The importance of the artist
One of our valued fans said in the comments to the "Boy, George" post. . .
The artist is overly concerned with their own "feelings" and image over substance. . .
At any rate, a soldier has to go out and deal with the hard truths of life while the artist tends to sit back and write a song about it.
Ouch.
Now this is something I can get passionate about. Why in the world do we have to be disrespecting the artist? I'd like to defend the artist, as I think a person with this disposition is essential to any balanced, healthy community of people. And also, I believe that God has created me to be an artist. And I'm not about to allow God's creation to be maligned without some dissent.
If this world was nothing more than Darwin imagined, one in which material reality, the passing of genes, and survival of your genes was the ultimate goal, then I might agree with the notion that a soldier is vitally more important than an artist. But the truth is, we have a spiritual dimension to deal with. We have to feed our soul as well as our bodies. We need to defend our spirits as well as our borders. And we need to explore our hearts as much as we need to explore new frontiers of science and land. . .
Of course, anyone with a small appreciation of the Apostle Paul's teaching of the Body, and how every part has an essential function and need appreciate parts different then themselves, probably knows all this already, but there is no reason to degrade the artists in comparison to the soldier. They are both equally deserving of revere, of appreciation, of respect.
As the scriptures begin, how do we first see God? He is an artist, creating .. . turning a dark vast chunk of nothingness into the wonderfully vibrant beautiful world we all should enjoy.
As we are made in the image of God, this to me is a mandate. I always have loved seeing a chunk of clay and knowing it could be a sublimely designed pot, a sculpture, it could be anything. I love the idea that as a musician I can take notes that are available to everyone and language available to everyone, filter these things through my talent and heart, and come up with something brand new, something this world has never seen, something that can be the thing to touch someone's heart in a way it wouldn't be touched otherwise.
Of course this is no longer dealing in the world of image alone, but in both image, and the substance that stands behind that image and powers it. True artists are not concerned with image over substance -- instead they delve into the substance to produce an adequate image, one that can at least approximate the substance that it tries to mirror. Images alone, soundbites alone -- they are the currency that politicians, corporations, and propagandists trade in. . . not the artist.
I can craft a story that can capture somebodies interest and teach them something that a debate never could. Is it any surprise that Jesus was primarily a storyteller, which is another form of the arts of course. He entertained and delighted people with his simple stories, and by them taught people things they could never understand through through a lecture or an essay.
The above quote represents to me a very bad understanding of what a real artist does. Every artist that I know who makes anything worth appreciating is succesful precisely because they are confronting the hard truths of this world. This is what often makes art vital and worthwhile. Not the avoidance of these things, running off to write a song or paint a picture, but sublimating the ills of this world and actually dealing with them through art. It's sad that this is not recognized.
As for pre-occupation with self, this entirely subjective measure needs some quantifying to even discuss it (was Jesus pre-occupied with self when he was begging God to take this cup from him in the garden, is that anguish any less self-centered than what some artists express?), but I've often found that artists are some of the most observant people, of both themselves and other people. They watch, they listen, they think, they dream, and they create.
Most of my music is actually taking the perspective of people I meet or talk to, dealing with their hard truths for them in some ways. And when the true artist is "self-centered," by sharing that pain or happiness or anger with the rest of the world, they can in some ways act as the sacrificial lamb, the person who can express these things that everybody feels, and again add to the existence of other people.
Lastly, unless you want constant war, constant uprisings and constant chaos, eventually you have to change people's hearts. In England, the church led the charge to abolish slavery, fueled by some excellent abolition songs that captured a country's spirit. You change people's hearts -- not through force, but through speaking to their spirits. One movie -- the Passion of Christ, managed to affect more young people in this country than years of forced church going. Think of how a movie, a song, think how it can affect you. This is an artists job, and a huge responsibility, as it can obviously be used for good or bad.
Again, I'm guilty of an essay, a very long essay. But really, I think this had to be addressed. And please, the artist and the soldier are roles that the same person can play. Have no doubt that I would take up arms and defend our country if we were invaded. Have no doubt that if I had to I would sacrifice myself for another. Have no doubt that many artists would do this.
