This sounds about right for the flag waving jesus freaks. I grew up in the
Bible-Belt and while I find lots of this disturbing I don't find it
anything new. In your personal interaction with the student have you noted
what I suspect are his paranoid martyr complex creeping through the vitriol
- 'Oh we are the lamb of Christ and being persecuted by the big socialist
state apparatus'?
Unfortunately these loons vote, too. But given that the US electoral
system is set up in essentially a two-party dictatorship that reduces most
issues to a binary decision, your student's black and white thinking serves
him well.
Thank the stars I live in Los Angeles.
rant off
jeff
At 09:54 AM 3/28/03 -0500, Andy Herod wrote:
>Folks: I am forwarding htis to the list since I think it makes interesting
>reading.
>
>Some background: I have been engaged in an on-again, off-again debate w/ a
>student
>--an evangelical Christian, extreme right winger-- about a number of
>topics (existence of God,
>war in Iraq, evolution --all the juicy topics!). Anyway, I forwarded him
>the original Iraq
>quiz post to get a reaction, and he sent me this back. I thought it worth
>posting to the Crit
>Geog list to see if people had reactions to what he has written. Although
>I personally
>disagree w/ most of what he has written, I thought it an interesting
>insight into the mind
>of the evangelical Christian right and its support of Bush/ the war (A
>recent poll here showed
>that something like 93% of Protestant evangelical Christians supported the
>war).
>
>The original quiz is posted below what the student returned to me.
>
>Any thoughts? Certainly he is factually incorrect on Question 2a,
>at least if the Guardian is to be believed :-)
>
>(Out of fairness, I have deleted anything that could identify the student)
>
>
>1. D
>
>a. The House of Representatives, despite the perpetual confusion of
>liberal obscurantists, is not the Bush Administration. As well, the
>Democratic minority in the House AND the Senate voted to cut those same
>benefits by almost twice as much by supporting a rival, Democratic-sponsored
>version of the same appropriations bill. Only liberals find refuge in
>half-truth as if it were sufficient truth.
>
>b. In a slow-growth, wartime economy, economic prudence requires
>difficult and often politically dangerous (liberals read that as
>"opportunistic") decisions to be made by true leaders gifted with both the
>sense and the sensibility to make those tough decisions. Liberals need not
>apply since it is usually their economics and foreign policy (read
>"appeasement") that created said bilateral conditions. Liberals have always
>thought that the military is nothing more than a make work jobs program and
>a show of force rather than actual force. It's no surprise they criticize
>Republicans (some of whom are conservatives and some of whom are not) for
>making purely economic decisions re: the military because those are the only
>decisions that liberals ever even consider. Readiness, fighting strength,
>technological and strategic advantages, et al, are all worthless,
>pie-in-the-sky non sequitirs to the liberal idea of military. Only touchy
>feely personal issues are relevant, national security is not (which is
>precisely why the liberals fought so hard against removing Saddam at the
>Useless Nonsense for the last year - war is not an option to them because
>appeasement and surrender work so much better).
>
>c. The Bush Administration, unlike its ideologically blind critics, knows
>that those benefits are already publicized in regularly distributed
>materials to all military personnel. The executive order was in regards to
>expensive, redundant publications that were unnecessary if military
>personnel are literate and able to read what they already have been given.
>Since most of them attended government schools, however, there is, indeed,
>reason for concern here.
>
>d. None of the above.
>
>
>
>
>
>2. D
>
>a. Dick Cheney receives absolutely nothing whatsoever in the form of
>salary, benefits, or deferred compensation from Haliburton or any other
>private institution. Even Cheney's personal stock holdings in Haliburton
>(and every other company) were liquidated prior to his taking the oath of
>office. He is prohibited by law from ever taking office if these
>prerequisites are not established first. Liberals apparently prefer
>outright lies to anything resembling the truth if it might accomplish an
>ideological goal (see their support for Saddam Hussein's brilliantly
>executed charade at the Useless Nonsense over the last 12 years).
