From the NYT comes the text of career diplomat John Brady Kiesling’s letter of resignation to Colin Powell. It explains that Kiesling can no longer participate in the ongoing train wreck that is the Bush administration’s foreign policy.

Your tax dollars at work (again!). The Observer is running the story about a secret surveillance operation that the U.S. is running against key U.N. members: specifically, non-British Security Council members, whose votes on behalf of a U.S. invasion of Iraq we would dearly love to buy, extort, or otherwise add to our column. So let’s bug the delegates’ home phones, shall we? Maybe one of them is secretly gay, or has a mistress, or something. Update: In actually reading the memo, I’m not sure the “dirty tricks” label can really be made to stick. Maybe the part about bugging “domestic comms” is spooky enough to raise the hackles of British leftists, but in America we typically save the term for more creative knavery.

From Robert Scheer, a nice summing up of the ‘Big Lie‘ approach that Dubya has brought to the White House. Dubya, you see, doesn’t lie about little things like getting blow jobs from interns in the Oval Office; he lies about big things, like whether or not Iraq is linked to Osama bin Laden, whether Iraq represents an imminent threat to the security of the United States, and whether or not the invasion of Iraq will help to end the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Speaking to television reporters in Finland during a break in his Finnish tour, singer Harry Belafonte said the U.S. is currently being run by “men who are possessed of evil” (among some other choice quotes). I’m not sure why it makes me so happy to read that, but damn, it really does. You tell ‘em, Harry.

From Janus comes word of this interesting Op-Ed piece at the New York Times: God, Satan and the Media. The author, Nicholas D. Kristof, has some interesting statistics on the percentage of people in the U.S. who are evangelical Christians (like Dubya), and the gulf that separates such folks from virtually everyone in the news media.

I missed this when it first appeared, but it’s very much worth reading: Isioma Daniel’s story of the events surrounding her writing of the piece that provoked the Miss World riots in Nigeria, and the subsequent issuing of the fatwa against her.

As Vincent Vega would have said, “it’s the little differences.” In this case, the little differences between the truth, and what we expect the truth to be. And what better way to usher in a new lies.com category than by celebrating one of those little differences: the way CBS used an American voice actor to put a fake Arabic accent on the translation of Saddam’s interview with Dan Rather.

Gotta love that mall security. Spotting a man wearing a “Give peace a chance” T-shirt in the food court at the Crossgates Mall in Guilderland, New York, they told him to remove the shirt or leave the mall. When the man refused, the guards called the local police, who arrested him and charged him with criminal tresspass. But the man turns out to be a lawyer, and director of the Albany Office of the state Commission on Judicial Conduct, no less. So methinks maybe the boys picked the wrong citizen to come down on. Or maybe not; this is, after all, the Age of Ashcroft. We’ll have to wait and see, I guess. Update: And now, 100 activists have descended on the mall to protest the arrest. That’ll teach those security guards.

It’s almost worth having a dim-witted, arrogant, wannabe dictator for a President, just so we can have The Onion making fun of him. Almost.

From photojournalist Peter Turnley comes The Unseen Gulf War, a series of images showing the side of Gulf War I that Bush the First and his spin doctors worked so hard to keep us from seeing.

Here’s another batch of thumbnails. This time, they’re from a world beyond the reach of mechanized bloodshed: Mars, as imaged by Mars Global Surveyor’s Mars Orbiter Camera. It’s interesting to me, given the place Mars occupies in our collective symbology, that once you actually send a camera there and look, it seems like a really peaceful place. I dunno; maybe I’m just projecting my own desire for an escape from the headlines here on this planet, but there’s something comforting about that.

Here are a couple of articles speculating on just what the folks holding Khalid Sheikh Mohammed are doing to him. Since we in the U.S. are good guys, or at least like to see ourselves portrayed as such on TV, “torture” is explicitly ruled out, and has been denied by none other than Ari Fleischer. I’m sure that’s quite comforting to Mohammed, wherever he is. Anyway, here are the Atlanta Journal-Constitution and SFGate.com with their take on the subject. My favorite quote (from the latter article): “U.S. officials overseeing interrogations of captured al Qaeda forces at Bagram and Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba can even authorize ‘a little bit of smacky-face,’ a U.S. intelligence official says. ‘Some al Qaeda just need some extra encouragement.’”

