|
|||||||||
Posted February 13, 2003
Regarding 'Antiwar Breakthrough!' by Justin Raimondo:
I never thought I'd be agreeing with Pat Buchanan but we do live in a rather strange world. I still remember some twenty years ago when, of all people, Barry Goldwater sent a public hostile message to Ronald Reagan who had mined the harbors of Nicaragua in defiance of international law. "That's an act of war you idiot", were the words that Goldwater said. Last year, a conservative governor of Illinois, George Ryan, halted of all executions in the state of Illinois and three days before he left office he removed all prisoners from death row. That's hardly an act activity that would indium to the solid right wing. I joined many others in a chorus of people proposing that governor Ryan be nominated for a Nobel prize for that. Some 50 years ago to Earl Warren, a conservative governor of California, was appointed as chief justice of the united states supreme court. To everyone's surprise, including Dwight D. Eisenhower, who had appointed him, Warren headed up the most liberal court in history. He rose to the occasion. Contrariwise, some of the dingbat moves by our liberal friends fill me with amazement. So I guess we do have to keep our eyes open and focus on the issues rather than on the people who are debating those issues.
I would have contributed long ago but two of your comments have kept me from doing so. You are the only person who has actually made me feel sorry for Andrew Sullivan. Your implication that he has lost his mind because of his disease was not only doubtful (considering his apparently good health) but insensitive. I would think that his hormone treatments are the more likely cause of his transformation, although I think it's just good old-fashioned political opportunism. You don't need to have AIDS for that.
The comments about the Puerto Ricans who groped women at a parade was insulting and silly. What else would they be? It's the friggin' Puerto Rican parade! How many of the other hundreds of thousands of Puerto Ricans actually engaged in this boorish behaviour? If you want to witness boorish behaviour just take a flight to Rome. Italians are the masters.
Anyway,
sorry for the flame. Keep up the good work.
~ Gabriel F.
Justin Raimondo replies:
"Apparent" good health has nothing to do with the medical reality of AIDS, which I know all too well. Dementia is, indeed, very often a symptom of AIDS, and can occur even if the patient has exhibited no other symptoms. But I agree that the testosterone theory is just as likely. In any case, madness is the diagnosis, whatever the cause: I became convinced of this after reading his argument as to why Iraq should have been hit with nuclear weapons last year. Without evidence linking Iraq to the anthrax attacks, Sullivan opined that the President ought not to delay -- it was morally imperative that he rain nuclear hellfire on the entire Iraqi nation. Why? Because he, Andrew Sullivan, knew -- he just knew -- that Iraq was responsible for putting anthrax in the U.S. postal system. If that isn't crazy, then what is? And I don't think it is at all wrong, either morally or factually, to attribute this sort of madness to a physical disease, especially when the sufferer has advertised his AIDS diagnosis. Was what I wrote cruel: yes. But it is cruel precisely because it is also true.
As for the Puerto Ricans: I have never written about the Puerto Rican Day Parade, either for Antiwar.com or anyone else. You have me confused with Taki. (So does this mean you're going to fork over half a contribution?)
I know you are critical of war, in every way imaginable (thus the site's name, Antiwar.com) – but when I forward your articles to my friends who have not visited your site, you come off as extreme in your views. A few have told me that you only criticize, but don't provide a balanced view of the leftist/rightist viewpoints, nor do you really offer plausible solutions or ideas to the current formula the United States has been using to become what it has over the last 100 years or so (correct me if I'm wrong).
And now that I think about it, since I do support a lot of what you say – I can clearly say, all you do is, bitch bitch bitch ... but to what avail? You say nothing about what how you think stuff ought to be or what is the "right," antiwar, collaborative way of achieving world balance.
Can you alter your articles to include both sides of the argument, and I don't mean by A HREF-ing to what some dumbsh*t said in the Wall Street Journal or some neocon on CNN, but your own view, or others like you, their views, combined, as to what a proposed alternative way of keeping the balance in the world would be, without war. I mean let's face it, the USA controls – what? – 75% of the world resources (whether it be oil or what not), they are NATO (bluntly speaking), and what they're doing seems to be working.
