micah holmquist's irregular thoughts and links

Welcome to the musings and notes of a Cadillac, Michigan based writer named Micah Holmquist, who is bothered by his own sarcasm.

Please send him email at micahth@chartermi.net.

Holmquist's full archives are listed here.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Sites Holmquist trys, and often fails, to go no more than a couple of days without visiting (some of which Holmquist regularly swipes links from without attribution)

Aljazeera.Net English
AlterNet (War on Iraq)
Alternative Press Review
Always Low Prices -- Always
Another Irani online
antiwar.com (blog)
Asia Times Online
Axis of Logic
Baghdad Burning (riverbend)
BBC News
blogdex.net ("track this weblog")
The Christian Science Monitor (Daily Update)
Common Dreams
Daily Rotten
Democracy Now
The Drudge Report
Eat the Press (Harry Shearer, The Huffington Post)
Empire Notes (Rahul Mahajan)
frontpagemag.com (HorowitzWatch)
Guardian Unlimited
The Independent
Information Clearing House
Informed Comment (Juan Cole)
Iranians for Peace

Iraq Dispatches (Dahr Jamail)
Iraqi Democrats Against Occupation
Iraq Occupation and Resistance Report (Psychoanalysts for Peace and Justice)
Mr. Show and Other Comedy
The Narco News Bulletin (blog)
The New York Times
Occupation Watch
Political Theory Daily Review
Press Action
Project Syndicate
Raed in the Middle (Raed Jarrar)
The Simpsons Archive
Simpsons Collector Sector
Technorati ("search for mth.blogspot.com")
United States Central Command
U.S. Embassy Baghdad, Iraq
War Report (Project on Defense Alternatives)
The Washington Post
Wildfire (Jo Wilding)
wood s lot
www.mnftiu.cc (David Rees)

Blogs that for one reason or another Holmquist would like to read on at least something of a regular basis (always in development)

Thivai Abhor
As'ad AbuKhalil
Ken Adrian
Christopher Allbritton
Douglas Anders
Mark W. Anderson
Aziz Ansari
Atomic Archive
James Benjamin
Elton Beard
Charlie Bertsch
alister black
Blame India Watch
Blog Left: Critical Interventions Warblog / war blog
Igor Boog
Martin Butler
Chris Campbell
James M. Capozzola
Avedon Carol
Elaine Cassel
cats blog
Jeff Chang
Margaret Cho
Citizens Of Upright Moral Character
Louis CK
Les Dabney
Natalie Davis
Scoobie Davis
The Day Job
Jodi Dean
Dominic Duval
Steve Earle
Daniel Ellsberg
Tom Engelhardt
Lisa English
Barbara Flaska
Brian Flemming
Joe Foster
Yoshie Furuhashi
Al Giordano
Rob Goodspeed
Grand Puba
Guardian Unlimited Weblog
Pete Guither
The Hairy Eyeball
Ray Hanania
Mark Hand
Hector Rottweiller Jr's Web Log Jim Henley Arvin Hill Hit & Run (Reason) Hugo Clark Humphrey Indri The Iraqi Agora Dru Oja Jay Jeff Lynne d Johnson Dallas Jones Julia Kane Blues Benjamin Kepple Ken Layne Phil Leggiere Brian Linse Adam Magazine Majority Report Radio Marc Maron Josh Marshall Jeralyn Merritt J.R. Mooneyham Michael Scott Moore Bob Morris Bob Mould Mr. Show and Tell Muslims For Nader/Camejo David Neiwert NewPages Weblog Aimee Nezhukumatathil Sean O'Brien Patton Oswalt The Panda's Thumb Randy Paul Rodger A. Payne Ian Penman politx Neal Pollack Greg Proops Pro-War.com Pure Polemics Seyed Razavi Rayne Simon Reynolds richardpryor.com Clay Richards Mike Rogers Yuval Rubinstein
Steven Rubio
Saragon Noah Shachtman Court Schuett The Simpsons Archive Amardeep Singh Sam Smith Soundbitten Jack Sparks Ian Spiers Morgan Spurlock Stand Down: The Left-Right Blog Opposing an Invasion of Iraq Aaron Stark Morgaine Swann Tapped (The American Prospect) tex Matthew Tobey Annie Tomlin Tom Tomorrow The University Without Condition Jesse Walker Warblogger Watch Diane Warth The Watchful Babbler The Weblog we have brains Matt Welch
Alex Whalen
Jon Wiener
Lizz Winstead
James Wolcott
Wooster Collective
Mickey Z

Monday, September 08, 2003
More of the same

Bush didn't back down last night. In fact, George W. President of Some County was nearly John F. Kennedyesque in evincing a desire to lead the "civilized world" to victory over "the terrorists." (Hey, where's Lee?)

