|
|||||||||
Posted May 6, 2003
Regarding "The Final Secret of 9/11" by Justin Raimondo:
Liked your article. ...
Why are you so absolutely disparaging of the possibility that "Bush" knew? If someone is capable of launching an illegal, immoral, murderous war that kills thousands of innocents, why would you be so absolutely sure that he should be removed from the list of possible 9/11 culprits, even if "only" of the variety of being told that "we need not stand in the way of this happening because..." There is simply so much criminality and treason in this family's history, why would you want to paint it now in angelic colors?
Justin Raimondo replies:
No one is painting President Bush in "angelic colors." But there is no evidence that "Bush knew," and, until there is, I will disparage all such fact-less theories.
ROOSEVELT
KNEW – 1941
JOHNSON
KNEW – 1964
BUSH KNEW – 2001
One possibility I haven't heard or read about why the Bush administration is stonewalling the release of information related to the 9/11 investigation is that the system already in place before 9/11 worked. If the perpetrators actually should've and could've been uncovered and apprehended if due diligence had been paid to what was known beforehand and the attacks thereby prevented, then that admission would negate the need for the huge buildup of the security apparatus and erosion of civil liberties we are witnessing today. As things stand, however, the fear induced by 9/11 and exacerbated by administration actions and pronouncements appear to be driving people to embrace these draconian measures, the latest of which is to expand CIA and Pentagon authority on the homefront.
I am a lefty progressive, but I enjoy reading your site. Keep up the important work.
...You might have mentioned, regarding 9/11, that $50 million was given in an eyeblink to investigate the Columbia disaster – meetings and updates are given to the press every week – and yet $11 million had to be pulled from the government for 9/11, kicking and screaming, and so far: nothing.
I think you are making a mistake in assuming, because the Bush administration opposes publication of the congressional report, that it contains the 'truth'. This conflict over release of the document is a distraction. The actual questions, several of which you have discussed, will not be raised by congress or the administration.
Thanks for your stimulating columns.
I noticed in your column where you talk about the Partisan Review piece which referred to Lenora Fulani as PJB's "running mate." This has become a sort of calculated smear on the part of the neocons. It isn't the first time they've tried it.
Sometime shortly after 9/11, Rush Limbaugh spouted the same on his show. Recently, FPM's David Harsanyi tried the same thing and was only shamed into correcting it when I myself hopped in and pointed out the error. Harsanyi was shamed into changing "former running mate" into "former coconspirator" or something lame like that (I can't seem to find a copy of the original uncorrected column, but the lame rephrasal makes my point).
Since then I've seen this "Fulani's running mate" smear repeated so many times that I can't imagine it's a mistake anymore. The neocons know EXACTLY what they're doing.
I don't know, Justin, it seems pretty clear how the hijackers got away with it. There are 300,000,000 people in this country, nineteen of them bought airline tickets and took box cutters aboard. Why does there need to be a "secret." Open borders, too many people to check, period.
~ Chris Hewlett, Clinton, Mississippi
Regarding "Is Somalia a Model?" by Alan Bock:
I just wanted to write to thank Alan Bock for yet another well written article. I frequently disagree with what he says, but it is a pleasure to read his thought-out and well constructed arguments.
Keep up the good work!
Alan Bock replies:
So I write well even when I'm wrong? I say that frequently about other writers, so I'll accept it as a compliment even if it was meant to have a little backhand in it.
Although it has been said that Iraq may be a good candidate for democracy, I think we should center everything around their traditional values. Give them a good model and let them have the say in how it works. As far as it working effectively, that's any person's guess. The countries in the middle east (except for Israel) have never been able to move beyond their own family feuds nor solve their own problems. So what does this tell us?
One important thing to consider overall, is that the United States should be cautious in what we give to these middle eastern countries considering both technology, training, our ideas and military equipment. This also goes for Saudi Arabia. The reason, it is inevitable that we, the United States will likely, at some point be fighting against them. So, why help them now to defeat us?
~ Frank Ybarbo, Mesquite, Texas
An interesting suggestion that might work well with the underlying structure of Iraqi society. The weakness of the argument seems to me to be that it doesn't deal with many aspects of Iraq. Moreover, the article doesn't look at the economy of Iraq, which unlike Somalia, is highly centralized and relatively modern. My notion is that 'modern' societies require a framework of government and law.
For example, no discussion of Iraq can exclude the oil industry, the largest single source of power and wealth in Iraq. Oil reserves are concentrated in a few specific areas, and the amount of wealth involved is well worth dominating the entire country to control. Regional ownership of the oil resources would shift wealth to a few areas and communities while leaving Baghdad, the largest centre of population, without access to the revenues that oil generates. A 'fair' sharing of the oil resource might require some kind of national royalty to be paid to the central government, which could be redistributed to regional governments. But any likely sharing mechanism would require a fairly sophisticated political system to develop and manage.
Second, the middle east is a volatile, dangerous area. Other nations within the middle east are well armed and capable of aggressive military action. Iraq needs a strong central government with military capacity to protect its resources from the Turks and the Iranians, both of which have large military forces as well as interest in the region. Redeveloping a sufficiently large military force would require a fairly strong central government.