>
>b. The Defense Intelligence Board is a privately managed and controlled
>think tank. It is neither staffed nor consulted by members of the Bush
>Administration. Only an ideologically blinded liberal could be so
>pathetically misguided as to suggest duplicity here.
>
>c. FDR avoided serving in both the Spanish-American War and WWI before
>formally declaring war on Adolph Hitler. JFK's brothers all avoided serving
>in WWII or the Korean "Conflict" before supporting his sending Americans to
>their deaths in Vietnam (only to remove that support once a Republican was
>elected to the White House - exactly like Daschle's dunces have done in this
>war). Jimmy Carter avoided serving in Vietnam by working in the nuclear
>Navy prior to wasting American military lives in the most ill-conceived
>military rescue operation in the history of modern warfare. Bill Clinton
>avoided not only military conscription by way of a pseudo-intellectual draft
>dodge - practicing up for his eight year stint as the Slickster - but he is
>also universally recognized as the most anti-military leftist to have ever
>sent Americans to die uselessly in a foreign land (Somalia). Only a liberal
>could concoct such a complete waste of argumentative breath with such a
>meaningless, straw-man distraction.
>
>d. None of the above.
>
>
>
>
>3. D
>
>a. Niger, again, remains nothing more than a matter of opinion and debate
>(far from irrefutable evidence). The liberal wonks in the CIA "doubt" its
>authenticity because their ideological presuppositions prescribe it. The
>more thoughtful intelligence servants are also less condemning. Truth
>sticks to the wall, Dr. H, - like the Prague correction. Garbage gets
>thrown out where it belongs, except by liberals who prefer to continue to
>throw it up instead.
>
>b. Plagiarism is only a crime if it involves publication. The real issue,
>for everyone but liberals anyway, is whether what was "plagiarized" was
>actually true. The evidence, both prior to the liberation of Iraq and now
>during it is 100% in agreement with the report (and we haven't even seen the
>tip of the evidential iceberg that is to come) . Truth is no more the issue
>here than it ever is for liberals. Ideology is.
>
>c. In a few days (if not hours depending on when Saddam's successors decide
>to use them), this will be laughed right off the list even by liberals (who
>try to will claim then that they've always known Saddam had WsMD). Until
>then, conservatives will simply ask why, if his WsMD were destroyed, did the
>Iraqi army keep thousands upon thousands of chem suits and antidote doses
>with their weapons caches (in such well-known military bunkers as civilian
>hospitals and office buildings)? It is simply unbelievable what liberals
>call argument.
>
>d. None of the above.
>
>
>
>
>
>4. D
>
>a. Just show us the evidence, liberals. Allegations and speculations may
>sustain your thoughts but they do not sustain valid arguments. It's
>hilarious how not even the liberal press or the liberals in Congress will
>waste their time pursuing this kind of nonsense. The only people who will
>are liberal fanatics to whom evidence and allegation are irresolvable
>equals. And even if the CIA did bug the purveyors of Useless Nonsense, so
>what? What does that have to do with the validity or morality of preempting
>the slaughter of millions of innocent Jews, Arabs, and Americans? This is
>supposed to be a list of jokes about Iraq, not the Useless Nonsense.
>Dragging an irrelevant body of ambassadors into a comedy routine about how
>liberals deny and obscure the facts surrounding Saddam's reign of terror and
>threats to the world is, like the Useless Nonsense itself, completely
>irrelevant to the point. Only a liberal would try to connect such
>unconnectable dots.
>
>b. So what? Even if the US ambassador (presumably to the Useless Nonsense)
>did say that, he would have said it AFTER the vote was taken, or it would
>never have been quoted. A comment made AFTER a vote cannot, except in the
>mind of a liberal, constitute bribery. Fleischer may try to define bribery
>differently than the rest of us do (of course we tried to bribe countries at
>the Useless Nonsense - everyone does, which is why it's so completely
>Useless, immoral, and utterly irrelevant). Liberals think that since this
>type of argumentation can win a case in the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals
>it will also win in the court of public opinion. Fortunately for the
>thinking majority, however, such is not the case re: Saddam.