The other, more enlightened idiots we bomb, if they knew the formula, or were bred/raised the "right" way (please don't nitpick on what the right way is, I'm a pro-westerner, stemming from the Balkans), they'd have been doing it themselves.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not bashing your site, I like it, but when all you see is nothing but extreme criticism of those that do not coincide with your Antiwar views ... gets kind of old after a while....
I just sent $30, probably not enough to pay for the number of times I've visited the site. You're doing good for the world and the country – please keep it up!
~ Paul D., Pasadena, California
I'm a left-of-center antiwar activist who reads your column and browses the Antiwar.com site regularly and even touts it to other lefties, because I find a lot of very intelligent, carefully argued stuff in it. I know all about ideological baggage, and I'm not especially happy that the Worker's World Party occupies the position it does in the antiwar movement. But my question pertains to the offhand remark you made in your recent American Conservative piece: "To reach them, the antiwar movement has got to ditch its ideological baggage, epitomized by Mumia Abu Jamal, the convicted cop-killer whose cause never goes unmentioned at an antiwar event, including the recent rallies."
What exactly do you mean by this remark? I don't want to make assumptions, and I could imagine that you are saying either a) that mixing up the Mumia case with the antiwar movement is a tactical error because it dilutes the latter's focus and therefore its effectiveness, or b) that the issue of getting a retrial for Mumia is not worthy of anyone's attention because it seems obvious to you that he received a fair trial. (Please note, I'm not even addressing his guilt or innocence, which anyone is entitled to have an opinion about.) If the former, I can appreciate the point, although trying to keep American radicals focused on just one or two things has always been like shoveling sh*t against the tide.
If the latter, I find it hard to believe, based on what I've read of your stuff, that the fact that Mumia was "convicted" could persuade you, just by itself, that he was tried fairly. So my questions are, did you just mean to make a tactical point, as in a), or did you mean to suggest that Mumia was (obviously – because the point was not even argued) tried fairly? And if you do think that Mumia got a fair trial, can you explain how you arrived at that conclusion?
My reading of the evidence and my understanding of the way the trial has actually been handled by the judge and prosecution, as well as my sense of the almost unimaginable degree of police department corruption in the city of Philadelphia, especially at the time the killing occurred, and the obvious lack of competent representation during the first trial, and the suppression of evidence in subsequent hearings, all lead me to the opposite conclusion. I would have supposed that a libertarian political columnist would be concerned about making sure that everyone, guilty or not, is tried fairly, and even more than usually concerned for the rights of someone who, as a matter of public record, was under police surveillance from the time he was a teenager because of the political column he began writing at that age.
Anyhow, I like your column and your site, but I'd like to clear up in my own head, at least, the muddle provoked by your Mumia throwaway line.
Justin Raimondo replies:
The answer is: a) the Mumia case, and its constant presence on the antiwar platform, is a diversion away from a single-issue focus, which is desperately needed now.
If this war is prevented and the neocons or paleoreds, which is what they really are, are ever brought to heel, it won't be on a campus, but on Main St. Mr. and Mrs. J.Q. Public are the ones who need educating about these guys. Just look at how the Bushies are treating the previous generations of veterans. All that talk about "our brave veterans" from this collection of draft dodgers and chicken hawks is crap. Their penny-pinching attitude towards health care for vets from World War II,Korea and Vietnam is a disgrace. They actually went to the Supreme Court to screw some vets from World War II and Korea out of the free lifetime health care that they were promised upon enlistment all those years ago. Start getting that message out and let's see what happens.
I read your piece at the American Conservative magazine website. I appreciate and agree with most of what you say. I especially appreciated this point:
"Among the antiwar left-liberals, the UN has the status of a sacred totem: it is the deus ex machina of their little morality play, always an unconvincing plot device that may necessitate a surprise ending. The inspections procedure itself could become a flashpoint for war: a Gulf of Tonkin-like incident would be easy enough to engineer under the present circumstances."
