Magog: Unguarded
Magog: Unguarded
Swarming Around... cats living with dogs... total chaos.

Saturday, March 29, 2003


Frontpagemag reports from the Hollywood anti-war demonstration:
A college-age woman with a smile and flowing blond hair shared her perspective: Why are you here this weekend? “Because I don’t believe in war, and I think we shouldn’t be over there because without the UN approving it, and we have no right to be there.” Well, now wait a minute. You don’t believe in war, but if the UN approved of war you would go for it? “No.” You’re not in favor of any war? “No war.” You’re a pacifist? "Yeah.” Did you the think the US was right, that Britain was right in defending themselves against Hitler? “That actually, I believe, he should have been stopped. The French should have stopped him in the first place.” Pre-emptive war. “Yeah, they should have stopped him when he entered the Rheinland. That was their mistake.”

posted by the wolf | 12:43 PM
on this


Friday, March 28, 2003


Recovering from arthroscopic knee surgery today, and the media coverage of the war doesn't seem much better even through a vicodin haze. I'll probably only post sporadically for the next little while, leaving things in the capable jaws of the Wolf.

Let us know, by the way, if you'd like to use "Vicodin Haze" as the name for your band. We'll work something out.

posted by Max Power | 6:52 PM
on this


Fiction writer Michael Moore is invited to speak at the University Of Pennsylvania. This is quite a message to send to your student body...lie your ass off to make a lot of money. I guess grading is going to get a little softer at Penn.

posted by the wolf | 5:49 PM
on this


I don't mean to beat a dead horse, but regarding my post from yesterday on Yahoo's negativity, how would you presume the war was going if you glimpsed this list of headlines: • Thunderous explosions rock Baghdad • British 'nowhere near' capturing Basra • Outspoken Army general upsets White House • Rumsfeld warns Syria on 'hostile acts' • Security Council approves restarting Iraq aid • Saudi clerics lash out against war on Iraq • Russia: World in worst crisis since Cold War • Lawmakers: Bush stifling anti-war dissent

posted by the wolf | 1:10 PM
on this


I heard NPR report the Iraqi response to the discovery of 3000 chemical suits. Just standard equipment for any armed force, according to them. Well, sorry, but that's a pile of crap. Chemical suits are needed for one of two reasons--either you are using them or you have an expectation that your enemy will. Since they have no reason to believe coalition forces are going to use them, that only leaves one option. Of course, NPR didn't bother to point this out.

posted by the wolf | 10:37 AM
on this


Thursday, March 27, 2003


Now Keith Olbermann is talking about the "bunker buster" bomb dropped in Baghdad. He has mentioned no less than six times that it weighed 4,700 pounds. That's an impressive number, but no one (including Olbermann) has any idea what it means. But he keeps mentioning it. Why? I have no idea.

posted by the wolf | 7:56 PM
on this


I just caught Andrea Mitchell's report on MSNBC about difficulties the media are having discerning fact from fiction in reporting the war. Her analysis boiled down to this: the media access is unprecedented, they are doing a great job, but they are being sabotaged by the Pentagon's unwillingness to provide truthful information. One of her sources? None other than Tariq Aziz! There was nary a mention of the reporters' failures to correctly report information (for example, the "column of 1000 Iraqi vehicles heading south" story, which was perpetrated by an embedded reporter on a fragment of information, which turned out to be incorrect), nor was there any mention of outright lies on the part of the Iraqi leadership. I suppose at this point I shouldn't be amazed, but I still am.

posted by the wolf | 7:53 PM
on this


I often quickly glance at Yahoo for any headline updates on the war. Yahoo typically picks up newswire stories (from AP, UPI, Reuters, etc), but I am not sure if they are producing their own headlines. If I judged what was happening in the war solely on Yahoo's headlines, I would think: 1) things are going very badly for the coalition 2) the coalition forces have done nothing but kill civilians I many have to add a new category: The Misleading Headline
U.S. Force Plans Taking Kirkuk Oil Fields

Note that this is a strategic maneuver, rather than a seizing of the oil fields, which the peaceniks would love to see. And it's easy to assume it means something quite different, especially when the story is accompanied by a picture of a giant oil pipeline.

posted by the wolf | 5:42 PM
on this


I have no problem with the US/Brits/Aussies being called the "aggressors" as long as we get to call France, Germany and Belgium the "appeasers" and Hussein the "criminal."

posted by the wolf | 3:44 PM
on this


Ah, here we go. Note the following paragraph, referring to a statement by Iraqi Defense Minister Sultan Hashehm Ahmed.

He called the two-day sandstorm that engulfed Iraq this week and slowed the U.S.-led coalition "a divine gift to tell the aggressor that he is an aggressor."

