NY Post Puts Flag in Masthead; Journalism ‘Experts’ Cringe: Had a momentary urge to see what the journalism hand-wringers were moaning about with the war coverage, so I visited Romenesko and found this item in the left-hand column: “NY Post puts flag on Page 1.”

Editors at the eighth-largest U.S. daily newspaper began placing a stylized flag on its cover with Thursday's editions. It supplanted a recurring slogan, "Celebrating 200 Years," and is in the top left corner, next to the nameplate and price. […]

Some journalism experts say the Post, which has an average daily circulation of 590,000 copies, could be the first paper to add an American flag to its front page in response to the war in Iraq. They reported that television networks such as Fox News have displayed the flag for weeks, and in some cases, months.

Of recent flag waving, media expert John Collins said "it's not appropriate for media outlets to use American flags in their coverage...It seems to me that most people would associate the display of a flag with a pro-war position. In this context, the decision of a media outlet to use the flag is a serious violation of the principle of journalistic neutrality," said the professor at St. Lawrence University in Canton, N.Y.

03/22/2003 10:17 PM  |  Comment (6)

The View From Lebanon: Tim Cavanaugh, who has intimate knowledge of the country, sends an update from the Middle East.

03/22/2003 09:45 PM  | 

A Group Blog for War News: Michele from A Small Victory and Alan from Avocare have created The Command Post, a group-site where 50-odd warbloggers publish Iraq links and updates at a rate of about one every five minutes. “Keeping the rants for our home blogs,” they vow. Great idea.

Meanwhile, Stand Down, the anti-war left-right blogging collective, is still chugging along, after some contemplation.

03/22/2003 09:08 PM  |  Comment (1)

Denton’s Invasion Map: Nick couldn’t find a proper map of the invasion, so he made one himself. He’s asking for suggestions and corrections.

03/22/2003 06:54 PM  | 

78 Arrested at Big Hollywood Rally: Anti-war protesters shut down parts of Hollywood Blvd., marched to the CNN Building and hurled insults, and promised a big show for the Oscars.

Tons of anti-war yard signs around the neighborhood, and lots of American flags, too. UPDATE: Lonewacko was there, and covered it. UPDATE II: Bob Morris, who is more sympathetic, allegedly has coverage on his site, though I haven’t been able to read it in weeks (just like the LA Weekly, weirdly).

03/22/2003 06:50 PM  |  Comment (2)

Good Photo-Reportage of a Frisco Rally: I haven’t been getting excited one way or another about anti-war protests, but this Don Frances report from a San Francisco rally eight days ago is a nice snapshot & analysis of an event from the perspective of a smart anti-war resident of the Bay Area. But please, don’t look at this picture. (Via Tony Pierce)

03/22/2003 06:24 PM  |  Comment (4)

The Blue-State Version of ‘Nukular’?: I’ve heard an anchor from KCRW, one of our five public radio stations here in Los Angeles, pronounce Kuwait as “Cue-wait” about 45 times in the past hour….

03/22/2003 06:04 PM  |  Comment (1)

Bill Schneider -- Big Red/Blue State Split in War Support: Just heard him on CNN via the radio, comparing support for both Bush presidents in the early days of their Gulf Wars. The numbers were (if I heard right): 94% of Republicans supported 41, and now 93% support 43; but the big split is Democrats -- something like 81% approved of Poppy’s first push, while only around 50% back Bush now. Interesting.

03/22/2003 05:59 PM  |  Comment (1)

Possible Silver Lining in Camp Pennsylvania Attack?: So far, they’re reporting that 13 Americans are hurt, six seriously, and embedded Time Magazine correspondent Jim Lacey says "The carnage inside those tents was pretty severe." If no one dies, this bad news may turn out to have an upside -- seems it was probably some kind of inside job (by which it could have been a frequent non-American supplier to the camp) … and this is the best the attackers could do with what must have been pretty advanced information and access. We’ll likely find out who it was and how they did it; then security for other camps in the region will surely be re-vetted (and presumably improved), and maybe future plots will be foiled. UPDATE: Lacey is now reporting on CNN that an American GI has been arrested as the primary suspect. Wow! So much for my big ideas.... UPDATE II: KFWB says one soldier is dead, three are undergoing surgery, and the serviceman is being charged with murder.

