We’re So Popular

Iraqis show us more love.

US Troops Use Gestapo Tactics in Iraq

Thanks to alert reader Digby for pointing me to this piece from the ever-enlightening UK Independent for yet another answer to the perpetual post-9/11 question “Why do they hate us?”

US soldiers driving bulldozers, with jazz blaring from loudspeakers, have uprooted ancient groves of date palms as well as orange and lemon trees in central Iraq as part of a new policy of collective punishment of farmers who do not give information about guerrillas attacking US troops.

The stumps of palm trees, some 70 years old, protrude from the brown earth scoured by the bulldozers beside the road at Dhuluaya, a small town 50 miles north of Baghdad. Local women were yesterday busily bundling together the branches of the uprooted orange and lemon trees and carrying then back to their homes for firewood.

Nusayef Jassim, one of 32 farmers who saw their fruit trees destroyed, said: “They told us that the resistance fighters hide in our farms, but this is not true. They didn’t capture anything. They didn’t find any weapons.”

Other farmers said that US troops had told them, over a loudspeaker in Arabic, that the fruit groves were being bulldozed to punish the farmers for not informing on the resistance which is very active in this Sunni Muslim district.

“They made a sort of joke against us by playing jazz music while they were cutting down the trees,” said one man. Ambushes of US troops have taken place around Dhuluaya. But Sheikh Hussein Ali Saleh al-Jabouri, a member of a delegation that went to the nearby US base to ask for compensation for the loss of the fruit trees, said American officers described what had happened as “a punishment of local people because ‘you know who is in the resistance and do not tell us’.” What the Israelis had done by way of collective punishment of Palestinians was now happening in Iraq, Sheikh Hussein added.

Asked how much his lost orchard was worth, Nusayef Jassim said in a distraught voice: “It is as if someone cut off my hands and you asked me how much my hands were worth.”

Go Team America! We’re liberating the shit out of them!

Why Don’t I Ever Speak/Do Book Signings in Your Town?

I get asked this a lot, and the answer is because there isn’t a newspaper in your city that publishes my work.

When I was starting out, I often did appearances in cities like Durham, NC and Iowa City, lovely places both. But not one single human being showed up. Correct that: only one did. Me. On the other hand, when I came to, say, Dayton, OH or Philly, hundreds of people came. This made the trip worthwhile for me, my publisher and the place sponsoring the appearance. The difference? There was a newspaper there that had made people aware of me and to promote the event.

True, there are other means of promotion–posters, flyers, ads, listings, even planted puff pieces in the paper–but I’ve learned from experience that those don’t work very well. So if you want me to come to your town, the best way for that to happen is for you to urge your local newspaper editor to pick up my strip and/or column.

Reading my stuff online may be fun, but if everyone did that, I wouldn’t be able to make a living doing this.

Book Title Contest Continues

Thanks to those of you who have sent in suggestions for book titles of my 2004 collection of cartoons and columns about Bush and the goings on in his illegitimate administration. Unfortunately, there are no winners…yet.

Many respondents seem to be after some kind of “Bush Sucks” or “Why Bush Sucks” angle, but book titles have to be a little more subtle, yet straightforward at the same time, than that. So the challenge remains: name the book and you get the original artwork for one of my syndicated cartoons for your wall.

2004 Necropublican Convention in NYC

Next year’s Republican National Convention, held late to coincide with the 3rd anniversary festivities surrounding the 9/11/01 attacks and held in New York City despite the fact that every single New Yorker despises Bush and all that he stands for to an extent that can’t be expressed by words, promises to put the 1968 Chicago riots to shame. I’m already stocking up bottled water and canned food for the endtimes. And I’ve got THE most bitching T-shirt designs ready for attendees…

Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline Project Update

The sordid story detailed in my book “Gas War” continues.

Our Good Friend Karimov, U.S. Ally in the War on Terror

Still wondering why they hate us? Check this out.

Why I Don’t Cover Everything

Some readers of my cartoons and essays may wonder why I haven’t jumped on the scandal invoving the despicable outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson by conservative pundit Robert Novak. Here’s the answer:

I’m not very interested in discussing issues that are being extensively, and accurately, covered elsewhere. Unless I have a new angle to add to a discussion, I figure it makes more sense for me to work on the stories and issues being neglected by the rest of the media. It’s more fun for me, it’s better for the world, and I hope it makes better reading.

If and when I have something to add to the Wilson story, I’ll chime in. In the meantime, I’ll pretty much agree with those who say that the Democrats are exagerrating the damage, Republicans are understating the treasonous nature of those who planned it (hi Karl!) and that this Administration has as much intention of getting to the bottom of this as it does about 9/11.

It’s the Illegitimacy, Stupid

In a letter to the editor of today’s New York Times, incoherent pseudoliberal Peter Beinart, editor of the New Republic(an), says:

“It is true that there are liberals who hate the president (sic) so much that they abandon rational thought and assume that everything he does must be evil.”

