So, they tortured him.

The shoe-chucker Muntazer al-Zaidi, Iraq's new hero, has apparently written a letter saying he is very sorry for throwing his shoes at outgoing US president George W. Bush.

The man who, only a few days ago, yelled at Bush:

"This is a farewell kiss from the Iraqi people, you dog! This is for the widows and orphans and all those killed in Iraq."

The only reason Zaidi is sorry for speaking the truth and warming millions of peoples' hearts by humiliating George Bush on his final visit to the site of his biggest human catastrophe, is because the 'free' Iraqi government has tortured him into doing so. I wouldn't be surprised to learn they've made threats on his family, either.

The Sole of Freedom

This man is a hero. During George Bush's final attempt to grandstand in front of a pile of Iraqi corpses, Muntadar al-Zeidi, a correspondent for Al-Baghdadia television, an Iraqi-owned station based in Cairo, Egypt, stood up and threw his shoes at W. W ducked, exhibiting quite good reflexes for a man who can't eat pretzels Muntadar shouted: "This is a farewell kiss, you dog!" Security goons jumped on him, at which point he screamed about W killing Iraqis. He was dragged off by said goons, probably to be beaten up for embarrassing the emperor. His news bureau are demanding his release along the lines of freedom of expression and right to protest that the US claims to have brought Iraq. Good luck with that guys. Soles of shoes are considered the ultimate insult in Arab (and Mediterranean) culture. After Saddam Hussein's statue was toppled in Baghdad in April 2003, many onlookers beat the statue's face with their soles. Apparently some Iraqi journalists apologised to W after the incident, which is more than you can say for W who hasn't apologised for anything.

Thanks Muntadar, a lot of people wish they had the chance to do what you did to thank W for invading their country/destroying their global hegemony/losing their city/wiping out their global financial system. The only question is, why are our journalists so tame? Forget throwing a shoe, how about asking some difficult questions now and then and y'know, investigating shit? Pick up some Nancy Drew books or something if you have to. Failing that, throwing shoes would be acceptable too.

American military censorship of soldier-death photos

In November 2004, Stefan Zaklin, a photographer then working for the European Pressphoto Agency, was embedded with a United States Army company. Mr. Zaklin photographed this soldier, who was shot and killed in Falluja, in a house used as a base by insurgents. The photograph ran in several European publications, and Mr. Zaklin was immediately banned from working with the unit.

It was clear right from the beginning of the US war on Iraq that the US military was going to keep a tight rein on the content of the images released by journalists. Experience from past wars shows that the reality of death and the trauma that war wreaks on its survivors actually undermine popular support for a war. Funny, that. This article in the New York Times outlines the sanctions the US takes against journalists who work even within the guidelines set by the censorship-happy military.

If the conflict in Vietnam was notable for open access given to journalists — too much, many critics said, as the war played out nightly in bloody newscasts — the Iraq war may mark an opposite extreme: after five years and more than 4,000 American combat deaths, searches and interviews turned up fewer than a half-dozen graphic photographs of dead American soldiers.

Wow. Half a dozen. Six. Fewer than six. I'd say that's a notable success for the US military.

Journalists say it is now harder, or harder than in the earlier years, to accompany troops in Iraq on combat missions. Even memorial services for killed soldiers, once routinely open, are increasingly off limits. Detainees were widely photographed in the early years of the war, but the Department of Defense, citing prisoners’ rights, has recently stopped that practice as well.

I think we all know why they stopped photographs being taken of detainees, and it has nothing to do with prisoners' rights- it has more to do with ensuring there's no evidence of US abuses of prisoners' rights.

What struck me most of all about the article was this quote from Captain Esteban T. Vickers of the First Regimental Combat Team:

“Mr. Miller’s complete lack of respect to these marines, their friends, and families is shameful,” Captain Vickers said. “How do we explain to their children or families these disturbing pictures just days after it happened?

How do you explain that their deaths were horrible, bloody and completely in vain, rather than heroic, peaceful and painless, and in pursuit of a greater good? Well, maybe explaining former would be the honest thing to do, rather than carrying on the falsehood of the latter. Each and every death, Iraqi or US, is a loss to someone's family, and a complete and utter waste.

The NYTimes notes the response of the journalist to have created the latest uproar, being effectively banned by the military after publishing a photo of unidentifiable dead US soldiers. Nothing like what we saw from Vietnam- Zoriah Miller's photograph is milk and cookies by comparison:

Mr. Miller, who returned to the United States on July 9, expressed surprise that his images had ignited such an uproar.