30 Comments:
In defense,
note that what happened in the debate on George Bush tends to validate what was said about artists in it. A fair amount of logic and facts were not dealt with in a logical way. In fact, I can't seem to think of one instance in which they were dealt with. Instead, it seems everything was dealt with in the way that artists tend to deal with things. You might call it "painting a picture." Ethos/characterization instead of Logocentrism/logic, (quite ironic) so a fair amount of picture painting began: "....very judgmental and critical person who appears to be so puffed up with pride..." "....dogmatic views...." "..grossly miseducated..." "...bigoted..." and so on and so forth. Artists seem to tend to believe that as long as they "paint the picture" then that can be treated as more important than transcendent reality instead of being treated as their own immanent view of shadows on the cave wall. They'll more readily deal with who/identity instead of what/facts. But all the while there are none so blind as those who will not see, looking deeper into their own identity probably wouldn't hurt. When it comes to politics, political philosophy and so on there is a pattern that leads into myopia if not utter vacuity. One instance of the imagery of picture painting was ironic and illustrative, "....thumping the bible at people..." "...a very slanted (by Christians ) view...." Attempting to evoke such imagery is ironic because it seems that a Christian was doing so when the Bible had not been mentioned nor a Christian view cited at the time. The facts ought to be noted about this conditioned imagery: The notions of science, reason, etc., came to fruition in the Islamic and then the JudeoChristian environment of the West for reasons reliant on the Jewish influence which certain emotional conditioning is meant to suppress. The artist can be lost in this subjective conditioned goo.... "No viewpoint is objective...." ...but comes back to reality, often with some gooey conclusion about it that is very poorly thought through: "From an objective standpoint, doesn't it look like..." as if their thoughts have merit.
With some prissy modification, I think I'll stick with what was said, a current American artist "tends to" sit back and sing about reality and "tends to" be poorly equipped to deal with it any other way. (E.g. with logic, facts, etc.) I'm only referring to patterns that seem to be current. (Otherwise it wouldn't be fashionable to hate George Bush, fashion being something under artistic control.) This pattern was not true in the Renaissance and it is not true of all artists now... just most.
Give it a rest.....
David, You crack me up. You are a different guy when you sit down at the computer.
David, when it comes to philosophy I'm generally not going to do that. This is the nature of philosophy, a restless mind. If someone writes a long essay dealing with philosophic issues I will generally say something about it. You indicated that you value friendship more than philosophy before. I guess it's pretty safe to tell your brother to be silent and let others say whatever they want to on a wide range of issues given that fact. You know I'll still be your friend no matter what. And I will be.
See, I can use the pathos and ethos of the arts too. And it may well be all that artists "tend to" understand...
But, back to reason/Logos anyway... At any rate, my point has generally been that the arts divorced from philosophy ("I'm tired of thinking.... it alienates me from my feelings!") are dangerous in a sinister way. I refer you to avante-guarde artists and their role in supporting fascism. Music is probably more objective than subjective. Aristotle thought that music represents modes of character. If this is true, what mode of character does your music represent? Perhaps a question worth asking... but if you have no interest in philosophy, then by all means don't engage in it.
That's fine.
"The same principles apply to rhythms; some have a character of rest, others of motion, and of these latter again, some have a more vulgar, others a nobler movement. Enough has been said to show that music has a power of forming the character, and should therefore be introduced into the education of the young. ....There seems to be in us a sort of affinity to musical modes and rhythms, which makes some philosophers say that the soul is a tuning, others, that it possesses tuning."
--Aristotle
Which artists have you analyzed in coming to your conclusions? Please don't tell me Michael Jackson. He's not an artist. He's a performer.
Jason, I really don't have time for posting at length right now the way philosophizing usually has to be. Look at me, I'm philosophizing, wee! I may be gone this Friday/weekend too. So no posting for a while. Maybe next week... the reason I had mentioned Michael Jackson in another post was because he is an example of the "sinister" artist par excellence. Which seems to me to be the artistic tendency as civilization declines. But there are other examples to look at if you want to. I don't think there is much of a distinction between performer/artist. I'm pretty sure Jackson wrote his own songs too. So I'm not sure what you mean there.
But, gotta go.... later guys.
If you don't think there is much of a distinction between an artist and a performer, then you shouldn't be commenting on either. Just like I wouldn't comment on the molecular structural difference between different nuclear materials. Because I don't intimately understand it.