I have always winced a little when I hear people championing the UN under these (or any?) circumstances; even though I do think the UN can, considering really-existing conditions, act as a brake on the behavior of nations. There is no more reason to disallow Iraq weapons than, say, the US, I think. Not to mention Israel.
The only thing I would disagree in with your article is the idea that the movement has moved to the mainstream because it has been joined by the right. I think it was fairly mainstream before and the right, to its credit, has moved to join it – on its own terms of course. Now, understand me, I'm not a leftist. My views are more accurately described as anarchistic: I have problems with the state and the market, or at least with corporations. My point is that some mention should be given to the fact that the antiwar movement was in many ways built by the left, no matter what we think of the left. The peace movement in Vietnam that came out of the Civil Rights movement in many ways was certainly leftist. Later came the Maoists and Stalinists, and more interesting to me, the left libertarians and anarchists. They did the work of keeping the principles involved alive for so long. One reason the right has now chosen to join the antiwar movement is that they don't have the Red Menace excuse to distract them anymore (which may have been real to some extent but which was used to cover over a lot more than was warranted).
You asked for feedback on your TAC article.
The difficulty is that you are trying to talk to two different audiences. Your message to antiwar conservatives comes across fairly well. Some of the more timid antiwar right wingers who have been till now reluctant to march for peace may come out February 15th. They know that you and other bonafide right wingers have been to the earlier march. They know that if they come they don't have to carry an ANSWER sign if they don't want to. They're told that they are important to the whole event. They are told that the lefties are fumbling the ball. And they are told that there are "principled leftists", and that these people will welcome them. You are babying them a bit, but if it works, great.
The problem is with your elaborate description of the way the lefties are fumbling the ball. My reading of this is that you really want leftists to seriously consider your criticisms. But this is neither the venue nor the article for those suggestions to be presented thoughtfully. To establish your credentials with the right, you must trash the left. Your message to the left, then, whatever its value, is not read by minds in a receptive mood.
Your article did make me laugh once though. When was the previous time you wrote the words "principled" and "leftists" together?
~ Doug Barrett, Edmonton, Canada
I appreciate your hard work and the Antiwar.com website, which I read daily. I just have a concern that I would like to pass along. It may seem trivial, but I am actively involved in the fight against tobacco, which kills more Americans than AIDS, suicides, homicides, car accidents, cancer, and illegal drugs combined. I also noted that you are planning a College Campus Outreach. Bravo! But I would take issue with the photo at the top of the page, showing you (I assume) with a cigarette dangling dangerously out of your mouth as in some 1950s James Dean film. Please consider the message you are sending with this.
I for one would be happy to contribute to your cause. But not until I see that photo changed. Thanks for your work and your attention.
~ David A. Wolkoff, M.D., Honolulu, Hawaii
Regarding 'The Crazies Who Preceded the Loonies' by Joseph Stromberg:
Joseph Stromberg’s right on, as usual, and with his usual analytical skill and rhetorical flourishes. I see now that bastardization of Catholic Just War Theory enjoys something of a lineage, albeit an ignoble one, and that it precedes Michael Novak and, more locally, Detroit Catholic (sic) Radio, whose neo-con commentators have yet to meet an American military adventure they couldn’t justify.
It’s a remarkable phenomenon. How do otherwise decent human beings – let alone professed Christians – bring themselves to endorse the permanent regime of bombing and meddling and embargoing? What intellectual gyrations spawn this level of self-deception? One can only conclude that Just War Theory – like the US Constitution and, indeed, the Ten Commandments themselves – forms part of some living document or other, thus rendering it amenable to whatever interpretation our death-worshipping, Gnostic pals (to borrow an epithet from Mr. Stromberg) choose to attach to it.
The moral relativism ends here, though, as neo-Catholics apply a strict literalism to the Church’s strictures on contraception and divorce and stem cell research. They strain at gnats, even as the camels enjoy free passage.
