroom cloud? But I thought the weapons
inspectors said Iraq had no nuclear weapons.

WM: Yes, but biological and chemical weapons are the
issue.

PN: But I thought Iraq did not have any long range
missiles for attacking us or our allies with such
weapons.

WM: The risk is not Iraq directly attacking us, but
rather terrorists networks that Iraq could sell the
weapons to.

PN: But couldn't virtually any country sell chemical
or biological materials? We sold quite a bit to Iraq
in the eighties ourselves, didn't we?

WM: That's ancient history. Look, Saddam Hussein is an
evil man that has an undeniable track record of
repressing his own people since the early eighties. He
gasses his enemies. Everyone agrees that he is a
power-hungry lunatic murderer.

PN: We sold chemical and biological materials to a
power-hungry lunatic murderer?

WM: The issue is not what we sold, but rather what
Saddam did. He is the one that launched a pre-emptive
first strike on Kuwait.

PN: A pre-emptive first strike does sound bad. But
didn't our ambassador to Iraq, Gillespie, know about
and green-light the invasion of Kuwait?

WM: Let's deal with the present, shall we? As of
today, Iraq could sell its biological and chemical
weapons to Al Qaida. Osama BinLaden himself released
an audio tape calling on Iraqis to suicide attack
us, proving a partnership between the two.

PN: Osama Bin Laden? Wasn't the point of invading
Afghanistan to kill him?

WM: Actually, it's not 100% certain that it's really
Osama Bin Laden on the tapes. But the lesson from the
tape is the same: there could easily be a partnership
between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein unless we act.

PN: Is this the same audio tape where Osama Bin Laden
labels Saddam a secular infidel?

WM: You're missing the point by just focusing on the
tape. Powell presented a strong case against Iraq.

PN: He did?

WM: Yes, he showed satellite pictures of an Al Qaeda
poison factory in Iraq.

PN: But didn't that turn out to be a harmless shack in
the part of Iraq controlled by the Kurdish opposition?

WM: And a British intelligence report...

PN: Didn't that turn out to be copied from an
out-of-date graduate student paper?

WM: And reports of mobile weapons labs...

PN: Weren't those just artistic renderings?

WM: And reports of Iraqis scuttling and hiding
evidence from inspectors...

PN: Wasn't that evidence contradicted by the chief
weapons inspector, Hans Blix?

WM: Yes, but there is plenty of other hard evidence
that cannot be revealed because it would compromise
our security.

PN: So there is no publicly available evidence of
weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?

WM: The inspectors are not detectives, it's not their
JOB to find evidence. You're missing the point.

PN: So what is the point?

WM: The main point is that we are invading Iraq
because resolution 1441 threatened "severe
consequences." If we do not act, the security
council will become an irrelevant debating society.

PN: So the main point is to uphold the rulings of the
security council?

WM: Absolutely. ...unless it rules against us.

PN: And what if it does rule against us?

WM: In that case, we must lead a coalition of the
willing to invade Iraq.

PN: Coalition of the willing? Who's that?

WM: Britain, Turkey, Bulgaria, Spain, and Italy, for
starters.

PN: I thought Turkey refused to help us unless we gave
them tens of billions of dollars

WM: Nevertheless, they may now be willing.

PN: I thought public opinion in all those countries
was against war.

WM: Current public opinion is irrelevant. The majority
expresses its will by electing leaders to make
decisions.

PN: So it's the decisions of leaders elected by the
majority that is important?

WM: Yes.

PN: But George B-

WM: I mean, we must support the decisions of our
leaders, however they were elected, because they are
acting in our best interest. This is about being a
patriot. That's the bottom line.

PN: So if we do not support the decisions of the
president, we are notpatriotic?

WM: I never said that.

PN: So what are you saying? Why are we invading Iraq?

WM: As I said, because there is a chance that they
have weapons of mass destruction that threaten us and
our allies.

PN: But the inspectors have not been able to find any
such weapons.

WM: Iraq is obviously hiding them.

PN: You know this? How?

WM: Because we know they had the weapons ten years
ago, and they are still unaccounted for.

PN: The weapons we sold them, you mean?

WM: Precisely.

PN: But I thought those biological and chemical
weapons would degrade to an unusable state over ten
years.

WM: But there is a chance that some have not degraded.

PN: So as long as there is even a small chance that
such weapons exist, we must invade?

WM: Exactly.

PN: But North Korea actually has large amounts of
usable chemical, biological, AND nuclear weapons, AND
long range missiles that can reach the west coast AND
it has expelled nuclear weapons inspectors,
AND threatened to turn America into a sea of fire.

WM: That's a diplomatic issue.

PN: So why are we invading Iraq instead of using
diplomacy?

WM: Aren't you listening? We are invading Iraq because
we cannot allow the inspections to drag on
indefinitely. Iraq has been delaying, deceiving, and
denying for over ten years, and inspections cost us
tens of millions.

PN: But I thought war would cost us tens of billions.

WM: Yes, but this is not about money. This is about
security.

PN: But wouldn't a pre-emptive war against Iraq ignite
radical Muslim sentiments against us, and decrease our
security?

WM: Possibly, but we must not allow the terrorists to
change the way we live. Once we do that, the
terrorists have already won.

PN: So what is the purpose of the Department of
Homeland Security, color-coded terror alerts, and the
Patriot Act? Don't these change the way we live?