03/22/2003 05:53 PM  |  Comment (4)

Weblogs and Diaries from Embedded Journalists: Via Glenn “Mac” Frazier, writing in the comments section of Jeff Jarvis’ personal site.

03/22/2003 05:40 PM  | 

If I Was an Editor at a Gigantic News Organization Like CNN During a Time Like This….: I’d make some intern spend the day smartly collating CNN-related posts from as many weblogs as possible, particularly those that focus on current events. There’s your most passionate audience, volunteering vast quantities free criticism. Sure, there’d be a bunch of noise, predictable partisan sniping and the usual pile-ons, but I think it would make for more valuable (and far cheaper) feedback than a focus group, and chances are you’d stumble across a great idea or two.

03/22/2003 05:28 PM  |  Comment (1)

Bruce Rolston Is Doing Some Smart War-Blogging:

03/22/2003 04:51 PM  | 

New National Post Column From Me: “Operation 'Finish the Job' defies prediction: Despite 12 years of hindsight, the consequences of war are anyone's guess.” Thoughts about the unpredictability of war, and how different the world is in 2003. More stuff from the James Baker book.

03/22/2003 03:46 PM  |  Comment (3)

Some Postwar Ideas, From Lileks:

3:10 PM NPR is interviewing a Saudi editor, who warns us that the average Saudi - who of course holds Saddam in contempt as a brutal butcher - will nevertheless be very angry if America kills fifty Iraqis and continues to block UN resolutions on Israel. I say when this war is over we couple the issue of Palestinian rights with Saudi women’s rights. Self-determination for everyone. The Pals get autonomy; Saudi women get driver’s licenses. Agreed?

I wouldn’t couple Palestinian rights with Saudi women’s suffrage, but I would make the latter an absolutely explicit post-war aim, for the pro-war and anti-war crowd alike. You want your wave of Mideast democratization? Then it’s going to take more than uncertain war and its uncertain after-effects. It’s going to take leaning on pro-American despots to stop oppressing their citizens, period. If this has ever happened, in the last 20 years of U.S.-Saudi relations, then it’s a State Secret. Which brings us to post-war aim II: no more State Secrets, when it comes to the Saudis. Three thousand of us were murdered by 15 Saudis, and they were aiming for 30,000 or more. The relationship is sick, no matter what short-term benefits Bush & Co. wrangled out of their Riyadh pals in the buildup toward war. When the cease-fire is signed, I want to hear a Ten-Point program for the de-Saudization of our foreign policy, either from Bush or whatever Democrat recognizes the opportunity ... and more importantly, the responsibility.

Speaking of which, are there any international-relations lawyers in the audience? I’d love to hear about what a U.S.-stationed diplomat must do in order to be expelled from the country….

03/20/2003 11:25 PM  |  Comment (9)

Woodward, et al -- Yanks Say Hussein Family Was in the Bunker:

03/20/2003 10:50 PM  | 

CNN -- Early Loser of the Media War: It may be nostalgia talking, but CNN sure has fallen far in 12 years. I remember how I experienced the last Gulf War -- frantic shortwave radio finagling at night, the International Herald-Tribune in the morning-afternoon (I liked to sleep late and read everything), and the rest of the day taken care of by CNN International, which was excellent. I don’t know if it's the competition, or the complacency, or the hiring of David Neuman … but they sure have squandered a HUGE early lead in International Competence. For a long time, watching Turner’s lovechild was like reading The Economist, circa 1870 -- here were some clever young whippersnappers, seemingly dedicated to building a serious franchise atop institutional memory.

But now? Yesterday (I think it was), after reporter Daryn Kagan finished off a long report, in which she bought dates and such at a Kuwait City market, the male anchor joked “Well, at least you’ve finally figured out how to get a date!” (Not verbatim.) Now, that’s funny, and Daryn’s kinda hot I guess … BUT THERE’S A FUCKING WAR ON! And you’re CNN, cable network of gravitas.

