|
|||||||||
Posted May 23, 2003
Eric Garris Replies
I read an item on Antiwar.com yesterday in which Rumsfeld said of Osama something like this "he's either alive or very sick or dead." It would have to be the quote of the year!
I wanted to show some colleagues but I can't find the item now. Do you have any idea what the item was slugged? If so, could you please let me know.
As a journo, I think your site is fantastic – I visit every day.
Managing Editor Eric Garris replies:
Certainly: "Rumsfeld: No Idea Where Bin Laden Is."
You can access the last 7 days of Antiwar.com's pages via the button on the left of the page.
I've been reading your web page and have noticed that some of your views are consistent and well grounded. However, you and others like you are so blinded by hatred for our government, and in particular George Bush, that you have lost all objectivity and most of your credibility. You know very well that if all circumstances were the same and Bill Clinton were president, there would be no large scale protests, and no Antiwar.com. Why don't you try having a little faith in the men and women in the rank and file of our government, defense, and law enforcement agencies who slave and stress over keeping you and I safe. They know what they are doing (most of them), and they don't just pass through a membrane from another evil universe. They are your brothers, sisters, friends and relatives. People just like you and me. As I said before you have some good arguments, but at least get educated on the subjects you comment on before you do so.
Please respond, I would enjoy a healthy, FAIR and FRIENDLY debate on these subjects with someone who feels differently. We can then begin to site specific examples.
Managing Editor Eric Garris replies:
You must not have read very far.
I have been on the Republican State Committee for 20 years. Democrats are always the biggest warmongers. We started Antiwar.com in 1995 to protest Clinton's bombing of Bosnia, which was opposed by most Republicans.
Take a look at our viewpoints from today: Pat Buchanan, Bob Novak, and several pieces from The American Conservative magazine. If you think these people are Clinton supporters, you need to take a lesson in basic politics.
You, on the other hand, appear to be a liberal. Only liberals have such absolute faith in government, which grows ever bigger by the day. Take a look at "A Long Journey to The High Country of the Right," by Bob Novak from Human Events magazine on this very subject.
History
J. Smith: Your web page is junk. Free-Market.com puts you on but you are everything but free market. The war in Iraq is giving Iraq a chance at free market unlike Saddam.
Michael Ewens (Antiwar.com Student Coordinator): You know what, you are right! Let's "free" all the markets by force, starting with Europe. With all their regulations and strong unions, the EU is far from a free-market you espouse!
Seriously, I don't recall a part of conservative ideology that calls for using force to create free markets. Seems kind of antithetical to the very principles of them. Namely, markets rest on the concept of non-aggression and a respect for property rights, something that force – by its very nature – violates.
Furthermore, this "argument" seems to contend that the ends justify the means: Iraq now has a "freer" market than before the war, free markets are good, therefore the war was right. Need I dive into the problems involved in such false and dangerous reasoning?
JS: You call Bush a neo-con. Give me a f%$@ break, you and all you people who call people neo-cons don't know what the hell your talking about.
ME: We dont, eh? Well, kind sir, our editorial director is an expert on the conservative movement and I believe he has written a book about the very topic (see Reclaiming the American Right). Also, many other "history-conscious" thinkers also agree with Antiwar.com's position on neo-cons...you need only search "neo-con" on Google and see for yourself. If I may ask, do you know what a neocon is? If you think it is anything else but a globalist, neo-Wilsonian welfare/warfare statist social democrat in the clothes of a conservative, you are wrong. (See "Neo-Conservatism Explained" by Lew Rockwell for more details.)
JS: You need to read some history about conservative like Teddy Roosevelt, McKinley, Coolidge, Reagan who supported overseas wars to protect American freedom. Even Lincoln the so called founder of conservatism supported the same conservatism that Bush supports.
ME: YOU need to read some history how are Founders implored us to have an inward-looking foreign policy. See Jefferson, Washington and the later John Adams. Wow, if those are your conservative heroes (McKinley, Coolidge, Reagan), then we differ more than I had imagined.
JS: I was a supporter of Buchanan in '92 however he and others who say that Bush has left the so called true conservatives are dead wrong and history books prove that I'm right.
ME: Too bad you left the Buchanan camp, he is one of the last true conservatives left (on foreign policy). Ok, what history books should I read to reach your level of enlightenment? I am all ears. For guidance on the correct course of foreign policy, I suggest you dust off your Constitution and search for the origin of the powers our presidents have now...good luck!
Next time, bring some arguments to the table instead of your empty claims and abusive ad hominems.
Regarding William Blair's letter posted May 16:
Thanks, Mr. Blair, for stating what has become the biggest problem for folks like me who want American to return to its republic roots and to see the end of US Imperalism. But instead of blaming "Joe Sixpack", a very easy thing to do, you need to understand why Americans are not too concerned about fascism and perpetual war for perpetual peace.
One, most Americans suffer from "conitive dissonance" – in short, it means Americans can't handle the truth, and the Bushies are telling them what they want to hear.