Bush's demeanor came across like that of a guy who wants to be trusted, so it is interesting to note just how much dishonesty there was in speech.

First of all, there is the budget:

Our strategy in Iraq will require new resources. We have conducted a thorough assessment of our military and reconstruction needs in Iraq, and also in Afghanistan. I will soon submit to Congress a request for $87 billion. The request will cover ongoing military and intelligence operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere, which we expect will cost $66 billion over the next year. This budget request will also support our commitment to helping the Iraqi and Afghan people rebuild their own nations, after decades of oppression and mismanagement.
Sounds good but the White House's own "Fact Sheet: Request for Additional Fy 2004 Funding for the War on Terror" (dated September 8, 2003) says that the request for additional funds for Iraq alone is $87 billion. ("$51 billion to support ongoing military operations in Iraq," "$20 billion to help secure Iraq's transition to self-government and create the conditions necessary for economic investment and investment," "roughly $5 billion to improve security immediately by training border and customs enforcement personnel, a new Iraqi army, police force and local civilian defense corps. The request will also support building a judicial and penal system" and "$11 billion to support continuing U.S. efforts to track down terrorists and provide stability.") Then there is an additional request of over $1.5 billion for Afghanistan. ("$800 million to address some of the most critical remaining security and reconstruction needs," "over $400 million to train and support the Afghan National Army and national police, border and highway patrol" and "over $300 million to accelerate the construction of roads, schools, health clinics, and local, small-scale projects.")

Bush said the war has been "one of the swiftest and most humane military campaigns in history," which ignores the fact that arguably the war is still ongoing as well as the bombings and sanctions that for over decade softened Iraq up.

Those, however, are just minor complaints compared to what else Bush had to say.

As seems to be the policy of Team Bush, Bush implicitly said that attacking the occupying troops amounted to terrorism, something that is at odds with his own government's definition. Bush also talked about "the terrorists" as if they are a unified group, when the truth is quite different.

Then there is this bit about additional troops:

Our military commanders in Iraq advise me that the current number of American troops -- nearly 130,000 -- is appropriate to their mission. They are joined by over 20,000 service members from 29 other countries. Two multinational divisions, led by the British and the Poles, are serving alongside our forces -- and in order to share the burden more broadly, our commanders have requested a third multinational division to serve in Iraq.
Since Bush did say that one of the Uncle Sam's goals in Iraq was to increase "international cooperation in the reconstruction and security of Iraq," it is possible that the this additional division is just for show and not really necessary. But if it is actually desired by military commanders, it becomes an issue of whether or not these other troops that would come, if they come at all, from yet to be determined countries are known to be able to accomplish something that the same number of U.S. troops could not accomplish. Obviously the question is ridiculous, so, unless these troops are just for show, Bush should have said, "a small number of additional troops are needed. We are going to try to get them from other countries."

Last but not least there are the weapons of mass destruction and related programs that have disappeared from Bush's agenda. Bush correctly said that Saddam Hussein's now deposed regime "possessed and used weapons of mass destruction" but made no mention of the efforts to find the weapons of mass destruction and related programs that the Bush Administration said were a threat to the U.S. and other countries before the war started. Has Team Bush found out that they were wrong to emphasize that threat? If so, Bush should have been honest about this. If the threat still exists, Bush should have explained what they are doing to track down the weapons of mass destruction and programs to build such weapons. And if that has been taken care of, Bush should come out and say that as a way of calming people who believed him in March. (It is hard to believe that if the threat had indeed been neutralized, that Bush wouldn't have bragged about doing so.)

Of course, expecting Bush to be honest at this point in the game is a bit delusional.