>
>c. Because IT'S OUR MONEY, forgodsake. Man, it's like trying to teach Helen
>Keller calculus. I realize liberals will never get the money thing because
>they don't think anyone should ever have any more money than anyone else
>(see the laughable Communist Manifesto artifact from ancient history for
>references here), but this answer is so bloody obvious you would think at
>least some of them would.
>
>d. None of the above.
>
>
>
>
>
>5. D
>
>a. US maintenance? What an uncontrollable laugh (like this whole riotous
>list of jokes). Those were Useless Nonsense-ordered and Useless
>Nonsense-maintained, not US-maintained sanctions (though, thankfully, the US
>was successful in at least convincing the Useless Nonsense of the need to
>speak Useless words - we all know that they never had any intention of
>actually enforcing them). And since the liberals are confused about this
>too, the sanctions included oil for food allowances which Saddam, not George
>Bush, abused to the peril of thousands of his own people (just as he has
>seen fit to obliterate hundreds of thousands of them with other means).
>Liberals. It's like trying to talk to infants.
>
>b. All we need is the evidence, liberals. Just once would be nice. Just
>once would be impossible, though, since nothing they say is remotely close
>to the truth.
>
>
>c. An absolute bald faced lie. However, since the whole list of jokes is
>nothing more than same, we are not so amazed as we would otherwise be (just
>as we aren't when Saddam lies about his WsMD, his widespread and valiant
>support across the Arab world, his non-use of human shields, and every other
>word that has ever been vomited out his twisted mouth).
>
>d. None of the above.
>
>
>
>
>6. D
>
>a. False. Again. In some countries that is true, or was true before the
>liberation began. As Saddam's lies and murderous tactics become more widely
>reported (no thanks to the liberal press trying everything it can to prevent
>the truth from being told - e.g. the BBC being slammed by its own front line
>reporter on March 26 in the Sun for blatant fabrication of the military
>gains vs. human cost ratio) the polls have shown dramatic shifts towards the
>truth of the matter - that this liberation is just and has been just for
>many years. Liberals won't ever be convinced, though, no matter from what
>country they hail. Their ideology defines their reality. Truth is
>irrelevant.
>
>b. Those ten are all Arab and Muslim states who, by some miracle, can see
>the truth but do not want to live with the consequences of trusting their
>own Islamic proletariat with it. It's not unlike trying to trust liberals
>with the truth. What's the point? It will only lead to violent
>demonstrations and terrorism.
>
>c. Therefore what? Truth is determined by majorities rather than actual
>evidence? Right. That's science. Liberal science, maybe, but not
>realistic science.
>
>d. None of the above.
>
>
>
>
>
>7. D
>
>a. Ignoring the fact that no actual evidence (in the form of a name) is
>offered (as usual), it wouldn't matter a lick what we did in Iraq. 9-11
>preceded PGW-II, not the other way around. Al Qaeda had more than enough
>mindless reasons to hate Jews, Christians, and everything free and
>democratic long before Saddam's bluff was called by George W. Bush. Somehow
>this reality, like most of reality, just eludes liberals.
>
>b. See a. above. Redundancy of fallacy does not produce argument.
>
>c. I cannot find a towel with which to wipe the tears streaming down my
>face. Only the most idiotic of liberals (as if there really was a spectrum)
>would attempt to use an oxymoron as obvious as "France's leading
>counter-terrorism judge". Aside from that nonsense, Muslim literalists like
>bin Laden don't need the liberation of Iraq to make that fallacious point.
>They've made it quite successfully to thousands of ideologically blinded
>liberals (oops, I mean Muslims - ironic how similar they are, though) for
>decades. This fallacy is merely their most recent, and among their most
>blatantly untrue.
>
>d. None of the above.
>
>
>
>
>8. D
>
>a. Well, a half truth is better than no truth at all. I will give the
>liberals the credit they deserve when they've earned it. The CTBT is viewed
>as such only by those states that do not have a history of representative
>democracy combined with a history of being threatened and/or attacked by
>raving, anti-democratic dictators with their own WsMD. The group of nations
>that happen to share that particular history (such as the US and Britain)
>comprise the coalition of the cognizant and their reasoned double standard
>is legitimate because it saves lives. Liberals define and defend the
>appeasement of said dictators (see, once again, the entire 20th century, and
>now the 21st as well) rather than defending the innocents whom they plunder.