The propaganda is becoming increasingly predictable.

posted by Max Power | 3:15 PM
on this


Hacked!

Both the Arabic and English versions of the TV network's websites are inaccessible.

UPDATE: Instapundit disagrees with this tactic, saying it's not the same as hacking Al Qaeda or Taliban websites. He may have a point, but I'm finding it difficult to sympathize... Sure, it would probably be an easy thing to take this site out of commission, for example, but we make no claims of impartiality. If you read something here, it's an opinion, pure and simple. Al Jazeera claims to have "objective content and analysis," so when their content is obviously anything but, I'm not really surprised (or even particularly disturbed) by this type of reaction.

posted by Max Power | 1:33 PM
on this


I think that if this were true, the civilian casualty count would probably be a lot higher than the 350 claimed by the Iraqi Health Minister. Even Iraq admits that thousands of missiles and bombs have been dropped since the war began. So is the point of this article that it takes over one dozen precision-guided bombs to kill one civilian? Or perhaps it's that despite the Coalition's best efforts, Ba'ath Party buildings, Republican Guards, and guerrillas keep getting in the way at the last second? Or maybe (brace yourself), the various Iraqi Ministries are trying to use the media to deliberately spread their own propaganda and lies. This last idea seems to cause more "shock and awe" in the media than any amount of bombing.

posted by Max Power | 1:04 PM
on this


Watched the CENTCOM press conference this morning. Some twit actually stood up and told Brigadier General Vincent Brooks (I'm paraphrasing) that the information he supplied was repetitive, that they got the same information from the Pentagon briefings and asked, therefore, why they should bother to even attend? This received a smattering of applause from the other reporters (that is, Iraqi spokespeople). Of course, Brooks' response was polite and even-tempered, but I think it should have gone something like this:
"Well, jackass, for starters, these press conferences are held for your benefit, not mine. No one is holding a gun to your head and making you come here. If you don't like them either 1) ask better questions or 2) stay in your hotel room and stop wasting everyone's time. Frankly, I have better things to do with my time. I'm limited in what I can tell you; there is, after all, a war going on and I have to be sensitive to the security of coalition troops. If you want entertainment value out of a press conference, I suggest you attend those held by the Iraqi leaders. No matter what I tell you, you will ultimately write that the US is indiscriminately bombing civilians, so why don't we cut out the niceties so that both of us can get back to doing our jobs?"

posted by the wolf | 9:55 AM
on this


A rather interesting piece in Kanan Makiya's War Diary on "de-Baathification," and what will need to happen after the war. Worth a read, there are some good points about how although the war is destroying many of the symbols of the regime, Saddam's influence runs much deeper.

The primary structures of his control are not housed neatly in government ministries. In fact, outside of the departments of interior, education, and defense, Saddam's ministries are largely technocratic bureaucracies that are either harmless or useless. The most insidious presence of the Baath Party is in the schools, the universities, the trade unions, the women's organizations, and the youth groups. It is reflected in curricula and in the way teachers have been trained to think; it is evident in the affairs of the mosques--especially the subordination of the appointment of clerics to political considerations; it figures prominently in the practices and mindsets of hundreds of thousands of police officers and army personnel.

Curing themselves of this indoctrination will certainly be no easy task for the Iraqi people. Hopefully, as seen in post-War Germany and an Eastern Europe free from the Iron Curtain, freedom will bring with it patience, determination, and enthusiasm as they work toward their common goal of peace and prosperity.

posted by Max Power | 9:55 AM
on this


Wednesday, March 26, 2003


Now I know what it sounds like when you've become completely unmoored from reality:
"Baghdad is where the beginning of civilization occurred, literally where the wheel was invented, where the very first city was built, where writing began, and it has a very deep and profoundly beautiful history -- which we should never take lightly, no matter who the existing president is."
Even if it's Saddam? "I think he is very proud of the history of his country. I think it's we Americans who don't know the facts about what anthropologists call 'the cradle of civilization.' When we watch the bombing on television, we really don't seem to understand or appreciate that some of these places are sacred. . . . I disagree with those who say that Saddam Hussein doesn't think about this. He cares about these places and their people."
She continued: "I don't think American lives are threatened by him. There is no evidence of weapons of mass destruction and we have no right to make a preemptive strike on another country and try to assassinate its leader. We have no right legally or morally. We are way out of line."

posted by the wolf | 1:18 PM
on this


Tuesday, March 25, 2003


No bias here, none at all. Everyone keep moving and be careful not to step on the civilian corpses. The AP story picked up by Yahoo! regarding Iraqi civilian casualties, which is using the ridiculous IraqBodyCount.com as one of its sources. And, not surprisingly, IBC has a count that exceeds even that of the Iraqi government! The AP story, of course, solemnly refers to it as "a Web site that collects Western media reports." Ok, how exactly does that make it an authority on civilian casualties in Iraq? Even the Red Cross only puts the current count at 14. Here's the real humdinger in the report:
But most of the evidence of civilian casualties is anecdotal — although no less powerful.