No, there aren’t.

Everything that Gov. Bush does is by definition illegal because his rule is illegitimate. For the same reasons that oppressed peoples despise dictators everywhere, Bush is despised because his rule comes not from the people, but in spite of them.

A contributing factor, naturally, is the fact that everything Bush has done as been evil. Even if you accept Bush’s legitimacy–that makes you a minority in the polls–it’s hard to miss that.

Responsibilities of the Oppressed

I was pleased to receive this otherwise-complimentary email today from Jane:

I’m sure you’ve heard from many women on your section [in this week’s column] about Arnold S. “Sexual harassment is serious business, but evidently not to the 16 women involved–none filed charges.” Good lord, man, it’s obvious you’ve never been a woman. File charges? Basic, on-the-job harassment charges, perhaps? And how do you think Jane Doe, Production Assistant, would fare against Arnold Schwarzenegger, one of the richest men in Hollywood? Assuming it ever got to trial (instead of settled out of court), would you really give odds on a conviction once Arnold said he was simply joking, it was all very European, he has great respect for women, his wife & her family women blah blah blah? And of course, if Jane had planned to have any sort of career in Hollywood at all, what odds would you give on her being able to continue it? A production set isn’t like a corporate job. A few weeks on the set and you might never have to see that person again, you might be told if you complain. So you ride it out. I’m not making excuses per se — but it is how almost everything goes in that town. The point is that, for economic and professional reasons, women everyday choose to overlook sexual harassment in the workplace. (Not only could I tell you a story or two about the film industry, but I could tell you the same stories about the State Dept. when I worked there many years ago — the one time I saw someone get popped on sexual harassment charges was due to a leaked report, and not because the system worked.) Don’t worry, I haven’t dedicated a voodoo doll in your honor; I just think your perspective isn’t all that realistic on what a woman would be up against in a situation like that. (In terms of power relations, think of it as young female production assistant = Afghanistan, Arnold Schwarzenegger = US and you’ll begin to understand it better, perhaps.)

Jane is right. A woman who has been sexually harrassed by a powerful, wealthy actor would face an uphill battle being taken seriously by her boss, the police and other authorities. Of course the odds of said actor facing punishment are extremely long. This is a function of basic power politics, as Jane points out.

It is, however, your moral duty as a member of society to do whatever you can to prevent predators from victimizing other people. If someone rapes you, and you’re too freaked out/terrified/traumatized to go to the cops, then that rapist goes on to rape again. Your refusal to file charges emboldens him. Even if you yourself stand to gain nothing–quite to the contrary, to face untold humiliation–you become part of the evil unless you take any and all possible actions against the person who hurt you.

Back in the 1970s or 1980s, the women who claim that Gov.-Elect Arnold groped them might never have gotten anywhere with their complaints against him. But, had they filed them, they would have been on the record, and might have prevented his rise to the governorship. Assuming that these women are telling the truth, these women decided to let the evil pass on to someone else.

It’s sort of like The Club, the anti-car theft device you lock on your steering wheel if you live in a big city. The idea isn’t to stop a thief, the idea is to hope that he moves on to someone else’s car. “Victimize her, not me” is not a good prescription for a civilized society…something the Afghans, by the way, understand. Their resistance against the US occupation will eventually cause us to pull out, as it did the Russians and the British before.

Cheney Justifies, Continues Lies About Iraq’s WMDs

From today’s mailbag comes this from J.R.:

That “The War” is bogged down is not factual. The war is over. It was very quick, even by the hasty and shallow judgement of the young. Now it is a remodel job. That people think US is in Iraq for humanitarian reasons is reasonable, being that is why we are there … The 60% that support G. Bush know you walk that road, too. Education of you, us and the Iraqi people is the solution, not cutting down things you don’t understand, that you lump into one fantastic conspiracy theory. The truth is much simpler.

Yes, the truth is simple, but J.R. doesn’t have a clue. The war is anything but over; if anything, it began with the fall of Baghdad. Saddam & Co. knew that they’d never be able to defend themselves from a U.S. military onslught, so they never tried. They planned a protracted war of resistance against a clueless occupier. Unfortunately for us, it’s going even better than expected (from the Iraqi p.o.v.) because we’ve managed to turn ourselves into Muslim Enemy No. 1. Good job, Governor Bush! You’ve really made us safer now!

Yeah, the war’s over…except for the guys getting killed and separated from their limbs every single day. Yeah, we’re there purely for humanitarian reasons…except for the oil and the no-bid reconstruction contracts to Administration-connected companies. Except, except, except…why do people smart enough to own a computer and compose a coherent sentence on it believe such transparently false BS?

Maybe because they’re listening to evil bastards like He Who Gives Press Conferences Hours After Major Heart Surgery:

WASHINGTON – Vice President Dick Cheney argued Friday that critics of the Iraq war advocate a policy of inaction that could risk hundreds of thousands of American deaths in another terrorist attack.