>
>b. See a. above. Realists (that is moral realists - i.e. conservatives)
>admit the double standard and justify it by the historical evidence of the
>non-threatening non-use of such WsMD (as well as the appropriate responsive
>use thereof such as in 1945 Japan). Nothing even remotely close to such
>evidence can be produced by liberals re: Saddam Hussein (or Kim Jong Il -
>which will be the next time around that we'll all hear this bleating).
>
>c. Therefore we should simply be good, pacifist, liberal sheep and sit on
>our hands and wait until one of these dictators vaporizes us (or Israel, or
>Britain, or Kuwait, or...). This is liberalism's definition of foreign
>policy: talk softly and carry a big gas mask. Unbelievable. It's one
>pathetic, nonsensical babbling after another. It's a wonder liberals can
>even get driver's licenses.
>
>d. None of the above.
>
>
>
>
>9. D
>
>a. Right, just like in Britain, Australia, Turkey, Italy, etc, etc, etc.
>It's mind boggling what liberals think they can call argument, yet is only
>fallacious, wasted breath.
>
>b. Moral realists would not expect liberals to be able to comprehend the
>concept of a lesser of two evils - primarily because liberals are the evil
>of many lessers. We would expect them, though, to apply a fallacious
>(rather than defensible) double standard when applied to such examples as
>Kampuchea (1976), Somalia (1993), and Iraq (1998).
>
>c. In the same sense that liberals support the crushing of anti-Saddam
>Hussein revolts today, that is true. Liberals love to ignore the evidence,
>though, which, for 1991, included a coalition mandate that ended where Iraq
>began. Liberals then ignored the next 17 Useless Nonsense resolutions worth
>of mandates as well, which picked up where 1991 left off. We expect such
>constant banging into the walls by liberals. They can't see past their
>ideological blinders. What do you expect?
>
>d. None of the above.
>
>
>
>
>
>10. D
>
>a. When the New York Times is willing to cite its sources, moral realists
>will consider their supposed evidence. Until then, we will give it the
>attention it deserves. None.
>
>b. Ooh, the BBC. A liberal, government-funded and managed "news"
>organization (see my reference to their blatant ideological bias above,
>wherein one of their own calls them down). We are all a tremble with shock
>and awe at the BBC's authority and objectivity. All sarcasm aside for a
>moment, realists realize that the link may not be there as it has been sold
>to us by the Bush Administration. One would have to be as foolish as a
>liberal to deny that because the facts are, at least to date, few and far
>between. But this war was legitimized in 1998 under a worthless,
>meeely-mouthed, do-nothing liberal (as if there were any other kind) long
>before we understood much about al Qaeda (and one of the main reasons why we
>didn't is because of that same do-nothing liberal). Al Qaeda or no al
>Qaeda, Saddam is a threat to Israel first, Kuwait second, Saudi Arabia
>third, the US fourth, and Britain fifth even if we continued to follow his
>two-step dance lead at the Useless Nonsense. Al Qaeda, if they are
>connected to Saddam, will be gravy when Saddam is toast (and I personally
>believe he already is).
>
>c. See a. and b. above. Al Qaeda are irrelevant to Iraq. Liberals don't
>have to understand that because they don't want to understand anything. At
>least on that they can be consistent.
>
>d. None of the above.
>
>
>
>There. A+. Someone had to do it. Here's a couple of funny pictures to
>help soothe the pain of, once again, being thoroughly and completely refuted
>by the facts (citations from op-eds, sourceless "news", and rank
>speculations rather than traceable, irrefutable evidence are anything but
>facts). I'd like to say it was a nice try, Dr. H, but it wasn't even close.
>
>
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>
>>Iraq War Quiz
>>by Stephen R. Shalom
>>www.zmag.org
>>
>>
>>1. The anti-war movement supports our troops by urging that they be
>>brought home immediately so they neither kill nor get killed in a unjust
>>war. How has the Bush administration shown its support for our troops?
