chaos! anarchy! pandemonium!
it seems the historical axiom of war and revolution leading to periods of civil disorder has caught the more dovish papers and media outlets off guard. that or maybe they couldn't stand letting us feel good about what we've done for the iraqi people.
the following are front (web) page headlines from today's papers and online news sources
from the la times: Looters Bring New Havoc
from the ny times: Chaos in Mosul Spreads as Iraqis Surrender
from msnbc's homepage: Surrender at Mosul: Lawlessness Spreads
from cnn's homepage: Disorder in Baghdad
and let us not forget the bbc: Chaos as Mosul Falls to Kurds and Law and Disorder and The fall of Saddam turns Baghdad into a looter's paradise (a bit off topic, there was also a link to a story praising the arab press for posing the "tough questions.")
even the surprisingly hawkish washington post gets into the act with Baghdad Falls into Disorder (by way of comparison, the not-so-surprisingly-hawkish washington times has U.S. pushed to restore order)
and, to be fair, from fox news: ALLIES SET SIGHTS ON TIKRIT; WIDESPREAD LOOTING CONTINUES IN BAGHDAD
you getting the picture here, folks? most of these sources (all not counting fox) had been forecasting doom and gloom for months preceding the war. once the war began, it was round the clock doom and gloom coverage, particularly a couple of weeks ago when our troops were waiting out that sandstorm. now that the war is nearly over and none of their chicken-little predictions have come true, they've found something else to feel gloomy about. i don't limit this to print media, btw. NPR has become your one-stop looting coverage source, and the cable news stations aren't far behind. wait until stephi and the gang at this week, sans george will, have their say come sunday.
and it's all the same basic message, regardless of who's spouting it at the moment: "bush was wrong! he did a terrible thing! the iraqi people would have been better off had we left them alone!"
rubbish. no revolution has ever been achieved without some sort of transitional chaos. usually it's a lot worse. no one's stormed the bastille with torches and pitchforks, and no one has brought out the guillotine yet, either. this is all perfectly normal, and though at times tragic, in the long run, it's extremely healthy. and, what's more, the iraqi people know it. ask the iraqis, bbc or new york times, if they'd trade the current disorder for the return of saddam hussein and see if i'm lying to you.
what's more, this stuff is offensive and, were i to judge by the standards that liberals apply, downright racist. it's offensive to say the iraqis were better off under saddam hussein. offensive to say that they should have been grateful for decades of starvation, torture, rape, and murder because, hey, at least they didn't have any looting (never mind that prior to the two and a half days the people have been looting the party, the party had been looting the people for two and a half decades). it's an insult to the patriotic people of iraq. more insulting still is the notion that it was only the iron fist of saddam that had kept iraq from descending into anarchy a long time ago. why is that, exactly? because these people have profound ethnic and religious differences and long-standing conflicts? so do we, but you don't see us hacking each other to pieces--oh, wait. that's right: we're white. mostly white, anyway. white in all the important places. guess those childish savages in iraq can't hold it together without totalitarianism. guess they aren't ready for democracy.
locdog thinks they are, thinks this "anarchy" will blow over in a little while, and thinks the blessings of the democratic government that replaces it will make the present sufferings seem trivial in comparison
and now for something completely different
how do you get a liberal to support this war? tell them that hootie johnson is best buds with saddam hussein.
stick it to the (wo)Man, hootie.
somewhere, some insecure feminist is being gnawed relentlessly by her inner demons because a bunch of dumb old white guys who she would most certainly hate gather to play a game she would most certainly suck at and tell stories about women who are most certainly better looking than her.
and they won't let her participate.
honestly, if the feminists didn't have hootie johnson, they'd have to invent him.
btw, did we lose a war or something? last i checked, i had the right to buy a piece of land, build a club on it, and keep whoever the heck i wanted out. so if women are allowed into augusta national, then tomorrow i'm running for president of NOW.
locdog thinks he's got a real shot
the glowing gun
marines have found an extensive subterranean nuclear site near baghdad. mad props for my homies at the pittsburgh tribune review for running this story, cause i sure haven't seen it anywhere else.
locdog representin' the 'burgh
the most irrelevant man on earth
today, kofi annan, a.k.a. captain obvious, shows us all why he's the secretary general of the united nations:
"From what we have seen in the reports, it appears there is no functioning government in Iraq at the moment," Annan said. "We have also seen scenes of looting, and obviously law and order must be a major concern."
no functioning government in iraq, huh? security is a concern, huh? boy, good thing we've got you here to point this all out for us, kofi. your perception astonishes, i assure you. but let me also assure you that you had your chance to matter, and you passed it by. the un's ship has sailed, bud, and you and cap'n chirac are going down with it.
locdog bids you bon voyage
update: guess who just jumped on the bandwagon...