Could you do me a favor? Could you please not try to say it's logical to base the assumption that left-handedness = evil just because the word sinister was derivec from the latin for "on the left side"?
First of all, because in the origin of the word, it didn't have anything to do with sides of hands or sides of minds. It had to do with the direction in which a person stood when receiving an omen. If something came from the south, or the left, it was considered unlucky or evil.
Second of all, I hardly see how it's logical to use ancient superstitions from pagan traditions in the formation of an argument, even if the word's origin did have anything to do with the side of hand or the side of the brain someone primarily used. . .
As it should be clear, God made both the left handed and the right handed. God made both the soldier and the artist.
It's interesting to note that the man after God's own heart, David, was both. . . of couse, because he was a warrior, he couldn't build God's temple.
Whew-hoo, Flyers just scored and went up 3-2 .. .
That's all for me.
Flyers 5-4 wahooooo!
Jason, the "sinister" is a reference to the symbolic, which is often based on objective patterns. More tradition is involved with the notion of "sinister" than the traditions involved in the creation of the word. Note that studies show that left handed people are more accident-prone, more likely to stutter, more likely to have dyslexia, generally have a shortened life expectancy, etc. There is typically much more to all traditions than just ignorant superstition that can be written off just because it was "tradition." There is a tendency among the creative and Epicurean to disdain tradition and condemn it per se. It is the Stoics who tend to look to it.
Here is a pattern to think about, at the risk of making left handers feel paranoid, I suppose. Although they may be less likely to actually think about it anyway since it deals with Word and not image: "Your right hand, O LORD , was majestic in power. Your right hand, O LORD , shattered the enemy."
Exodus 15:6
"I have set the LORD always before me. Because he is at my right hand, I will not be shaken."
Psalm 16:8
"Yet I am always with you; you hold me by my right hand." Psalm 73:23
"Then he will say to those at his left hand: You that are accursed, depart from me into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. . ."
Matthew 25:4
"Why do you hold back your hand, your right hand? Take it from the folds of your garment and destroy them!"
Psalm 74:11
Etc.etc.... there is more symbolism than that and this is not just used as a symbol in Christianity. "Since childhood, I have been enchanted by the fact and the symbolism of the right hand and the left ... The right is order and lawfulness, le droit. Its beauties are those of geometry and taut implication. Reaching for knowledge with the right hand is science... And should we say that reaching for knowledge with the left hand is art?"(Jerome S. Bruner, On Knowing: Essays for the Left Hand 2 (1979))
When it comes to Law and politics why is it so easy to logically thrash and trash certain infantile "Judge not.." ideas typical to sinister artists? Perhaps "...the law is not the place for the artist or the poet." (Oliver W. Holmes, The Profession of the Law, in Collected Legal Papers 29, 29 (1920)) Perhaps the artist or the poet is the first to be ruled by their feelings? Perhaps when confronted with the hard truths that civilization deals with they would be the first to run back to a supposedly innocent Mother Nature? Perhaps they would be the first to be effected by the mass media and its images, unlike people that adhere to Stoic philosophy? E.g. failing to support a leader as the result of some Sadean images in the mass media while in fact the mass media are not showing relevant atrocities such as infants having their skulls punctured and a "brain suction" performed. Such images would actually have something to do with the presidential candidates while the other images have nothing to do with them.
There is not much of a distinction between an artist and a performer. When an artist performs their art are they suddenly no longer an artist? Is a performance artist, not an artist? Etc.
Note how Jackson is the quintessential "judge not" artist. He seeks this state of infantility even
more than most. He is not as far from other artists as you seem to think. But it is understandable why someone
might want to move heaven and earth in order to avoid being in the same category. Note how he has even cited the Bible to support the notion of "judge not"
infantility and its sinister consequences. Because Jesus said to come to Him as a child this is taken to mean always be as infantile as possible. I.e. never grow up after being born,just like some people never grow up after being born again.
"Brothers, I could not address you as spiritual but as worldly--mere infants in Christ. I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready for it. Indeed, you are still not ready."
1 Corinthians 3
"hen we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming."
Ephesians 4:14
"Anyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness."
Hebrews 5:13
I would just like to say that artists get all the girls. wahooooo.
Why are you so against artists? I remember when you used to do a lot of drawings and stuff. And why do you read peoples comments simply to look for stuff you disagree with them on, and never look for anything that you agree with them on.