I have DirecTV, and so you can see the little program info at the top when you tune in. When I turn to Fox -- which I am not normally inclined toward -- I might see “The O’Reilly Factor” listed, but instead there are live anchors and reporters, doing their thing. On CNN, it says “Connie Chung” or “Larry King” … and sure enough, the goofy old gizzards are out there, interviewing Bob Woodward and otherwise straining to act serious. Aaron Brown’s self-awareness and cockeyed smirk, which haven’t always irritated me, seem unbearable now. But more importantly, the basic level of technical performance and casual expertise seems absolutely no different, and in fact maybe worse, than the Evil Murdoch Empire and MSNBC. How the hell did they screw it up so bad?

03/20/2003 10:13 PM  |  Comment (11)

The ‘Shock and Awe’ Drinking Game: Howard Owens called it first.

03/20/2003 07:23 PM  |  Comment (3)

Awful Report -- Copter Accident Kills 16 Allied Soldiers in Kuwait:

03/20/2003 07:23 PM  | 

Picked a Bad Day for an EU Summit: From Andrew Marr, one of the BBC’s new warbloggers:

People who have been at these summits and sat inside the room for many years say they cannot remember one quite as bad as this.

Tony Blair and President Chirac have at least briefly shaken hands but they spent most of the time on the opposite sides of a very large room and the way they are regarding one another at the moment, it's probably a good thing. […]

Mr Blair will have taken a lot of heart, not only that he did in the end get that Commons majority but also because opinion polls appear to be moving his way.

03/20/2003 05:48 PM  |  Comment (1)

Another Reason to Like Shaq & Kobe:

Kobe Bryant raised his eyebrows and said, "Everybody has their role to play in this war. Mine is to entertain for two hours," and that seemed to carry their sentiments. Shaquille O'Neal offered to buy every returning soldier a beer.

03/20/2003 05:11 PM  |  Comment (2)

Amy Langfield Rates News Sites in the First 30 Minutes: Also, keep checking in with Jim Lowney for links to good war photography, and news about his buddies over there.

03/20/2003 05:07 PM  |  Comment (4)

The Monterey Institute’s Gloomy Take on War Outcomes: Via the less-gloomy Robert Wright, via the positively mirthful Tim Cavanaugh.

03/20/2003 04:38 PM  | 

Saudis and Their Apologists vs. ‘Cabal’ of Neo-cons: Who has been leading the charge against Prince Bandar, King Fahd and the perfidious House of Saud? Certainly, many of the leading figures come from the neo-conservative Right. Who has been leading the charge against the “cabal” of government neo-cons like Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz? Could it be the Saudis and their apologists?

That’s probably an over-simplification, but it’s a trend definitely worth tracking. First, there was the Sy Hersh hit piece on Perle in the New Yorker, buttressed by damning on-the-record quotes from Bandar and notorious arms dealer Adnan Kashoggi. As Gary Farber shrewdly speculated:

what strikes me as what is going on here is, among other things, that Richard Perle was suckered into a Saudi Arabian financial honey pot ploy to get back at Perle for his political involvement in acts of hostility to the Saudi regime, such as the notorious invitation to ex-Larouchite Laurent Murawiec to brief the Defense Policy Board on why the Saudi regime is an enemy to the interests of the United States.

"They want to foment revolution in Iran and use that to isolate and possibly attack Syria in [Lebanon's] Bekaa Valley, and force Syria out," says former Assistant Secretary of State for Near East Affairs Edward S. Walker, now president of the Middle East Institute. "They want to pressure [Muammar] Quaddafi in Libya and they want to destabilize Saudi Arabia, because they believe instability there is better than continuing with the current situation. And out of this, they think, comes Pax Americana."

Noting the criticism of Egyptian media and anti-Semitic material in the media, Maher, in admitting a problem, said that there was considerable confusion in Egypt, but also in the United States about what is anti-Semitic and what is anti-Israel. What is needed is a serious effort to educate Egyptians, particularly in the media about the difference.