~ Tony Pivetta, Royal Oak, Michigan
Alan Koontz: Bravo to Joseph Stromberg for his most excellent and superbly written column of 8 February. It is ironic, though, how those Stromberg identified as the challengers to the New Right Cold Warrior impulse resorted to the Marxist-Leninist concept of the political struggle. As Stromberg wrote, Murray Rothbard et al. "stressed...the permanent struggle between liberty and the state...and the crucial role of war and preparation for war in strengthening the ... state..." at the expense of individual freedom.
Joseph Stromberg: I wish to thank Alan Koontz for his comments on my summary of the history of the New Right. As is his custom, Mr. Koontz immediately objects to any notion of sustained political analysis or action.
Well, the thesaurus was not at hand, and I chose the word "struggle" out of a dozen possible choices. We needn't father the notion on Lenin, Rothbard, or anyone else. It has been around, for better or worse, for a very long time. Aristotle has a lot to say about it, and the American Revolution makes no sense without it.
Let us say hypothetically, that at some point in time, there is a certain amount of freedom (i.e., people can do a certain range of things without interference from the state), and at the same time, there are those who wish to reduce that amount of freedom (i.e., entrust the state with thwarting people from doing some of those things). Now the people who are happy with their existing freedoms may not take kindly to proposals to reduce their freedom. Perhaps they object, perhaps they resist. I don't see how we can characterize the relations between the two groups without using some notion like conflict, struggle, or the like.
Perhaps, with Albert Jay Nock, we should view history as a "race" between "social power" and state power. "Race" may strike the ear as more appealing than "struggle," etc. For Nock, "social power" was shorthand for voluntary relations and interactions between actual people. Mr. Koontz habitually objects to "social" and "society" and would leave us without any means of discussing such relations. Evidently, we are now to be deprived of any means of discussing conflict as well.
Such
a fusion of quietism, nominalism, and/or Stirnerism does not bode well
for any, er, struggle for liberty.
Alan Koontz: In practice, Rothbard was not averse to Leninist political tactics for purposes of achieving his political aims. The ratchet principle, for one, whereby extreme positions were taken, that others might meet him at least part way, only to find him further afield, as if following a mirage on the open desert highway. One always was left wondering just where Rothbard actually stood on the individual versus the State or anything else for that matter.
In any event, Stromberg's column only affirms there is always sufficient ambiguity in political theory and the odd escape clause hidden away somewhere in all the dense prose for one regardless of his/her politico-socio-economic views, propositions, or postulates to take virtually any position to suit the occasion as needs must for profit or satisfaction without reservation or implausibility whatsoever, so it seems.
Joseph
Stromberg: It does not follow that because the New Right wedded
the Cold War to the cause of liberty it had a workable worldview, nor
does it follow that pointing out the contradictions in that worldview
and trying to arrive at a consistent defense of liberty – Rothbard's
project – was, or must be, a waste of time. Mr. Koontz must be one
of very small number of people who fail to understand where Rothbard stood
on various important questions. People may disagree with Rothbard, to
be sure, but in contrast with Karl Marx, no huge industry need ever arise
around the question of What Rothbard Really Meant.
Mr. Koontz seems to object to politics. Many of us do. Why he objects
to efforts to study politics is less clear.
Regarding 'David Frum's Guide to Mythology, Part II' by Christopher Montgomery:
"Now that it has, now that the first bloody installment has been collected, can anyone tell me why this commodity, the maintenance by the United States of any sort of order in the Middle East, is a price worth her paying?"
The answer to your question is yes! Don't let your biases blind you to that which is so patently obvious. And I, as a Canadian, living in Canada, could only hope and wish that my country would also find it worth paying!
To clear up a misconception, I would like to point out that the Canadian prime minister does not "enjoy office at the pleasure of 'his' cabinet colleagues" – the Prime Minister is in fact a virtual dictator, and if a cabinet member should disagree with the PM, he is 'toast' – the former finance minister, Paul Martin, being a prime example! Time to wake up and smell the coffee!
