|
|||||||||
Posted May 18, 2003
Regarding "The Anti-Americans" by Justin Raimondo:
I am horrified to see Antiwar.com (and Justin Raimondo in particular) carrying on about Anti-Americanism. Let's get this straight – no-one else in the world (other than Israel) carries on about Anti-their-nation-ism as if it is a disease that needs to be either dealt with or eradicated.
There is no such thing as Anti-Americanism. There are many, many people who do not like what America represents (the triumph of greed over community, the triumph of might over law). There are many, many who hate the current American government and their policies. But to turn that into a "classification" such as Anti-Americanism is such blatant propaganda and Orwellian nonsense that only feeds the sense of isolation that American citizens currently feel.
It is blatant and emotive nonsense. As meaningless as the charge of anti-semitism. I'm disappointed in Antiwar.com. Don't spread propaganda nonsense if you wish to be seen as a thoughtful and informed website.
~ Lily, Johannesburg, South Africa
Justin Raimondo replies:
I have avoided answering the letters, some nutty and others thoughtful, about my May 14 column, for lack of a handle, one letter that seemed to embody all the errors that underlie the others. This letter fits the bill.
To begin with, this missive denies the very existence of such a tendency as anti-Americanism, and claims that only Israel and the U.S. point to the existence of movements that target their respective nations as somehow inherently evil. But this is demonstrably false: or else what are the French complaining about recently? The French government has issued a letter to the President and both houses of Congress, pointing to lies being systematically spread about France – and not only by the American media, but by agencies of the US government. Is this not Francophobia? During the Kosovo war, the Serbs complained – I think correctly – about a certain amount of Serbo-phobia aimed in their direction. And what about Germanophobia in the US during two world wars, and what about the Japanophobia that enabled FDR to lock up Japanese-Americans in concentration camps?
Secondly, and more importantly, an entire ideology has been constructed around the idea that America "consumes" "resources" way out of proportion to the actual numbers of Americans in the world population. I put these words in ironic quotes because, to the Left, "resouces" exist in a vacuum: they are not produced by anyone. So the reality that Americans produce a far greater share of the global wealth is hidden by this statistical sleight-of-hand.
This ideology – let's call it what it is: anti-Americanism – is not just hostile to the policies of the US government – it is hostile to the political culture and people of the US It makes no distinction between the rulers and the ruled. And it sees nothing good about America. For the left, this total negativity is born out of a militant anti-capitalism, and the anti-Americanists hate the US for the same reason the anti-Communists of the cold war era hated the U.S.S.R. – because it embodies political notions they deem a mortal threat to the planet.
The lifting of the sanctions against Iraq is a moral imperative. It was a moral imperative before the war, and it remains so. For the nuttier battalions of the Left to now say that they support the sanctions, just because the US will supposedly benefit in some way, is morally indefensible – and politically stupid. It underscores not only the existence of anti-Americanism, but also the reason why it is the ideology of losers and misanthropes.
A dogmatic anti-American will say that nothing good has come of the invasion of Iraq by the US, but this is patently false. The question is: good, for whom?
There is no doubt that the people freed from Saddam's jails had grounds to cheer their American liberators. But should the Americans have been cheering the prospect of babysitting the Iraqis for an indefinite period, and paying their bills? I think not.
Injustice will hardly disappear from Iraq with the presence of the US military. Brutality and stupidity are part and parcel of wars, and always will be: that's why we're antiwar. But the idea that the occupation is never going to directly benefit the people of Iraq is a delusion that can be easily disproved – and any attempt to base opposition to US global intervention on such a premise is doomed to failure.
Antiwar.com opposes interventionism because it will mean the dismantling of the American republican form of limited government and inaugurate a new age of Empire, one in which the tremendous gains of the American Revolution – the first and only successful libertarian revolution in history – will be lost, perhaps forever. True Americanism is not imperialism: indeed, they are opposites.
So we argue that, yes, there will be some benefits accruing to conquered peoples in the new American Empire – but the biggest losers of all will be the Americans. An empire will mean endless wars, the steady erosion of civil liberties, more terrorism on American soil, and a rapid descent into Caesarism on the home front. This line of argument is not only true, but it has the added advantage of being more convincing to Americans – who, after all, will make the decision about which way to go. If American imperialism is going to be stopped, it will be done not by the opposing armies of another nation, but by the Americans themselves. Arguing that America is the root of all evil is the best way to sabotage our movement.
