Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
March 31, 2005

Threats

idea by Cloned Poster

Tom DeLay commenting Terri Schiavos death:

"The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior, but not today. Today we grieve, we pray, and we hope to God this fate never befalls another."


A blood-covered girl screams after her parents were fatally shot by soldiers with the 1st Battalion, 5th Infantry Stryker Brigade Combat Team of the 25th Infantry Division

January 18, 2005; Photo Chris Hondros; Link

At least this girl may not die of hunger as so many others kids are now dying in Iraq and so many more will in the coming Great Iraqi Famine.

But this girl will take her revenge - slowly but determined.

The girl will follow "holy" words, more than De Lay may anticipate, following these lines:

The unit's chaplain, Capt. Ed Willis, says there's no reason to feel guilty: "If you kill someone on the battlefield, whether it's another soldier or collateral damage, that doesn't fit under 'Thou shalt not kill'."

That girl, not Terri Slave or Tom DeLay, will define where the next battlefield is. And it may not be in the Middle East.

(The sun shined today, it was quite a dark day.)

Posted by b on March 31, 2005 at 04:04 PM | Permalink

Comments

bush today:


I urge all those who honor Terri Schiavo to continue to work to build a culture of life, where all Americans are welcomed and valued
and protected, especially those who live at the mercy of others. The essence of civilization is that the strong have a duty to protect the weak. In cases where there are serious doubts and questions, the presumption should be in the favor of life.

does anyone believe these people?

US Intel "Dead Wrong" On Iraq

US intelligence on Iraq was "dead wrong," dealing a blow to American credibility that will take years to undo, and spymasters still know disturbingly little about nuclear programs in countries like Iran and North Korea, a presidential commission reported.

The commission's bluntly written report, based on more than a year of investigations, offered a damning assessment of the intelligence that President George W Bush used to launch the Iraq war two years ago and warned that flaws are "still all too common" throughout spy agencies.

"We conclude that the intelligence community was dead wrong in almost all of its prewar judgments about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction," the commissioners wrote.

so back to bush's briefing this morning, what does he think of this commission's findings?


This morning the commission presented me with their recommendations, which are thoughtful and extremely significant. The central conclusion is one that I share: America's intelligence community needs fundamental change to enable us to successfully confront the threats of the 21st century.
...
Our collection and analysis of intelligence will never be perfect, but in an age where our margin for error is getting smaller, in an age in which we are at war, the consequences of underestimating a threat could be tens of thousands of innocent lives.

underestimating? underestimating?

back to the report - maybe this is what we're being set up for...

"Across the board, the intelligence community knows disturbingly little about the nuclear programs of many of the world's most dangerous actors."

and today there was this (weird) AP release


Most Americans Say No Nations Should Have Nuclear Weapons

Most Americans surveyed in a poll say they do not think any country, including the United States, should have nuclear weapons. That sentiment is at odds with current efforts by some nations that are trying to develop the weapons and by terrorists seeking to add them to their arsenal.
...
...52 percent of Americans think a nuclear attack by one country against another is somewhat or very likely by 2010. Also, 53 percent think a nuclear attack by terrorists is at least somewhat likely.

all i can say is look out iranians... june is right around the corner & it's springtime for shrubbie, meaning that i think his mind has truly sprung. and so does sy hersh.

Posted by: b real | Mar 31, 2005 4:40:15 PM | 1

Bush: "...a culture of life, where all Americans are welcomed and valued and protected..."

(except Sun Hudson, of course)

A moment of real insight into this vapid monster's brain. Perhaps some reporter could ask Bush whether he thinks the bible applies to non-Americans, and if so, how does he defend this statement? Nah, never happen.

Posted by: OkieByAccident | Mar 31, 2005 6:37:43 PM | 2

Terri Schiavo 'died' today, the press tell us--but surely the poor woman has been dead for fifteen years?

Posted by: theodor | Mar 31, 2005 6:47:55 PM | 3

While we're talking about threats, did anyone spot the threat against Warren Buffet in the WSJ today? It was in the last half of the last sentence in the page C1 article. I paraphrase:

...Warren Buffet should realize that anyone can be punished.

