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, November 03, 2003
Let's think about this

Seven days ago U.S. President George W. Bush said, "There are terrorists in Iraq who are willing to kill anybody in order to stop our progress. The more successful we are on the ground, the more these killers will react."

Victory means being attacked, in other words.

Matthew Yglesias of The American Prospect has mocked this statement even though it is perfectly within the confines of Bush's logic. In an "Address to a Joint Session of Congress and the American People" on September 20, 2001, which like every date besides the first nine was exactly nine days after an earlier date, Bush said, "Americans are asking, why do they ["the terrorists"] hate us? They hate what we see right here in this chamber -- a democratically elected government. Their leaders are self-appointed. They hate our freedoms -- our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other."

Yep, they see "freedom" and they hate it by attacking it, which means that they see the many wonderful things happening in Iraq and decide to attack it.

Think of this what you will, but Bush's argument that "success" in Iraq will bring more terrorism is perfectly consistent with what he has said in the past, or at least most of what he said. On March 17 he informed the world that "[t]he terrorist threat to America and the world will be diminished the moment that Saddam Hussein is disarmed."

Now it is true that Saddam might not be disarmed (more on that below) but, if Bush is to be believed, perhaps the real solution is no more "progress" in Iraq. That doesn't mean that "progress" in Iraq is a bad thing but one has to wonder why it is being touted by a guy who has also said, "my most important job is to protect the security of the American people."


On a related manner, Raymond Whitaker and Patrick Cockburn write in yesterday's Independent that " [i]ntelligence officers and other military personnel are being pulled off the increasingly futile hunt for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and assigned instead to deal with the worsening security situation."

If true, this bolsters my theory that the Bush Administration hasn't been all that concerned with finding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

The Independent report is interesting in light of what a high ranking Bush Administration official said yesterday. "We have seen an interim report by David Kay, and it was a thoughtful report," U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said on Meet the Press. "There's some 1,200 or 1,300 Americans there working on the weapons of mass destruction effort. He came back with an interim report that reported on the things he found thus far. It did not prove that there were -- he did not come in and say, "Here are weapons of mass destruction." Nor did he come in and disprove the intelligence that we had had and other countries had had before the war. It seems to me that the sensible thing to do was to let them continue their work and produce their final report."

Rummy also said, "The theory that he took his weapons, destroyed them or moved them to some other country, that argument, is that possible? I suppose it's possible, that he could have hidden them, buried them or moved to another country or destroyed them. The destroyed them part of it is the weakest argument. Why would he do that if by not allowing the inspectors to see what he was doing, and making an accurate instead of a fraudulent declaration, it makes no sense, because he was forgoing billions and billions and billions of dollars that he could have had had he acquiesced and allowed the inspectors into the country in an orderly way such that they could see really what was going on."

Apparently he believes the weapons probably still exist but I guess it is nothing to worry about like it was just eight months ago.


Then there's this blog post from Wednesday where BUSH-CHENEY '04 says, "President Bush has established a clear policy of doing everything to protect America and our friends and allies, and the world is more secure under his leadership. His critics offer no solution for dealing with the threats facing our nation and leave America vulnerable to new attacks."

O.K. Can someone inform me what Bush's "clear policy" for dealing with the "evil" states of Iran and North Korea is? And what about Iraq? (Other than waiting, or ostensibly endangering Uncle Sam, for over a year while openly talking about invading and then doing things that will anger "the terrorists," of course.)


Perhaps Bush doesn't think about these matters all that much.

In "Candid in Camera," an essay that appeared in The Nation in 1999 and which was included in the 2001 book The Last Empire: Essays 1992-2000 (Doubleday), Gore Vidal writes that Jimmy Carter "was... ill suited for the presidency because his virtues--an engineer's convergent mind--were of no use in a job that requires almost surreal divergency. Engineers want to connect everything up and make sense. Politicians--and artists--realize that nothing really makes sense and nothing ever hooks up."