Month: January 2007

The reaction to the Hagel-for-President boom, on both the left and the neocon right, continues to confirm my jaundiced view of both: “Outside of the foreign policy realm,” avers Matt Yglesias, “there’s not much to like here from a liberal point of view.”

That’s pretty neat how Yglesias manages to shrug off the single most important issue in American politics today, and the number one concern of American voters. Not all lefty-liberals take such a sectarian stance, however. Here‘s a refreshingly rational view of Hagel’s possible White House bid from Robert Scheer, who opts for Hagel over the pro-war Hillary, because “Yes, the war is that important.”

Let’s be clear: the war isn’t just the most important issue, it is the only issue as long as it continues. The foreign policy of this nation represents the main danger not only to peace in the world, but to liberty here on the home front. The danger is so great that it constitutes an emergency, requiring all opponents of war and domestic repression, on the left and the right, to unite against the threat posed by the War Party.

The left has so far failed to come through with a viable antiwar candidate — and wouldn’t it be ironic to see a winning antiwar presidential candidate emerge from the GOP? It’s just the kind of joke history would play on the neocons — and I know I won’t be the only one laughing.

It isn’t just the neocon bloggers and Dick Cheney who are gritting their teeth over the rise of Senator Chuck Hagel as the new paladin of the antiwar movement: Cenk Uygur, over at the Huffpuff — otherwise known as the bulletin board of the DNC — chimes in with a post entitled “Who is John Hagel?”

Oh yeah, well I got a question for him: Who the %%^&*( is Cenk Uygur?

Cenky’s problemo? It looks as though Hagel is … not a Democrat! And — yikes! — he even votes like a — gasp! — Republican! Oh, heavens-to-mergatroyd!!! What’s a Huff-puffer to do? 

He denounces Hagel because the Senator voted for the Military Commissions Act — yet doesn’t mention that the good Senator voted against re-authorizing the PATRIOT Act. He complains that Hagel voted for the Bush/GOP position more than any other Senator, but how many votes on the war has the Senate entertained this year? Not a lot. Regarding Hagel’s attacks on the President’s war policy, he admits:

These are much stronger words than Hillary Clinton or practically any Democratic frontrunner has used against the administration. In the GQ interview he does everything but accuse of the administration of out right lying and warmongering. This is a Chuck Hagel who is honest and brave. This is a Chuck Hagel I love.

Well, then, what’s the problem? Cenky is a reformed Republican, apparently — you know, like a reformed smoker. That type is always a little … cranky. Some people, in any case, are just soooo hard to please. We at Antiwar.com agree with Robert Scheer, no wingnut, who wrote:

If it ever narrows down to a choice between him and some Democratic hack who hasn’t the guts to fundamentally challenge the president on Iraq, then the conservative Republican from Nebraska will have my vote.

Yes, the war is that important, and the fact that Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York, the leading Democratic candidate, still can’t or won’t take a clear stand on the occupation is insulting to the vast majority of voters who have.

To which one can only add: you got that right, brother!

Long-time opponent of the war in Iraq, Senator Robert Byrd, recently remarked about Bush’s troop surge plan:

“At the outset of this war, the Bush administration believed, apparently, that democracy could be exported through the barrel of a gun. That belief was wrong them; it is wrong today. Twenty thousand more troops won’t make it right.”

This video (hat tip: Lew Rockwell) is revealing in a number of different ways. First of all, it shows up Hillary Clinton for what she truly is: an opportunist who is only tenuously acquainted with the truth. She now claims that if she had known then what she knows now, she would never have voted for the war: but in this video, in which she meets with members of Code Pink, the antiwar women’s group, she downplays the “weapons of mass destruction” rationale for war, and emphasizes, instead, the brutality of Saddam’s dictatorship.