Is this sort of message bearing part of the WSJ's brief?

Posted by: Citizen | Mar 31, 2005 7:16:36 PM | 4

perhaps one day justice will be meted out against those who use violence so ruthlessly yet so carelessly. this - the killing of an iraq nation & its people are happening with such quotidian brutality that again the comparison with the einsatzgrupen - the nazi killing actions is appropriate - yet here augmented by the terrible & obscene absurdity of trying to heal a family of which you have killed the majority of their number

already, there are many hassan families & unfortunately it will continue until the people in the west find somewhere their common humanity & decency & stop this fucking war

until that day - the hassan familes only hope lies in the resistance - in whatever form it takes because they are doing the distasteful but necessary work of regaining their country from an illegal & immoral occupation

on this day my thoughts rest with what is left of the hassan family & what is left of their country

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Mar 31, 2005 7:50:52 PM | 5

There is a relief fund for the Hassan family. The website where you can make a donation is at

http://www.hassanfamilyfund.org/

I sent in a donation this week.

Posted by: hoppingmadbunny | Mar 31, 2005 7:54:35 PM | 6

Is this sort of message bearing part of the WSJ's brief?

hasn't it always been? seems to me WSJ op/ed page is usually threatening/scolding someone -- some world leader, some country, some group of workers -- with dire punishment for their noncompliance with the financial Dons and the "laws" of neoconomics. now they're starting to point their prefect's baton at American rich guys who don't toe the line with adequate alacrity. where will it all end, eh?

Posted by: DeAnander | Mar 31, 2005 7:56:44 PM | 7

that is the least we can do

further there should be little hesitation now in supporting what is clearly an authentic iraqui resistance

i have little ambivalence in wanting the americans to leave iraq by any means necessary - for as the russians in their defence of their country against the nazis could not in good conscience choose between good & bad germans - were obliged to decimate a people who were victims of their own politics. the good german soldier is like the good amrican soldier - both a perpetrator & a victim

for the resistance they can & must only vanquish the perpetrators in whatever form they exist

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Mar 31, 2005 8:03:14 PM | 8

On 9/11 all of You Americans have asked:" WHY "...
For those of you with brain and soul the answer is a little bit more obvious with photos like this one...for other Americans there is no hope...they'll listen to the priests from hell like unit's chaplain, Capt. Ed Willis, anyway...
If you only have been able to see more of photos similar to this one prior to 9/11 (and you could find them in numbers if you wanted to look) you shouldn't even ask WHY...
State terrorism invented and broadly applied by USA after WWII and highly advanced by Bushco mafia ( read second time democratically elected administration) is rapidly moving battlefield right in your back yard.

Posted by: vbo | Mar 31, 2005 10:40:31 PM | 9

On 9/11 all of You Americans have asked:" WHY "...
not so, vbo, but i understand your disgust here & in your comment yesterday. since you mentioned backyard...

there is a very good article thursday on venezuelanalysis illustrating how disgusting the leadership of the u.s. is & how much the vileness of the reagan years are still w/ us.

U.S. Aggression towards Venezuela: The Rise of Black Propaganda and Dirty War Tactics (Again)

Today’s campaign against Venezuela starkly parallels those tactics used back in the eighties by the Office of Public Diplomacy. Though [Otto] Reich no longer maintains an official position within the Bush Administration, his capacity as a private sector U.S. Government Consultant on International Affairs clearly shows his ties and influence remain. And others in powerful positions within the U.S. Government are his colleagues from the low intensity conflict years in Central America during the Reagan-Bush administrations. John Negroponte, former U.S. Ambassador in Honduras during the eighties is soon-to-be the new Director of National Intelligence, the highest capacity in the intelligence community, Charles Shapiro, ex-Ambassador to Venezuela during the coup who previously was a State Department diplomat in Central America during the eighties is now Under-Secretary of State for the Andean Region (covering Venezuela), Reich’s old buddy Roger Noriega took his place as Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs and Porter Goss, ex-CIA Official and member of the Operation 40 assassination squad in the 1960s, alongside Cuban terrorist Orlando Bosch, is now Director of the CIA.