“The fact that the images I took of the suicide bombing — which are just photographs of something that happens every day all across the country — the fact that these photos have been so incredibly shocking to people, says that whatever [the US military] are doing to limit this type of photo getting out, it is working,” he said.

Guantanamo inmate becomes suicide bomber

Well... the US wrongfully imprisoned someone and fucked with his head to the extent that he felt a desire to enact some kind of vicious revenge. Is this really a surprise?

A spokesman for US military's Central Command told The Associated Press today that Abdallah Salih al-Ajmi took part in an attack in Mosul.

US Navy Commander Scott Rye says authorities don't know the motive for the attack, which was reported last week by Dubai-based Al-Arabiya television. Iraqi security forces were apparently targeted.

The US transferred al-Ajmi to Kuwaiti custody from Guantanamo in 2005. A Kuwaiti court later acquitted him of terrorism charges.

The US uses Guantanamo to mentally, if not physically, destroy the people they imprison there. The only surprise is that something like this hasn't happened sooner.

UPDATE 09/05/2008:

From the SMH:

In portions of the recording translated by the American SITE Intelligence Group, a voice is heard decrying the conditions at Guantanamo as "deplorable" and urging others to fight.

"Whoever can join them and execute a suicide operation, let him do so. By God, it will be a mortal blow. The Americans complain much about it. By God, in Guantanamo, all their talk was about explosives and whether you make explosives. It is as if explosives were hell to them."

The suicide bombing is the first such attack in Iraq linked to a former Guantanamo detainee, although the Defence Intelligence Agency has estimated that as many as three dozen former Guantanamo detainees are confirmed or suspected of having returned to terrorist activities.

Human rights groups and lawyers for Guantanamo detainees have disputed that estimate, saying only a handful of former detainees have left custody and gone on to fight US forces.

How can they say 'returned to terrorist activities' when they clearly had no proof that they were participating in terrorist activities prior to being imprisoned?

Ajmi was held in Guantanamo until late 2005, when he was transferred to the custody of the Kuwaiti Government as part of a diplomatic arrangement. At hearings in Guantanamo he maintained his innocence and said he never fought with the Taliban or meant anyone any harm. In 2006 he was tried in a Kuwaiti court, with a group of other alleged terrorists, and acquitted.

Thomas Wilner, a Washington lawyer who represented Ajmi in seeking a habeas corpus hearing when he was held at Guantanamo Bay, said on Wednesday that Ajmi was young and not well-educated and he appeared deeply affected by his jailing there.

Bush's war on Iraq

“This is a wider war. And whether we have democracy in Iraq or not, it doesn’t mean a tinker’s damn if we end up with the result we want, which is a regime over there that’s not a threat to us.”

“Yeah,” Mr. Rumsfeld said, taking notes.

From Behind TV Analysts, Pentagon's Hidden Hand, on the New York Times website today.

Interesting article. What's scary is that what appears in the American media filters down to us, too, through our 'independent' and 'unbiased' media.

Queue jumpers

While I can sympathise with the plight of Iraqis who have worked for the Australian Army in Iraq as translators or anything else, I don't think I can support them being given priority for asylum in Australia over other Iraqis who have not only been found to be genuine refugees but whom we put in that situation. That's one thing we almost never hear about when it comes to the war in Iraq: George Bush's war has turned several million Iraqis into refugees. Most of them are housed by Jordan and 'teh evil' Syria. The US has hardly taken any, and we've taken even fewer. Yet whose fault is it? Syria and Jordan didn't invade anyone. Countries who, unprovoked, make war on another country should be forced to house, feed, clothe and provide medical care for every single refugee. But under John Howard we were happy enough to take a dump on someone else's country and let others pick up the pieces of the lives we ruined. Thank god we're getting the hell out of Iraq. Housing 600 Iraqis is like putting a bandaid on a gushing wound. Even one hundred times that number would only be scratching the surface. We can never make up for our part in what we've done to that country.

'Success'

Noor Salman

From the BBC:

Iraq lives: Schoolgirl in Baghdad
Noor Salman is 16-year-old Iraqi girl living in Baghdad. She writes about her experiences of life in the five years since the US-led invasion.

LOST LIVES

The last five years have passed by so quickly and so much has happened. I can't believe it's been five years since this all began.