WM: I thought you had questions about Iraq.

PN: I do. Why are we invading Iraq?

WM: For the last time, we are invading Iraq because
the world has called on Saddam Hussein to disarm, and
he has failed to do so. He must now face the
consequences.

PN: So, likewise, if the world called on us to do
something, such as find a peaceful solution, we would
have an obligation to listen?

WM: By "world", I meant the United Nations.

PN: So, we have an obligation to listen to the United
Nations?

WM: By "United Nations" I meant the Security Council.

PN: So, we have an obligation to listen to the
Security Council?

WM: I meant the majority of the Security Council.

PN: So, we have an obligation to listen to the
majority of the Security Council?

WM: Well... there could be an unreasonable veto.

PN: In which case?

WM: In which case, we have an obligation to ignore the
veto.

PN: And if the majority of the Security Council does
not support us at all?

WM: Then we have an obligation to ignore the Security
Council.

PN: That makes no sense:

WM: If you love Iraq so much, you should move there.
Or maybe France, with the all the other cheese-eating
surrender monkeys. It's time to boycott their wine and
cheese, no doubt about that.

PN: I give up.

"....Lest We Forget"
 

*from a newsgroup*

"No matter what the outcome of the American led war against Iraq or the number of cheering Iraqis celebrating new freedoms earned through American and British blood or the past atrocities revealed by Saddam's ruthless regime or the war crimes trials or the discovery or lack of discovery of WMD; nothing will ever change the fact President George W. Bush deliberately chose to go to war against the express opposition of the UN thereby preventing UN weapons inspectors from fulfilling their mandate."

More at:
http://LogicalReality.com/LR/Lest1.php

I already linked to this in the "Cool Site of the Day" thread not too long ago. It's still quite good, though. :)

Reuters raw feed

reuters.feedroom.com

I've been using this Reuters feature ever since the war began...it is the best 'Net video coverage of the war, IMHO.

It's kind of interesting to listen to the reporters' idle chatter, and hear them practice their lines like 10-15 times before they go on the air. I also like the fact that you don't have to listen to the inane prattle of the CNN anchor, who's compelled to fill every second of airtime by just repeating the same story over and over again.

Please; the inspectors had the better part of a decade to fulfill their mandate.

Sycamore has lost control of his woman :)


At least wait for some type of bad news for the coalition or *something* before we start promoting the silly notion that Blix could have done anything of value here, in any timeperiod, with any team.

Beatin' the flowers growing from what was the carcass that was the dead horse, but ... It can be argued that the result was a good one, and that the UN wasn't living up to it's promise of "Never again".

That being said, it is really becoming clear that Bush thinks he is leading the next crusade against the A-rabs. I don't trust his motivations for invading and liberating Iraq, even if the outcome is a better life for the Iraqis. I think that Haliburton and W's friends will benefit greatly from this. I haven't seen much of nor heard from Cheney in all of this. It makes me think he was in intense planning sessions with Haliburton and their subsidiaries for the reconstruction.

I don't have any high-minded ideals on this, I think if W continues, this will get biblical.

Slang, sit down for a minute. Now listen, I know you're a throwback to the old school, but in the modern day, we treat our women as equals. *waits for slang to start bawling and get it out of him* I know, I know...sometimes it pisses me off too, but that's the way it goes.

I ain't buying that, Russotto. It doesn't seem to me that our last President kept the Iraqis on a short leash. For that matter, it didn't seem a huge matter to our current president prior to 9/11.

What's done is done here...I don't think we'll ever know whether there were or were not WMDs, IMO. The inspectors came up empty, and I'll view anything found by COW forces with immediate suspicion.

And now, judging by the last couple of days, Syria is going to replace Iraq on that axis of evil. Let's see how this plays out...

I decided to merge the two threads Rho created into here b/c they seemed more appropriate in here.

I don't think it's been posted here, but I've heard it on both MSNBC and CBC: The poetry of Donald Rumsfeld.

Rumsfeld is either an idiot or a genius. I'm leaning toward idiot, though. He's arrogant as hell, according to what I've been reading, and what I interpret from his demeanor on TV. I saw him stare down some people who were apparently talking off to his right during a press conference last week concurrent with the toppling of the Saddam statue. He just stopped talking, and turned his head and stared off to his right until the subdued chat ceased, then turned and went on with his spiel.

I don't like him one bit...is it just me?

The "poetry" was a brilliant concept, though. Too bad it took someone else to mine the gems from his ramblings and view them with a artistic eye.

Clinton kept Saddam on such a short leash that the latter felt free to take a shot at G.H.W.Bush. Which was likely part of the reason for the current war.

Since the first war, Saddam had been playing games with the weapons inspectors. He'd invite them in, then deny them access to various areas. Then he'd kick some of them out. Then the US would threaten and he'd back down. Lather, rinse, repeat. Even a decade later, he still had over-range missiles, whether or not he had chemical weapons (and I think he did; I can't believe he'd destroy all of it). He would have played his cat and mouse game until the UN gave up and left him alone.

Well, now that the war has all but ended, it's time to close up the diary. I'll leave you folks with something from yesterday's edition of PRI's The World: Concerns that a cholera epidemic may now be hitting Basra.

May the Iraqis find the path to peace and prosperity...with as little help from any other nation as possible.

Given that the war seems to have "new life", the diary is being reopened.