So we can all let emotion get in the way of facts because it is much more "powerful."

Is it at all surprising that the IBC Project Consultant is non other than Marc Herold, who fantastically overcounted civilian casualties in Afghanistan? Max Power reports that the IBC website was counting casualties before the war even started. Not a bad idea, they could have started with the hundreds of thousands that came at the hands of Saddam Hussein

posted by the wolf | 5:34 PM
on this


A follow-up to this post by the Wolf. The same article mentions that:

Questioned about France's prewar offer to support the U.S.-led coalition if Iraq used chemical weapons, Powell said, "The fact is, if France wanted to help us, our troops are in just as much danger from high explosive rounds than they are from chemical rounds."
"So I'm not sure what the particular distinction is," he said dismissively on France 3 television.

Indeed, I don't think anyone is really sure, Mr. Secretary.

posted by Max Power | 4:41 PM
on this


Plans already being made for a new $30 million U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, after the war. I like how the State Department

could not describe the condition of the former embassy which was abandoned ahead of the 1991 Gulf War.

Check out the view from my limb, while I guess "not good."

posted by Max Power | 4:38 PM
on this


Not only is this premature, I think it's troubling. If the French don't believe there is any consequence to treating our alleged alliance with such little regard, then they will continue to do so. As it stands, they will have risked nothing either militarily or in terms of their EU alliances and they come out as a partner in Iraq. I just don't get this. Why is Powell so quick to heal this wound? This is one we can let fester for a while.

posted by the wolf | 4:00 PM
on this


Well, this should come as no surprise. Citizens of Basra are rising up against their oppressors. It will be interesting to see the spin put on this little nugget by the See-No-Support / Hear-No-Support crowd.

posted by Max Power | 3:13 PM
on this


If the French and Germans had anything I wanted, I would boycott it. In the meantime, I am just going to sit back and enjoy them drinking Afri-Cola. Who exactly is being punished here?

posted by the wolf | 2:23 PM
on this


Any bets on how long before the Iraqi Ministry of Weather, or whatever, takes credit for this?

Combat missions from two aircraft carriers were called back because of bad weather and two Army divisions were virtually stalled in a vicious sandstorm that reduced visibility to a few feet. Thousands of Marines trekking north toward Baghdad traveled only about 20 miles in five hours, buffeted by heavy winds and blowing sand. While Iraq often sees sandstorms in the spring, meteorologists said this one was exceptional.

I hope the Coalition men and women can use the down-time to catch up on some much-needed rest.

posted by Max Power | 10:51 AM
on this


I did not know, until now, that the military is using trained dolphins to assist in mine-clearing operations in the Persian Gulf. Why didn't the State Department mention aquatic mammals in its list of Coalition members?

So we have humans, dolphins, chickens, and pigeons participating in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Also, quite possibly though it's not confirmed, we're seeing involvement from Ronald McDonald and maybe a couple of camels.

Meanwhile, the jackasses are running wild.

UPDATE: A "reader" points out that sea lions and parakeets are also part of the effort.

posted by Max Power | 10:03 AM
on this


Al Jazeera has started an English-language website to cover the war. Must be filling the gaps for the NY Times and the BBC. This is my favorite headline so far:
US remembers Geneva Convention Images of surrendering Iraqi soldiers being forced to kneel down and body-searched by US-troops stirred few emotions in the Western world

Surrendering soldiers were forced to kneel down and were searched? Oh, the humanity! There is so much spin going on in this web page I'm getting dizzy.

posted by the wolf | 7:57 AM
on this


Monday, March 24, 2003


I was feeling guilty this evening with my impatience with the war coverage, as much of it seems to be dwelling on the coalition setbacks (the two Black Hawks down, the POWs taken over the weekend, etc). It seems a little curious that these stories are being hammered home while interspersed with messages that the troops are driving closer and closer to Baghdad. Something must be going right. Right? No one wants to dismiss the troublesome image of captured POWs or forget the casualties that have been suffered, but it IS a war, is it not? No one, despite the ex post facto reports from most mainstream media outlets, thought this was going to be easy. However, reading this lends some credence to my growing suspicion of the coverage. This is my favorite part:
Saturday, March 22: In the morning, ABC reporter Chris Cuomo (son of the former New York Governor Mario Cuomo) picked up where Jennings left off. Previewing new protests, he insisted that anti-war activists represented more than the tiny fraction of the country that shares their views: “In American history, protests like this have been prescient indicators of the national mood, so the government may do well to listen to what’s said today.”