Noor at her father's grave
Noor lost her father in a militia raid on their home in August 2006
Baghdad has changed so much and so has my life. Up until two years ago we had a big house and had plenty of money and my father looked after us.

Now we live in a small rented two-bedroom house with my mother, my brother and his wife and my seven sisters.

But my dad is no longer with us. In August 2006 a group of militia men got out of a car and forcibly entered our home.

I cannot describe these people, they are not human beings. They broke the front door of our home and stormed into the house and kidnapped my dad.

They pulled him while aiming their guns at him. When he tried to defend himself they knocked him unconscious and put him in the boot of the car.

I was very frightened and I lost faith in everything and everyone. I wish they had taken everything, our car, our home, but left my father alive.

The next morning we were informed by the police station that they had found his body, it had been dumped in a side street with his hands tied behind his back. He had been shot in the head.

I could not believe that I had lost him forever. Many other teenagers like me have also lost their fathers in Baghdad, killed for no apparent reason.

REFUGEES

My dad used to do everything for us. He used to turn on the generator so that we had electricity at home and he would do all the hard jobs.

Even to this day we only have two hours of electricity a day so we need to get the extra energy from the generators. Now that my dad is gone we have to do these things ourselves.

After my dad was murdered the violence meant we had to leave our home
In early 2003, when I was in school, everyone was talking about the possibility of war. As school children we did not understand the implications.

The day Baghdad fell, I started to understand. We saw many of our relatives and friends getting displaced. Many fled to neighbouring countries.

My dad, however, was adamant. He said he would never leave his country and would prefer to die here rather than for us to live as refugees in another land.

After my dad was murdered the violence meant we had to leave our home and we became displaced and other people came and squatted in our house.

I lost my home, my childhood memories, my bedroom, my toys and my beautiful garden with all its flowers.

My dad used to call me Dr Noor when I was young - he wanted me to become a physician. I am still hoping to fulfil his dream.

Our city is not what it once was and studying is not easy. Walking to school became a dangerous journey, although recently things are better.

I wonder, how many school children in the world have to go to school fearing they may not make it home. That's what we had to do.

I'm so happy that things are better on that front - but we are all aware that they could easily change again.

COPING WITH FEAR

She says children have had to live with bombings and destruction
Today I had Dolma, one of my most favourite dishes, it's basically stuffed vegetables, it's a very traditional Iraqi dish.

After the war began, getting food was very difficult and people were living off the basics. Even to the go to the market was very difficult.

It's only recently that people feel it's a bit safer to go to the markets - there have been bombings in these places and that makes people think twice - but you have to live.

After the fall of Baghdad Iraqi children learnt very quickly the meaning of destruction and war.

I remember at dawn time, instead of hearing the call to prayer we woke up hearing the noise of blasts.

Baghdad became like a ghost city. There was no law and order and an increase in crime so people were afraid to go out.

We learnt to cope with fear and after time we started going back to school.

We got used to living in a city were violence was everywhere and random bombings could happen anytime and in every place. We experienced the brutal nature of this new Iraq when my father was murdered.

Noor Salman is sponsored by the charity Islamic Relief

Don't Get Hurt Kev!

Am I the only person who now feels a thrill of worry when they hear the PM has made a surprise visit to Iraq/Afghanistan? Not too long ago I wanted the previous incumbent sent there without an escort or flak jacket.

Withdraw! Do It Now!

This is an unnecessary obscenity that cheapens and degrades us all.

By Aref Mohammed

BASRA, Iraq (Reuters) - Residents of Iraq's southern city of Basra have begun strolling riverfront streets again after four years of fear, their city much quieter since British troops withdrew from the grand Saddam Hussein-era Basra Palace.

Political assassinations and sectarian violence continue, some city officials say, but on a much smaller scale than at any time since British troops moved into the city after the 2003 U.S.-led invasion.

Mortar rounds, rockets and small arms fire crashed almost daily into the palace, making life hazardous for British and Iraqis alike in Iraq's second-largest city. To many Basrans the withdrawal of the British a month ago removed a proven target.

"The situation these days is better. We were living in hell ... the area is calm since their withdrawal," said housewife Khairiya Salman, who lives near the palace.

Civil servant Wisam Abdul Sada agreed. "We do not hear the sounds of explosions which were shaking our houses and terrifying our women and children," he told Reuters.