Third, historically, kingdoms in the Nile and the Tigris-Euphrates valleys have grown up around major river systems, because large benefits accrue from central control over the communities that share the river valley resources. This is still likely to be relevant in modern Iraq, as the Tigris-Euphrates river system remains essential to the economy. Turkey already restricts Iraq's access to water flowing through this system. Arguably, Iraq needs to be better able to negotiate issues related to the management of the Tigris-Euphrates watershed with the countries that share the watershed. Regulating pollution and water resource sharing within Iraq raise important issues as well. All these considerations suggest that a a national governmental structure is required to manage water resources, prevent undue exploitation, pollution and/or diversion and represent Iraqi interests more effectively within the larger region.
That being said, some sort of federal system would seem to be essential to establishing a peaceful, and orderly government in Iraq that is more respectful of the diverse communities and religious groups, rather than being dominated by a minority, as Iraq has been, in recent history. The trick is to get Iraqis to see their own way towards such an end.
Regarding "Neocons in Denial" by Justin Raimondo:
Thank you SO much for this spectacular, well-documented article. I have made it item #1 on the most recent list of recommended reads and actions that I send out occasionally to a growing number of like-minded friends.
It is critically important that we in the anti Bush Doctrine movement help American citizens to understand that what is at stake is nothing less than the founding principles and the moral core of our great nation. We need a thousand more opinion pieces like your own to appear every day. Against what seems like overwhelming odds, we simply must emphatically and repeatedly claim our rightful place as the TRUE defenders of American democracy and American ideals.
Thank you for adding your eloquent voice. PLEASE keep speaking.
~ A. John Mallinckrodt, Professor of Physics, Cal Poly Pomona
Regarding "Stop Playing Into Castro's Hands" by Jeri Laber:
The posted article by Jeri Laber criticizing Cuba is a pile of ignorant slush. I must admit, it's definitely not the sort of article I expected to read on Antiwar.com.
Facts are so precious, but not to Laber it seems. He must have got his straight from Miami, NOWHERE else.
Keep posting unabashed, right-wing fanatical rants by lazy writers and I'll stop visiting your site.
No doubt, many others will too.
Managing Editor Eric Garris replies:
We would be happy to post your response in our letters section, but you might want to actually point out an objection. If facts are so precious, why not use some yourself?
Name
I just wanted to thank you for providing what just might be the finest source of news the world has right now. There is only one VERY constructive criticism I wish to express.
The NAME AntiWar is a turn off to those people WHO REALLY NEED to be getting this information.
It's fine for those of us who oppose war and violence and so on, and in that sense it's a refuge I suppose, but for the people who have been brainwashed by CNN and Fox news and all the other propaganda rags that cover the world. THESE folks who actually would like to be informed and try to stay informed, but live in a conservative world. A site EXACTLY like this with a different name would really be a blessing. Please consider this.
Sedition?
What about those who are constantly promoting and pushing for world government which would totally displace and replace our US Constitutional republic, are these people in high places not guilty of sedition against the USA?
I have been trying to awaken a few people about this problem with the CAR, but nobody dares to touch it.
Any comments?
Eric Garris replies:
Promoting the idea of bringing back sedition laws can only backfire on us, since the War Party are the ones in charge of prosecution for such crimes.
One need not look to the minutes of meetings of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) to determine the agenda of the ruling elite. They have become so cocky that you can read it in the daily newspapers.
Regarding "No Grasp: Why a far-reaching American empire will not serve anyone's interests, least of all ours" by Jeff Faux:
Jeff Faux is pretty much right on the money. Intuitively, many thoughtful Libertarians, and Socialists as well, are picking up on the broad historical pattern. I do not mean to imply that Mr. Faux's article was only intuitive. It is thoughtful, well-researched, and very, very timely.
The Libertarians and the Socialists have been warning of the same prospect. Comparisons are made to Rome, or the Caliphate, (interesting, that, sharing the common religious MO), or even the British in their Imperial days. Actually, ;there is a better model, a more concise rendering. The proper guidepost is Thucycides' "The Peloponnesian War" and currently we, as Athens, have just concluded the Melian campaign.
Now, as then, the illusion of character is destroyed. The murderous assault on Iraq has alerted a world. In ancient Hellas, the Athenian Confederacy was thought by many to be a benign, even necessary entity, just as the United States has long been so perceived. After Melos, no more. After Iraq, no more. Now the world will change in both old and new ways.
Fascists and racists govern here in the US but they do not yet rule. That will change within a short time, no doubt, one way or the other. Mr. Faux does not use such blunt language, but he does so out of moderation. He certainly understands the danger. More writers, of both the left and the right should spread the word, for our common enemy is Fascism.
10 Commandments of Censorship
... Since Bush claims his life is guided by “holy rules,” let's explore some of the neocons commandments of censorship when they are faced with the disobedience of dissidence.