The alternative to the status quo is not Jeffersonian democracy but either anarchy or Islamic fundamentalism. This is what Americans fail to see. […]

In conclusion, the Crown Prince [Abdullah, of Saudi Arabia] said that we have a major task ahead of us to protect the US–Saudi relationship and to sustain the US position in the region, particularly if it came to a war in Iraq with attendant negative consequences for the Iraqi people, instability, and a credible charge of US colonialism.

Chas Freeman, who served as U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War, worries about everything that could go wrong. "It's a war to turn the kaleidoscope, by people who know nothing about the Middle East," he says. "And there's no way to know how the pieces will fall." Perle and Co., says Freeman, are seeking a Middle East dominated by an alliance between the United States and Israel, backed by overwhelming military force. "It's machtpolitik, might makes right," he says. Asked about the comparison between Iraq and Hiroshima, Freeman adds, "There is no question that the Richard Perles of the world see shock and awe as a means to establish a position of supremacy that others fear to challenge."

Other Wolfowitz critics? How about another former Saudi ambassador:

But if the neocons are toying with the idea of restoring monarchies in Iraq and Iran, they are also eyeing the destruction of the region's wealthiest and most important royal family of all: the Saudis. Since September 11, the hawks have launched an all-out verbal assault on the Saudi monarchy, accusing Riyadh of supporting Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda organization and charging that the Saudis are masterminding a worldwide network of mosques, schools and charity organizations that promote terrorism. It's a charge so breathtaking that those most familiar with Saudi Arabia are at a loss for words when asked about it. "The idea that the House of Saud is cooperating with al-Qaeda is absurd," says James Akins, who served as U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia in the mid-1970s and frequently travels to the Saudi capital as a consultant. "It's too dumb to be talked about." […]

"I've stopped saying that Saudi Arabia will be taken over by Osama bin Laden or by a bin Laden clone if we go into Iraq," says Akins. "I'm now convinced that's exactly what [the neoconservatives] want. And then we take it over."

To James Akins, a former US ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Abdullah has all the necessary traits to earn respect throughout the Arab and Islamic worlds.

"Abdullah is an Arab nationalist and a good Muslim, and is incorrupt," says Mr. Akins. "And he is popular." […]

"He is running the country, and doing it quite well."

I was opposed to the war. I thought this could have been handled in the Arab context. He certainly had to leave Kuwait, no question about that. There wasn't a single person in the entire region who thought that he should be allowed to incorporate Kuwait into his country. Prince Sultan, the Saudi defense minister, said right after the invasion that this has to be handled in the Arab context. Clearly Saddam must leave, but this also has to be handled in a brotherly Arab fashion, and Iraq needs to develop the port. There are two islands that block the entrance to the port. They are totally barren, not a single person living there, there's no oil, no resources. In the interest of their brotherhood, Kuwait could lease part of these islands to Iraq so they could develop the port. When he came out with this, I said publicly that the problem is solved--that's Saddam the face-saving device that he needs. He is going to accept it, and the problem will be finished. […]

If the sanctions are lifted, he's certainly going to treat that as a great Iraqi victory, and that would be difficult for American politicians to swallow. I understand that. But if we want to get rid of him, how can we do this? Well, maybe we don't want to get rid of him. Maybe there's nothing wrong with the present situation from their perspective. Iraq is not a real important player in anything except oil supply.

03/20/2003 02:20 PM  |  Comment (11)

Best Moment on the BBC Tonight: A female guest, I think some Iraqi-Brit student, stormed out of the studio after pressing the other guest, an anti-war Iraqi, on whether he was anti-Saddam or not. “I think Saddam knows his country and has done great things,” the old geezer said, or thereabouts; college gal sputtered something about not believing her ears, and stomped off.