Complete withdrawal: 1 Any form of occupation: 0

Media = Dumb

US President George W. Bush announced Thursday he will pull some 21,500 combat troops from Iraq by mid-2008, but ruled out a full withdrawal and promised an "enduring" US presence there.

"Because of the measure of success we are seeing in Iraq, we can begin seeing troops come home," he said in a prime-time televised speech. "The more successful we are, the more American troops can return home."

BT

Nowhere in the article does it mention:

1) The 21,500 troops are subtracted from the 38,000 he sent in in the 'surge'.

2) There's no way, politically or logistically he could keep them there anyway.

So the media plays its part in spinning a complete disaster into a sign of success. Bush gets to hand yet another soiled diaper to whichever luckless bastard comes after him to play Nixon to Bush's LBJ.

Suicide Pact

Prime Minister John Howard has promised to stand by the United States in terms of Australia's presence in Iraq on the eve of an American reassessment of the recent military surge in the troubled nation.

US President George W Bush will return home early next week from the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-Operation forum in Sydney to hear a report from General David Petraeus, the US commander in Baghdad.

Mr Howard said Australia should stand by its ally in difficult times.

"It's very difficult times for the US," Mr Howard told reporters in Sydney.

"One of the things that influenced my thinking is the belief that in the difficult time for your major ally, you should deliver as much international support and display as much international solidarity with your most important ally as is most appropriate.

SMH

The Test of Time

Australia's troops in Iraq were recently described as a "political football" being kicked around in the heated and noisy debate between Mark Latham and John Howard. This might well be so. The experience of the last year should remove any lingering doubt in anyone's mind that politicians have the best interests of soldiers at heart. However, they do sometimes develop good policy by accident, rather than by design. Labor's apparent commitment to returning Australian troops from Iraq by Christmas is a case in point. However there are those who argue against their return, their arguments tending to fall into the following categories.

The "Keep Our Troops There" faction opine that Australian soldiers must remain in Iraq until "the job is done". Many otherwise intelligent people have been fooled by this line of argument. "We made a pledge to the Iraqi people," it goes, "and so we must stick it out till the job is done." This argument works rather well until you ask, "What's the job?" Deathly silence.

So what is the job? To find Weapons of Mass Destruction and destroy them? To get rid of Saddam? To give Iraqis Democracy and Free Speech? The first is a logical impossibility, given that they didn't exist to begin with, the second is done and the third doesn't seem to be a central aim of our allies.

So it seems that we have no job to do in Iraq, besides legitimizing an illegal, unpopular invasion and occupation. We're helping put lipstick on a particularly ugly pig. Do we have an obligation to Iraqis? We certainly do according to the Geneva Convention. As an illegal, invading power we are obligated to guarantee the safety of our occupied citizens and to leave as quickly as possible.

The second argument goes: "We can't cut and run, or it'll be a victory for terrorists." This argument illustrates a particularly lucid fantasy of pro-war types and, unsurprisingly, the less principled anti-war types who think that intervention is okay so long as the many countries of the UN back it up, I suppose in the same way that gang rape is okay because lots of people decide to do it. Iraqis love us, there's just an annoying band of 100 or so people dashing from one end of Iraq to the other blowing things up and causing trouble.

They wouldn't be the first to have this fantasy. It tends to afflict colonialists and invaders of all stripes. America in Vietnam, the British in India, the French in Algeria and Nazi Germany in occupied Europe have all tried to dream that dream. They all woke up eventually. The "Coalition of the Willing" might have won the war but they've lost the peace. Iraqis don't like us. They quite rightly see us as an invading and occupying army. And not only that, but as part of the coalition that starved and bombed their country for 12 years. The invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism. Resisting foreign invasion doesn't constitute terrorism. This argument also conveniently ignores our "cutting and running" from Afghanistan, a country we promised to stay the course with not too long ago.

The final argument is that "we must support America because she is our ally". This is perhaps the silliest argument of all, despite being the most honest. Stripped of its pretensions of selflessness, it demands that we subordinate our national interest to the interests of the United States. Allies do not help allies when it is not in their national interest. That is the job of a vassal. Occupying Iraq does not serve our national interests in any way, shape or form. If we continue with this particularly short-sighted piece of foreign policy, we will leave Iraq clinging to the skids of the last American helicopter. The fact that our government has reaffirmed its commitment to remaining in Iraq, an unsurprising flip flop from Howard's "months rather than years" occupation, is testament to how it has become hermetically sealed from the reality of Iraq.