Susan Estrich has a nice piece at WorkingForChange on the Incredible Shrinking Case for War with Iraq: What is it this week?

Nice story about the Vice President’s lawyer trying to stop the fine people at whitehouse.org from posting pictures of Lynn Cheney wearing a clown nose. You can read about it at YahooNews, or just go straight to the source, at whitehouse.org. (Assuming the site is still up. It was having a hard time handling all the traffic, now that it’s been singled out for attention by the Bushistas. Nice lesson for them on the Law of Unintended Consequences, eh?) So, when do I get my letter from Dick Cheney’s lawyer? I’m totally jealous.

From Business Week, via Yahoo, via Janus, comes this story about the way Bush’s fundamentalist Christian views are causing secular leaders in Europe some concern as they contemplate the possibility that he’s pursuing war in the Middle East because he thinks he can thereby hasten the triumpant return of Christ. That’s my dubya.

Interesting piece from the London Times reporting on a speech given at Tufts University by former president Bush. The elder Bush used the opportunity to encourage his son not to go to war without international support, and to resist his inate tendency to bear grudges against those who disagree with him. Thanks to Bravo for the link.

Update: The Times link has succumbed to link rot, so here’s a transcript of the speech that’s still good from the good people at Tufts University: 2003 Issam M. Fares Lecture - Former President George H.W. Bush - February 26, 2003.

From the NYT comes Jimmy Carter with a list of ways in which the invasion of Iraq currently being prepared for fails the test of the “Just War” doctrine.

The fine people at Get Your War On have a new entry, in which they marvel at the way Bush kept saying “September 11″ in response to every question at his recent press conference, no matter what the question was actually about. Good stuff. And having watched that conference, I keep thinking back to the weird way Bush kept talking about the oath he swore. He apparently meant the presdential oath of office, since he quoted it at one point, but it’s really odd to me that he doesn’t see any distinction between swearing to “protect, preserve, and defend the Constitution” (which is what the oath actually says), and swearing to “protect the American people” (which is what he repeatedly misquoted the oath as saying). Bush thinks the two things are identical, but they aren’t. In Bush’s view, he is the nation’s father, and his judgement trumps that of us willfull children. But that runs directly counter to the ideas embodied in the Constitution, in which the executive branch has a specific set of responsibilities and carefully circumscribed powers, to be exercised in a fashion that protects the people not only from foreign dangers, but also from the very real risk of tyranny at the hands of a power-hungry executive here at home. In the Constitution’s view of things, the people are perfectly capable of looking out for their own interests. They are the ultimate source of presidential authority, and they don’t need some self-styled Daddy-in-Chief to ignore their wishes because he knows what’s best for them.

Roger Ebert has written a great piece on the scary theocratic elements of the Bush/Aschroft “faith-based” approach to government: Public prayer fanatics borrow page from enemy’s script. Please, God, help us to elect leaders who understand what he’s talking about. Amen.

Here’s a series of articles, stretching back to September of last year, that I’ve somehow overlooked until now. Taken together, they paint a chilling portrait of President Bush as an addictive personality who is working through unresolved issues stemming from his history of alcoholism and a sense of inferiority in comparison with his academically gifted, war-hero father. Bush supporters will no doubt dismiss it as a liberal smear campaign, but I don’t know; read it and decide for yourself. First, Alan Bisbort writes: Dry Drunk: Is Bush Making a Cry for Help?. Next comes “Dry Drunk” Syndrome and George W. Bush, by Katherine van Wormer. Finally, two pieces from Michael O’McCarthy: George W. and Alcoholism and Is Bush a “Dry Drunk”?