God made left-handed people. God loves left-handed people. Give it a rest. Since you're so fond of him, I'll point out that Aristotle was left-handed. So was Albert Einstein. So were George Bush Senior and Ronald Reagan. And you thought I was being unfair to George W when gently I questioned what is going on in Iraq. You're calling his dad and Ronald Reagan sinister, evil, unlucky! That's worse than anything Al Franken or Michael Moore have said.
Here's a brain-twister for you, generally speaking, left-handed people use the right side of their brain. . . and right-handed people use the left side of their brain. So are right-handed people using a "sinister" mind, symbolically speaking? Which would you have, a sinister mind or a sinister hand? I'm not being defensive in defending the left handed among us -- I am right handed.
The observant among us would notice that the right hand in biblical terms is symbolic of POWER -- probably because, for 87% of us in this world, the right hand is more powerful. . . But of course the opposite of power is not sinister or evil. Power in and of itself is not good or evil. It can be used for good or evil. Scripture verses indicating that God is using his power to accomplish something are not proof that he despises left-handers.
There is a difference between a performer and an artist. Let me give you an example of the difference. . . A monkey can perform -- learn tricks, jump, grin, clap, dance, hoot. A monkey can be a performer.
However, a monkey cannot be an artist. The artist creates using his or her spirit and soul. But you wouldn't observe this, because you've lumped many of them together and written most of them off. That is your loss. But again, I'd advise you to stay quiet on things areas you do not know or care to understand. Or at least say, "Hey, I haven't really bothered to learn anything about this, but here's my opinion."
You are now in the curious position of basing all of your "philosophy of the artist" on one person -- Michael Jackson. Let's look at this logically, shall we? You say -- Michael Jackson is an artist. Michael Jaskson is sinister and infantile. Therefore, all (most) artists are sinister and infantile.
Did you take any logic classes? This is one of the first things they teach you -- that such thinking is riddled with fallacy?
Let me insert other words here to demonstrate the fallacy of your thinking.
MyNym is a poster on thelookmachine.com weblog. MyNym believes that left-handed people are generally sinister, evil, infantile, and unlucky. Therefore, all posters on thelookmachine.com weblog believe that left-handed people are generally sinister, evil, infantile, and unlucky.
Obviously, since I'm also posting here (and I don't believe such antiquated superstitious notions), I can disprove the above statement, and likewise your "what is true of Michael Jackson is true of most artists" arguments rings increasingly hollow in the face of reason.
Michael Jackson is clearly an sick, emotionally stunted, and sad human being. You can decide for yourself whether he's an artist. . . I would say he is not, but hey go ahead and form your own subjective opinion of him, I'd wager that it rings false in the face of objective reality.
I understand that there is a percentage of artists who lose their way and end up doing and saying things that are wrong. Just like there are a certain percentage of soldiers who do this, a certain % of bankers who do this, a certain % of pastors who do this, a certain % of apostles who do this, a certain % of schoolteachers, presidents, judges, politicians, janitors and construction workers. A certain % of every personality, every occupation, every category of humans that you can identify go astray at some point. . . because going astray is a human malady -- not one unique to a sub-segment of humanity.
Jase, you continue to be your thoughtflu, logical, multi-angled self. Good show! I like your comment. Maybe it will help me get an A on my Logic final on Wed and thus, and A in the class.
David, you continue to be funny. I like your sense of humor. By the way, has being the drummer of an awesome rock band (that doesn't play any shows) gotten you any girls yet?
MyNym, you continue to read selectively as David pointed out. I left an entire post about my Pro-Life sentiments. Not only did you ignore it, but you left a comment suggesting that since those images are not not out in the media, we don't care about or talk about it. OOPS. But thanks for the fun discussion at any rate. I like to see you and Jase have it out.
MyNym, I would like to point out (after Jason's discussion of small percentages) that it often tends to be the few lost and screwed up individuals in any situation who come to public attention. You will hear about the perverted, "sinister" artest in the news while there are thousands of painters, photographers, and songwriters out there portraying very normal things in their own way. You don't always hear about them because they are not making waves. If you are not involved in the arts, you only hear about the famous artists, thus you hear about a lot of twisted individuals.