Cheney offered no new evidence that ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had posed an imminent threat, as the administration contended before the war. Instead, without drawing a direct link between Saddam and the Sept. 11 attacks, he cast the Iraq invasion as a crucial component of a Bush administration-led battle to prevent even deadlier future attacks.

That strategy would include taking action against governments that could help terrorists gain weapons of mass destruction.

“That possibility, the ultimate nightmare, could bring devastation to our country on a scale we have never experienced,” he said. “Instead of losing thousands of lives, we might lose tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of lives in a single day of horror.”

Here, at a glance, is Bush-Cheney’s twisted association of Iraq with the 9/11 attacks. Yes, a government could one day give terrorists WMDs to be used against the United States. But not Iraq.

Because, Mr. Lieutenant Governor, IRAQ DIDN’T HAVE WMDs. It would be pretty friggin’ hard for Iraq to give something they didn’t have to anyone. Oh, and: IRAQ DIDN’T HAVE ANY LINKS TO AL QAEDA OR OTHER TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS.

Administraton liars say that Iraq had links to “terrorist groups.” They don’t specify which ones because they mean Hezbollah and Hamas, groups that have never launched attacks against targets outside Israel. Those groups are clearly a danger to Israel, but implying that they plan to blow up New York City is beyond a stretch–there’s just no reason to believe it.

If a government that DID have WMDs (say, North Korea, which we’re ignoring) decided to give WMDs to terrorist groups with which it had links (Pakistan-Al Qaeda, for instance, but we’re ignoring that too), then we’d be screwed. But Bush’s not interested in protecting us from these real threats.

Cheney largely ignored the continuing violence around Iraq and the lack of broader international help for the U.S. mission there, mentioning only in passing in a 25-minute speech the “difficulties we knew would occur.”

He offered a point-by-point rebuttal to criticisms:

_A team of U.S. weapons hunters in Iraq led by David Kay has so far found none of the suspected weapons of mass destruction that were a main Bush rationale for war. But Cheney focused on other portions of an interim report from Kay that suggested — but did not provide definitive evidence — that Iraq might have had weapons or weapons programs.

The examples Cheney cited included: the discovery of Iraqi intelligence laboratory and safe houses containing equipment suitable for biological and chemical weapons research; a prison lab complex possibly used to test biological weapons on humans; a vial of live botulinum bacteria stored since 1993 in an Iraqi scientist’s refrigerator which could make a biological weapon but showed no signs of having been used; research on Brucella and Congo Crimean Hemmorrhagic Fever, neither considered traditional biological warfare agents; and design work for prohibited long-range missiles.

“Taken together, they … provide a compelling case for the use of force against Saddam Hussein,” Cheney said of the findings. “The United States made our position clear: We could not accept the grave danger of Saddam Hussein and his terrorist allies turning weapons of mass destruction against us or our friends and allies.”

Really. Were the American people told that they were going to lose hundreds of young men and hundreds of billions of dollars over the “possible” lab and a vial of 10-year-old biotoxins? That’s not how I remember it.

Cheney mocked those who have questioned whether the danger from Saddam was as immediate as Bush claimed in prewar days. “As long as George W. Bush is president of the United States, this country will not permit gathering threats to become certain tragedies,” he said.

Here’s Bush’s vile policy of preemption, that justifies attacks against just about any country we feel like it. This is part and parcel of the policy of the neo-conservatives who dominate the Administration. Know them, fear them, remove them next fall.

Despite some fears that the war stirred up more terrorism than it prevented, Cheney said that both Saddam’s and terrorists’ hostility to America “has long been evident.”

This from a real patriot like Dick Cheney, a man who evaded the draft during Vietnam and is destroying fundamental American values, like not invading other nations unless it’s absolutely necessary.

Cheney also responded to criticism he described as advocating that the United States “may not act without unanimous international consent” when its security is threatened — even though virtually no opponents have taken that position.

“It comes down to a choice between action that assures our security and inaction that allows dangers to grow,” he said. “President Bush declined the course of inaction, and the results are there for all to see.”

Those results, he said, include empty torture chambers, new schools, reopened hospitals, improving infrastructure, progress toward democracy and no danger of an alliance between Saddam and terrorists.

Funny, that’s not what Iraqis say. And there never was any such danger, because Saddam and Islamist groups were mortal enemies. Cheney knows that.

Amid the concerted White House public relations offensive, the critics were not quiet. Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean said the administration has “badly misled” the American people.

“We’ve now learned that Saddam was not involved in the September 11th attacks, that there was no strong evidence Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction that presented an imminent threat to the United States, that Iraq did not try to purchase nuclear materials from Africa, that Saddam was nowhere near developing nuclear weapons, and that the Bush administration had no real plan for reconstruction once Saddam was gone,” Dean said.

Just so.