A "highly experienced," "high ranking" American officer explains that Baghdad will not fall in just a few days' time (as originally predicted) because, "There is a big cultural difference between the U.S. and the Arab World. That makes it hard."

In other words, if the shoe were on the other foot -- if a massive and technologically superior invading armada came down from Mars with the stated goal of overthrowing the Bush Administration and "liberating" the American people, in the process raining death and destruction upon us day after day after day, poisoning the continent with radioactive weapons, not allowing any other country (or planet) to try to aid us, creating absolute chaos, littering the soil with unexploded ordnance, wiping out civilian infrastructure, cutting off an existing civilian aid program, etc., all while "getting the message across to educated people"; then, the rest of us -- the uneducated -- would welcome the Martians with open arms.

Or if we didn't do so, it would be owing to the "cultural difference," and to the fact that the uneducated among us "want to be moved by emotion," and to Ashcroft's "very powerful enforcement and repression system." Got it?

Amazingly, this officer's testimonial is a dissenting view. The prevailing view is that Iraqi hostility is "receding day by day" and that the invading troops are more and more being given a "warm welcome." --Eddie Tews

Links up the cornhole! Try tracking the fallout from the Iraq war via links to news and analysis. It's a project that's already growing out of control, but see it while it lasts at nacc.info/fallout.htm. The categories are: The Humanitarian Consequences of War, Casualties of War, Their Weapons of Mass Destruction, Our Weapons of Mass Destruction, World Opposition, The War At Home, Permanent War Everywhere, Diplomatic Repercussions, Legal Repercussions, Instability, Economic Repercussions, "Blowback", "Liberation", Wheeling and Dealing, Media-Meta, and The Best Laid Plans.--ET

A Newspeak Inside A Doublethink Wrapped In A Memory Hole. Not one week after the WTO issued an interim ruling finding U.S. tariffs on steel imports in breach of WTO rules and regs (a ruling the U.S. plans to appeal), the United States is complaining about Korean microchip subsidies.

In the steel tariff case, the operative words are: "...the WTO settlement body process is 'fundamentally broken,'" and that the ruling is an "unalloyed [no pun intended?] assault on United States sovereignty."

In the microchip case, the operative words are: "DRAM makers in the United States may be injured by Korean subsidies."--ET

A Reasonable Request. "Excuse me sir, Donald H. Rumsfeld's calling again and he's hopping mad." This scene (or something like it) was played out in Syrian and Iranian war rooms last week, as Rumsfeld took the two to task for supplying Iraq with night-vision goggles -- though a U.S. General is "not aware of any that have been encountered."

Rumsfeld's beef is that the alleged goggles "pose a direct threat to the lives of coalition forces." But did anybody notice Rumsfeld ordering a recall of the "coalition's" goggles -- which, one can only presume, "pose a direct threat to the lives" of Iraqi forces?

The inscrutable charge comes hot-on-the-heels of the Pentagon's recent hypocritical cry-baby antics regarding POWs and the Geneva Conventions.

More ominously, George Bush last week renewed his threat to nuke Iraq should "coalition forces" come under a chemical or biological weapons attack. The Superbrain didn't say what he would, by that logic, consider an appropriate response to the United States' use of Depleted Uranium munitions, Natural Uranium munitions, napalm (both The Sydney Morning Herald -- citing U.S. Marine officers -- and an off-hand eyewitness account from a CNN reporter have noted its use by the United States, though the State Department denies the claim), cluster bombs, land mines, or "E-bombs."

Further, the infantile, legalistic arguments coming out of Washington and London to the effect that the recent Baghdad market massacres were the result not of "coalition" armaments, but of Iraqi anti-aircraft fire are belied by the recovered fragments' serial numbers. But Tony Blair's abysmal whining that Iraqi surface-to-air missiles "have been malfunctioning and many of them have failed to hit targets and fallen back to Baghdad," completely fails to take into account what the missiles were firing at -- namely, U.S. aircraft on bombing runs over populated areas. Does he really expect us to believe that Iraq would be firing off missiles over Baghdad even were it not under attack?!