Let me begin by agreeing that a sharp distinction needs to be made between those in the antiwar crowd who base their concerns and criticism on facts and intellectual analysis and those who ascribe to the "knee-jerk anti-American far left." As an apparent supporter of the "global capitalist-zionist-warmongering neo conservative movement" (still waiting for my membership card), I am glad people like yourself continue to make intelligent arguments concerning the direction of US foreign policy. I may support Pres. Bush, but that in no way means I want his voice to be the only one heard from on the issue. Now, in regards for the anti-American left I have nothing to offer but sadness and growing disgust.
Do those of you who are responsible for this dribble really expect the majority of Americans to agree that everything they believe in is evil? To the contrary, the only result is that most Americans simply conclude you're nuts, or stupid, or both and therefore discredit all antiwar voices including those like Mr. Raimondo's that we desperately need heard.
As for the Europeans, I think most Americans used to regard Europe as an aging grandfather that still lived with the family. Old and senial and often very unaware of current events, this beloved grandfather was a symbol of family tradition and collective memory and therefore tolerated. Now however, I think most Americans have had it with Europe, they want the Grandfather out of the house and in a nursing home where he belongs. In Europe you opine endlessly about our arrogance and ignorance. The truth is that what you mistake for ignorance is simply a lack of insecurity about who we are and what we believe in. What you call arrogance is simply our preference to act upon our beliefs rather than debate while people die. Your population is declining, your collective military is a joke, and your cultural influence fades with each passing day. You're upset at the pace and scope of your approaching irrelevance and we make a convenient scapegoat – fine, just don't try to take us down with you. ...
...The main reason the sanctions are or were "genocidal", in the first place is because in implementing the sanctions, the US and UK, like everything else dealing with Iraq, were acting in bad faith.
The US and UK were using their veto power on the sanctions committee to hold up the purchase of legitimate goods; basically they did everything they could to maximize the hardship on the people of Iraq.
Justin Raimondo's latest rant contains more than a few questionable assertions. Taking his lead from a rather tenuous argument by Rahul Mahajan, he is able to infer that the new opposition to removing UN sanctions is a logical extension of all manner of "lefty" platitudes, from its internationalism to its alleged "anti-Americanism".
He alleges that America is merely acting on the principle of "might makes right", apparently well-known to the USSR and to Karl Marx. An odd line of argument for two reasons. One, even if the horrible Stalinist regimes of Russian, China and Cuba could be said to have anywhere near as much blood on their hands from foreign interventions as the USA, it is doubtful that this has anything to do with Karl Marx. Marx did not believe that "might makes right", he moralised just about every human question, and politicised it in terms of outrage at oppression and exploitation. No one even remotely familiar with Marx's work (as opposed to the feeble rightist diatribes against him) would feel able to make that assertion in good faith.
Perhaps he is right that the tortuous logic which would rather have UN bureacracy than US military governance is ultimately a murderous one if it wants to retain sanctions, but he could simply have said so and left it at that. The arguments hardly entitle him to the veritable sweetshop of self-serving epithets and sobriquets that he helps himself to. In particular, the American conquerors being asked to pay for everything and control nothing might be said to be a logical answer to its genocidal policies toward Iraq for the last twelve years. If I set fire to your house and am ordered to pay compensation, I don't feel entitled to a share in the ownership afterwards.
He also conflates the UN fetishism of some on the liberal left with the left's long-standing commitment to internationalism. It must be obvious without too much elaboration that one's internationalism needn't necessarily express itself in a commitment to the rule of the United Nations.
Anti-Americanism, he says, is also anti-capitalist! As if the latter was self-evidently heinous. But it is not clear to me that favouring state-ownership is anti-capitalist. There is a huge state sector in almost every capitalist economy in the world, the United States included. And it doesn't help Raimondo to say the opposition to privatising Iraq's oil must necessarily be xenophobic. Perhaps, instead, it has something to do with wanting the Iraqis to determine what happens to their oil, and not the US conquerors.
His later claims to do with the liberatory potential of the United States belong in the realm of speculation – and rather hopeless speculation at that if the past, present and ongoing reality of US imperialism has anything to do with it. It isn't the case that the US is the embodiment of the only successful "libertarian" revolution in the world, and it is rather pompous of Raimondo to claim that it is. It rather belongs to a series of democratic revolutions that engulfed the emerging capitalist world, including England and France, but later others. That "libertarian" revolution was also made by men who had slaves, just as some of the greatest Scottish Enlightenment thinkers were men who had slaves and worked for the British Empire. Is that what the US empire is doing now? Spreading liberty, with a little slavery?