"France, like all democracies, is delighted at the fall of the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein and hopes for a quick and effective end to the fighting," Chirac's office said in a statement.
hell, according to chirac and the united nations, saddam hussein's government was legitimate and fully sovereign. also, since when is just power derived from the consent of the united nations? i hope i don't presume to much, but on behalf of the people of iraq--bite me, chirac!
update 2: say, do you think this is what chirac meant by u.n. legitimacy?
The intelligence officials offered a tantalizing coda for conspiracy-mongers. They said the "crude forgery" received by U.N. weapons inspectors suggesting the Iraqis were trying to buy uranium from Niger as part of their nuclear program was originally put in intelligence channels by France. The officials wouldn't speculate on French motives.
intel weanies won't speculate, huh? i'll take a whack at it. saddam was trying to buy uranium alright. but not from niger.
so the peace protesters were right after all!
atheist-liberal-hawk christopher hitchens elevates gloating to high art:
So it turns out that all the slogans of the anti-war movement were right after all. And their demands were just. "No War on Iraq," they said—and there wasn't a war on Iraq. Indeed, there was barely a "war" at all. "No Blood for Oil," they cried, and the oil wealth of Iraq has been duly rescued from attempted sabotage with scarcely a drop spilled. Of the nine oil wells set ablaze by the few desperadoes who obeyed the order, only one is still burning and the rest have been capped and doused without casualties. "Stop the War" was the call. And the "war" is indeed stopping. That's not such a bad record. An earlier anti-war demand—"Give the Inspectors More Time"—was also very prescient and is also about to be fulfilled in exquisite detail.
now that's how it's done.
locdog is shocked and awed
arab world shocked--SHOCKED--by saddam's defeat
check this out:
"Why did he fall that way? Why so fast?" said Yemeni homemaker Umm Ahmed, tears streaming down her face. "He's a coward. Now I feel sorry for his people."
are you chuckleheads who are so worried about the arab street paying attention? these are not the opinions of rational, educated adults. these are the opinions of ignorant, deluded slaves. these poor fools honestly cannot comprehend the notion that the iraqi information minister, a muslim government official, was lying to them. they truly have no concept of media bias, and sincerely believed that al jazeera was feeding them the God's honest truth. seemingly to a man, they were convinced that saddam hussein was winning this war despite the fact that he was facing the most powerful military force in history, and that simply because it's what they were told. and it wasn't until reality slapped them in the face today on television, until they saw american tanks rolling through baghdad with the iraqis cheering them on, until they saw saddam's statues crumbling and his people spitting upon his image, that they finally realized they had been deceived.
are any of you grasping the significance of this?
any of you seeing why war was the only way to get democracy started in that region?
any of you realize that you are witnessing a watershed moment in arab history--that what we saw today was not merely the liberation of one small nation, but the arab world's arrival to the twenty first century?
there's a long way to go. there's a lot of hatred and mistrust, and as you can see there's also a lot of fear and denial. many of these people would just as soon stab an american in the throat as look at him. but there is now hope. for the first time in their lives, these people realize they have been lied to.
truth is beauty, folks.
locdog thinks there's hope after all
in neoconservative land...
will replace that image of the sailor snagging and smooching that nurse on v-day as the most beloved wartime kiss pic.
locdog thanks drudge (and whoever he yoinked it off of) for a great shot
those journalists knew the risks
i think we've heard more about that american tank accidentally killing those journalists than we have for any of the other civilian deaths so far. i don't mean to be calloused about this, and my prayers and deepest condolences are with the families, but what, exactly, does the press expect the military to do--go door to door and ask if there are any reporters present before returning fire?
every NPR report i've heard and half the "questions" brooks faced at today's centcom briefing yammered on about eyewitnesses not hearing any fire coming from the palestine hotel. so? so what if they didn't? so what if no one fired a single, solitary shot from the palestine hotel?
the palestine hotel is in the heart of a warzone. (it was at the time, anyway.) whether or not an iraqi sniper fired from the roof of that building as our troops have claimed we may never know, but one thing we can be totally certain of: the troops who called for that strike were pretty darned sure someone was shooting at them. if this belief was false, well, that's too bad, but in urban areas sound echoes from building to building and a person could easily become confused--particularly when they are fighting for their lives. our men also claim to have seen iraqis on the roof surveying the area with binoculars--could they have been camera lenses? in a warzone, dontcha think it would be pretty easy to get the two mixed up?
