Haiku for July 22

[pthouron]

Qusai: hey the toy soldiers are driving up to the house. Looks like they're palnning on using tear gas.

Udai: after the thousands of gas masks they uncovered down in Fadhil, are you serious, they know we're equipped for anthrax, who do they think they are bringing this bloody tears stuff up here?

Qusai: could be a trick...you know like little David and Goliath.

Faruk: here's your masks. Shall I fly the white flag while you guys crawl through the tunnel in the basement and get set up next door?

Mohamed: I don't think we'll need the masks or the white flag this time, look at those pussies pulling out the hose. Shall we just take them now or wait till they're done and take them from behind?

Qusai: look at those little old ladies down the street, these USGD FPs think this is a nice little residential area.

Udai: where's my condoms and viagra? See that little sissy on the radio in the truck...spare her if you can.

Iraqis all exit though the tunnel to the other side of the street where a little lady is sweeping the dirt on her porch. She's a realtive.

US soldiers storm the building with their masks on and kevlar vests, bust down the door, gas the place, and start yelling "put down your weapons. If you don't shoot we'll treat you real nice and give you a fair trial." (silence) The soldiers try not to hurt anyone, they knock politely on each door. "We're here to arrest you...please give up."

Faruk: from over here, I've got four in my sights shall we begin or let them play it out a little longer?

Mohamed: I was able to get the 100 million over to Salihls through the west tunnel, good thing they're slow on the attack.

Udai: wait. As soon as they come back out empty-handed, they'll let their gaurd down.

US soldiers come back outside, "another false report I'd say." Takes off mask and says, "good think we didn't waste this place from a few block away like the captain ordered. See, I knew we wouldn't need the helicopters. The rest of the soldiers come out and stand around waiting for instructions. Lead soldier radios in to headquaters..."false alarm."

Iraqis launch several grenades, blow up a couple tanks, and other vehicles. Soldiers go flying high...Qusai practices a little target shooting before each soldier hits the ground. AK40s finish off the rest.

News release: 10 US soldiers died today while chasing down another reported sighting. 11th victim found raped and left for dead in nearby truck. Gov't official aren't talking. Don't know what went wrong. Say they might need to change their strategy a little.

Wow! I hear Fox News is hiring... This kind of stuff would fit right in.

[Lorenzo]

Denial of such potential reality is not a virtue.

I doubt if the media hires sincere Defense Situation Exersize Planners, although they probably should consider it. Look at how many of them got in trouble reporting from Iraq and Afganastan. I think the media is more interested in SHAPING the truth than REPORTING it.

[herbivore12]

Niether have I military training (I failed ROTC).
But I would wager that the judgement was made
that teargas couldn't be deployed effectively under
the circumstances. Possibly they couldn't get
the stuff in--these guys were well barricaded
and the only windows were bullet proof, according to the stories..

Just FYI, only the first reports included stuff about the house being fortified or having bullet-proof glass. Everything I've read since then has stated that those reports were wrong -- the house was not in any way fortified, and did not have bullet-proof glass -- and the only protection the holdouts had was some mattresses and bedframes.

However, they were indeed shooting at, and hitting, the troops surrounding the house, and I think most folks find that shooting back, in such an instance, is justifiable. That the three men and one boy inside were resisting in the face of overwhelming force (and the boy continued to fight from under a mattress even after all the adults inside had been killed in the missile attacks) seems good evidence that they had no intention of being taken alive. As sorry as I am that they were not captured alive and put on trial for their crimes, I can't really find fault with the Army's actions in this case. And for what it's worth, I was not a supporter of this war, and am not a fan of the current administration.

I found myself, in the case of this event, in the weird position of learning of the action in near-real time. A friend of mine has a brother in the division which was providing support to the Delta guys who were attacking the house, and I would get periodic e-mails forwarded from the front: "The Delta guys are surrounding a house and think the Hussein brothers are inside", "They've just asked them to come out. Nobody is responding," "Delta entered the house, but pulled back under fire," and so on, right to the last message, which was something like, "They think they killed Uday and Qusay. The last one left was a teenage kid, who was shooting from under a bed; they had to shoot him." It was very surreal, and caused me to wonder all sorts of things (about the nature of battle now, about our actions right then, about the security of internet connections, on and on). It got stranger to see the first news reports coming in some time *after* I had heard all of this via near-firsthand reports.

So though I am a critic of our actions regarding Iraq, among many other aspects of this administration's tenure, I'm not sure there was any other end possible to the standoff with the brothers Hussein, tear-gas or no.

[Sara]

Despite Uday and Qusay being killed, that does not produce the weapons of mass destruction of which President Bush, for months, endlessly talked and made it seem as though the moment we entered Iraq, WMD's would be easily and quickly found. Nor does it help explain why Bush and his administration lied many times, fabricating statistics and facts, to further their cause for war.

Saddam, WMD's and the truth have yet to be found.

Until the truth is revealed, I will continue to doubt this administration and its activities.