03/20/2003 01:50 AM  |  Comment (12)

Handy Fact-Page on Gulf War I:

03/20/2003 01:37 AM  | 

Another Telling Excerpt From James Baker’s Book:

While Saddam had been vanquished, other leaders remained nervous over his survival in power. When I met with Yitzhak Shamir on April 9 [1991] to disucss the peace process, he was quite concerned that despite a great victory, Saddam was alive and still in control. “It’s not a good lesson for the area,” Shamir told me. “Such a man, if you could call him a man, who’s cost us so many losses, who has dared to attack us with missiles, is a man that we can’t live with. I think everything in the region will be temporary until this fact changes.” I responded that all our Arab coalition partners believed that Saddam would be ousted by a coup within six to eight months.

03/20/2003 12:47 AM  |  Comment (1)

Idle Thought on the Euro-Split: Not to over-react, but isn’t it really hard to imagine the U.K. willingly joining in any monetary union with the Franco-Germans? I’m guessing British public support for the war will continue to grow, and with it, irritation at the perennially carping French. Remember, Blair was the designated keep-Chirac-happy envoy during Kosovo; it seems that he has finally, and understandably, washed his hands of that job. Who knows what will happen if the war goes worse than expected, but if it’s prosecuted quickly, I’d bet it’ll be a long, long, long time before Chirac’s number will be placed in the A rolodex at 10 Downing Street or the West Wing.

03/19/2003 11:50 PM  |  Comment (7)

Top U.S. Anti-Terrorism Official Resigns, Maybe Over Iraq:

WASHINGTON, March 19 (UPI) -- The top National Security Council official in the war on terror resigned this week for what a NSC spokesman said were personal reasons, but intelligence sources say the move reflects concern that the looming war with Iraq is hurting the fight against terrorism.

Rand Beers would not comment for this article, but he and several sources close to him are emphatic that the resignation was not a protest against an invasion of Iraq. But the same sources, and other current and former intelligence officials, described a broad consensus in the anti-terrorism and intelligence community that an invasion of Iraq would divert critical resources from the war on terror. […]

"Hardly a surprise," said one former intelligence official. "We have sacrificed a war on terror for a war with Iraq. I don't blame Randy at all. This just reflects the widespread thought that the war on terror is being set aside for the war with Iraq at the expense of our military and intel resources and the relationships with our allies."

A Senate Intelligence Committee staffer familiar with the resignation agreed that it was not a protest against the war against Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein but confirmed that frustration is widespread in the anti-terror establishment and played a part in Beers' decision.

"Randy said that he was 'just tired' and did not have an interest in adding the stress that would come with a war with Iraq," the source said.

03/19/2003 11:00 PM  | 

U.S. Launches Biggest Afghan Operation in a Year:

BAGRAM, Afghanistan - About 1,000 U.S. troops launched a raid on villages in southeastern Afghanistan Thursday, hunting for members of the al-Qaida terrorist network in the biggest U.S. operation in just over a year, military officials said.

Helicopters ferried troops from the Army's 82nd Airborne Division to the remote, mountainous area as the hunt for Osama bin Laden (news - web sites) and his terror network intensified, according to U.S. military officials in Washington.

Military officials in Afghanistan confirmed in a statement that the operation, code named `Valiant Strike,' began with an early morning air assault near southern Kandahar, the former spiritual headquarters of the Taliban, but provided few additional details.

03/19/2003 10:26 PM  | 

Interesting E-Mail From an Unembedded Reporter: One of Denton’s pals gives a slice of life from northern Kuwait.

03/19/2003 10:09 PM  |  Comment (1)

Report: It Was a Bunker-Buster Aimed at Saddam: MSNBC, via Drudge.

03/19/2003 09:13 PM  | 

Ghost Jabs: I don’t know jack about military stuff, but listening to and watching all this befuddled media commentary makes me suspect that the “shock and awe” routine was an effective way to mis-advertise an extremely limited and (hopefully) targeted missile strike. I’m taking all war news with a huge grain of salt, though I’m finding these “embedded” reports to be pretty fascinating -- there was a decent little one on CNN today about some young buck-toothed Marine from New York who was trying to overcome the jitters, and an uncertain situation back home, and get it together before the attack. The Marines interviewed talked openly; it was a good brief glimpse of life there.