"but the military knew that hotel was being used by journalists!"
maybe they did, maybe they didn't. either way, i think it's a little unrealistic to expect a grunt to think "journalist" when he's under sniper fire and sees men scrambling around on top of a high building.
besides, the journalists should have known that
1. there is no where safe on a battlefield
2. iraqi troops have consistently used schools, hospitals, mosques, women, children, and maybe even journalists, as barriers to hide behind while attacking allied forces both in this war and the last
3. most other non-combatants had already cleared the hell out
4. they were taking their lives into their own hands by being there
now the "committee to keep journalists safe" or something is out there demanding a full investigation of the incident. let me predict the findings for you right now:
our boys were taking sniper fire, so they had a tank blow a few floors off a baghdad hotel. regrettably, some journalists were inside and got killed.
locdog probably just saved our government a few million bucks in investigation costs
update: well, it's now probably moot but, my point still stands...
for the first time in thirty years, the iraqi people can boldly say "it doesn't matter where saddam is!"
locdog congratulates the iraqi people on the birth of their nation
the latest from the front
locdog news service
baghdad (LNS) DEC 4 -- allied forces continue to be mired in heavy fighting as they face the toughest resistance yet from saddam's elite republican guard. after months of brutal combat, american and british troops find themselves no closer to victory, and the morale of iraqi forces seems to be steadily improving as they wage a fierce guerilla war. with the massive environmental damage sustained from ignited iraqi oil fields, and civilian casualties ranging in the tens of thousands, some are beginning to question whether it might be time to negotiate a cease-fire, including many top military officials.
"we have close to three thousand casualties from chemical attacks alone, around twice that from guerilla tactics and terror strikes, and now this" said an american senior military officer who refused to be named. "our troops are becoming demoralized. a lot of them are beginning to wonder what the point of it all is."
slugging it out with the battle-hardened republican guard, allied forces are posting gains measured in individual houses, and sometimes in individual rooms. some reports indicate that at times the fighting degenerated to hand to hand combat, but many others point towards an urban vietnam, where iraqi forces are protected by a loyal populous united in the face of a perceived aggressor. one american marine, corporal james whitfield from kentucky, believes the cost for such minor victories has become prohibitive.
"we fought for months just to get from karbala to baghdad," said corporal whitfield. "i lost a lot of friends. most of the guys you talk to have lost someone close to them. now we get to baghdad and we find that the people are helping saddam. it's really frustrating."
when asked how the door to door fighting in baghdad conformed to his expectations, corporal whitfield said "it's even worse than we expected. we don't mind fighting in the open desert, but here you can never see your enemy. they've got snipers on every block, booby traps, lots of tunnels. they launch these surprise raids and you don't even know it's begun until it's over, but by then half your men are dead or wounded."
saddam's fedayeen and other irregular paramilitary forces have been concentrating on the "ally controlled" cities of basra, umm qasar, and karbala, where they have employed a range of unconventional tactics to divert forces from baghdad. some defense department analysts estimate that the assault force moving on baghdad is only around half of its planned strength as allied commanders are forced to divert troops in an attempt to reign in the frequent terror attacks and civilian uprisings. many defense department officials, including some senior personnel, have expressed private concerns over the competency of the military planners.
dwindling public support for war
massive demonstrations rocked several american cities, including new york, los angeles, and washington d.c. an estimated 500,000 protesters crowded d.c. this weekend to demand an end to the war, echoing the sentiments of an increasingly anti-war american public. polls taken this weekend indicate that 89% of the american public now view this war as a mistake, and 77% want an immediate cease-fire. president bush's job approval ratings are at a historic low of 12%, but many analysts point to gas shortages and the plummeting stock market as key contributing factors besides the war.
"it's astonishing that in the wake of last month's terror attacks the president saw no 'halo effect' boost in his numbers," said zogby pollster susan bryar. "it's nothing like september 11th, where external attacks united the american people and strengthened the presidency. in these most recent domestic attacks, what we've seen is more like disintegration. it appears that the public's opinions were soured in advance by the war and the economy."
last month, over 1200 americans lost their lives in synchronized bombings, hijackings, and anthrax attacks in twelve american cities during the largest terrorist action on american soil since september 11th. smaller "aftershock" attacks have persisted, killing another four hundred and keeping the public in constant duress.
the human toll for the war, both at home and in iraq, has wildly exceeded expectations, but some fear that the environmental toll may be even more long lasting. greenpeace and other environmental groups point to the burning iraqi oil fields and the estimated thirty million barrels of iraqi oil pumped into the persian gulf by saddam hussein. in japan this weekend, representatives from several governments convened along with environmentalists and scientists to deal with what many have described as the "bush ecological crisis."
no end in sight
with this war now approaching its tenth month, and with several previous end dates proven overly optimistic, the whitehouse has become increasingly tight-lipped on future military plans in iraq. "we are analyzing the situation as information becomes available to us, and we are making the best decisions we can based on that information," said whitehouse press secretary ari fleischer in yesterday's briefing. "rest assured that we are committed to ending this war in the quickest possible manner."
but some whitehouse insiders have pointed to a lack of consensus on how best to handle the war in iraq, and have spoken of frequent shouting matches plaguing a bitterly divided bush administration.
