Orwell's Boot (Part II)

[Greyhawk]

Wherever you find the boot of totalitarianism smashing endlessly into the human face, you'll find a "jounalist" praising the resulting "stability":

Pelley: But wasn't it your administration that created the instability in Iraq?

Bush: Our administration took care of a source of instability in Iraq. Envision a world in which Saddam Hussein was rushing for a nuclear weapon to compete against Iran... He was a significant source of instability.

Pelley: It's much more unstable now, Mr. President.

(Part of a series.)

Compare and Contrast

[Chap]

Jay Rosen says in a very long series of posts (the link is the latest) that "warbloggers" are in a "culture war" over reporting, with a "retreat from empiricism", using some convoluted appeals and assumptions with which I do not agree and see as intermittently counterfactual. Jason van Steenwyk of Countercolumn is the (usually) lone dissenting voice but nobody (including Rosen) seems to want to understand in favor of misdirecting on the Jamil Hussein imbroglio.

On the other hand, Bill Ardolino interviews a Marine in Iraq. This interview is a little easier to understand.

Update: Argh! Wrong guy named "Bill" embedded in Iraq and blogging. My apologies; fixed. Uh, I did that on purpose...as a joke. Yeah, that's it.

Drop the Donut...

[Greyhawk]

...and step away from the DFAC, fat boy:

Military Personnel Eating, Drinking More, Survey Says

U.S. troops were fatter and drank harder in 2005 than before the Iraq war started, according a Pentagon survey of more than 16,000 service members released yesterday.

Damn that free food.

Just over 60 percent of respondents in the 2005 survey were overweight; in the previous survey conducted in 2002, 57.2 percent were. The Iraq war began in March 2003.

The story doesn't give details, but based on those figures I'd guess they might be using 25 BMI as a definition of "overweight" - a threshold that defines all but the scrawniest of human beings as "overweight". (Including, at 6'3", 205, yours truly)

See Shark, Jump

[Greyhawk]

Jonathan Hutto officially (and predictably) joins the "Stolen Valor" crowd:

"With recent calls for an escalation of troops in Iraq, Congress should listen to those of us who have been and who will be directly affected by this policy change,'' said Norfolk-based Seaman Jonathan Hutto.

Except, he's never been there and never will be, so he ain't one of us.

He's getting some very skimpy local press coverage because MLK Day is the promised date to deliver the results of the Leftist astroturf "Appeal for Redress" effort.

The Appeal messages will be delivered to members of Congress at the time of the Martin Luther King, Jr. Day in January 2007.

But like Ehren Watada's efforts, the campaign has been an unqualified flop:

Over 1,000 signatures of mainly active duty members of the military have been gathered.

By the way, the original story (when Fenton Communications launched the project with a major media event last fall) was that the group would check the signatures to "verify that they are legitimate service members".

Note the latest version is that "mainly active duty members of the military" have signed - some of whom have been to Iraq. Even with the additional padding, the number is incredibly low.

This one's even lower:

Event organizers said they expect roughly 50 active-duty military personnel to be on hand to ask Congress to short-circuit the president's proposal, unveiled in a nationally televised address on Wednesday, to send an additional 21,500 troops to the country.

But hey, they got "Lisa" on board:

"Lisa" -- 20 years old, E-4, USAF, Stationed at Hickam Air Force Base, Hawaii:

I joined up two weeks after I turned 17 because I wanted to save American lives. I wanted to be a hero like any American child.

I supported the war when I joined because I thought it was justified. Only after my own research and the truth coming out did I learn how wrong I was, how -- for lack of a better word -- how brainwashed I was.

Now I know the war is illegal, unjustified and that our troops have no reason for being there.

Too bad she didn't do research here.

More things...

[Greyhawk]

...that make Yugo hmmmm

What we're not asking is actually the central question. We're getting distracted by the shiny political knife fight. What we need to be asking is, what happens if we lose? And no one will answer that question. If we lose, how are we going to mitigate the consequences of this?

It's so much easier for us to cover this as a political horse race. It's on the cover of "The New York Times" today, what this means for the '08 election. But we're not asking the central national security question, because it seems that if as a reporter you do ask the national security question, all of a sudden you're carrying Bush's water. There are national security questions at stake, and we're ignoring them and the country is getting screwed.

Things that make you go Hmmmm...

[Greyhawk]

Guantanamo detainees don't lack for legal representation. A list of lead counsel released this week in response to a Freedom of Information Act request reads like a who's who of America's most prestigious law firms: Shearman and Sterling; Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr; Covington & Burling; Hunton & Williams; Sullivan & Cromwell; Debevoise & Plimpton; Cleary Gottlieb; and Blank Rome are among the marquee names.