[jim stone]

Why do you say that Bush and his administration lied and
fabricated statistics? I'm curious. Can you give
particular examples? Best

[pthouron]

Why do you say that Bush and his administration lied and
fabricated statistics? I'm curious. Can you give
particular examples? Best

The two most obvious ones would be the "Niger Uranium connection" and the alleged links between 9/11 and Iraq (Last month, 71 percent of those polled thought the administration had implied that Saddam Hussein had been involved in the Sept. 11 attacks, as reported by the New York Times). But there are many more. A few examples of the ones I am most fond of, as presented by Paul Krugman (NYT columnist) last week:

"And when it comes to domestic spin, Mr. Blair isn't remotely in Mr. Bush's league. Whether pretending that the war on terror — not tax cuts, which have cost the Treasury three times as much — is responsible for record deficits, or that those hugely elitist tax cuts are targeted on working families, or that opening up wilderness areas to loggers is a fire-prevention plan, Mr. Bush has taken misrepresentation of his own policies to a level never before seen in America."

Right, left, Democrat, Republican... all those things don't matter. But I think you would have to bury your head in the sand to ignore the pattern of deception perpetrated by our Administration in the past two years.

But, hey! That's just me.

[jim stone]

Let me put it this way--I try to be fairminded, including the
people I don't like (sometimes especially the people I
don't like). Which isn't to say I'm always successful.

And of course there's the hope that we all are
fairminded--because obviously there are people of
good will and considerable intelligence on all sides of these issues..

So let's err on the side of being fairminded.

Bush said that British intelligence has learned that
Saddam was seeking uranium in Africa.

To lie one supposes this would have to be false; also Bush would
have to believe it was false.

As to its falsehood, it isn't clear that it's false. The British
government continues to maintain adamantly that it's true.
That's exactly what they learned, they say. Some of the
evidence that's been offered for the claim that
Saddam was seeking uranium was forged; however
the Brits maintain that 'evidence' had no part in
their report. The CIA sent someone to Africa who
talked to people in a later administration in Nigeria who
said they knew nothing about it; the Brits say that they
talked to people in the previous adminsitration with which
Saddam was dealing.

So first it's not clear that the Brits didn't learn what they
say they did. But of course it's possible they didn't.
So possibly what Bush said is false.

Also it's possible that Bush didn't believe the claim
when he made it. On the other hand the Brits did
inform him that they had learned what he said they
did, so--in all fairness--he may well have believed
it. The CIA's reservation was in a footnote--which
the busy president may not have read, supposing he
even read carefully the paperwork. There is the
real possibility that an advisor blundered in letting
this info into the speech (as an advisor has said),
and the president, who trusted the advisor and had
no reason to doubt the British report, believed
what he was saying. Of course the White House
admits that a mistake was made and more care
should have been exercised.

So it's possible that what the president said was false,
but it's also quite possible that it was true. Also it's possible
that the president didn't believe the claim when he
made it. But it's also quite possible that he
did believe it.

So--reasoning along together--it's possible the president
lied when he said the Brits had learned that Saddam
was seeking uranium in Africa. Also it's quite possible
that he didn't lie. I do think this is fair.

Under the circumstances the conclusion that he lied
is unwarranted.

AS to the New York Times columnist's
charges ('hugely elitist tax cuts')
that Bush is misrepresenting his
policies, as well as Bush's efforts to spin the downside
of his policies ('misrepresentation at a level never before
seen in America' the columnist informs us),
that's politics as usual for all
concerned. best

[Rando7]

The two most obvious ones would be the "Niger Uranium connection" and the alleged links between 9/11 and Iraq (Last month, 71 percent of those polled thought the administration had implied that Saddam Hussein had been involved in the Sept. 11 attacks, as reported by the New York Times). But there are many more. A few examples of the ones I am most fond of, as presented by Paul Krugman (NYT columnist) last week:

"And when it comes to domestic spin, Mr. Blair isn't remotely in Mr. Bush's league. Whether pretending that the war on terror — not tax cuts, which have cost the Treasury three times as much — is responsible for record deficits, or that those hugely elitist tax cuts are targeted on working families, or that opening up wilderness areas to loggers is a fire-prevention plan, Mr. Bush has taken misrepresentation of his own policies to a level never before seen in America."

Right, left, Democrat, Republican... all those things don't matter. But I think you would have to bury your head in the sand to ignore the pattern of deception perpetrated by our Administration in the past two years.

But, hey! That's just me.

I think reasonable people can disagree on this, but hey! That's just me.

Jim Stone discussed the uranium-Niger statement better than I could. Suffice it to say that Bush technically was correct in his statement It does bother me, though, that it looks like somebody at the White House knew there were doubts of it's accuracy at the time of the speech. All this parsing of speech and "who knew what when" harkens back to criticisms I had of prior administrations. I didn't like it then and I don't like it now. I am inclined to give Bush the benefit of the doubt, though, and realize the statement was negligible in comparison to the total case presented for overthrowing Hussein.

The Iraq - Al-Queda connection has always been more implied than spoken. There were certainly meetings between Al-Queda and Iraqi officials prior to 9/11 but I agree this doesn't mean they were related to 9/11. What is obvious to me though, is that Saddam Hussein could accurately depicted as a terrorist. His support of the suicide bombings in Israel is unquestioned.