~ E. Bleichert, Montreal, Canada
Christopher Montgomery replies:
Someone give him a gun (and directions).
As for Mr. Chretien, if you think, rather than being merely a very skilled parliamentarian, he's a 'dictator', you really ought to travel more.
Regarding 'War: Who Goes; Who Stays' by Douglas Herman:
Thanks for the great article on the ease with which the Haves can send the Have-nots off to war, with the latter convinced that they are "doing their duty," not being "taken for a ride." This mental trick makes for willing victims who don't dare question their leaders.
At my daughter's high school last year, I was waiting in the office to take her to the dentist, when I overheard a soldier talking to a low-income African-American boy who assisted in the office during his free class periods. The soldier came up close, insinuating himself to the boy, tempting him to join the military with these words spoken in hushed tones, "Hey, come on and join up after school today, and you'll get $5,000! How would you like $5,000? Hey, you can get a nice car with that! But you have to act now..."
The boy nodded, looking a bit hopeful at the thought of the money, but then casting his eyes onto the floor when pressured to "join up today." I'll never know the ending of that story, but I certainly could see how it might begin. Bribing poor kids to spill their blood in lieu of the children of people like Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, Bush, Rice....
About
time this kind of info gets out. Why doesn't this hit the mainstream press?
I guess we know the answer to that. It would embarrass the Republican
draft dodgers who made their name calling Democrats "draft dodgers."
And, the milquetoast mainstream press refuses to print anything that would
embarrass the present draft dodgers in power. Keep up the good work, maybe
someday someone in power will get the message.
~ John E., former enlisted Marine
Regarding 'Free Taki' by Justin Raimondo:
After reading Justin Raimondo's column I decided to subscribe for The American Conservative that I only have been reading online until now.
I don't totally agree with Taki's article but that British law deems an article or speech to be racist only because someone thinks it is racist is definitely not freedom of speech. Until now I believed that racism was the opinion that different ethnic groups where either superior or inferior to other ethnic groups by birth. Being from Sweden I claim that Norwegians are more easily integrated in our society than for example Bhutanese, now I think I according to British law have committed the same crime as Taki.
As usual, in his article “Free Taki”, Justin Raimondo eloquently expressed many valid points concerning, in this case, the assault on freedom and democracy by the Blair government in the UK. Unfortunately, the piece was also littered with inconsistencies, hyperbole and outright nonsense.
Near the beginning of the piece came a strong contender for the most ludicrous claim: “But America is indeed a bastion of freedom compared to our ally, Great Britain, which is, today, nothing short of a totalitarian state.”
There may well be many facts to substantiate a claim that America is freer than Great Britain, but there are also many areas where the US lags well behind Britain and demonstrate that it is, in fact, far short of a totalitarian state. In the US mainstream media for example, in my experience those opposing the War Party are marginalized to the point of insignificance. In contrast, some of the most eloquent opponents of aggression such as Tony Benn and John Pilger can be found frequently within the mainstream media, albeit less often than they deserve, especially given the size of the constituencies that they represent.
I don’t know how much experience Raimondo has of “that little bleak isle”, but a reference in a past column to his watching the demoralizing soap opera EastEnders could account for where he gained the impression of such bleakness.
Some of the evidence for this totalitarian state assertion seems to be based around the possibly impending prosecution of the dreadful reactionary, Taki Theodoracopoulos.
Raimondo implies that readers may agree to disagree with him over Taki’s most recent racist rant, and that: “…disagreeing with someone, and using the State as a club to shut them up, are two very different things.”
Here we agree, I think prosecuting Taki would be an outrage, but what of “groveling” Boris Johnson’s opinion that the piece should never have been published? Raimondo lambastes him for daring to criticize Taki’s polemic. So, apparently disagreeing with Raimondo isn’t after all a position that he can accept anyone holding. Who, in fact, is the totalitarian here?