Secondly, I would note the unctuousness of Code Pink leader Medea Benjamin, who shamelessly kisses up to Hillary in her introduction, and even declares that she “knows you secretly agree with us” about the war. The fun begins when Hillary sternly disabuses Ms. Benjamin of this illusion, lecturing her about the absolute evil represented by Saddam’s Iraq, and reminding her of the Clintonian war against the Serbs, which, as all good liberals know, was a righteous war. Poor Medea — talk about having the rug pulledout from under you!

The best part is when one of the Code Pink women approaches Hillary, at the end, and tries to hand her a “pink slip” — some pink underpants of a decidedly delicate character. This is when Hillary bares her fangs, and lashes out: “I am the Senator from New York,” she intones, wagging her finger at the woman like a schoolmarm, “and if you think I’m going to endanger the security of my constituents you are very much mistaken!”

Wow! How telling that, when cornered, Hillary resorts to the Bushian “we’re fighting them over there so we don’t have to fight them over here” argument — and so readily, almost instinctively.

Now that the war is unpopular, however, Hillary is trying to distance herself from her previous incarnation as a hawk. It won’t work — thanks to Youtube! 

 

Antiwar Radio: Richard Cummings

Why did America invade Iraq?

Oil? Israel? …

Jets, bombs and taxed dollars.

So says Richard Cummings as he explains the story behind his Playboy.com article “Lockheed Stock and Two Smoking Barrels“: the direct role in policy-making played by Lockheed Martin and the rest of the Military Industrial Complex and the amount of money they loot from the U.S. Treasury.

Also discussed: whether the National Review is a CIA front.

MP3 here.

Richard Cummings taught international law at the Haile Selassie I University and before that, was Attorney-Advisor with the Office of General Counsel of the Near East South Asia region of U.S.A.I.D, where he was responsible for the legal work pertaining to the aid program in Israel, Jordan, Pakistan and Afghanistan. He is the author of The Immortalists, The Pied Piper – Allard K. Lowenstein and the Liberal Dream, and the comedy, Soccer Moms From Hell. He holds a Ph.D. in Social and Political Sciences from Cambridge University and is a member of the Association of Former Intelligence Officers.

Time out to say thank you to all who have supported Antiwar.com and have sent in their compliments on the new radio project!

If you enjoy the interviews, lend a hand: Digg it, send an email to a friend and post a blog at your place. Then, before you know it, War Party radio will be obsolete.

I was wondering when it would happen. Nine months after the last suicide bombing in Israel, another bomber struck — this time in Eilat, a southern resort town on the Red Sea which has never experienced a suicide attack. Islamic Jihad and the Al-Aqsa Brigades both claimed responsibility for the attack, in an attempt to send a message to their people that internecine fighting should be redirected at their common enemy — Israel.

The reactions were predictable: the internationals condemned it (maybe we should run a story about how the sky is blue), Hamas condoned it as a “natural response to the occupier’s crimes against our people,” and Fatah slammed it because bombings “blacken the image of the Palestinian people.” Even the pragmatic old guard cannot bring themselves to mention the humanity of the victims — for them, it has always been about expediency. Who is right? Everyone.

It’s monstrous to blow people apart who are baking bread. However, the bombing is a natural response to Israel’s predations against the Palestinians and rejection of their very legitimate gripes. But as the Abbas camp maintains, violence is completely counterproductive toward the goal of gaining the sympathy, respect, and help of the world and moderate Israelis.
What of the individual bomber?

“Islamic Jihad identified the bomber as Mohammed Siksik, 20, from the northern Gaza town of Beit Lahiya. Relatives said Siksik was an unemployed laborer who was despondent over the death of a newborn daughter from disease and driven to avenge his best friend’s killing in fighting with Israel.”

As long as this unfathomable level of desperation is experienced by such a high number of Palestinians, the reckless fringe will have all the volunteers they can brainwash.

This is not going away until Palestinians gain the right to return to their land. A violent invasion born of terrorism stole their country, there is no way to avoid this historical truth. This is not fundamentally an ethnic or religious question, but one of individuals and their property. Unfortunately any expectation for an honest resolution is based on the assumption that the Israeli government operates in good faith — an assumption that is naive at best.