These individuals do exist, but it is totally unfair to generalize to all others (I won't repeat what Jason said). If we were to follow the same logical progression you use in your statements about atrists, we would be able to say that ALL (and then refine it later to MOST) soldiers in Iraq are perverted, sinister, torturers. Notice that we never said that.
Also, some construction workers are foul-mouthed, perverted, pot-smoking high-school dropouts. That is true of some, but not all construction workers. I know that you work construction (so do I) but I did not acuse YOU of being any of those things because it would be unfair to make generalizations based on a few poor examples. Please return the favor by discontinuing your personal insults toward Jason that are based on nothing more than "images in the media" that supposedly represent artists. (and keep in mind your essay about being easily swayed by propaganda).
Thanks
I understood the performer/artist distinction you were trying to make. Note that if you had just said imitator rather than performer you would have expressed what your position is. But you didn't because Michael Jackson is not merely an imitator. He wrote his own songs, etc., as far as I know.
"You're calling his dad and Ronald Reagan sinister, evil, unlucky!"
Nope, referring to generalities is not necessarily advocacy of generalization and an application of patterns to individuals/subjects. Why do you take it as such? The subjective and objective can be complementary to each other so we shouldn't automatically assuming that they contradict and one must be better than the other. It seems you believe that we are the sum of our parts and merely the hapless victims of our viscera. So if a physical type pattern is noted then we necessarily have no choice but to be its hapless victim. But did I say that? I brought in the objective because of the tendency of the artist to the subjective. Among scientists I would do the opposite. A tendency to try to balance out things that are complementary that people take to be contradictory is probably why people think I am only playing the "Devil's advocate." I try to balance the subjective/objective. And believe me, I know the point about how science is so dehumanizing and ominously dangers, leads to racism, etc. etc.! Hehe. All that is true *if* the scientist believes that people are merely the sum of their parts. Since Darwinist scientists typically do it's a good critique of Darwinism but not science.
Referring to the objective cannot be done away with so easily, especially if it is only because you don't like the objective patterns being dealt with. Here is what I'm reading: "If you say anything negative about artists and refer to the objective to do it then you are saying that all artists and all art is bad!" Nope. Basically, what I have been saying is that artists can be evil (I.e. all is not merely subjective in art.) and as civilization declines they will probably "tend to" be more than most. This is a point that those who believe that all art is just a subjective expression of the Self don't seem to understand. Among scientists, the pattern of thinking is that everything is objective. So supposedly, they are above reproach and don't need to deal with the problem of evil. Among artists, the pattern of feeling is that everything is subjective. So supposedly, they are below reproach and don't need to deal with the problem of evil. So it seems that pointing out the traditional notion of the "sinister" is to be attacked and the very notion that art can be evil is being done away with because all art is supposedly subjective. Like the scientists who fear-mongers with respect to the subjective all you are really doing is fear-mongering with respect to the objective. I.e. "If we allow the objective in at all leads to this and that conclusion!" But does it really.... where is it that I said that all left handed people are sinister per se, etc.etc.? Or that right handed people can't be sinister, etc.? After all, my best friend is left handed. Saying that if the objective is let in at all then it must apply to every single person is premised on the notion that we are nothing more than the sum of our parts and must necessarily be the hapless victim of the viscera. Where did I agree to that? By the mere fact of bringing in a little science and tradition/history you assume I agree with scientism?
I see at the end you deal with what was being noted. I.e. tendencies. If someone says "tends to" then you can't say, "They don't all do that!" Note that the first task was to get an admission that all is not merely subjective with respect to art and artists can be sinister. But as to the percentages of American artists ruled by their visceral emotions, it seems like a growing pattern, don't you think? Or should I say, don't you feel?
Collin, as to my comments on what Jason has said and them being taken as personal insults, etc. Note that this whole tangent about the artist from one minor speculation about what the cause of illogical thinking illustrated in the heat of the moment. This speculation has been and was based on more than just images in the media, also. Although they doubtless have their impact, as you note. I don't deny it. But back to what brought this tangent on for a moment, so does Jason still not support George Bush or was that just the visceral reaction of the day?
(I found the tangent to be more interesting than the issue that brought it up.)