The statements by the NY Times writer don't support the argument that Bush lied. Posting somebody else's opinions that support yours don't make them true, I could just as easily post some editorials that support my opinions. What exactly is a working family anyway? Whatever it is I'm guessing Mr. Krugman doesn't think my family is one.

The whole question of the deficit is too lengthy to go into here but I have to point out that the Democrats thought deficits were just fine in the early 1990's (remember Clinton telling us that even attempting to balance the budget in less than 15 years was just too risky?[apologies to Chuck for mentioning Clinton ]). Of course the GOP was at the same time saying the deficits were awful and we had to control spending. Now both parties are spending like drunken sailors and have both lost credibility in my eyes.

Finally, in the criticism of Bush's handling of the economy I think the Democrats ignore the effect of 9/11. 9/11 crippled the airline and tourism industries and increased the cost of business for the entire country. Combine that with the collapse of the internet bubble and Greenspan's ill-timed rate hikes and there is no president that could have prevented this recession. Bush is taking a risk with the tax cuts but in doing nothing there is also a risk.

I'll stick my head back in the sand now.

[pthouron]

I think reasonable people can disagree on this, but hey! That's just me.

Sure they can... Isn't that the whole point?

Jim Stone discussed the uranium-Niger statement better than I could. Suffice it to say that Bush technically was correct in his statement It does bother me, though, that it looks like somebody at the White House knew there were doubts of it's accuracy at the time of the speech. All this parsing of speech and "who knew what when" harkens back to criticisms I had of prior administrations. I didn't like it then and I don't like it now.

Technically correct? It's precisely the technicalities that bother me. You could make the argument Busn & Co. are more guilty of distorting the truth than of outright lies, maybe.... So what if it was the British? If you, as the President, are going to use it as an determining argument in your case for waging war, it it your responsibility to make damn sure it is accurate.

I am inclined to give Bush the benefit of the doubt, though, and realize the statement was negligible in comparison to the total case presented for overthrowing Hussein.

Why are people so inclined to give Bush the benefit of the doubt? I think he generates enough doubt on his own without people giving him any more.
What total case? The two main arguments are doubtful at best. What is left? The liberation of the Iraqi people? We could invade half the countries in the world on those grounds. But we don't. We're pussyfooting around Liberia when what goes on there is at least as bad as what went on in Iraq. But we don't have anything to benefit from helping Liberia. Or at least nothing tangible. It would be an opportunity to demonstrate that the US can do something purely on humanitarian grounds. But humanitarian doesn't fill our SUV's tank,does it?

The Iraq - Al-Queda connection has always been more implied than spoken. There were certainly meetings between Al-Queda and Iraqi officials prior to 9/11 but I agree this doesn't mean they were related to 9/11. What is obvious to me though, is that Saddam Hussein could accurately depicted as a terrorist. His support of the suicide bombings in Israel is unquestioned.

I have two words for you: Saudi Arabia. Explain to me our leniency towards THEM, particularly when put in the 9/11 context.

The statements by the NY Times writer don't support the argument that Bush lied. Posting somebody else's opinions that support yours don't make them true, I could just as easily post some editorials that support my opinions. What exactly is a working family anyway? Whatever it is I'm guessing Mr. Krugman doesn't think my family is one.

Key word is: opinion. Those are my and Mr.Krugman's opinions. Never made a claim they were the truth, unlike Blair and Bush have done several times to such ill effect

The whole question of the deficit is too lengthy to go into here but I have to point out that the Democrats thought deficits were just fine in the early 1990's (remember Clinton telling us that even attempting to balance the budget in less than 15 years was just too risky?[apologies to Chuck for mentioning Clinton ]). Of course the GOP was at the same time saying the deficits were awful and we had to control spending. Now both parties are spending like drunken sailors and have both lost credibility in my eyes.

Let's not turn this into a Republicans vs. Democrats thing because I am neither. However, under Clinton, the deficit was not $475 billion. Actually, if memory serves, there was a surplus when he left. But wait, that's right, he benefited from all the work the Republicans had done before he came in office.

Finally, in the criticism of Bush's handling of the economy I think the Democrats ignore the effect of 9/11. 9/11 crippled the airline and tourism industries and increased the cost of business for the entire country. Combine that with the collapse of the internet bubble and Greenspan's ill-timed rate hikes and there is no president that could have prevented this recession. Bush is taking a risk with the tax cuts but in doing nothing there is also a risk.

I'll stick my head back in the sand now.

Maybe they do. I don't. I realize 9/11 was a crippling blow. I work in an industry for which 9/11 was a death toll. I am not saying another President wouldn't have faced a recession. I just don't think engaging in questionable wars and implementing tax cuts that benefit only a minority will get us out of it. Last time I checked the unemployment rate was up (6.4%, I believe), tax cuts be damned.
Don't stick your head back in the sand. We need everybody to keep their senses sharp and keen.

Cheers,

Patrick