Another (actually fairly vicious, if more or less accurate) piece that slams Bush’s recent performance: Humiliation and Defeat. I know this sort of piling on is standard fare in political circles, and we can expect plenty more where this is coming from in the next couple of years, but man, I’m actually starting to feel sorry for the guy. Or would, if he weren’t hell-bent on destroying the world that I’d just as soon have still be habitable when I pass it on to my children.

Here’s a piece by Bernard Weiner: How to Swagger and Bully Your Way to Disaster: Bush’s Foreign Adventurism. There’s nothing particularly new here, but it does tie it all together in a fairly coherent package. I think that’s the thing that’s really clicked in my head tonight, the reason I felt compelled to get out of bed and post a whole raft of anti-Bush links: the president, and the bitter, scary men who pull his strings, really intend to go through with this, despite the objections of virtually the entire world. And it’s going to really, really suck.

One last item about Friday’s press conference, lest it get overlooked: the way Bush called only on a pre-selected list of reporters who had been chosen by Ari because they had a history of being team players. Which I guess really shouldn’t be a surprise at this point, but again, it emphasizes the difference between previous presidents, who at least paid lip service to the notion that the chief executive should be answerable to the people, and this one, who sees nothing wrong with going through a scripted charade designed to present the illusion of access with none of that pesky actually-having-to-answer-tough-questions stuff. Thanks to Hiro for the link.

As you’ve probably heard, the U.S. isn’t just raining peace, freedom, and democracy onto the heads of the Iraqi people these days. Along with the occasional high explosive munition, we’re also dropping propaganda leaflets. Now, thanks to Hiro, you can check them out on the Web. Collect the whole set! I think my personal favorite is this one, in which we tell Iraqi soldiers that they can best protect their children by making sure to keep the oil fields intact. Nice priorities we’ve got, eh? Who wouldn’t want to be more like us?

Molly Ivins has a cute piece at WorkingForChange: Bring back Poppy, in which she runs through the litany of recent disappointments with dubya and wishes he was more like his dad.

Thanks to Janus for reminding me to pay attention to Ted Rall. In particular, to his recent piece, What they don’t tell us, on how the media likes to leave out those crucial factoids that completely change a story. Thanks to a_stupid_box, btw, for suggesting the category name change.

From my new favorite site, thememoryhole.com, comes This is war, a collection of photographs and text passages describing just what it is our not-quite-elected leadership is about to unleash in our name.

Again from thememoryhole.com, Media Misquote and Excise Bush Comment About “Scripted” Press Conference. That’s my mainstream media; smoothing out those rough edges so my tiny little brain doesn’t explode.

Here’s a cute piece from Geov Parrish: The Dubya war glossary. My favorite entry: disarm v. To blow to smithereens. E.g.: “Saddam Hussein’s destruction of his missiles is an impediment to U.S. plans to disarm Saddam Hussein.”

It’s becoming pretty cliched, but I’m always good for another anti-SUV rant. Like this one from Ted Rall: Big Babies. Favorite quote: “Short of opening a shooting range next door to a daycare center, buying an SUV is perhaps the single most antisocial act an ordinary American can commit.”

A buddy of mine at CBS Radio turned me onto this yesterday. It seems that KROQ DJ Ralph Garman called (halfway down the page) and got thru to the French president by impersonating Jerry Lewis. What’s next, having Howard Stern call the Russian premier?

Novelist Paul Coelho has a really nice piece at OpenDemocracy.org: Thank you, President Bush.

From Paul Rogers comes this very articulate analysis: The myth of the clean war — and its real motive.

I’m not sure why this story strikes me as adding up to more than the sum of its kooky parts, but it speaks to me. It says something about where we are as a society, as parents, as dispensers of justice, as strivers after truth. Or not. Probably not. But anyway, from the Houston Chronicle: Vidor man sentenced to 30 days in doghouse.

You’ve probably seen this already, but if not, you’ll need to check it out. Mel Gibson, it seems, is making a movie about the last few hours of Christ’s life, which is nothing particularly new, but he’s going to present it in Latin and Aramaic, without subtitles. Hollywood says he’s crazy, but he’s paying for it himself, so more power to him. Apparently this is related to Mel’s close involvement with an ultra-conservative brand of Catholicism that believes the Vatican II reforms were a mistake; see the linked story for more wacky details.