A senior U.S. official I spoke to speculates that this information might cause something of scandal, since so much of the pro bono work being done to tilt the playing field in favor of al Qaeda appears to be subsidized by legal fees from the Fortune 500. "Corporate CEOs seeing this should ask firms to choose between lucrative retainers and representing terrorists" who deliberately target the U.S. economy, he opined.

Which leads to the question:

When Marine Lt. Ilario Pantano was facing court martial--and potentially, the death penalty--over his conduct on the battlefield, did any of these law firms offer to send down a pro-bono attorney for him?

Even More Troop Support

[Greyhawk]

James Taranto asks: Are There Two Different Fort Bennings?

"Bush Cheered at Fort Benning: FORT BENNING, Ga.--President Bush, surrounded on Thursday by cheering soldiers in camouflage, defended his decision to send 21,500 more U.S. troops to Iraq and cautioned that the buildup will not produce quick results. 'It's going to take awhile,' he said."--headline and lead paragraph, Associated Press, Jan. 11

"Bush Speaks and Base Is Subdued: FORT BENNING, Ga., Jan. 11--President Bush came to this Georgia military base looking for a friendly audience to sell his new Iraq strategy. But his lunchtime talk received a restrained response from soldiers who clapped politely but showed little of the wild enthusiasm that they ordinarily shower on the commander in chief."-- New York Times, Jan. 12

To be fair, a later report from the NY Times acknowledges the overwhelming support of the troops for the mission.

Unlike in Congressional corridors and across the civilian landscape of the country, there seems far more support than outrage, more cheer than cheerlessness, and a hope that maybe this will do it.

More re: Because they support the yadda yadda yadda blah blah blah

[Greyhawk]

In December, 2003, Hillary Clinton visited Iraq to deliver a message to American troops: Americans don't support your mission.

The morale of the troops, she said, "is very high," but she said the military personnel with whom she spoke in meetings and during "two turkey dinners" wanted to know "how the people at home feel about what we are doing."

" "Americans are wholeheartedly proud of what you are doing,' " Clinton said she replied, " "but there are many questions at home about the (Bush) administration's policies.' "

She then appeared on every network Sunday talk show to get that message to the American people, too.

What happened is that when I was in Afghanistan and Iraq speaking with a lot of our soldiers who I think are doing an extraordinary job under dangerous and difficult circumstances. They asked me on one particular occasion well you know what will people think of us and we're doing back home? Now I'm not going to lie to an American soldier particularly a soldier from the 10th Mountain Division from Fort Drum, New York.

Re: Because They Support The Troops

[Greyhawk]

Everybody's talking about the war, but nobody's doing anything about it. That's the message from Ehren Watada, who has apparently discovered the difference between "having an opinion" and "giving a damn" now that his expected public support has failed to materialize.

The Seattle Post-Intelligencer, January 13, 2007:

Public Inaction Dismays Watada

Seven months ago, Watada made headlines when he refused to deploy to Iraq with a Fort Lewis-based Stryker Brigade, saying the war was illegal. His decision drew the attention of the anti-war movement, and eventually charges for conduct unbecoming an officer and missing a troop movement.

On Friday, Watada continued to talk, wondering about the lack of public outrage over the nearly four-year-old war.

"Could it be that ... many people don't care about the illegality of this war?" Watada asked students and others who packed a hall at Seattle Central Community College. "It is my belief that the American people have relinquished their responsibility."

At least if he gets internet access in prison he can cruise cool web sites.

Because They Support The Troops

[ArmyLawyer]

Somebody came to my site after doing a search for Armywrong.net

From the site's own press release:

ArmyWrong is a new front in an escalating insurgency to counter the $200 million per year the Army spends on campaigns squarely aimed at the youth of America--packed with images of power and hyped across the full media spectrum.

This nationwide effort, led by Texans for Peace, battles growing militarism while also pointing out how today's military-industrial complex "perverts the ideals of Democracy, Freedom, Justice and Liberty," says Charlie Jackson, ArmyWrong creator.

In the tradition of Vietnam-era satire, ArmyWrong turns military slogans on their face. "There's Wrong and There's Army Wrong" is the motto of the new campaign. The project's website and materials heap payloads of satire and humor on military issues ranging from daily army life to the lack of volunteers from neoconservative groups.

But make no mistake, counter-recruiting efforts like ArmyWrrong [sic] are hoping to do something more serious … obstruct the creeping militarism of America and war policies by encouraging youth to find other forms of service.

Charming. Truly.

Iran War Casualties

[Soldier's Dad]

via Debka (questionable sourcing)

For the first time, the Pentagon released the figures of US and British casualties in Iraq from the extra-lethal explosive devices manufactured in Iran: 198 dead and more than 600 wounded