Collin, I haven't read your Pro-Life sentiments. I know that when you say you are a Christian that your thinking will most likely exhibit certain patterns, etc. So I can guess what you might say. But at the same time some of what you've said exhibits a pattern of feeling that does not fit the "Jewish influence" in Christianity. So I don't really know what you'd say about some things. Point me to your discussion of this and I will be sure to read it.
As to studies showing left handed people more likely to be anything, everyone should take all social science studies with a grain of salt -- espiecally once they trickle down into the popular press -- and be sure to look into the methodology before you come to any conclusions. . . They are often far from objective measures, often reflecting either the biases of the researchers or poorly set up testing parameters.
Still working through my official comprehensive position on our involvement in Iraq, which will exhibit proper consideration of reason, emotion and faith. . . These things take time and careful deliberation. All in good time, my friend.
"I would just like to say that artists get all the girls. wahooooo."
Always a good thing...
Notice how some artists tend to attract girls who tend to be as infantile as they are. Perhaps blonde "babes," etc. Hmmm, curious... are there any popular female blonde artists of who it can be said that their music has a lot of depth and complexity (emotional or musical)? For instance, an Evanescence type artist. Just curious... now someone might say, "What, so you're saying all blondes are infantile! This and that person were blonde..." Nope. But I say blondes ALL sure act infantile. I kid, I kid! Besides, remember that all views are subjective, so I guess I can say whatever I want. Hehe...
Oops, forgot...
"Why are you so against artists? I remember when you used to do a lot of drawings and stuff."
I'm not.
I'm the first to wax poetic when among scientists.
"..take all social science studies with a grain of salt.."
Especially the ones most trumpeted by the press... and keep in mind that we are not merely the sum or our parts.
But don't take all tradition with a grain of salt. The vast majority of the time it is more valid than the latest science, which only lasts as long as the next grad student desperate to disprove their teacher to make a name for themselves.
This is an interesting sort of dialogue. But it's midnight, past my bedtime....
Later.
"The vast majority of the time it is more valid than the latest science, which only lasts as long as the next grad student desperate to disprove their teacher to make a name for themselves."
Note that no scientist passionate about science would let this pass. And instead a dialogue would ensue in which it would need to be refined... similar to the comment that sparked this one.
I agree, but I don't have time to get into it. Maybe later.
Also, the expression of George Bush's involvement in Iraq
That wasnt supposed to post up there.
The mention of George Bush's involvement in Iraq was not just generalization. It was an observation of chain of command. It is not like saying that since Michael Jackson is a pervert then so is James taylor. They are unrelated peers in the entertainment world. It was more like saying, since michael Jackson is a pervert, then his managers must be permissive of what he does, which is not good.
When sodiers tape themselves having sex on camera the excuse of, "Our superiors told us to!" (leading up the chain of commmand, ultimately to Rumsfeld/Bush) has little or no impact. There is no reason for them to tape themselves like that other than their own decadence, which seems to go along with the whole situation. It makes very little sense to argue that Bush must go because of this type of decadence while at the same time artists/leftists are also blaming the Bush administration for having a chilling effect on their usual decadence/"free speech."
Yes, I know I just implied that all artists are decadent leftists. Hehe. That's because politics is messy and I don't have the time to draw out all the distinctions. "Well, not all artists are leftists, don't you know the vast associations of artists that support George Bush?" Of course there are exceptions to the rule but they don't disprove the general rule. Artists tend to be "leftists" in more ways than one. Yup, it's a generalization.... because that's the way the nitty gritty of politics is.
Here is some of my position on Iraq.
Here is the resolution for war that even a bunch of leftists voted for, some who are now the wars biggest critics.
"Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical WEAPONS PROGRAMS and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;
Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological WEAPON PROGRAM, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development PROGRAM that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;
Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons
inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;
Whereas in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction PROGRAMS threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in 'material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President 'to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations'" (emphasis mine)
(Public Law 105-235)
(The Associated Press
October 11, 2002, Friday, BC cycle
SECTION: Washington Dateline
BYLINE: By The Associated Press)
Now the press took what was no doubt one of the main rationales for war (weapons stockpiles) and was hammering on that ad naseum since large stockpiles have not yet been found. However, there were other main rationales that were validated that the press has never said anything about. Also, the press has apparently moved on to reporting on everything that goes wrong but nothing that goes right which suits their "If it bleeds it leads." mentality. But back to the original thing they had been hammering on. Some of the evidence about weapons programs found so far that the press has not reported on (i.e. you'll find it on a wire service but not picked up among newspapers or other media. In fact, headlines imply the opposite of what the facts show sometimes. But anyway...).