Here’s a trio of stories that look at the imminent Iraq invasion from three different perspectives: First, from the Guardian: Preparing for war on four fronts, which looks in detail at war preparations, attempting to deduce when the attack will occur. Next, from the Mercury News: U.S. plans coordinated, fierce strike on Iraq, which gets into the specifics of the U.S. and British plans for what to do once the fighting starts. Finally, from UPI, What is the war’s brand strategy?, in which a marketing expert looks at how well (or rather, how poorly) the Bush administration is doing in terms of selling the war in the marketplace of ideas.

Here’s another of one of those stories that bugs me because of the way it reduces the prospect of our invading another country and raining bombs onto the heads of its civilian population into just another business challenge. From Business 2.0: Marketing During Wartime. The article itself isn’t all that annoying; it’s just the idea behind it that bothers me.

It’s interesting to me to see stories that question Bush’s intellectual qualifications starting to resurface. Like this one, from Andrew Greeley: War is not the smart option. We heard a lot about how unintelligent dubya was during the campaign, and during the first year of his presidency, but after 9/11 people really backed off on that. The country was freaked out, and no one wanted to say, or even think, that the person directing our national response to those events was otnay ootay ightbray. Now, though, people are coming out of that initial shock, and realizing that the 9/11 attacks didn’t make Bush any smarter.

Giving me yet another reason to like the Dixie Chicks, Natalie Maines has apparently annoyed the heck out of many country-music fans with her comment during a recent London show that she was “ashamed the president of the United States is from Texas.” Even nicer is the way Maines and the group are sticking to their guns, using two subsequent press statements to more specifically explain what they’re unhappy about, rather than backing down.

I find it interesting that the count of civilian casualties of the U.S. bombing campaign in Afghanistan is so close to the number of people who died in the September 11 attacks: a little over 3,000 in each case, with the edge apparently going to the U.S. government in the killers-of-innocents contest. Rumsfeld and Co. make grand claims about how hard they worked to keep the civilian death-toll in Afghanistan “as low as humanly possible,” but I think these numbers really beg the question: what exactly is the point of being the good guys in a war on terror, if we end up killing more innocent people than they do?

Here’s a story that ties together all my recent obsessions, making it hard to classify. From the LA Weekly’s Harold Meyerson, On the Brink: The neocon-xenophobe war. It’s about the real reasons we’re going to war, and the weakness of the publicly stated ones; the larger context in terms of why the rest of the world is so uniformly opposed to what we’re doing; and the unpleasant truths about where Dubya is coming from, psychologically. Much thanks to Janus for the link.

I’d missed this when it was actually timely, but Hiro fixed that: winning entries from the 2002 edition of the Bulwer-Lytton contest, in which people compete to write the worst opening sentence for a novel. Lots of great ones; here’s an example: The professor looked down at his new young lover, who rested fitfully, lashed as she was with duct tape to the side of his stolen hovercraft, her head lolling gently in the breeze, and as they soared over the buildings of downtown St. Paul to his secret lair he mused that she was much like a sweet ripe juicy peach, except for her not being a fuzzy three-inch sphere produced by a tree with pink blossoms and that she had internal organs and could talk.

I honestly can’t tell if the Foundation for a Patriotic America is intended to be serious or sarcastic. Which means the people behind it are either really scary or really subversive. Either way, I like it. Thanks to Bravo for the link.

Interesting piece from the NYT’s Paul Krugman: George W. Queeg (user-hostile login required; cypherpunk98/cypherpunk works for now). In that I recently watched The Caine Mutiny again, I found the comparison of Bush to Bogie’s paranoid, vindictive captain a pretty apt one. I’m not sure if Krugman meant for me to take it this far, but I think the movie’s message, as delivered by Jose Ferrar’s character after the court martial, is pretty apt, too: that Queeq was more victim than villain, someone who was well-intentioned, but was simply unable to rise to the challenges fate placed before him, and was let down by those around him.