The rest of the piece contains much uncharacteristically inelegant, atavistic and overly simplistic phraseology such as dismissing (the admittedly annoying and usually inane) Julie Burchill as a “commie cow”. There are other puzzling references to the supposedly left wing nature of the “neo-Stalinist” Tony Blair. He may be authoritarian, but is essentially the heir of Margaret Thatcher (not to say Enoch Powell, who he, apparently along with Taki, regards as a great man) rather than being any kind of “tentacle of the socialist octopus”.
Thanks no doubt in part, at least, to the tabloid hysteria surrounding asylum seekers, racial attacks in Britain are very steeply on the increase. Taki’s seemingly deliberately inflammatory language that describes West Indians as “black thugs” that “multiply like flies” is profoundly unhelpful. Prosecution of racists such as Taki would be wrong, but perhaps a relatively mainstream right wing journal such as the spectator is not the place for this kind of filth. Perhaps the lyrics of a Screwdriver song would be more appropriate?
I would like to thank Raimondo for his offer to bomb the UK to rescue us from the sinister sounding “Diversity Directorate”, but I would rather live under their form of extremism than Taki’s black shirted variety (if we are using the imagery 20th century dictators).
Regarding 'YellowTimes.org Shut Down!,' originally titled 'Stifling the Voice of Reason,' by Firas Al-Atraqchi (Scoop):
It seems that Jumpline does not have a bigger hosting plan to upgrade them to, that's why they were shutdown.
Webmaster Eric Garris replies:
Hosting plans have contracts that give notice. A landlord can't kick you out of your house without notice if you are paying according to your contract.
Mind Boggling
Are
you guys sure you're an antiwar site? You print articles by Robert Novak
and yet seemingly entirely missed the story about the British Government
downloading their intelligence reports from the Internet. I saw it briefly
mentioned on CNN Friday, then, to get the details, had to look in the
Drudgereport under archived stories. This story definitely brings the
phrase "reckless disregard for the truth" to mind, and I find
it mind boggling that you have ignored it.
~ Willie Watson
Webmaster Eric Garris replies:
We are a daily news site. We ran five stories about this over the past week. If you see one with new information that we have missed, please send it along. All of our previous 7 days pages are available from the links on the left hand column of our front page. (By the way, what is your problem with antiwar conservatives like Bob Novak?)
Psychology
In US and UK today there are high national terror threat alerts.
How come the al Qaeda/terror threats happens to occur when there are elections in the US, Christmas and people gathering , important decisions to be taken in the UN, Nato is cracking into pieces, a large antiwar rally in NYC and so on? Is it a part of the psychological defense to keep the citizens frightened and willing to follow their warmongering leaders? For how long will the people listen to them? It is time to say stop to all these lies.
The Point
Do you see the point of war? Obviously not. Saddam has weapons of mass destruction, we know how he got them. He is not going to show where there at obviously. That's all he has to do! Why doesn't he disarm? Obviously he wants them for a purpose. If we wait around maybe we will find out what his intent is. Well then I don't want to find out when all of America wakes up to thousands of people dead when a few vials of bio agents get released, say, with the fog in the San Francisco Bay.
During the late '70s the government released a vial of the flu virus in numerous major areas to see how far and how much it would effect and it was very effective. And you worry about the military? Well, they want to go do their job, the choice they made for freedom. The Constitution gives us the right to help and stop foreign problems. For our interest and others'. If you're afraid of retaliation or confrontation well then maybe that's why you're afraid of this war.
Why do you think there have been no such attacks right now? Well, if there were it could very well jump-start something they don't want now. Their whole point is to scare and intimidate. Well they know that it's not going to happen right now; when they know things are calm and they're in the clear they will do it again. So the point being you have a criminal and restriction after restriction to counseling, nothing happens and the person is getting more dangerous every day. Then finally the police come in and beat the cr*p out of him, arrests him and detains him as a last resort before he kills someone or – who knows? – kills again.