~ Richard Seymour, London, England
Normally I'm a big fan of Justin Raimondo, but I think he's being a bit too hard on Rahul Mahajan, who represents, incidentally, for good or ill, not the "Third World" left, but the left wing in Texas, where he was the 2002 Green Party candidate for Governor.
For starters, clearly the US intends a long-term military occupation of Iraq, just as we wound up doing in the Phillipines, Germany, Japan, S. Korea, Saudi Arabia after Gulf War I, and plenty of others. Raimondo normally agrees with this position, but blames Mahajan, apparently, for his failure to believe the American occupation may be a positive experience for the Iraqis. And also, apparently, for failing to recognize the American occupiers' newfound property rights to Iraqi oil. What a strange libertarian moment – espousing a thief's property rights to stolen goods!
To me, the flaw in Mahajan's argument was his attempt to morally justify continuing sanctions instead of calling France and Russia's efforts to do so what they are – a very effective use of realpolitik strategies to try to restrain the blustering Bushie imperialism that threatens to go to war with the whole region. But surely it's ridiculous to say the Iraqis may be better off under US domination – look at Afghanistan! Being bombed and starved is worse than just being starved. If we've brought "freedom" to Iraq, it's only the freedom for thugs to loot and pillage; even libertarians should realize that real freedom requires basic societal ground rules – the 'social contract,' if you will – that have utterly collapsed in Iraq under American domination. And that's the primary distinction most Iraqis likely notice.
France and Russia hope to use the existing sanctions structure – specifically the oil-for-food program – to exercise some restraint over the American hegemon before it lashes out at its next victim. They would do so by forcing Bush to clean up, and pay for, the mess he's made rather than just pocketing the Iraqi oil royalties to subsidize his next invasion while cutting taxes at home. Personally I want SOMEONE to stop him, whether it's Putin, the UN, 2004 voters, or Antiwar.com, I don't really care which. Extending sanctions is not an idealistic pursuit but a Machiavellian ploy by nations who oppose Bushie expansionism.
Finally, for Raimondo to give Bush credit for moral courage for issuing a peace 'roadmap' is a complete joke, and makes me think my favorite columnist may have actually been kidnapped and replaced by some exceptionally green YAF-er type who gets their political analysis reading National Review. Bush HAD to pay some lip service to Israeli-Palestinian peace to retain any credibility with our allies in the world as he pursues his crusade in Iraq. And Sharon's squawks of resistance are a similarly choreographed maneuver to make it appear as though the US is really holding firm on behalf of Palestinian sovereignty. But just watch – Sharon will move later this year to destroy the peace efforts, and Bush will inevitably look the other way while Sharon escalates new violence against the Palestinians. On this, too, Rahul isn't too far from right.
The whole article seemed a bit strained to me – not nearly as compelling as Raimondo's usual fare. Perhaps the attacks from his fellow conservatives have caused him to feel the need to distance himself more aggressively from leftist critics of the US imperium. That's too bad. There's not so many of us opposed to Bush's crusade, it seems to me, that we can afford to spend too much time sniping at one another over split hairs.
Balkan Express
I have noticed that Mr. Malic has repeatedly made some strong claims that Serbs were not responsible for any War crimes in former Yugoslavia during the 1990's. I have also noticed that Mr. Malic has on more than 1 occasion quoted the reputable New York Times to back up various arguments.
I wonder what his reaction would be to the following story in New York Times: "Former Bosnian Serb Officer Admits Guilt in '95 Massacre"?
~ Troy Jones, Sunnyvale, California
Nebojsa Malic replies:
I have never, ever made a claim that Serbs were not responsible for any war crimes. That you just made up. In fact, I've emphatically stated that atrocities were widespread among all combatants.
What I have argued against is the notion that Serbs committed atrocities in a systematic, organized manner ascribed to them by the Hague Inquisition, the US government and the mainstream media. I have demonstrated the motivation for such allegations, as well as a dire lack of evidence to back them up.
Likewise, my supposed reverence for the New York Times is also a fabrication. I have always been very harsh towards them, as they are the Empire's Paper of Record, after all. Their reporting from The Hague is especially loathsome.