1. Thou shalt invoke accusations of not supporting the troops. This commandment is cited by those who apparently cannot make a distinction between the actual troops and the political leaders who command them. Under this decree, “nonsupport” applies to those who do not want to see the troops needlessly killed, while “support” applies to those who are willing to see them put into harms way, no matter how unjust the circumstances might be. ...
2. Thou shalt invoke the image of future “Hitlers” conquering the world. This commandment is cited to further terrorize and frighten the American population. While laughable at best to anyone who minimally stayed awake during high school history class, this commandment is effective on a population who has been subjected to an unprecedented wave of propaganda that most notably began with Bush’s identification of the “axis of evil."
3. Thou shalt invoke accusations of being anti-American. This commandment is cited when criticism is leveled against any action taken by the Bush Administration, no matter how perverse those actions might be. Asserting someone as “anti-Gabonian” is an effective way to raise eyebrows and make obvious the absurdity of such declarations. Presumably one could also be anti-Bush, since he is a tangible spatio-temporal entity, but such complexities as holding an individual responsible are easily sidetracked by the simpler idea of associating the land and the king as one. This also applies to Old Europe with New Europe’s mantra being, “Forgive your new allies, for they know not what they do.” Forget about the anti-American Western Europe, the real allies are questionable middle-Eastern and central-Asian regimes.
4. Thou shalt invoke accusations of helping the enemy. This commandment establishes the either/or disjunction of “with us or against us.” At this point it would include most of the world and a significant percentage of the American population. This commandment runs in close conjunction with #3, and is sometimes exchangeable with Remember the Patriot Act and keep it Holy. Quoting Bush regarding what he means by the “Patriot” Act from a rare press conference, he stated, “There ought to be limits to freedom.”
5. Thou shalt invoke images of hippy liberals and Hollywood elites. This commandment is often reinforced by the “liberal” media that refuse to interview the hundreds of scholars, poets, ministers, and activists who can clearly articulate the movement’s peaceful viewpoints counter to those of Generals and press pundits who dominate mainstream media.
6. Thou shalt invoke the bandwagon of polls. This commandment is cited to diminish the impact of the hundreds of thousands of people protesting in the United States and around the world by implying that they are but a small minority. Undisclosed polling information regarding the strength and depth of support for the war is usually excluded or unknown when this commandment is cited.
7. Thou shalt invoke that time is better served elsewhere. This commandment is also in direct response to the hundreds of thousands of people demonstrating around the country who are wasting their time by exercising their first amendment rights. This decree has actually been invoked several times by President Bush himself, referring to protesters as merely a “focus group.”
8. Thou shalt invoke wasting police resources. This commandment is reinforced by #7. People exercising their rights are endangering law enforcement’s ability to protect the people’s rights; therefore, those people should sit passively in their homes and get back to more important matters, like watching the new reality TV show “Gulf War part II.
9. Thou shalt invoke ignorance of the world. This commandment is the last refuge of an argument when there cannot be a legitimate point made regarding why the Bush Administration is acting the way it is. For example, “The protesters are naïve and don’t fully understand the ways of the world.” ...
10. Thou shalt resort to name-calling and harassment. This commandment usually follows #9, and is the last act committed before a policeman or counter-demonstrator inflicts physical harm on a protester for being so arrogant and disobedient enough as having a different opinion. Dirty words such as “peace” may be ennobled into politically correct terms such as “peacenik” when this commandment is invoked. ...
Primary Cause
Some months ago, I wrote you a letter filled with “fire and brimstone” against pro-Israel factions pushing the U.S. into a war against Iraq.
Watching events in the following months has caused me to modify my views. I no longer believe that neo-conservatives views on foreign policy were the primary cause of the war although I still believe they were a factor.
However, it seems that Bush’s own ambition to secure legitimacy for his unelected presidency by uniting the country around his administration during wartime was a more important cause of the war. I still doubt the oil argument—bribing the corrupt Saddam would have been a far cheaper way of getting the oil than war—but no doubt, the US also wanted to assert its hegemony in the region, test its high-tech weapons under battlefield conditions, and give fat government contracts to companies like Halliburton.
The more I watch Bush, the more alarmed I become. This is a man who signed 154 death warrants as governor of Texas, ignoring egregious violations of due process and cruelly mocking one of the condemned, Karla Faye Tucker, to get a cheap laugh.
When the killing in Iraq started, he strutted around like a bantam cock, pumping his fist in the air and crowing that he felt great, seemingly oblivious to the suffering he was inflicting in innocent Iraqi civilians.
Bush is simply so aggressive that he didn’t need too much prompting from the neo-conservatives to go to war. I can no longer single them out as a sole cause of the war in the face of Bush’s behavior. ...
Backtalk editor Sam Koritz replies:
Not that anyone asked me but I agree with Chris Montgomery's analysis: the most likely "primary cause" of the Iraq invasion is that invading a country like Iraq is the type of thing that a hegemon does. The Kosovo war was also undeclared, unprovoked and opposed by the UN Security Council. This latest adventure in Iraq was just more of the same. Does it really require an explanation?