Such relationships and backgrounds make it no surprise to see that today’s campaign against Venezuela employs the same themes used, successfully, against the Sandinistas in the eighties. In addition to the similar use of the National Endowment for Democracy and USAID to funnel millions into Venezuelan opposition parties and NGOs, the U.S. Government attempts to portray Chávez in the same exact light as the Sandinistas. Repeated declarations from the State and Defense Departments, recycled in major U.S. media, claim the Chávez Government is engaging in a “military build-up” or “arms race” with its recent purchase of new weaponry from Russia (note that the U.S. Government is the ONLY government to express such concerns. None of Venezuela’s neighbors have even raised an eyebrow. And Brazil has publicly stated they have no concerns whatsoever with Venezuela’s recent arms purchase); that Chávez is a “communist” in the likes of Fidel Castro; that his government “violates human rights” including “freedom of the press”, the “right to assembly”, “freedom of speech”, “persecution of opposition groups and actors” and that his administration is responsible for the “poverty” and “economic devastation” that has affected the country in recent years.

If you read a few paragraphs above in this commentary, you will find the same identical themes were used to discredit the Nicaraguan government by Reich’s Office of Public Diplomacy. Note that all of these claims against President Chávez and the Venezuelan Government are false.

in her book masters of war: latin america and u.s. agression - from the cuban revolution through the clinton years long-time colombian diplomat clara nieto points out that "under the reagan administration the united states was the paradigm of a terrorist state, ironically, the very thing reagan claimed to be fighting."

history is repeating itself. it's time to change the script. if not us, who?

Posted by: b real | Mar 31, 2005 11:39:26 PM | 10

Shut up or we shoot your whole family.
Shut up or we confiscate your millions, or billions.
Shut up or we create another dozen Pol Pots.

-------

And it is not senseless. It is clearing of the commons and "freeing" of people from all non-cash economies. A blood Ponzi scheme that is only meant to cash out to the first few.

-------
Do you want to be a loser, loser? I thought not. Now make something useful out of all this trash and can that blood.

Posted by: citizen | Apr 1, 2005 12:42:12 AM | 11

First time I see somebody refer to the original meaning of the name Schiavo (Italian, pronounced Skee-avo, meaning slave).

Posted by: Rene | Apr 1, 2005 1:47:29 AM | 12

OpEd in The Guardian: The gates of hell are open in Iraq

Only when the occupiers withdraw from the country can Iraq take the first secure steps towards peace and stability. Once a strict timetable for withdrawal is set, Iraq's political forces could freely agree and set in motion a process of genuinely free and fair democratic elections, a permanent constitution, and a programme that meets the demands of all the Iraqi people.

Article continues
The occupying powers are now following a policy of divide and rule, encouraging sectarian and ethnic divisions and imposing them on all the institutions they have created.
...
In the same way, the Iraq crisis cannot be resolved by patching up a detested occupation with fraudulent elections and sectarian and ethnic caucuses supported by the occupiers. The only solution is the immediate withdrawal of occupation forces - or as a minimum, a strict internationally guaranteed timetable for withdrawal. Talk about freedom and democracy is seen as an endlessly repeated sham by our peoples because these words are being uttered by the very powers that have stood behind the corrupt dictatorial regimes. The US today is still the ally and backer of many such tyrannical regimes in our region and elsewhere.
...
Public opinion in the occupying countries, such as the US and Britain, needs to understand that the continuation of this unjust and dangerous situation will create the conditions for a new and more general uprising which threatens truly to open the gates of hell in the region and beyond.

Posted by: b | Apr 1, 2005 2:47:42 AM | 13

Thanks Bernhard;

OT from PopBitch today:

The world of the trophy hunter

Matthew J Hogan has just been appointed by the
Bush Government as director of the Fish and
Wildlife Service. Interestingly, Hogan was the
lobbyist for Safari Club International - an elite
club of exotic animal trophy hunters, as well
as a keen exotic hunter himself.

SCI has 40,000 members, and promotes global
competitive trophy hunting, with Grand Slam
and Inner Circle competitions. These include
Africa Big Five (leopard, elephant, lion, rhino,
buffalo), North American Twenty Nine (one of
each species of bear, bison, sheep, moose,
caribou, and deer), Big Cats of the World and
Antlered Game of the Americas. To complete all
29 awards, a hunter must kill 322 separate
species. Enough to populate a large zoo.