So a prisoner tries to bargain for clemency by confessing and denouncing others? My, how unusual for the Hague Inquisition, and every other kangaroo court through the ages.
You are obviously trying to insinuate that my arguments are wrong, and that even my trusted sources say so. I can't help you if you insist on fabricating facts, but since you put so much stock in the NY Times, and they just fired Jayson Blair, I suggest you try and make a career of it.
Country Vs Church
Sara V.: I am an American and proud of it. Although I am not old enough to vote or even drive a car, believe me when I say, I truly exercise my rights to their full potential.
Michael
Ewens (Antiwar.com Student Coordinator): Well, I am also a proud
American, although I love my country, not my government. This distinction,
I suppose, is where many of this 'antiwar = unpatriotic' stems from.
SV:
I am responsible for a large company (no names) to stop buying French
exports, and I mean millions.
ME: I still do not understand this mentality of punishing those whom disagree with American foreign policy. I disagreed with all of what the president did in Iraq, should you boycott me? It is ironic that the government is fighting a war for democracy in Iraq (or is it WMDs...where are those?), but when there is dissent concerning means and ends (dissent is a fundamental part of any healthy democracy), you "patriots" demand silence and retribution!
SV:
As a strong Roman Catholic, I believe that it is very important for the
church's views on current events and other issues to reflect my behavior,
influences and lifestyle. I do everything in my power to make the Catholic
views reach as many people as I can. My gift from God is that I am a great
presenter and leader. This is how I show God I love him, by being his
prophet, even when this means negative publicity. I am an ardent conservative.
My role models are Michael Savage, Tony Blair, Bush, Bill O'Rielly and
Sir Winston Churchill. I strongly dislike Michael Moore, Susan Sarandon,
Dixie Chicks and Clinton. Please don't stop reading because I disagree
with you, because I need your help.
ME: Don't worry, I won't stop reading your letter, although
I disagree with your choices of "conservatives" whom you chose
as role models. First, Tony Blair: member of New Labour in Britain, advocate
of nationalized health care, a large welfare state, high taxes and large
centralized government. It seems that war brings with it strange bedfellows
for conservatives like yourself. The other "conservatives" that
you mentioned are merely various shades of neo-conservatives: internationalist,
neo-Wilsonian social democrats advocating a American controlled world
governmentt. Now, where have the traditions of the conservative ideology
gone: small government , respect for soveriegnty and localized political
power? I also detest the liberals you named, the first because I like
guns and don't adore unions, the second because of her movies, the third
because of their music and the fourth because he engaged in more interventionist
wars than Bush II (thus far).
Once again, an Antiwar.com reader has assumed that our position means we are liberals. However, we are a wide variety of right-wingers: paleoconservatives, libertarians and registered republicans. I voted for Bush for goodness sake...but merely on the grounds of his non-existent "tax-cut."
SV: This is the first time I have disagreed with the Church. I know this war is just. Not only are we fighting a possible WMD attack, we are killing an evil dictator and bringing a just government to one more country. And although soldiers, as well as Iraqi civilians are dying, we are saving many lives. Saddam has taken the peoples rights away. He doesn't stop there – no, he goes beyond that.
He was forcing them to vote for him and be human shields. This is not ok. The United States is the daddy of the world. Sometimes the daddy has to be the bad guy. But even then he is doing things for the common good. Do I support my Church or my Country? Am I missing something?
Ryan McMaken: My colleague Mr Michael Ewens forwarded your thoughtful letter to me. He was hoping that my knowledge of Catholicism might be of help in addressing your dilemma (I am currently an active member of the Archdiocese of Denver and a regular commentator on religious matters at LewRockwell.com). I was happy to oblige, as I am concerned that many of our Catholic brothers and sisters have been turned against the Church by the violence in thought and deed that has occured lately. I can answer your questions in a scholarly fashion, but as my confessor tells me, the best strategy when one has problems with Church teachings is to pray upon those problems constantly. I can only tell you what others have written, and in no way do I think myself fit to judge the state of your soul.