No doubt the U.S. is soon going to cry foul at the suicide bombers having now "arrived" in Iraq intending to blow up "coalition" troops -- notwithstanding that it's perfectly acceptable for the "coalition" to "hammer away," "soften up," "pound," "significantly degrade," "batter," "rock," "severely weaken," "clobber," "pummel," and "destroy" Iraqi military personnel and civilians with "barrages of bombs and missiles" in a "round-the-clock" "relentless onslaught." Perfectly acceptable, even though grossly illegal and wretchedly immoral.

How long, one wonders, before the Pentagon requests Iraqi soldiers to fight in their pyjamas, and to wipe the "coalition" forces' asses once they've finished shitting all over them?--ET

Tommy Franks, head honcho of the U.S. invasion, in defense of the invasion's timing, claims that the invasion happened when it did because, "We saw evidence that the regime was intending to destroy the southern oil fields, [and] had not been able to fully set conditions to be able to do that, so we sensed that we had an opportunity to get to these oil fields."

It's probably a lie. But either way, it contradicts the officially stated pretext for the timing of the invasion: that U.S. intelligence had determined that Saddam was not disarming, but that he was just playing his usual tricks, in trying to indefinitely stretch out the inspections process. This pretext has in turn been contradicted by the inspectors themselves.

As usual, the problem isn't so much that the State Department and military apparatus is lying and contradicting itself -- that's their job. But it's not (or shouldn't be) the job of the media to repeat the lies and contradictions without comment.--ET

The Geneva Conventions Hypocrisy: As we've all heard, Donald Rumsfeld has accused Iraq of violating the Geneva Conventions by airing video of captured prisoners. The Red Cross quickly criticized both Iraq and the United States for breaking the same rules, while even elements of the mainstream media allowed that Rumsfeld's furor didn't jibe with the treatment of prisoners being held at Camp X-Ray in Cuba.

Okay, so that's covered -- provided one is diligent enough in seeking information. But what about the far greater hypocrisy, viz., that the entire U.S. war is such a major violation of International Law that it threatens a complete break-down of the system? The crime of unprovoked aggression is precisely the crime for which Nazi and Japanese leaders were hung following World War II. They were held accountable.

What about the civilian casualties generated by this war? If Rumsfeld is as familiar with the Geneva Conventions as he'd have us believe, he'll know that any civilian casualties of bombing are illegal -- whether "intentional" or not. He'll know that the United States is legally responsible for the well-being of the city of Basra, which is currently on the verge of a humanitarian disaster. He'll know that "coalition" deployment of radioactive munitions and cluster bombs is illegal. He'll know, in short, that he is a war criminal.

Tony Blair, the great humanist, has either not read or not comprehended the Geneva Conventions. In the wake of the bombing of a Baghdad market (not the last such travesty, as it's turned out), Tony Blair's official spokesman announced that, "We have always accepted that there will be some very regrettable civilian casualties." Leaving aside the unintended ambiguity (are some other civilian casualties not regrettable?), the translation would read: "We have always accepted that we will commit war crimes." To repeat: the Geneva Conventions explicitly prohibit civilian casualties, including "very regrettable" casualties.

Speaking of International Law, where the fuck is the Security Council? The Council leapt into action following Iraq's annexation of Kuwait, immediately condemning the invasion, and imposing sanctions four days later. Why has not the Security Council done the same to the United States? (Yes, the United States and Britain would both veto, but at least the world would know that White nations are expected to abide by International Law.)--ET

Police state alert: Why did three uniformed Seattle Police stand by the door at yesterday's "Speak-Out on the War" at the Rainier Community Center? Was it the location (working-class multi-racial neighborhood) or the topic (daring to question our Commander-In-Chief?). People asked questions of Congressman Jim McDermott & other politicians. One brave citizen asked the cops why they were there. One said, "To prevent what happened at the Federal Building."

Prevent what? Democracy? People yelled at the retreating cops: "Insulting!" "Go do something useful!" "Go get a donut!" and they were gone. Who needs CoIntelPro when you can have local police intimidate and monitor dissidents? Call Seattle Police Chief Kerlikowski (206-684-5577) and ask him to explain the protocol for assigning police to attend political gatherings, and demand an end to political harassment. --Valerie Rose