With 7 out of 10 Americans supporting the war at this juncture, one wonders exactly how these are "prescient indicators of the national mood." In fact, if if Cuomo wants to find a historical reference, he will have to search deeper than the Vietnam war (to which he was undoubtedly referring). After so many well-documented protests of that conflict, after all, how did warmonger Richard Nixon manage to win the 1972 presidential election in a landslide?

posted by the wolf | 9:42 PM
on this


This is rich. A "reverend" who never completed his seminary training and who was "ordained" outside of the normal procedures of his adopted Church is denouncing violence, when he has a long history of supporting some of our time's most vicious tyrants and dictators, and exploiting fear, violence, and hatred to suit his own needs. Read this book, and you'll know what's really on his agenda.

posted by Max Power | 9:05 PM
on this


In an interview this evening with Fox News' Bill O'Reilly, a University of Chicago Law Professor (I'm sorry I didn't catch his name) was caught up in a debate on criminal anti-war protestors. In response to Bill's mention of the hundreds that were arrested during the Lake Shore Drive incident, the guest (perhaps in an attempt to make it seem less significant) mentioned that only men were arrested. All of the women detained were released.

Interesting.

posted by Max Power | 8:41 PM
on this


Under the category of Did He Just Say That, MSNBC military analyst Bill Arkin just said that the US is losing the most important battle, which is the PR battle across Europe. Say what? He then went on to act surprised that the "Arab world" is against us. I assume he isn't including the "Arab world," particularly the Iraqi expatriates, in the US.

posted by the wolf | 6:37 PM
on this


This is great.

posted by Max Power | 4:12 PM
on this


In what is apparently yet another exception to their promise to fully abide by the Geneva Convention on treatment of prisoners of war, Iraqi state TV is parading more alleged American prisoners.

I suppose we could try to reciprocate, if there were enough videotape.

posted by Max Power | 3:34 PM
on this


Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz has

denied US allegations that Russians were helping Iraq and that a Russian firm had sold Baghdad embargoed equipment to jam US weapons guidance technology.

Oh.... well.... if you say so. What were we thinking?

Maybe that'll knock a few billion off of their debt.

posted by Max Power | 3:29 PM
on this


I'd like Michael Moore to explain the "fictitious" war to these people. They may not be so accommodating of his opinion.

posted by the wolf | 1:19 PM
on this


I think Glenn Reynolds was too soft on CNN:
CNN just announced that Greek antiwar advocates have tried to bomb an American bank and an American restaurant in Athens.

"Antiwar advocates" makes them sound like political action committees. They are terrorists. CNN shouldn't be afraid to call them what they are.

posted by the wolf | 12:56 PM
on this


I didn't see it, but I read about Michael Moore's unintended self-indictment from the Oscars last night:
"We like nonfiction and we live in fictitious times. We live in a time where we have fictitious election results, that elect a fictitious president. We live in a time where we have a man sending us to war for fictitious reasons," Moore said.

No one should know more about fiction than Moore, who unabashedly blurs the lines between fantasy and reality to create his own alternative universe where he is omniscient and the bad guys foolishly play right into his hands. It was nice to see that some in Hollywood had the balls to boo his sorry fat ass after he won an undeserved award in a category in which he didn't belong

posted by the wolf | 8:20 AM
on this


Sunday, March 23, 2003


Just happened past E!'s coverage of the Academy Awards in time to see Michael Moore, managing to look slovenly in a tuxedo. Joan Rivers informed us it was a "fascinating documentary" and then went on to wonder why Bowling For Columbine was nominated as a non-fiction documentary. For a brief moment, I thought that maybe Joan was getting a well-placed shot in at the fat asshole, but, alas, her inquiry was only related to her position that "aren't all documentaries non-fiction?" Well, Joan, I can think of one that isn't and it's clearly in the wrong category.

posted by the wolf | 6:18 PM
on this


In the CENTCOM press conference, some jackass from Iraqi TV just asked if the US wasn't "facing another Viet Nam" due to the taking of American POWs and their "overconfidence." Funny that a Saddam mouthpiece doesn't sound all that different from one of the "peace" protestors. UPDATE: Correction, the jackass was from Al Jazeeram, televisers of war crimes.

posted by the wolf | 1:30 PM
on this

links
contact info
search
archives
Weblog Commenting by HaloScan.com