Intelligent people can disagree on the ongoing war in Iraq, although the Bush administration has based its arguments on deception and propaganda and a disregard for the rule of law, rather than on any real regard for the safety of Americans. The Bush administration has also shown repeated contempt for the Pope and the Holy See in general, and this was typified in his remarks to the Pope about the sex abuse scandals during last year's visit. Bush mentioned this not out of any genuine concern for the abused, but only as a cynical negotiation tactic born of Bush's disdain for the Pope for his opposition to American foreign policy. This should not be surprising, of course, given the long and glorious history of "Born Again" (as Bush claims to be) loathing for Catholics in general. This is particularly shameful when we consider that John Paul II has been fighting oppression since he was a seminarian in Poland during the Nazi occupation (and went on to fight communism for decades), while our president has deemed himself a great man and savior of liberty after two years of bombing dirt-poor third-world countries.
Nevertheless, you make it clear that you respect both the President and the Catholic Church, and that this is the source of your conflict. A good first question to ask is whether or not one can disagree with the Church on this matter and still be a good Catholic. Well, the Pope himself has not condemned everyone who takes part in or supports this war (as some other Catholic Bishops have done) yet he does condemn the war itself. It is unlikely that a person in a position of non-authority like yourself would be putting her soul in jeopardy for supporting this war, although should you allow this disagreement to compel you to fall away from the Church or to encourage others to do so, that would likely be a grave sin indeed, as one's soul is far more important than any public policy issue.
As with any legal or moral situation, we must take our knowledge about general cases and apply them to specific ones. The general cases are stated in the Catholic Catechism where the Church most certainly does not condemn all kinds of war. It does condemn any war that is waged to attain retribution, or that commits genocide, and it notes that "every act of war directed to the indescriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man." As Catholics, we must determine if the specific case of this war violates the general rules, and the Holy See has determined that it does.
Much of this decision is based on the Just War Theory developed by Saint Augustine and Saint Thomas Aquinas, both men who were no strangers to armed conflict. Unfortunately, there is not time to go into the specifics, but we can address your specific argument above. First off, you state that the US government is fighting a "possible" attack of WMD's. The key word here is "possible." The idea of engaging in violence to ward off hypothetical future violence is incompatible with Catholic law. This argument is essentially a utilitarian argument (as opposed to a Catholic natural law argument) and akin to the argument that pro-abortion people use claiming that abortion is a good thing because the aborted child will then be spared possible future poverty and misery. This same problem applies to your argument that killing some Iraqis is justified because it is saving some others. As Saint Augustine tells us, the point of war is to re-establish peace, yet what peace have we established? No legitimate authority that maintains peace has been maintained in Iraq, nor will one be allowed unless it serves American interests, so the only just function of war is absent from this American crusade.
In the end, the arguments above are trumped by the fact that the United States has absolutely no authority to intervene in the internal government of Iraq. Saint Augustine and Saint Thomas tell us that governments only have authority over the native populations that grant them authority. Under no circumstances is a government justified in pursuing "regime change" in a foreign nation in which it has no legitimacy. A possible exception could be if the regime is an ongoing and active threat to the country pursuing the regime change, but as you yourself have stated, the justifications for this war are based on a "possible" threat and as an apparent service to the Iraqi people. Saint Thomas writes that a leader ceases to be legitimate if he neglects the common good in favor of his own benefit. Saddam no doubt fits this criteria, yet this does not imply that a foreign government has the authority to then invade and replace the leader as a favor to the native population. Indeed, Saint Thomas notes that the only people who can legitimately replace a corrupt government are the people of the native population itself. The United States, an authority in one place, cannot determine a new authority for another completely different place. This is in no way compatible with the pursuit of the common good in Saint Thomas' vision, and with the Church's vision as well.
You will note also, that this argument of Saint Thomas' rejects your notion of the "common good" which is that Bush is working for the common good by invading a foreign country. The common good only applies to specific political communities, and in the context of secular governments is never applied to a theoretical "global community" situation. Thus, if Bush wishes to act for the common good, he can only exercise authority in pursuit of the common good within the American polity. The government of Iraq, unless actively attacking the United States, is well beyond his jurisdiction.
If we add to this the fact that the United States has violated its own laws in waging this war that skirts congressional approval, it is clear that the president has abandoned legitimate authority on this matter even within the United States.
This should also illuminate your inappropriate analogy of the United States government as the "daddy" of the world. If the entire world were completely populated by American citizens, then your analogy might be apt, but your "right makes might" argument dismisses the fact that, within the Catholic tradition, the United States can only function as an instrument of keeping the peace within the United States. The fact that it possesses great military might does not give it de jure power over all the face of the earth. Even if we were to use a father/ child relationship as a model, we would have to see the United States as a father disciplining children that are not his own, but those who are under the legitimate authority of another father in another family in which the first father has no authority.