Two, will things like not being able to get a job or not having a home "wake up Americans"? Not necessarily. The power elites simply won't let too many Americans fall into this state, because they know that if too many Americans fall into this state they are in trouble. Thus, while 60% of Americans will still be relatively comfortable, the other 40% will not, but these will be so down that bare survival will be the order of the day, not doing away with the system that brought them to this state.
Three, what needs to take place is that Americans need to develope a sense of individual identity; right now, most Americans see themselves with labels on, as collectives, and can't handle being outside the herd. That's why so many Americans wear yellow ribbons or flag pins. ...
Taking oneself out of the herd is probably the most successful way the individual American can defeat fascism, a system that can't handle individuality and requires a state-worshipping herd. Non-conformists like me (I subscribe to the American Conservative, but I'm also a contributor to the Presidential Prayer Team, go figure) will have it the easiest, as will introverts (again, like me). I never thought I'd feel sorry for extroverts!
This won't be easy, but the best things never are.
Regarding "Manufacturing Dissent" by Justin Raimondo:
Almost every intellectual train of thought tends to construct strawmen examples of what they oppose. Whether on the right or on the left, this has been a nasty tendency among intellectuals. It is motivated more out of fear than any special objective knowledge of "the real", the way things really are, whatever one's ideology.
(Anyone claiming an absolute vantage point from which to "objectively" judge "real" conditions should be looked upon with extreme caution.)
Justin Raimondo did just that, constructed a strawman, when he denigrated the thinking of Noam Chomsky, in an essay he crafted a while back. In that essay, Raimondo also mischaracterized the East Timorese struggle against Indonesian imperialism and calculated genocide. East Timor was never a rebellious appendage of greater Indonesia. There heroic struggle to cast off the yoke of decades-long Indonesian tyranny serves as a beacon of hope for all humanity.
Unfortunately too many so-called "conservatives" despise the goal of revolution, especially for unkempt brown people of the Third World. Both the right and the left in the US are afflicted with a very deep-set racism, a pathological way of seeing the "other" that is self-serving and ultimately based in human fear, the idea that people at the bottom should be forever content with their subordinate position and follow orders.
It is my hope that the self-styled conservatives of Antiwar.com will breath new life in the US conservative movement and predicate their arguments from the standpoint of human liberation and a healthy social order. Organic conservatism, a la Edmond Burke, has a noble place in human thought – unlike the crass, malleable ideology of the dominant US rightwing which functions as an apologia for tyranny.
Bravo for you website and your efforts. The essays you present are engaging and further healthy discussion.
Just beware of the strawman, so easily constucted and destroyed. Honest people with a real curiosity about understanding the world intuitively understand the difference between dogma – which is moribund – and ideas that lead to real growth of the individual and the society.
Aside: About patriotism – Samuel Johnson I think said something to the effect that "patriotism is the last bastion of the scoundrel". Sifting through the Dollar Store Patriots and used car lot flag-wavers that are bountiful in contemporary Americana, we can still recognize authentic patriotism: a love of country that is rooted in people and place, not blind obsequiousness where the "leader" is beyond reproach.
Let's endeavor to keep authentic patriotism alive in the USA.
Regarding "Becoming the 51st State" by John Laughland:
I have just finished reading your article and I think it makes a great deal of sense. I have long believed a country like Saudi Arabia could influence American foreign policy in the Middle by using the threat of switching from dollars to Euro in exchange for its oil, and I never could understand why it allows itself to be bullied by the U.S. For instance if the Arab League had insisted on its cartel members uniting to make such a threat I don't believe there would have been an Iraqi invasion. ...
Discussion Forum
I'm a big fan of your site and I find your journalism very professional. I just wanted to suggest that it would be a great idea to host a forum on your website. Many people read the articles and get inspired to comment on them.
Backtalk editor Sam Koritz replies:
Just such a forum can be found here.
Regime Change Roulette
I'd say the Saudis are too heavily invested in our markets and real estate, and the defense contracts too lucrative, for them to be attacked. That they let our intelligence in to assess the recent bombings is breaking new ground; they usually do things discreetly. In short, they're too intertwined and too yielding now.
Iran is the plum, but it's probably the most advanced society in the Middle East. I expect lots of sabre rattling to push them but the size of their population and military capacities makes them an unfavorable nearterm target.
Syria and Yemen get my vote. I wouldn't rule out some oil-bearing countries in Africa, either. Bullies target the weak and political bullies seek the best odds and fewest risks when seeking re-election.
Thinking amorally and strategically – like neocons seem to do – I'd say the first aim is protecting Israel and the second is protecting oil trade. But thinking big picture, no country of any capacity to attack us frontally exists in the Middle East.
Globally, North Korea, Pakistan, and China, and to some degree Russia, are the only ones I worry about. Because I still refute the notion that chemical weapons are in the same class as a WMD. Nukes, and potentially bioweapons, are worse, and non-nuclear nations are unlikely to ever attack us. And at the moment, there isn't anything going down to justify an attack on any country. Attacks on Iraq and the others pending are not and were not justified by any evidence at all.