Some of the evidence:
"Some of the evidence found so far:
- A clandestine network of laboratories and safehouses within the Iraqi Intelligence Service that contained equipment subject to U.N. monitoring and suitable for continuing CBW (chemical biological weapons) research.
- A prison laboratory complex, possibly used in human testing of BW (bioweapons) agents, that Iraqi officials working to prepare for U.N. inspections were explicitly ordered not to declare to the U.N.
- Reference strains of biological organisms concealed in a scientist's home, one of which can be used to produce biological weapons.
- New research on BW-applicable agents, brucella and Congo Crimean hemorrhagic fever, and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin were not declared to the U.N.
- Documents and equipment, hidden in scientists' homes, that would have been useful in resuming uranium enrichment by centrifuge and electromagnetic isotope separation.
- A line of UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles) not fully declared at an undeclared production facility and an admission that they had tested one of their declared UAVs out to a range of 500 km, 350 km beyond the permissible limit.
- Continuing covert capability to manufacture fuel propellant useful only for prohibited SCUD-variant missiles, a capability that was maintained at least until the end of 2001 and that cooperating Iraqi scientists have said they were told to conceal from the U.N.
- Plans and advanced design work for new long-range missiles with ranges up to at least 1,000 km - well beyond the 150-km range limit imposed by the U.N. Missiles of a 1000 km range would have allowed Iraq to threaten targets throughout the Middle East, including Ankara, Cairo, and Abu Dhabi.
- Clandestine attempts between late-1999 and 2002 to obtain from North Korea technology related to 1,300-km range ballistic missiles - probably the No Dong - 300-km range anti-ship cruise missiles and other prohibited military equipment.
[.....]
With regard to biological warfare activities, which has been one of our two initial areas of focus, ISG teams are uncovering significant information - including research and development of BW-applicable organisms, the involvement of Iraqi Intelligence Service in possible BW activities, and deliberate concealment activities. All of this suggests Iraq after 1996 further compartmentalized its program and focused on maintaining smaller, covert capabilities that could be activated quickly to surge the production of BW agents.
Debriefings of IIS officials and site visits have begun to unravel a clandestine network of laboratories and facilities within the security service apparatus. This network was never declared to the U.N. and was previously unknown. We are still working on determining the extent to which this network was tied to large-scale
military efforts or BW terror weapons, but this clandestine capability was suitable for preserving BW expertise, BW capable facilities and continuing R&D - all key elements for maintaining a capability for resuming BW production. The IIS also played a prominent role in sponsoring students for overseas graduate studies in the biological sciences, according to Iraqi scientists and IIS sources, providing an important avenue for furthering BW-applicable research. This
was the only area of graduate work that the IIS appeared to sponsor.
[....]
A very large body of information has been developed
through debriefings, site visits and exploitation of
captured Iraqi documents that confirms that Iraq
concealed equipment and materials from U.N. inspectors
when they returned in 2002. One noteworthy example
is a collection of reference strains that ought to have
been declared to the U.N. Among them was a vial
of live C. botulinum Okra B. from which a biological
agent can be produced. This discovery - hidden in the
home of a BW scientist - illustrates the point I made
earlier about the difficulty of locating small stocks of material that can be used to covertly surge production of deadly weapons. The scientist who concealed the vials containing this agent has identified a large cache of agents that he was asked, but refused, to conceal. ISG is actively searching for this second cache.
Additional information is beginning to corroborate reporting since 1996 about human testing activities using chemical and biological substances, but progress in this area is slow given the concern of knowledgeable Iraqi personnel about their being prosecuted for crimes against humanity. [...]"
(Associated Press Online
October 2, 2003 Thursday
SECTION: WASHINGTON DATELINE
HEADLINE: Kay Text
BYLINE: The Associated Press)
This post will disappear into the archives as soon as somebody else posts something new and I will not follow it there to continue commenting. Thanks all for the good discussion. I have to study for my last final now (I just finished logic and it was great. I think I redeemed my earlier b that I posted about. I should have an A in the class now).
Post a Comment
<< Home