And finally, you ask whether one should support her Church or her country.
It is unfortunate that the State has so succeeded in its efforts to set itself up as a God on earth that people actually have a hard time with this question. The United States is nothing more than an institution with a limited sphere of legitimate action. We now stand up for the national anthem, yet prior to 1789, with the invention of the Jacobin inspired French national anthem, there was no such thing. It is only in the last two centuries that people have begun to define their identities by what secular government they live under. In spite of what the proto-Marxist Hegel said, governments are not the "manifestation of God on earth". They are more like what Saint Augustine called them: "bands of thieves."
Christ told Saint Peter: "You are Peter and on this rock I will build my Church and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it." I don't recall God giving the same assurance to any government. As Catholics, we believe that the Church is guided daily by the Holy Spirit and that it is Christ's mystical body on earth. If I had to choose between my country and my Church, it would be a pretty easy decision.
Regarding "Blowback in Riyadh" by Justin Raimondo:
Good article. An interesting thing to add to this discussion is a comment made by terrorism expert Walid Phares. He theorized that Al Qaeda timed this attack just right. Bin Laden did not want to attack during the war because that would make it appear as if he were on Saddam's side. But, by attacking only a week after Bush's 'victory' speech, where he all but claimed that Al Qaeda was finished, they meant to send a message.
Let's not forget that Bin Laden was the slimy bastard that killed thousands of our countrymen. Whatever my government does to hurt him and his organization is fine by me. However, I do understand that it was probably my government's actions that led to the 9-11 attacks. Meddling in foreign affairs when there are no present US interests always brings nothing but trouble. Saying that does not mean that I 'blame America first.' Such a mantra, 'blame America first', is a convenient way to silence debate. It is a logical fallacy, because it implies that the U.S. government = America. Yes, we elect our leaders, but just go to opensecrets.org and you will be hard pressed to find a politician who was outspent and still won his/ her election. Getting elected is all a matter of outraising and outspending your opponent. That's why Libertarians and other third parties don't have a chance; they don't have big-business on their side. I'm pro-business and free trade, but the founding fathers decided against making New York our capitol city for a reason; they didn't want business to corrupt politics.
Ours is a corrupt political system, but that is another matter.
After their adventure in Iraq, hopefully our leaders will turn back to wiping up their mess (Al Qaeda) in the Middle East. But it seems like they are intent on continuing the very same policies which caused this problem in the first place.
Subject: Regarding "Bali Bomb Suspect: US Was Target, Not Australia" (originally titled "Bali Bomb Suspect: U.S. Was Target"):
Generally I like what you are trying to do. Alternate points of view help all of us try to understand what the hell is happening all around us. But I must say that this article muddies the water for people who don't live in this region.
I'm an Australian, and I know someone who was about 25 metres from the blast itself. I've heard all about the shit that went down.
Every single person on the ground, locals and visitors alike, knew that the majority of people who would be at that bar would be Australian. For many years Australians have been the largest group of tourist to Bali in general.
Australians were the target. That's all there is to it. I don't care what that idiot says with his forced confession. And if you think that the Indonesian police have a problem with forced confession, think again.
Australia has been supplying Indonesia with fianancial aid for some time. Things were strained a bit when we stepped in to stabilise East Timor after the U.N. ballot. The prime minister of Indonesia didn't help things when he said, after a firefight at the border, that if any Australian soldier who crossed the border should be shot.
It's been touchy since.
Megawati is in a bad position. For one, she's a woman. For another, she has downgraded the military's power.
Since the bombings, surprise suprise, the military has been given new powers to crack down on militant groups. They are now exercising that power with Aceh. Look it up, check it out.
Do not buy the Attack Americans horsesh*t.
Backtalk editor Sam Koritz replies:
We didn't post the story because we believe that the bomb suspect is telling the truth, but because, true or false, the fact that he claimed what he did is interesting and possibly significant.
Support
I would love to support you and all the other sites that dare to speak the truth. Unfortunately, Bush has "liberated" me from my job! – for quiet some time now, too! Thanks for having the courage to stand up and tell it like it is. Please don't ever become dicouraged and decide to sit down and shut up as so many of us has lately.