vs. the Huckster
isn't apparent from the broadcast program, but people in the audience weren't
actually booing Ron Paul when he was saying we should take our marching orders
from the Constitution. In the middle of his remarks, Fox put up a video of Rudy's
reaction to his remarks. That's what the audience was booing at. Check out this
video, taken by an audience member.
It looks like
they're pulling every dirty trick they can think of, to diminish Dr. Paul's
support in any way they can. Ron Paul has 'em scared!
vs. Victor Davis Hanson
continued insistence by Victor Davis Hanson that the attacks on America on Sept.
11, 2001, happened because the U.S. hadn't instilled enough fear in the perpetrators
only serves as an indictment of his intellectual dishonesty. The man is clearly
not an imbecile, yet only a first-class moron could fail to see how patently
ridiculous the claim is.
Al-Qaeda may or
may not have feared the U.S. I suggest the latter but the suggestion
that this had any bearing on the decision to attack it is farcical. The only
relevance it may have had was to show those who did fear the U.S. that it was
not invincible. In this respect, the higher the degree of fear, the greater
the impetus to attack and disprove the belief.
~ Tom D., Sydney,
for John Taylor's witty and informative refutation of V.D. Hanson's faux scholarship
on the Peloponnesian War. I'd like to add just one comment concerning the outcome
of the conflict. Ultimately, of course, it wasn't the sophisticated Persians
who benefited from the Athenians' and Spartans' mutual destruction, but the
barbarian half-Greek Macedonian Alexander the Great, who put an end to whatever
remained of Athens' democracy and Sparta's military oligarchy, then went on
to conquer the Persians as well. The rule has always been to be very careful
when you start wars, because you release dangerous and unpredictable forces.
Too bad our Fantasist-in-Chief never pays attention.
~ LeeAnn Hansen
Money for Israel?
your criticisms of the Israeli lobby surely opens you to accusations of (or,
creepily, celebrations of) anti-Semitism, I've always appreciated your willingness
to separate the views of AIPAC and the Israeli hawks from mainstream Jewish
opinion and the diversity of opinion in Israel itself. I want to draw your attention
to the lead article in the latest issue of Tikkun magazine: "The Israel
Lobby: Bad for the U.S., Bad for Israel, Bad for the Jews." The article struggles
with the contradictions of being represented by "official" organizations that
don't represent your views, the difficulties with Zionist political correctness
surrounding Israel, the challenges involved with lobbying congress with a Jewish
antiwar message, as Tikkun does, and so on – including a sympathetic
review of Mearsheimer and Walt. I was disappointed to see that it was not posted
online, but it's definitely worth checking out if you have the opportunity.
The solutions offered are largely of the left-wing progressive sort, but the
view from inside is insightful – confirmation of the diversity of views and
the real gulf that exists between mainstream Jewish opinion and "mainstream"
~ Ezra Hillel,
Thanks so much
for your great work at Antiwar.com. The site is a tremendous resource, and your
writing is really informative and right on the mark most of the time. I am puzzled
though by your Aug. 31 endorsement of HR 3119, introduced by Mark Udall. It
seems to me that this proposal has some very large loopholes that will not do
much to prevent an U.S. attack on Iran.
If you consider
the exceptions under which the funding is permissible, it seems as if Bush can
do whatever he wants without worrying about this bill. For example, exception
two seems to allow a full-scale attack in an attempt to take out Iran's nuclear
program and its military capability if Bush is allowed to define what is meant
by an imminent attack. The latest campaign attempting to paint Iran as being
behind the attacks against the U.S. military in Iraq could be used as a cover
to fit under exception three. Exception four seems to allow almost anything.
Requiring a report within 24 hours sounds good, but do we expect the Congress
to actually do anything to stop an attack once it has been started?