(FYI: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, is the
agency charged with granting or denying such
trophy import permits.)

Posted by: Cloned Poster | Apr 1, 2005 7:13:43 AM | 14

"To complete all 29 awards, a hunter must kill 322 separate
species. Enough to populate a large zoo."

monsters, why don't they just shoot each other?

Posted by: beq | Apr 1, 2005 7:28:15 AM | 15

beq, I can add nothing to your comment, my thoughts too.

Posted by: Fran | Apr 1, 2005 9:10:31 AM | 16

April 2005

The Pentagon's Secret Stash
Why we'll never see the second round of Abu Ghraib photos
Matt Welch


The images, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told Congress, depict "acts that can only be described as blatantly sadistic, cruel, and inhuman." After Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) viewed some of them in a classified briefing, he testified that his "stomach gave out." NBC News reported that they show "American soldiers beating one prisoner almost to death, apparently raping a female prisoner, acting inappropriately with a dead body, and taping Iraqi guards raping young boys." Everyone who saw the photographs and videos seemed to shudder openly when contemplating what the reaction would be when they eventually were made public.

But they never were. After the first batch of Abu Ghraib images shocked the world on April 28, 2004, becoming instantly iconic—a hooded prisoner standing atop a box with electrodes attatched to his hands, Pfc. Lynndie England dragging a naked prisoner by a leash, England and Spc. Charles Graner giving a grinning thumbs-up behind a stack of human meat—no substantial second round ever came, either from Abu Ghraib or any of the other locations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantanamo Bay where abuses have been alleged. ABC News broadcast two new photos from the notorious Iraq prison on May 19, The Washington Post printed a half-dozen on May 20 and three more on June 10, and that was it.

"It refutes the glib claim that everything leaks sooner or later," says the Federation of American Scientists' Steven Aftergood, who makes his living finding and publishing little-known government information and fighting against state secrecy. "While there may be classified information in the papers almost every day, there's a lot more classified information that never makes it into the public domain."

It's not for lack of trying, at least from outside the government. Aftergood, for example, sent a Freedom of Information Act request to the Defense Department on May 12, asking generally for "photographic and video images of abuses committed against Iraqi prisoners" and specifically for the material contained on three compact discs mentioned by Rumsfeld in his testimony. The Defense Department told him to ask the U.S. Central Command, which sent him back to Defense, which said on second thought try the Army's Freedom of Information Department, which forwarded him to the Army's Crime Records Center, which hasn't yet responded. "It's not as if this is somehow an obscure matter that no one's quite ever heard of," Aftergood notes.

Officials have given two legal reasons for suppressing images of prisoner abuse: "unwarranted invasion of privacy" and the potential impact on law enforcement. The Freedom of Information Act's exemptions 6 and 7 (as these justifications are known, respectively) have been used repeatedly to rebuff the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which since October 2003 has unearthed more than 600 torture-related government documents but zero images.

The privacy objection is easily answered: Why not just obscure any identifying features? The law enforcement question, which has a firmer legal footing, is whether distribution of the images could "deprive a person of a fair trial or an impartial adjudication." Yet even there, the globally publicized photographs of Charles Graner, for instance, were ruled by a military judge to be insufficient grounds to declare his trial unfair. And Graner, sentenced to 10 years for his crimes, is the only one of the eight charged Abu Ghraib soldiers to contest his case in court.

"We've seen virtually no criminal investigations or criminal prosecutions," says ACLU staff attorney Jameel Jaffer, who plans to challenge the nondisclosure in court. "The vast majority of those photographs and videotapes don't relate to ongoing criminal investigations; on the contrary they depict things that the government approved of at the time and maybe approves of now."

Legalities are one thing, but the real motivation for choking off access is obvious: Torture photos undermine support for the Iraq war. In the words of Donald Rumsfeld, "If these are released to the public, obviously it's going to make matters worse."

