Posted March 17, 2003

National Security

On March 5, 2003, we learn from ABC News that forty ultraconservatives have been planning this war with Iraq since 1997. Ten of these forty people are in the Bush administration now. They include Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz. Their purpose is to impose our government on Iraq. According to William Kristol, one of the forty and a former aide to Dan Quayle, Iraq is not the only country targeted.

On March 7, 2003, the chief inspectors in Iraq, reported that the information provided to the UN Security council by the United States and Britain on Iraq's nuclear weapons program has been found to be fraudulent. The anthrax attack following 9/11 has been reported to have come from the United States biological weapons program. Some of the people that were targets of attack were Democratic Senators and prominent news reporters. The attack happened right after the Bush administration lost control of the Senate in 2001. Constitutional rights of individuals are now being circumvented in the guise of national security.

We the people of the United States have a right to know where this is going. Are we being led down a primrose path by a few arrogant men to attempt world domination? Where and when is this war with other nations going to stop? I don't think that I am the only person who is disturbed by the above facts.

~ G. Thomas Clark

Where Were We?

Where were we in the late '90s? Asleep.

Over and over again I've heard "why didn't people protest the bombings of Serbia, Sudan, and Iraq under Clinton?". Well, personally, I never quite understood what was going on in Central Europe, and still don't (I'd love to know some books that could provide me with broad analysis of that situation). But more importantly, I became radically politicized (i.e. "woke up") in early 2001, and many, many people woke up after 9-11.

I think many people who spent the last couple years reading Chomsky, Fisk, Said, and other sources gained a new understanding of US foreign policy (and probably, in hindsight, of Clinton). Afghanistan was a difficult war to protest (and a little too early), but this bogus crusade against Iraq isn't. The movement against the war in Iraq is one outcome of the shock of 9-11.

This antiwar movement has little to do with partisan politics. It is the beginning of a principled anti-imperialist movement grounded in basic morality and a clearer picture of the world than can been seen through the TV screen.

It may lead to some very radical upheavals as people question the corporate media and our current system of "democracy". Democrats fed up with the Democratic Party, and Republicans fed up with the Republican Party, and everyone else who has been disgusted with both for years, it is time to discard both parties and representative "democracy" itself. Let's work together to build more directly democratic structures.

~ Martin B.

Regarding "Missouri County GOP Chairman Resigns Over War" by Jack Walters:

I am also a Republican who opposes war with Iraq. This war will have to go down in history as one of the stupidest wars ever waged – a war to liberate people who don't want to be liberated and a war to eliminate weapons of mass destruction that don't exist. The same conservatives, who claim America kills and mutilates hundreds of thousands of innocent babies each year, want to go half way around the world and wage war against a country they claim is too brutal. Why don't we try to solve some of our own problems before we go off halfcocked trying to solve problems every where else in the world?

~ Adam Craig, Dayton, Ohio

Jack Walters replies:

Thank you for your great comments. Let's keep fighting.

Jack Walters, you are truly a brave hero to have the courage to speak out as you have. It is amazing to me that there is nothing in the mainstream media that has mentioned this letter of resignation. I am going to call the newspapers tomorrow in my area and see what response I get.

Thanks again for your eloquent letter.

~ Phyliss T.

Jack Walters replies:

Thank you, Phyliss. Some newspapers have contacted me for permission to run the letter. Ask you local paper to run it, you have my permission. And, Phyliss, it is good to know there are thinking individuals out there like yourself.

I have been a Republican since the age of 21 (1983). I did not become a Republican because of Reagan and Bush, or Clinton for that matter. I agreed with the basic philosophy of the party!

What scares me is that I fear that the President is so focused on this war with Iraq to finish the job his father started I think he is going to bring this country into hell. I pray I am wrong, I pray for him and I hope that he can avoid war somehow some way.

Thank you, sir, thank you so much! I thought I was going crazy. God bless you!

~ Dee J.

This is great. I heard it today on KPFA and had to get a copy. Thanks.

~ Liz Gossick

Jack Walters replies:

Thank You, Liz. I know you will do your part.

This is a tremendous document. Most, if not all, of the critical issues that are not being addressed by the media or the Congress are presented very nicely. I was the first GOP precinct chairman of my precinct, back in the days of Ronald Reagan I observed deceit, duplicity and plain ol' nastiness at the first county level meeting I attended. I was elected by write-in (No competition) I was eliminated when the Religious Right became agitated. And now look at where our country is today. We have really got a problem of the blind leading the blind. Oh, and with what egos.

I wrote some of these very words in a letter to the editor of my local area paper a few months ago, namely "Wars are easy to get into, but very difficult to get out of."

~ John Romney Pyper (my mother and George Romney are first cousins)

Thanks for your principled stand!

~ Joy Hilden

Jack Walters replies:

Thank You, Joy. We all must stand now, time is short.

Regarding Nebojsa Malic's reply to Dragan Popovich's letter posted March 15:

OK, Nebojsa Malic wants arguments based on his actual statements. Fair.

His column ["Death of a Manager"] starts with a lie in the first paragraph:

"Djindjic was killed at the pinnacle of his career, just after he finished securing his grip on power in Serbia without ever standing for election."

Without ever standing for election? Which planet does Malic live on? Djindjic was constantly in parliamentary life from 1990 onwards as an elected representative, and was spiritus movens behind the coalition of opposition parties for the September 2000 elections in Serbia, when Milosevic finally lost. Djindjic's coalition winning the majority and his party being the largest or second largest in the coalition resulted in him becoming the prime minister. Isn't that how the electoral process is supposed to work?