"the president is unable to act," said a senior whitehouse staffer on condition of anonymity. "he feels as though the american people won't support him no matter what he does. he's unable to get any coherent strategy out of his advisors. it looks like there's no other option but to maintain our current heading and see it to completion. based on that, i'd have to say there's no end in sight."
locdog reporting on all the news libs said they'd print
a poll: liberal response to rush limbaugh
rush just said that the iraqi foreign minister may well be the long awaited messiah of liberal talk radio. michael moore has always been my choice. but let's decide this democratically.
of the following, who is more full of it: the iraqi minister of b.s. or michael moore?
locdog gives powah to da people
p.s. did you get a load of that reuters story?
Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf has become the face and voice of Iraqi defiance...Undeterred by the black smoke billowing behind him over central Baghdad, and the sound of fighting echoing around the capital, he declared the city was safe and protected...Sahaf, 63, who kept a low profile before the war, has become an unlikely media star and a hero to many in the Arab world, at the same time as Western audiences gasp at his bravado.
i can't speak for the rest of the western world, but i'm more gaffawing at his bull than i am "gasping at his bravado." i genuinely savour his each and every briefing because, even in war, we all need a little laughter. so here's a bonus poll...
which news source should win the title of "western al jazeera": reuters or the bbc?
most irrelevant story of the day: the smoking gun
looks like we've finally found some iraqi WMDs.
did anyone really doubt their existence?
did anyone really doubt we would eventually find them?
and now that we finally have, what's changed? 77% of the american people, including significant majorities of self-identified liberals and registered democrats, now support the war, and 83% of those say that this support isn't contingent upon the u.s. discovering weapons of mass destruction. besides that, as time went on it had become increasingly obvious that these weapons weren't going to be used against us anyway, and even if they had been our troops were well prepared.
actually, now that i think about it, one thing has changed. it's now impossible to ever take anything the united nations security council and their farce of a weapons inspector say seriously again. most of us on the right already knew that, but hopefully those of you on the left will finally be snapped out of your denial. c'mon: you know this day would come. it's time to move on with the grieving process, my little pinkos. i mean, the inspections blix presided over at times took on the proportions of a nevada boxing commission crackdown on corruption--and some of you are calling for these people to govern post-war iraq?
locdog don't think so
the euro-weenies and post-war iraq
yesterday on abc's this week, guest bob woodward suggested that snubbing france, germany, and russia in post-war iraq would be the "worst thing we could do." the united states ought instead to behave "magnanimously" in victory and use the issue of iraqi governance and security to reintegrate ourselves into the world community. i had to hand it to the guy. i mean, honestly, how much better could you spin what in reality is nothing more than a bunch of side-lined sore losers clamoring for a piece of the post-war pie?
there's so much wrong with woodward's position (one i believe typical of the left in general) that it's hard to know where to begin. for one thing, the premise seems to be that the united states is at fault for the current diplomatic strain between us and our Old World "allies." i'm not sure what moral calculus woodward uses to exonerate governments who lied, coerced, bribed, manipulated, and back-stabbed to beat the band in a vain attempt to keep the world's most dangerous dictator in power, or how he could in anyway construe these machinations as the actions of friends. fact is, these nations--especially france--conducted themselves in ways that would have shamed the ussr. they have apparently decided, much like the ussr, to define themselves through their opposition to our national interests. for another, woodward believes that the united states somehow needs france, germany, and russia--three nations who are only relevant when we allow them to be. do we need them? maybe, but if we do it's a lot less than they need us--which is why allowing them to play an important role in post-war iraq is the worst possible thing we could do.
right now, those who opposed us so vehemently prior to this war are completely powerless. i'm no bob woodward, but that sounds like a pretty darned desirable state of affairs. one generally wants one's opponents to lack power. why then should we hand it back to them when we know that they will only use it contrary to our purposes? pardon my cynicism, but how can we ever get these nations to do what we want if there aren't negative consequences for their tantrums? woodward, like a lot of liberals, believes that the key to getting other nations to cooperate with you is to be nice to them. because we were so mean with all of our nasty talk about the "axis of evil" or our bratty behavior on kyoto, our friends across the pond decided to give us what we deserved. in the real world, of course, nations do what is in their best interests, and right now these nations believe it is in their best interests to oppose us. we must show them that they are wrong.
locdog thinks denying them any meaningful say in post-war iraq is a great place to start