Well think of it that way only on a larger scale. And remember all Saddam had to do was disarm; so simple, so easy. If he was such a nice guy and cared wouldn't he want to try and solve the solution? Wouldn't he want to meet with NATO or American officials to make peace? No, he wants more time to waste for something or maybe nothing – the point is if you see his past he is dangerous and wants to take over the Middle East. He also still has the weapons to do something; let him do it or just sit and let him get away again. ...
Sit on your butt or waste all your energy protesting against people's right to live, or follow the fight to disarm a man on a mission to destroy others. And yes innocent people die in war; it happens but the greater good demands some sort of action.
~ Corporal Jessey B. Winslow, US Marine Corps
Chances Are
What are the chances that the Bush regime has saturated the airwaves with news that there is a heightened security warning because they want cover for their unconstitutional attempt to stop the citizens of the US from peaceably demonstrating? When they bring out Tom Ridge and John Asscroft to explain that there is a "real" reason for increasing the security warning, it seems a little overdone. Usually they just raise it and aren't too concerned with explaining why. Plus, the timing is a little suspicious.
What Changed?
It is more apparent how desperate the Administration is getting in trying to get a uneasy public to support its Iraq campaign. It has been stated goal of this administration since 2000 to invade Iraq and change the regime no matter the costs. Although many people including vice-president Cheney supported the decision to refrain from going into Baghdad in 1991. What changed between 1991 and 2000?
Is it the fact that the neoconservatives finally captured the soul of the Republican Party back in 1994? Or is that fact that in order to attract Jewish voters that Republican Party became an extension of the Likud Party? In fact, all of the above is the reason for us going into Iraq today!
Iraq is in no better shape today then it was in 1991 when we bombed the country back to stone age. A decade of sanctions have left the country's power constrained and no position to challenge US or Israeli militaries in the region.
Yet, the neo-conservatives and their Likud supporters want to keep it that way. They want to control the only Arab state that could really challenge Israel's military power in the region. Using Iraq as a base the USA could pressure all the Arab states in the region to back a peace plan designed by Ariel Sharon.
The Real Powell
I think we have seen the real Powell. The real Powell is a true politician, not guided by any particular morals, who signed up for the Washington DC fast track leaving any principles behind. His memoirs talk proudly of the Panama invasion, he has not spoken or tried to change depleted uranium weaponry and he has taken the role of rumor and misinformation spreader on this Iraq war. He has clearly stepped into the ring with Rumsfeld and the rest of the bunch. He makes political calculations not moral ones. We should ask how his son stumbled into FCC leadership. Its obviously a reward for being a good soldier to the establishment.
Saddam
...What else can we do to protect ourselves from terrorism, and Saddam's possible connection with al Qaeda, which presumably may at any moment wish to cause destruction on America? We cannot just go in and kill Saddam, unless we declare war. So what is there for us to do? Please reply soon and help give me a better understanding of our other possibilities. Thanks!
Eric Garris replies:
Saddam has never attacked the US. The CIA, MI6, and Israeli intelligence all agree there is no connection to al-Qaeda. See the links below:
http://www.abcnews.go.com/wire/World/ap20030208_1486.html
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=376732
http://www.economist.com/world/na/displayStory.cfm?story_id=1567140
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,77248,00.html.
No War!
We do not need this oil war! No more American blood for these insane foreign interventions. The brave soldiers here at Camp Casey Korea have privately told me that they think Bush has gone mad!
To ... Bush and his poodle: please go in the first invasion wave into the sovereign nation of Iraq! Will America wake up before it is too late?
~ Michael Javick, retired, US Army
Regarding 'One Toke Over the Line, Sweet Reason' by Matthew Barganier:
Excellent piece. I couldn’t have said it better if I had plagiarized a thesis from a graduate student. The Hazlitt quote hits home (can someone say Krugman?) as does the analysis of Bailey’s Liberventionism mantra. Bravo, Mr. Barganier, keep up the great work.
~ Tim Swanson