As for Malic's constant derogatory use of words "quisling", "vassal" and "empire": Milos Obrenovic (Milos the Great) was a vassal of the Turkish empire as long as he had to and it suited his political purpose of building Serbian institutions. And so was Djindjic – again, it's much easier to theorize how things should be done in an ideal world than to do dirty but necessary work with what little you've got.

Finally, arguing against Malic's claim that Djindjic spent his term destroying civic institutions would be like arguing against someone who claims that the Earth is flat. Civic institutions cannot be built overnight and in a vacuum – it takes years of hard work and changing the mindset of the population, tired after a decade of life in poverty and hopelessness. Close to half a million ordinary citizens of Serbia at Djindjic's funeral today certainly testify to that.

~ Dragan Popovich

Nebojsa Malic replies:

Well, of course he took part in elections. And he lost, just about every time. At the time of his death, his popularity was what, 11%? He was never elected to the omnipotence he achieved. He even became Prime Minister as candidate of the list named 'DOS-Vojislav Kostunica'. Enough said. Of course, thousands of people turned up for his funeral because of the cult of 'great leader' developed around Djindjic – especially now that he's dead – as it was around Milosevic, Tito and others. Or did you forget the crowds they used to draw while in power? I'd wager most of the people who showed up at the funeral didn't care much for Djindjic when he was alive and in charge – but came to pay their respects to the dead, which is only civilized.

You invoked the Milos Obrenovic comparison, not I. Yes, he was a vassal – but he took Serbia from full Ottoman control to virtual independence. Djindjic was going the other way around. The 'spiritus movens' behind the DOS was, on their own admission, the United States government. You can look it up.

Finally, the last argument is specious. I claimed Djindjic demolished the institutions of government, not civic institutions (i.e. institutions of society). They cannot be created by the government anyway. And while I would normally applaud a reduction of government, as a libertarian, Djindjic did it so he could assume their power personally. The current chaos indicates just to what an extent he succeeded.

Proposal

Maybe if George steps down, Saddam would step down! Sounds fair.

~ Black Dog, Canada

To All Those Closet Right Wingers

To all those closet right wingers who come here to Antiwar.com to rant:

We who believe in a world without war, we do not go to Limbaugh.com or Fox or any other right wing website because – get this – we do not care how you brainwash yourselves!

You, on the other hand, are closet peaceniks and antiwarphiles. You want a world without war but were always afraid to ask. Ask! Demand! We are Republicans who have been betrayed; Democrats who have been ripped off; and Greens who have no voice!

Eric and Justin and Sam are doing the work of Tom Jefferson and Tom Paine because they are not here to do it. So get your fix and question authority.

~ Douglas Herman, Kodiak Alaska and USAF veteran

Stop War By Doing Nothing

By leveraging the unprecedented coordinating power of the Internet, we have the ability to stop our economy in its tracks and send a clear and powerful message to Washington. By pausing the US economy for just one day, your voice will not only be heard, it will be felt. Every day we go to work, we Americans fund one more day of war aggressions. Take the candlelight vigil to the next level and hit them where it hurts. If you’re really committed to stopping war, take part in the National Walkout on War Day.

WHAT: National Walkout on War Day
WHEN: Wednesday, March 26th, 2003
WHO: All working Americans against the war
HOW: A day of national strike against war ...

~ Joe Citizen

Regarding "What's It All About, Ari?" by Justin Raimondo:

I totally agree that this war is for the interest of Israel not the US. Further, more it is not in the interest of Jewish people who will be affected by it the most. Hatred for Jewish people will be even more in the Middle East that it is today. This war will unleash the fanaticism in all parts of the Middle East.

~ Ghassan Baslan

Bush Approaching His Waterloo

Bush has yet to show the sad face but he is getting close. The supposedly docile UN has grown teeth and cannot be bribed or bullied into rubber-stamping his "war." Fox news has had to fall back to endless yapping about Elizabeth Smart and they're serving "freedom fries" at the capitol mess.

Having painted himself into a corner (amen!) with his tough talk, Bush is rapidly running out of options and will either have to put his tail between his legs and retreat or move ahead and prosecute his war with his "coalition." "Bush vs. the world" – you should use that byline for an editorial as it would be a reasonably accurate summation of the present situation.

Having gone this far and with the likes of Rummy, Condy & Co. (anyone seen or heard Cheney?) putting the starch in his shorts, war it will be. Maybe if he's lucky Bush will get Chevron to name a tanker after him when the smoke clears. ...

~ Ken Wooley

Regarding "Top Ten Bogus Justifications for the Iraqi War" by Christopher Deliso:

There are at least a few rightists like myself who agree with you (Joe Sobran, Charley Reese, Ron Paul, Pat Buchanan). If those who oppose the war are merely anti-Bush and therefore knee-jerk on this, then what do right-wingers have to gain by being antiwar? It would be far easier to back the president blindly -I voted for him, wrote letters to the editor for him, etc. I want Bush to succeed, and I actually want him to get a second term!

But Bush has been used, and used badly. Everything that you say has proven itself true! By the way, I abhorred Clinton and his wars at least as much. Those people who think George Bush can count on the personal loyalty of the American electorate to get him reelected should think again about Lyndon Johnson. All the Democrats need is the right man and Bush Jr. will join his dad as a one termer.

I heard a lady say she voted for Bush because he is pro-life. I voted for him because of the 2nd Amendment. If a Democrat came along and promised he wouldn't sign any gun control laws if he was elected in 04, Bush might lose my vote! (This is unlikely because the Democrats have a hard cadre of gun haters, but gun control might go the way of Prohibition in the '30s.) I thought it would take another 4 years to put the last nails into the coffin of gun control, but we might not get that – thanks to this stupid war.

~ Leona Marti