>>
>>a. The Republican-controlled House Budget Committee voted to cut
>>$25 billion in veterans benefits over the next 10 years.
>>
>>b. The Bush administration proposed cutting $172 million from
>>impact aid programs which provide school funding for children of
>>military personnel.
>>
>>c. The administration ordered the Dept. of Veterans Affairs to stop
>>publicizing health benefits available to veterans.
>>
>>d. All of the above.
>>
>>
>>
>>2. The anti-war movement believes that patriotism means urging our
>>country to do what is right. How do Bush administration officials define
>>patriotism?
>>
>>a. Patriotism means emulating Dick Cheney, who serves as
>>Vice-President while receiving $100,000-$1,000,000 a year from
>>Halliburton, the multi-billion dollar company which is already lining up
>>for major contracts in post-war Iraq.
>>
>>b. Patriotism means emulating Richard Perle, the warhawk who serves
>>as head of the Defense Intelligence Board while at the same time meeting
>>with Saudi arms dealer Adnan Khashoggi on behalf of Trireme, a company
>>of which he is a managing partner, involved in security and military
>>technologies, and while agreeing to work as a paid lobbyist for Global
>>Crossing, a telecommunications giant seeking a major Pentagon contract.
>>
>>c. Patriotism means emulating George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Paul
>>Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, John Bolton, Tom DeLay, John Ashcroft, Lewis
>>Libby, and others who enthusiastically supported the Vietnam War while
>>avoiding serving in it and who now are sending others to kill and be
>>killed in Iraq.
>>
>>d. All of the above.
>>
>>
>>
>>3. The Bush administration has accused Saddam Hussein of lying
>>regarding his weapons of mass destruction. Which of the following might
>>be considered less than truthful?
>>
>>a. Constant claims by the Bush administration that there was
>>documentary evidence linking Iraq to attempted uranium purchases in
>>Niger, despite the fact that the documents were forgeries and CIA
>>analysts doubted their authenticity.
>>b. A British intelligence report on Iraq's security services that
>>was in fact plagiarized, with selected modifications, from a student
>>article.
>>c. The frequent citation of the incriminating testimony of Iraqi
>>defector Hussein Kamel, while suppressing that part of the testimony in
>>which Kamel stated that Iraqi weapons of mass destruction had been
>>destroyed following the 1991 Gulf War.
>>d. All of the above.
>>
>>4. White House Press Secretary Ari Fleisher stormed out of a press
>>conference when the assembled reporters broke into laughter after he
>>declared that the U.S. would never try to bribe members of the UN. What
>>should Fleisher have said to defend himself?
>>
>>a. It wasn't just bribery; we also ordered the bugging of the home
>>and office phones and emails of the UN ambassadors of Security Council
>>member states that were undecided on war.
>>
>>b. Oh, come on! We've been doing this for years. In 1990 when Yemen
>>voted against authorizing war with Iraq, the U.S. ambassador declared
>>"That will be the most expensive 'no' vote you ever cast."
>>
>>c. Why do you think the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act makes one
>>of the conditions for an African country to receive preferential access
>>to U.S. markets that it "not engage in activities that undermine United
>>States national security or foreign policy interests"?
>>
>>d. All of the above.
>>
>>
>>
>>5. George Bush has declared that "we have no fight with the Iraqi
>>people." What could he have cited as supporting evidence?
>>
>>a. U.S. maintenance of 12 years of crippling sanctions that
>>strengthened Saddam Hussein while contributing to the death of hundreds
>>of thousands of Iraqi civilians.
>>
>>b. The fact that "coalition" forces have indicated that they will
>>use cluster bombs in Iraq, despite warnings from human rights groups
>>that "The use of cluster munitions in Iraq will endanger civilians for
>>years to come."
>>
>>c. By pointing to the analogy of Afghanistan, which the U.S.
>>pledged not to forget about when the war was over, and for which the
>>current Bush administration foreign aid budget request included not one
>>cent in aid.
>>
>>d. All of the above.
>>
>>
>>
>>6. The Bush administration has touted the many nations that are
>>part of the "coalition of the willing." Which of the following
>>statements about this coalition is true?