According to Daypop, everyone’s linking to Back to Iraq 2.0, in which journalist Christopher Allbritton blogs from Iraqi Kurdistan. Actually, I’m not sure if he’s there yet, or just planning on going there. But wherever he’s posting from, it’s pretty good stuff on the war.

These are the days of miracles and wonders. What else to conclude after reading the story of the talking carp that began shouting dire predictions - in Hebrew - about the coming end of the world . My favorite part is how the shocked fishsellers who heard the fish went on to butcher and sell it.

Writing in ConsortiumNews.com, Robert Parry discusses Bush’s double jeopardy for U.S. Troops. It’s basically a laundry list of the ways in which the quick victory Bush is counting on in Iraq could fail to materialize.

I only checked out this story because the headline made me think it was going to be about the Dixie Chicks: Brawl erupts after song played at rodeo. Turns out the song in question was actually Lee Greenwood’s Proud to be an American, but the story is still pretty fun. Way to go, Texas! I don’t know about that “taking care of the rest of the country” stuff that Heather was talking about in the user comments, but Texas is sure taking care of my entertainment needs lately.

In times like these, it’s good to see that some people still know the most fair way to settle any argument: “The third jewel in the triple crown of Rock, Scissors, Paper competitions.. The best quote of all time: “There’s a science to it, … Everyone here’s pretty much not as smart as I am.“

Did you miss me? My power was out for about 55 hours (not that anyone was counting), but the juice seems to be flowing again. Here’s a nice editorial from the New York Times to get back into the swing of things: War in the ruins of diplomacy.

Here’s a convenient way to keep track of your tax dollars at work: www.iraqbodycount.net.

Another nice piece from the NYT. This one is an opinion piece from Paul Krugman: Things to Come. Yeah, this is pretty much what scares me the most, too.

From one of the few principled people we have left in our government, apparently, comes this speech, delivered late yesterday: The Arrogance of Power.

Our friends at PBS/Frontline have put out this great chronology of the events beginning with Saddam’s rise to power thru the days leading up to the current conflict.

Funny how even today, 15 years after he left office, our country is still influenced by Ronald Reagan and his leadership.

From The Scotsman comes this interesting story: Oscars blacklist stars in bid to prevent peace protest speeches. So, assuming the Oscars do go forward as planned, there’s another reason to tune in: to see if anyone gets their acceptance speech cut short for saying what they think about the war.

I realize it constitutes beating a dead horse after it’s left the barn, but it’s worth reading anyway: Stephen Zunes’ point-by-point refutation of the arguments Bush advanced in his speech on March 17, in which he did his best to make a case for war.

It’s a little starry-eyed, and a little long-winded, but still, there’s something there that’s worth thinking about. I’m referring to Anthony Barnett’s World opinion: the new superpower?

Rosemarie Gillespie is a 62-year-old grandmother from Australia. She’s currently stationed at a water-treatment plant in Baghdad. Read what she has to say in From a human shield.

Paul Hirst has an interesting piece at OpenDemocracy.net on the respective paths to victory likely to be pursued by the US and Iraqi forces in the current war: Asymmetrical strategies.

I missed this when it first appeared, but it’s too fun to pass up: A Letter from Michael Moore to George W. Bush on the Eve of War.

I tend to avoid posting things in the “War” category, but I’m a big fan of Michael Moore (both as a Director, and as a Human) so I want to point out his recent letter to Bush

WHOA!!! … that’s got to be a first for lies.com .. it’s a Dup!

Get Your War On has a new update. My favorite quote: “All I have to say is, Once this is over, the Iraqi people better be the freest fucking people on the face of the earth. They better be freer than me. They better be so fucking free they can fly.”

Slate’s Michael Kinsley posted an excellent piece yesterday: The Bush Doctrine: War without anyone’s permission. It’s a succinct summary of the ways in which Bush’s current actions, and his justification for those actions, betray the principles on which this country was founded. At this rate, we’ll be lucky if Bush even allows us to have elections next year.