I wrote that in April, 2004 for a website/forum thing. Patrick used to comment there too. I think it's stood up pretty well since then. I found it by googling my name! How vain. I wonder if all the links still work...

Bush the worst president in history

From the SMH:

In an interview with the BBC, Mr Carter talked about Tony Blair, the outgoing British Prime Minister, and his relationship with Mr Bush, calling it "loyal, blind, apparently subservient".

"I think that the almost undeviating support by Great Britain for the ill-advised policies of President Bush in Iraq have been a major tragedy for the world," Mr Carter said.

In a telephone interview with the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Mr Carter said: "I think as far as the adverse impact on the nation around the world, this Administration has been the worst in history."

And in today's other news, the sky is blue.

US Iraq Policy For People Who Don't Read

"My Friend, he can make a glue..."

"I don't think you gonna be able to fix that, I think you're going to have to pay for that."

Exile

A post from Riverbend

Thursday, April 26, 2007

The Great Wall of Segregation...

…Which is the wall the current Iraqi government is building (with the support and guidance of the Americans). It's a wall that is intended to separate and isolate what is now considered the largest 'Sunni' area in Baghdad- let no one say the Americans are not building anything. According to plans the Iraqi puppets and Americans cooked up, it will 'protect' A'adhamiya, a residential/mercantile area that the current Iraqi government and their death squads couldn't empty of Sunnis.

The wall, of course, will protect no one. I sometimes wonder if this is how the concentration camps began in Europe. The Nazi government probably said, "Oh look- we're just going to protect the Jews with this little wall here- it will be difficult for people to get into their special area to hurt them!" And yet, it will also be difficult to get out.

The Wall is the latest effort to further break Iraqi society apart. Promoting and supporting civil war isn't enough, apparently- Iraqis have generally proven to be more tenacious and tolerant than their mullahs, ayatollahs, and Vichy leaders. It's time for America to physically divide and conquer- like Berlin before the wall came down or Palestine today. This way, they can continue chasing Sunnis out of "Shia areas" and Shia out of "Sunni areas".

I always hear the Iraqi pro-war crowd interviewed on television from foreign capitals (they can only appear on television from the safety of foreign capitals because I defy anyone to be publicly pro-war in Iraq). They refuse to believe that their religiously inclined, sectarian political parties fueled this whole Sunni/Shia conflict. They refuse to acknowledge that this situation is a direct result of the war and occupation. They go on and on about Iraq's history and how Sunnis and Shia were always in conflict and I hate that. I hate that a handful of expats who haven't been to the country in decades pretend to know more about it than people actually living there.

I remember Baghdad before the war- one could live anywhere. We didn't know what our neighbors were- we didn't care. No one asked about religion or sect. No one bothered with what was considered a trivial topic: are you Sunni or Shia? You only asked something like that if you were uncouth and backward. Our lives revolve around it now. Our existence depends on hiding it or highlighting it- depending on the group of masked men who stop you or raid your home in the middle of the night.

On a personal note, we've finally decided to leave. I guess I've known we would be leaving for a while now. We discussed it as a family dozens of times. At first, someone would suggest it tentatively because, it was just a preposterous idea- leaving ones home and extended family- leaving ones country- and to what? To where?

Full Post

There is no doubt as to what Iraqis want. How about we stop second guessing them? Iraq isn't going to collapse into anarchy without the boot of a Great White Father on its neck. The exact same excuse was used to refuse to withdraw from Vietnam, until of course we did. No 'dominoes' fell, but millions of people were slaughtered so that Vietnam would take 20 years longer to become a unified, capitalist, semi-oligarchy.

If you wish to remain in Iraq to 'protect' Iraqis from themselves, you will have to fight the Iraqis who don't want you there. You will have to somehow avoid being manipulated by unscrupulous politicians who would quite happily use you to destroy their enemies. You will have to convince Iraq's neighbours that your domination of a neighbouring country you invaded and utterly destroyed for no reason is entirely friendly. If they'd just help you to settle things in Iraq you swear they aren't next. How can one do this without turning into a brutal occupier? Whomever figures that out wins a place in history as the first person to ever manage such a feat. Personally I think that just as the solution to rape isn't nicer rapists, the solution to occupation isn't nicer occupiers.