>>
>>a. In most of the coalition countries polls show that a majority,
>>often an overwhelming majority, of the people oppose the war.
>>
>>b. More than ten of the members of the coalition of the willing are
>>actually a coalition of the unwilling - unwilling to reveal their names.
>>
>>
>>c. Coalition members - most of whose contributions to the war are
>>negligible or even zero - constitute less than a quarter of the
>>countries in the UN and contain less than 20% of the world's population.
>>
>>
>>d. All of the above.
>>
>>
>>
>>7. The war on Iraq is said to be part of the "war on terrorism."
>>Which of the following is true?
>>
>>a. A senior American counterintelligence official said: "An
>>American invasion of Iraq is already being used as a recruitment tool by
>>Al Qaeda and other groups....And it is a very effective tool."
>>
>>b. An American official, based in Europe, said Iraq had become "a
>>battle cry, in a way," for Al Qaeda recruiters.
>>
>>c. France's leading counter-terrorism judge said: "Bin Laden's
>>strategy has always been to demonstrate to the Islamic community that
>>the West, and especially the U.S., is starting a global war against
>>Muslims. An attack on Iraq might confirm this vision for many Muslims. I
>>am very worried about the next wave of recruits."
>>
>>d. All of the above.
>>
>>
>>
>>8. The Bush administration says it is waging war to stop the spread
>>of weapons of mass destruction. Which of the following is true?
>>
>>a. The United States has refused to ratify the Comprehensive Test
>>Ban Treaty, viewed worldwide as the litmus test for seriousness about
>>nuclear disarmament.
>>
>>b. The United States has insisted on a reservation to the Chemical
>>Weapons Convention allowing the U.S. President the right to refuse an
>>inspection of U.S. facilities on national security grounds, and blocked
>>efforts to improve compliance with the Biological and Toxin Weapons
>>Convention.
>>
>>c. Vice Admiral Lowell E. Jacoby, Director of the Defense
>>Intelligence Agency, testified on Feb. 11, 2003, "The long-term trends
>>with respect to WMD and missile proliferation are bleak. States seek
>>these capabilities for regional purposes, or to provide a hedge to deter
>>or offset U.S. military superiority."
>>
>>d. All of the above.
>>
>>
>>
>>9. The Bush administration says it wants to bring democracy to Iraq
>>and the Middle East. Which of the following is true?
>>
>>a. If there were democracy in Saudi Arabia today, backing for the
>>U.S. war effort would be the first thing to go, given the country's
>>"increasingly anti-American population deeply opposed to the war."
>>
>>b. The United States subverted some of the few democratic
>>governments in the Middle East (Syria in 1949, Iran in 1953), and has
>>backed undemocratic regimes in the region ever since.
>>
>>c. The United States supported the crushing of anti-Saddam Hussein
>>revolts in Iraq in 1991.
>>
>>d. All of the above.
>>
>>
>>
>>10. Colin Powell cited as evidence of an Iraq-Al Qaeda link an
>>audiotape from bin Laden in which he called Saddam Hussein and his Baath
>>Party regime "infidels." Which of the following is more compelling
>>evidence?
>>
>>a. An FBI official told the New York Times: "We've been looking at
>>this hard for more than a year and you know what, we just don't think
>>it's there."
>>
>>b. According to a classified British intelligence report seen by
>>BBC News, "There are no current links between the Iraqi regime and the
>>al-Qaeda network."
>>
>>c. According to Rohan Gunaratna, author of Inside Al Qaeda: Global
>>Network of Terror, "Since U.S. intervention in Afghanistan in October
>>2001, I have examined several tens of thousands of documents recovered
>>from Al Qaeda and Taliban sources. In addition to listening to 240 tapes
>>taken from Al Qaeda's central registry, I debriefed several Al Qaeda
>>and Taliban detainees. I could find no evidence of links between Iraq
>>and Al Qaeda."
>>
>>d. All of the above.