The Abu Ghraib photos did more to kneecap right-wing support for the Iraq war, and put a dent in George Bush's approval ratings, than any other single event in 2004. Conservative New York Times columnist David Brooks wrote two glum pieces about "the failure to understand the consequences of American power"; The Washington Post's George Will called for Rumsfeld's head; blogger Andrew Sullivan turned decisively against the president he once championed; and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) warned: "We risk losing public support for this conflict. As Americans turned away from the Vietnam War, they may turn away from this one."

News analyses about the war coalition's crackup competed for front-page space with the Abu Ghraib reports for nearly two weeks, until a videotape emerged showing American civilian Nick Berg getting his head sawed off in Iraq. Suddenly, editorialists were urging us to "keep perspective" about "who we're fighting against."

By that time, the executive and legislative branches had learned their lesson: Don't release images. The day after the Berg video, members of Congress were allowed to see a slide show of 1,800 Abu Ghraib photographs. The overwhelming response, besides revulsion, was, in the words of Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner (R-Va.), that the pictures "should not be made public." "I feel," Warner said, "that it could possibly endanger the men and women of the armed forces as they are serving and at great risk."

Just before former White House counsel Alberto Gonzales, author of two memos relating to interrogation methods and the Geneva Conventions, faced confirmation hearings to become attorney general, there were press whispers that the ranking Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, Carl Levin (D-Mich.), might choose the occasion to force more disclosure of torture photos. It didn't happen. "He and Senator Warner," says Levin spokeswoman Tara Andringa, "are on the same page."

As is, no doubt, a good percentage of the U.S. population. Public opinion of journalism has long since plummeted below confidence levels in government. Prisoner abuse wasn't remotely an issue in the 2004 presidential campaign, let alone an electoral millstone for the governing party. The mid-January discovery of photographs showing British soldiers abusing Iraqis barely caused a ripple in the States. Neither did the Associated Press' December publication of several new photos of Navy SEALs vamping next to injured and possibly tortured prisoners (prompting the New York Post to demand an apology from...the Associated Press).

As The Wall Street Journal's James Taranto put it, with great cynicism and possibly great accuracy, "if the Democrats really think that belaboring complaints about harsh treatment of the enemy is the way to 'score points with the public,' they're more out of touch than we thought."

Looking ahead to the next four years, there is little doubt that the administration, its supporters, and Congress will use whatever legal means are available to prevent Abu Ghraib—the public relations problem, not the prisoner abuse—from happening again. The Defense Department has commissioned numerous studies about America's problem with "public diplomacy" since the September 11 massacre; all those compiled since last May hold up the iconic torture images as the perfect example of what not to let happen again.

"The Pentagon realizes that it's images that sell the story," Aftergood says. "The reason that there is a torture scandal is because of those photographs. There can be narratives of things that are much worse, but if they aren't accompanied by photos, they somehow don't register....The Abu Ghraib photos are sort of the military equivalent of the Rodney King case....And I hate to attribute motives to people I don't know, but it is easy to imagine that the officials who are withholding these images have that fact in mind."

Posted by: Cloned Poster | Apr 1, 2005 11:32:47 AM | 17

Some very stupid reporters,intervieweres,politicians and of course G.W.Bush tells that they can not understand why there is a big anti-americanism campaign.As I told in the beginning of my comment,they are stupid,real stupids.World's history will surely judge G.W.Bush and of course he will be sitting together with Hitler at the front seats of the judgement hall.But the crowd sitting at the back of them will surely be full of millions of Americans who have voted this stupid G.W.Bush and who have been supporting G.W.Bush.I have already heard that American people are very much controlled by media and they believe whatever CNN says.I now believe it seriously cause after this much terror caused by American soldiers in normal democracies,in free countries,in countries which are full of honest citizens millions must have been demonstrating on the streets.What a pity to Americans.

Posted by: CETIN | Apr 1, 2005 4:52:24 PM | 18

Did they say why this girls parents were killed?

vbo You are somthing else that I can't even begin to understand.

Don't really know what your group is all about but I can tell you the Moon that I'd like to give most of you.

Posted by: Shelby | Aug 16, 2005 6:35:30 PM | 19

The comments to this entry are closed.