Meanwhile, the non-war news is sure to be weird, and we should all keep our eyes peeled. You see this one, about a hijacked Cuban plane landing in Florida? Also, I notice Blogspot sites are already crapping out under the strain….

03/19/2003 09:08 PM  |  Comment (4)

Good Luck, Soldiers: Remember, they get paid like crap, endure conditions we wouldn’t begin to tolerate, and are walking head-on into a place knowing they might be gassed, or worse. Let victory be swift, and let it make the world safer.

03/19/2003 04:58 PM  |  Comment (4)

A Defense of Not Marching to Baghdad in 1991: By then-secretary of state James Baker, in his 1995 memoir The Politics of Diplomacy: Revolution, War and Peace 1989-1992, which I’ve been skimming today. Thought you might find it interesting; any typos will be mine:

The administration's policy in the weeks immediately following the cessation of hostilities was grounded in a complex mix of calculations, designed with one overriding strategic conern clearly in mind: to avoid what we often referred to as the Lebanonization of Iraq, which we believed would create a geopolitical nightmare. But there was a strong emotional component at play as well -- and this reality was more apparent in the President’s decision, endorsed by all his senior military and political advisers, to end the war when he did, instead of pursuing it for another few days. Of the criticism leveled at our decision making during this period, this has the least merit. Many of those who now complain that we erred badly by halting the war fully supported the decision at the time. The fact is conveniently overlooked that the President’s decision to order a cease-fire after 100 hours of fighting was enthusiastically endorsed by the military, our coalition partners, the Congress, and American public opinion. […]

Diplomatically and domestically, the political mood also argued in favor of ending the fighting. Increasingly, American fighter pilots were returning from their missions talking about the "turkey shoot" of Iraqis desperately fleeing north along what became aptly known as the Highway of Death. These comments were certain to be followed in short order by grisly news photographs of the carnage. … Back home, the thought began to resonate that this war was about to become un-American -- that it was, perversely, too easy and therefore must be stopped. […]

To this day, controversy endures over whether coalition forces should have continued their offensive all the way to Baghdad and toppled Saddam’s regime. I believe this idea is as nonsensical now as it was then, and not merely for the narrow legalistic reason that the U.N. resolutions did not authorize coalition forces to undertake anything beyond the liberation of Kuwait. The entire truth embodies strategic, pragmatic, diplomatic, and political aspects that prompted the President’s decision not to go to Baghdad -- an absolutely correct judgment on which there was virtually no debate.

Strategically, the real objective was to eject Iraq from Kuwait in a manner that would destroy Saddam’s offensive military capabilities and make his fall from power likely. By the time the cease-fire was announced on February 28, the vast bulk of Iraq’s military machine, including most of its nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons programs, was destroyed. Our core political and war aims having been achieved, there was literally no reason to contemplate sending our forces further north.

We believed, moreover, that marching on Baghdad was ridiculous from a practical standpoint. At the very least, it would make a nationalist hero out of Saddam. Suddenly, a coalition war to liberate Kuwait from a universally condemned invasion could have been portrayed as a U.S. war of conquest. In addition, even with our massive military superiority, the odds of finding Saddam were quire improbable. Even in Panama, a nation friendly to the United States, where American troops have been stationed for most of this century, it took U.S. invasion forces fifteen days to find and capture General Manuel Noriega in 1989. Unlike Panama, however, where a democratically elected government was available to assume power, there wasn’t even an organized opposition to Saddam. More to the point, Iraqi soldiers and civilians could be expected to resist an enemy seizure of their country with a ferocity not previously demonstrated on the battlefield in Kuwait. Even if Saddam were captured and his regime toppled, American forces would still be confronted with the specter of a military occupation of indefinite duration to pacify the country and sustain a new government in power. The ensuing urban warfare would surely result in more casualties to American GIs than the war itself, thus creating a political firestorm at home, criticism from many of our allies, and the dissolution of the coalition. […]