>>
>>
>>
>>Answers and Sources
>>
>>1. d (a) Cong. Lane Evans, "Veterans Programs Slashed by House
>>Republicans," Press Release, 3/13/03,
>>http://www.veterans.house.gov/democratic/press/108th/3-13-03budget.htm.
>>(b) Brian Faler, "Educators Angry Over Proposed Cut in Aid; Many
>>Children in Military Families Would Feel Impact," Washington Post,
>>3/19/03, p. A29. (c) See Veterans' for Common Sense, letter to George W.
>>Bush, 3/20/03 http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org/print.asp?id=563;
>>Melissa B. Robinson, "Hospitals Face Budget Crunch," Associated Press,
>>7/31/02; Jason Tait, "Veterans angered by marketing ban," Eagle-Tribune
>>(Lawrence, MA), 8/2/02,
>>http://www.eagletribune.com/news/stories/20020802/FP_003.htm
>>
>>2. d (a) Warren Vieth and Elizabeth Douglass, " Ousting Hussein
>>could open the door for U.S. and British firms. French, Russian and
>>Chinese rivals would lose their edge," Los Angeles Times, 3/12/03, p.
>>I:1; Robert Bryce and Julian Borger, "Halliburton: Cheney is still paid
>>by Pentagon contractor, Bush deputy gets Dollars 1m from firm with Iraq
>>oil deal," Guardian (London), 3/12/03, p. 5 (which notes that
>>Halliburton "would not say how much the payments are; the obligatory
>>disclosure statement filled by all top government officials says only
>>that they are in the range of" $100,000 and $1 million. (b) Seymour M.
>>Hersh, "Lunch with the Chairman," New Yorker, 3/16/03; Stephen Labaton,
>>"Pentagon Adviser Is Also Advising Global Crossing," NYT, 3/21/03, p.
>>C1. Perle is to be paid $725,000 for his lobbying effort, including
>>$600,000 if his lobbying is successful. (c) New Hampshire Gazette, "The
>>Chickenhawks," http://nhgazette.com/chickenhawks.html.
>>
>>3. d (a) See the evidence collected in Cong. Henry Waxman's letter
>>to George W. Bush, 3/17/03,
>>http://www.house.gov/waxman/text/admin_iraq_march_17_let.htm. (b) See
>>Glen Rangwala's report, http://traprockpeace.org/britishdossier.html.
>>(c) See Glen Rangwala's report, http://traprockpeace.org/kamel.html.
>>
>>4. d (a) Martin Bright, Ed Vulliamy, and Peter Beaumont, The
>>Observer (London), 3/2/03. (b) Quoted in Phyllis Bennis, Calling the
>>Shots: How Washington Dominates Today's UN, New York: Olive Branch,
>>1996, p. 33. (c) Sarah Anderson, Phyllis Bennis, and John Cavanagh,
>>Coalition of the Willing or Coalition of the Coerced?: How The Bush
>>Administration Influences Allies in Its War on Iraq, Washington, DC:
>>Institute for Policy Studies, 2/26/03, p. 4.
>>
>>5. d (a) For background, see Anthony Arnove, ed., Iraq Under Siege:
>>The Deadly Impact of Sanctions and War, Cambridge: South End Press,
>>updated ed. 2003. (b) Paul Waugh, "Labour MPs Attack Hoon After He
>>Reveals That British Forces Will Use Cluster Bombs," Independent,
>>3/21/03, p. 4; Human Rights Watch, Press Release, 3/18/03: "Persian
>>Gulf: U.S. Cluster Bomb Duds A Threat; Warning Against Use of Cluster
>>Bombs in Iraq." (c) Zvi Bar'el, "Flaws in the Afghan Model," Ha'aretz,
>>3/14/03,
>>http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/objects/pages/PrintArticleEn.jhtml?ite
>>mNo=272884.
>>
>>6. d (a) See, for example, the revealing comment of Secretary of
>>State Powell: "We need to knock down this idea that nobody is on our
>>side. So many nations recognize this danger [of Iraq's weapons]. And
>>they do it in the face of public opposition." Quoted in Steven R.