Regarding the letter by A.O.'s letter posted May 13:
I would like to know when the liberal and the godly will stop placing their own spiritual/psychological needs over and above an unequivocal commitment to human life? A.O.’s comment that "radicals whether they be Christian, Jewish, or Muslim misrepresent their faiths to world" is conscience candy for those who believe that Moses was really just a misunderstood peacenik, that Jesus did not really mean to condemn unbelievers to eternal damnation, and that Mohammed was really a bra-burning feminist a la Gloria Steinem. It is remarkable how so many are capable of whitewashing the violence that has emanated from the monotheistic tradition, all in an effort to preserve their identities.
The fact that we live in an age when increasing numbers of liberals truly believe from the depths of their soul that God, as revealed by either the Old Testament, New Testament, or Koran, is certain to be a lesbian human rights activist should come as no surprise. Our culture does not permit rejection of religion. It is permissible to reject certain concepts embedded within the religions, but to reject religion altogether is to be relegated to a zone outside the moral marketplace of ideas. Needless to say, that is a zone in which most do not wish to dwell.
So while Pat Robertson Christians plot for Armageddon, and right-wing Jews plot to ethnically cleanse the Palestinians, while Muslim suicide bombers set their sights on the next Israeli bus, all their liberal co-religionists, no doubt saddened by the continuing bloodshed, sit in cool psychological comfort knowing that "their faith" is not the cause for the mayhem. These fanatical purveyors of violence, if we are to believe the liberal and the godly, are acting totally contrary to the tenets of their faith, and their inspiration to kill and dehumanize originate from sources totally unrelated to the Bible and the Koran. In other words, according to the liberal and the godly, the highest moral course of action is to chastise the "extremists" for their violent behaviors and aspirations, and simultaneously affirm as divinely inspired the religious texts that serve as the operating manuals for such violence. Is it constructive, let alone moral, to chastise a crack addict for his addiction and then hand him the pipe from which to take a hit? ...
In the larger scheme of things, it is hard to be angry with the religious identity cults. They are merely doing what the culture expects of them, which is defending their identity. Until the culture can cultivate more in the way of empathy, and less in the way of identity, the scarlet thread of male rage that is irreversibly woven into the monotheistic tradition will continue to be an albatross around humanity’s neck.
Regarding "Uprising in the Chechnya Ghetto" by Nadezhda Banchik, with John Zmirak:
I will be the first one to look with suspicion on doings in Russia, but I'm not sure the authors are on target here.
In my view, if we concede the authors' point that what is going on in Chechnya is mere brutal repression by a near-totalitarian regime we have to expect that we will be given an explanation by the authors as to why Russia is doing this. In other words, why Chechnya? Why not, for example, any or all of the former Russian satellite states that have already gotten their independence? What is it about Chechnya that makes it more valuable to Russia than, say, Lithuania? If the authors expect us to buy their argument that this is merely a case of the Russian bear crushing independence, then we need some facts. I don't believe they have provided them.
Secondly, I think it may be a bit simplistic to write off Putin as just another bloodthirsty despot. There are complications in that view. It doesn't explain other quite interesting activities of the man. If I am tempted to treat Putin more charitably than the authors of the article did it is because there is some evidence, albeit not mountainous, that there is some good in the man. If I am wrong please, by all means, correct me; I will welcome that. I want to have a realistic view of world events. But you need to get more facts in your article because as it stand snow it is mere opinion.
After suffering through years of hysterical anti-Iraq lying propaganda from the US government and media, for the sole purpose of whipping up war fever, I think I am justified in asking for more substantial information than the article provided. If you want me to hate and fear Vladimir Putin, you'll need to show me some evidence.
Regarding "Because They Can" by Merle Borg:
In 1954 I was a Marine guard to an admiral, the CIC of Amphibious Group East Pac; we were sent to Vietnam along with a small task group consisting mainly of old World War II LSTs. For nine months these ships plied the coastal waters between Haiphong harbor in the north and Saigon in the south. Our passengers were 95% Catholics who couldn't abide the godless communism being preached by Ho Chi Min and his lieutenants. The Catholic Vietnamese minority were quickly subjected to a horrific persecution. Many were murdered before they reached the coast and safe haven in the special zone from which they boarded our ships. Down south, the approximately 1.2 million that went into exile were at first kept in relocation camps, and only gradually were they released into the general population. I don't know what the total number of northern Catholics that came south, but I do know that they became the core of the South Vietnamese military and the government.
As the northern Catholics rose in power and favor with the US, they came to dominate the indigenous southern Buddhists and form the backbone of the resistance to the north. I always felt that our failure to understand the resentment of the southerners to the Catholic newcomers was a major policy blunder; especially when it became clear that the Catholics were doing the directing and the Buddhist grunts were doing most of the dying. The ultimate loss of morale in the south and the will to resist the invading NVR was less the desire of the south to live under Uncle Ho, than their desire to be rid of their Catholic overlords.
~ Neil R. Huff