Furthermore, as much as Saddam’s neighbors wanted to see him gone, they feared that Iraq might fragment in unpredictable ways that would play into the hands of the mullahs in Iran, who could export their brand of Islamic fundamentalism with the help of Iraq’s Shiites and quickly transform themselves into the dominant regional power. This was also a genuine concern of the Bush administration and many of our allies as well. […]

Emotionally, the success of the war was powerful tonic for the American psyche. In six short weeks, the bitter legacy of Vietnam had been swept away by Desert Storm. Euphoria permeated the country to a degree not seen since World War II. Little wonder that the operative impulse, from the President to the ordinary citizen in the street, was a hearty “bring the boys home.”

There was no sentiment at senior levels of the U.S. government for occupying even part of Iraq. In addition, our military was adamantly opposed.

03/19/2003 04:27 PM  |  Comment (2)

Egypt Dissident Acquitted: From Daniel Drezner, whose blog is a new favorite:

SOME GOOD NEWS IN EGYPT: Egypt's highest court acquitted Saad Eddin Ibrahim, an Egyptian/American activist, of charges stemming from his human rights work in Egypt. He had been convicted by two lower courts -- this was his last chance before facing seven years in prison. The Guardian has the AP story.

03/18/2003 10:44 PM  | 

Tough, Nuanced Thoughts From Palubicki: Many quite different things to chew on in this Sgt. Stryker post, so much so that excerpting it is misleading … but I will anyway:

I would be happy if my friends could come home right now without fighting. Are their lives worth "liberating" Iraq? I don't think so. […]

The only thing I care about in regards to Iraq is whether it can either directly or indirectly threaten America and its interests. If Saddam were to disarm, I'd be happy. If Saddam and his sons were to leave the country, I'd be happy. If there was a way to avoid a war, I'd be really happy. […]

I have one thought for those who argue for containment. Where the hell have you been for the past 12 years? When they blew up a large fuel truck outside the Khobar Towers, killing 19 people and wounding 500, where was your righteous anger? I know where I was, but where were you? It got a blip in the media and the rest of you went about your lives, chasing riches and enjoying blissfully ignorant lives. After all, they're just a bunch of fools and idiots in the military. They're supposed to die.

03/18/2003 10:38 PM  |  Comment (5)

Cuba Arrests Dissidents for Talking to American:

HAVANA (Reuters) - Cuba's communist government arrested two to three dozen dissidents on Tuesday who had met with the U.S. envoy here or attended events at the U.S. Interests Section, a government statement said.

President Fidel Castro's government said it was also restricting the movements of U.S. embassy personnel in retaliation for Washington's order restricting travel by Cuban diplomats in the United States.

Two to three dozen dissidents were arrested in their homes, according to their organizations. Most of the detainees had been visited by the top U.S. diplomat in Havana, James Cason, in recent months, they said.

"Several dozen people directly related to the conspiratorial activities of Mr. James Cason have been arrested by the pertinent authorities and will be put on trial," the government said in a statement read on the evening news.

Veteran human rights activist Elizardo Sanchez said many of the arrests were outside of the capital Havana and involved people whom Cason had visited or who had taken part in events organized by the U.S. Interests Section.

"This is the most intense wave of political repression of the last few years. The figure is high. ... We are talking of two or three dozen arrests," he said.

Cason has increased U.S. support for Castro's opponents since his arrival in September and has annoyed Cuban authorities by openly allowing dissidents to meet at his home.

03/18/2003 10:28 PM  | 

New Warblog: Howard Owens, whose real job is to handle all Internet stuff for the Ventura County Star, has launched a new war blog for his paper, following the lead of Jeff Jarvis and his war-related blog for NewJersey.com.

In other new-blog news, my great pal Jim Lowney, an Irish-New Jerseyean war photographer with the soul of a drunk poet, has finally started his own deal. You will not be dumb to bookmark it.

03/18/2003 07:35 PM  |  Comment (3)

Spare a Warm Thought for Salam Pax:

03/18/2003 12:15 PM  |  Comment (5)

Hi! What are you doing down here?