>>Weisman With Felicity Barringer, "Urgent Diplomacy Fails To Gain U.S. 9
>>Votes In The U.N." NYT, 3/10/03, p. A1) (b) U.S. Dept. of State, Daily
>>Press Briefing, Richard Boucher, Washington, DC, 3/18/03. (c) Country
>>list: White House, Statement of Support from Coalition, 3/25/03,
>>http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/print/20030325-8.html;
>>population calculated from Statistical Abstract of the United States,
>>2001, Washington, DC: 2001, table 1327. Total includes USA. The White
>>House list includes countries whose leaders have done no more than state
>>their support for the United States, and the listing changes from day to
>>day, with some countries being added and some removed.
>>
>>7. d (a) Don Van Natta Jr. and Desmond Butler, "Anger On Iraq Seen
>>As New Qaeda Recruiting Tool," NYT, 3/16/03, p. I:1. (b) Van Natta and
>>Butler, NYT, 3/16/03. (c) Van Natta and Butler, NYT, 3/16/03.
>>
>>8. d (a) Colum Lynch, "U.S. Boycotts Nuclear Test Ban Meeting; Some
>>Delegates at U.N. Session Upset at Latest Snub of Pact Bush Won't Back,"
>>Washington Post, 11/12/02, p. A6. (b) Amy E. Smithson, "U.S.
>>Implementation of the CWC," in Jonathan B. Tucker, The Chemical Weapons
>>Convention: Implementation Challenges and Solutions, Monterey Institute,
>>April 2001, pp. 23-29, http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/reports/tuckcwc.htm;
>>Jonathan Tucker, "The Fifth Review Conference of the Biological and
>>Toxin Weapons Convention," Feb. 2002,
>>http://www.nti.org/e_research/e3_7b.html. (c) Testimony before the
>>Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, excerpted at
>>http://traprockpeace.org/usefulquotesoniraq.html.
>>
>>9. d (a) Craig S. Smith, "Saudi Arabia Seems Calm But, Many Say, Is
>>Seething," NYT, 3/24/03, p. B13. In fact, "Though the Saudi government
>>officially denies it, the bombing campaign is being directed from Saudi
>>Arabia - something that few Saudis realize." (b) On Syria, see Douglas
>>Little, ACold War and Covert Action: The United States and Syria, 1945
>>1958,@ Middle East Journal, vol. 44, no. 1, Winter 1990, pp. 55 57. On
>>Iran, see Mark J. Gasiorowski, "The 1953 Coup D'Etat in Iran,"
>>International Journal of Middle East Studies, vol. 19, Aug. 1987, pp.
>>261-86. (c) Andrew Cockburn and Patrick Cockburn, Out of the Ashes: The
>>Resurrection of Saddam Hussein, New York: HarperPerennial. 1999, chap.
>>1.
>>
>>10. d (re audiotape, see David Johnston, "Top U.S. Officials Press
>>Case Linking Iraq To Al Qaeda," NYT, 2/12/03, p. A1; Mohamad Bazzi,
>>"U.S. says bin Laden tape urging Iraqis to attack appears real,"
>>Newsday, 2/12/03, p. A5. (a) James Risen and David Johnston, "Split at
>>C.I.A. and F.B.I. On Iraqi Ties to Al Qaeda," NYT, 2/2/03, p. I:13. (b)
>>"Leaked Report Rejects Iraqi al-Qaeda Link," BBC News, 2/5/03. (c) Rohan
>>Gunaratna, "Iraq and Al Qaeda: No Evidence of Alliance," International
>>Herald Tribune, 2/19/03.
>>
>>
>>Interpreting Your Score
>>
>>9-10 Correct: Excellent. Contact United for Peace and Justice,
>>http://www.unitedforpeace.org/, and work to fight the war and the system
>>that produced it.
>>
>>6-8 Correct: Fair. You've been watching a few too many former generals
>>and government officials who provide the "expert" commentary for the
>>mainstream media. Read the alternative media!
>>
>>3-5 Correct: Poor. Don't feel bad. George W. Bush only got a C- in
>>International Relations at College.
>>
>>0-2 Correct: Failing. You have a bright future as an "embedded"
>>journalist.
|