The title of the
bill sounds great, but the details in the exceptions seem to me to suggest that
the bill wouldn't tie Bush's hands very much, if at all. The earlier amendment
that required Bush to obtain congressional authorization for an attack on Iran
– that Pelosi pulled – would likely have been more effective than this effort.
~ Ron Forthofer
at a Distance: The US Air War
agree with the Conn Hallinan that air power is being mal-used and overused in
both Iraq and Afghanistan. But since my son is in the USAF and is currently
in Kirkuk, I have to correct two mistakes in Mr. Hallinan's article:
(1) USAF tours
are not all as short as four months. My son's is six.
(2) And perhaps
my son's is an exception because he is doing something worthwhile. He is training
the 3rd Iraqi AF. And the mission they are flying is a support mission but comes
as close to combat action as I want anyway. And they ARE flying Iraqi aircraft
– purchased from Jordan. And the mission is NOT dropping bombs (and they
are definitely not "transport" aircraft).
~ Col. Larry Wilkerson,
War Criminal in the Living Room
good article EXCEPT the Christian churches are not indifferent to the massive
casualties inflicted on Iraqi civilians. I encourage you to check out the statements
from the National Council of Churches and the denominations opposing the war
from the time it was first conceived and was being pushed through Congress.
The official teaching of the United Methodist Church to which we have
pledged obedience is found in Article 16 of our Confession of Faith and it says,
"We believe war and bloodshed are contrary to the gospel and spirit of Christ."
Possibly it is
the fault of whatever media you are watching that you missed the very large
Christian antiwar demonstration, with civil disobedience, in the cold, cold
rain in Washington, D.C., last spring.
It is a popular
claim that the churches are not sufficiently antiwar. It is true that the members
are no more activist than the average union member whose union has voted antiwar
resolutions. But the churches' official positions, in the significant majority,
~ Carolyn Scarr
am an Army officer and a veteran. I am also a Libertarian who supports an isolationist
approach to foreign policy. I am leaving the military soon because I am not
willing to put my life on the line anymore for this current war. I love your
Web site and agree with your cause. Good luck getting your message out to the
~ A 1st lieutenant
refuse to watch most Republican events or Fox News. Because of that I did not
know about the success Ron Paul had until the following morning when a disproportionate
number of callers into C-SPAN praised him and his views on the war. Paul reminded
America that the same people who enmeshed us into their war are now warning
us of the unfavorable consequences if we leave Iraq. The intellectually inadequate
George W. Bush may not have had the power of prescience to realize the unintended
consequences when he launched his insane crusade into the distant sands, but
his neocon cabal of advisers were well aware, and what we are now enduring over
there is measured by them as being a success. Never in world history have so
many been adversely affected by so few. America today is living up to the comment
made by the Iranian leader as being "a spent nation." We have lost our economic
superiority because of flawed trade policies and costly failed foreign misadventures.
This new adversary
we have taken on, al-Qaeda, is not a nation such as our previous enemies were
but a globally dispersed gang of religious zealots who have been kicked so many
times by our neocon-directed foreign policies that they have been awakened,
and we find that, unlike most of our victims since the end of World War II,
they have the ability to fight back. Waging a completely successful war against
an international gang has already been shown to be impossible, as we experienced
with the Mafia. After a full century they are still with us. In 1946, while
still a young man in the Navy, I was crossing over on a ferry from San Diego
to the naval air station at North Island and viewed our destroyers neatly lined
up in the harbor. I believed they were obsolete if they fought a continental
enemy. Since then it has been used against small nations who lack the ability
to respond in kind to our aggression. Unlike Bush, those who subscribe to Antiwar.com
read and know history and understand that empires are unsustainable, as proven
by the fact that all end up in the dumpster.
Though we have
not officially declared war since 1941, the Lieberman bill has essentially done
the same thing by advocating a regime change in Iran. They will respond, and
it will not be a cakewalk nor a slam-dunk aftermath. The neocons have succeeded
in getting us into a war which can never end nor be won.
~ Stephen Block