Blair's troop withdrawal concession to poodle status

A couple of days ago,Tony Blair announced a major withdrawal of British troops from Iraq under pressure from the British military and the British Labour party, who don't want to be lumped with the responsibility for his folly at the next election. Apparently British military command thought that the withdrawal should be even larger. As we know, though, good sense and the best interests of one's country take a back seat to the desires of America in the minds of those who compete to become best beloved of George Bush.

After bleating for the past two weeks about how Australia is 'needed' in Iraq to train the Iraqis to "stand on their own two feet", and sending 70 more Australians to the war in honour of Dick Cheney's visit, John Howard has been forced to defend his position as he simultaneously backs the British withdrawal of their troops. In Howard's mind he is probably applauding their action as it makes him appear the more steadfast Bush-lover. The blatant nature of his hypocrisy is astounding.

AFTER warning that any withdrawal of coalition troops from Iraq would create catastrophe, embolden terrorists and increase the bloodshed, the Howard Government has described a significant pullout of British forces as "good sense".

Who is funding the sunnis?

Lately we're hearing a lot about Iran. Big, bad Iran. "Iran is funding shiite militia", "Iran is building weapons of mass destruction" (as if we haven't heard that one before). "Iran is interfering in Iraq" (yeah, that's rich). "Iran is giving weapons to insurgents- here's proof". As if we have forgotten what constitutes 'proof' from the Bush administration.

Yesterday 79 people were killed when two markets were bombed in central Baghdad. The victims? Shiites. The perpetrators? Sunnis.

Why isn't the US as interested in who is funding the sunni militias as who is funding the shiite militias?

Pro-war Howard attacks Obama

The pocket Bush of the Bushland of Australia, aka John Howard, has poured vitriol on Democratic presidential nomination contender Barack Obama, saying that terrorists would be 'praying' for an Obama victory in 2008.

Funny that Howard chose to go after Obama, isn't it? After all, Hillary Clinton launched her presidential campaign a couple of weeks ago. Sure, she voted for the war, but she has since performed a complete backflip and claims that she will 'end' the war if she becomes president.

Howard knows that Obama's chances of becoming president are minimal. But is the perceived lesser chance of an Obama victory than a Hillary victory the only reason Howard chose to launch a verbal attack on the high profile black candidate when both candidates profess to be against the US war on Iraq?

I almost wish we could see Obama and Howard win their respective elections so we could witness the massive display of grovelling that Howard would be forced to undertake. After all, it's Howard who is persistently bleating about the importance of the US-Australia 'alliance'. Is the alliance not so important if a black Democratic candidate becomes president?

Obama, meanwhile, has responded to the attack by Pocket Bush by telling him to put his money where his mouth is and lay 20 000 more Australian lives on the line instead of our token contribution of 1400 troops. 20 000 would make Australia's contribution proportionate to the Americans'. Obama knows as well as Howard that if Australian lives were being lost there would be public outrage, which is why our troops are carefully coddled away in the more benign parts of Iraq. We're providing a fig leaf for Bush's war, not real support.

Iran is the new Iraq

Does Iran have Trucks of Mass Destruction too?

I wonder, with all this buzz about the US making war on Iran, coming up with 'evidence' that Iran has/wants nuclear weapons etc. etc., why no-one is pointing to the US case for initiating its disastrous war on Iraq, and the lies that the Bush administration told about Iraq being in possession of nuclear weapons in order to gain public and international support. Have we such short memories?

'New direction': deeper into the quagmire

George Bush's so-called 'new direction' in Iraq is nothing new. He pulls one of these out of his arse about once or twice a year, mainly as a PR effort to try and create a turnaround in the public's opinion of the failure of his war on Iraq. I must say though, I do find it rather amusing that the media and commentators speak reverently each time about Bush's 'new plan' as if he made it up all by himself. The man wouldn't be capable of passing the third grade, let alone making up plans for a war (although to be fair the outcome of the war might indeed suggest that a drooling idiot came up with the plan). To my mind, Bush's 'new plan' is scarcely worth my notice. Iraq is an irretrievable failure. You can't kill that many innocent people and call it a success.

What pisses me off about these events is when ABC Newsradio decides to broadcast one of his speeches live and in full. They fall for it every time. Just because America rides roughshod over the world doesn't mean that their Dear Leader's speeches should be broadcast uncritically by our national radio broadcaster. Iran's Prime Minister doesn't have that luxury, nor does Korea's Kim Jong Il. Why the president of the USA? It riles me even when they broadcast a speech by John Howard; I want news, not propaganda.