|
|||||||||
Posted July 15, 2003
Mike Ewens Replies
First, let me say that I am a great admirer of Antiwar.com. In fact, much of the info I get on your site I pass onto friends, especially mainstream friends who aren't fully aware of what's happening politically to this country.
However, when sharing information from your site (and others), the most common reaction I receive is a sense of frustration that this info doesn't appear in the mainstream US media. As you likely know, this frustration frequently turns into a sense of "learned helplessness", which stops people who care from taking effective action.
In order to fight this learned helplessness, I created a short, one page Media Action Plan that lists steps individuals can take to put pressure on our media to be more truthful and informative. The reaction I have gotten from it has been amazingly positive! I then sent it onto "Not In Our Name", an organization which I am a member of – they have made it a permanent fixture on their website. (URL: http://www.notinourname.net/downloads/nyc_media_plan.pdf).
I strongly believe that changing our media is an extremely important means of spreading the progressive perspective to mainstream America, which is critical to affect change. For this reason, I humbly recommend that you post this, or a similar type of document on your website. A one pager is not too overwhelming for many who's heart is in the right place, but may not be motivated enough to sift through a longer piece to find out how they can take action. I have attached a Word version of my media plan to this email so that you may cut and paste whatever aspects you feel are appropriate.
Thank you for your time and attention, and your excellent work.
Associate Editor Mike Ewens replies:
Thank you for the email and kind words. Unfortunately, we cannot post your proposal. We are a signal issue organization that does not get involved in advocating boycotts.
Moreover, although you seem to be demanding a more unbiased news media, I think that you are actually advocating that your agenda be covered, in place of another. The explicit call for the airing of "Democracy Now!" is one indication of this. We at Antiwar.com "filter" the news we present every day just as much as CNN, ABC et al. We have our own agenda – one of noninterventionist foreign policy – which we support with our choice of news and opinion. Freedom of speech, which supports our filtering, also supports the filtering done by corporations and news outlets.
Taylor Nelson: Okay why don't you go over to Iraq if we're so "wrong"? Then you'll see the sh*t we're fighting for.
Mike Ewens: What are we fighting for?
TN: Ohhh wait you wouldn't now 'cause we went over 'n' changed it. I can't believe you.
ME: I wouldn't because it is dangerous and fricking hot. "Changed it"? I suppose you want to append that with "...for the better." To who? You? What about the dead innocent Iraqis? What about future American taxpayers?
TN: All I have to say is move to a different country, you're not wanted here.
ME: How American of you! You don't like dissent! What is this... a democracy? Oh, I forgot I can only be free to talk because of the war in Iraq and all other "wars of liberation." Ha! I think that there are better options:
"When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume, among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."
– Declaration of Independence
TN: Just to let you know, my brother is in the Army and is a medic helping everyone over in Iraq, and Kuwait, do you know how it feels to have a sibling over there? a wife? husband? mother? father? aunt? uncle? cousin? friend? No because you would disown them as your friends and family! SHAME ON YOU! Deal with it, you can't change the past and for what you are saying and going against our president. You should burn in hell for that! Wonder if you're a Democrat? Hmmmmm.
ME: I am a conservative (or right-leaning libertarian). My criticism of the current occupation of Iraq is not a criticism of your brother, rather it is a criticism of the foreign policy that guides it by a man that I VOTED FOR (Bush). Please don't equate my distaste for the orders your brother is following with a lack of caring for his and all the troops' safety.
DJ Gapp: This is the most ridiculous web site I have ever looked at. Full of misinformation. Purposefully designed misinformation.
Mike Ewens: Where? Show me.
DJG: Of course, no one WANTS war. But it is often necessary to look at things properly. Like the fact that if brave men and women had not gone to WAR with England between the years of 1775 to 1781, then you would not be able to have your stupid web site right now.
ME: Um, what does this have to do with Iraq (or Iran, North Korea and other possible military interventions)?
DJG: You liberals are very stupid people. Thinking that your good intentions will win your salvation. For your political positions are based on your spiritual health. Or lack of it. Rather, I would say that one's political ideology is based on his or her beliefs in the nether regions of their soul. As for the smeared positions that this web site takes, it is only because of the editor's lack of knowledge of what is really going on.
ME: Were not liberals... we are conservatives (and libertarians). Once again, send me these supposed "smeared positions."
DJG: STUPID people take STUPID and ignorant stance against what is right and honorable. If you hate what is going on so bad, then ignore it or YOU go and solve it.
ME: Hmm, good argument: name-calling. Also, "If you hate what is going on" then you go kill Saddam and liberate the Iraqis. But you aren't taking my tax money to do it.
DJG: Don't just sit there on your ass and defend your typewritten, armchair politics because you think it makes God happy. He isn't the least bit impressed with your yellow spined interpretation of life.
ME: I am not religious, so your point doesn't follow. I hold my political positions because I think they are right, which itself is based on a worldview demanding tiny government, no taxes, constant regard for innocent life and individual liberty. US military intervention threatens each one of these ends.
Chris Hurley: I'm angrier than a legless Ethiopian watching a donut roll down a hill over you guys. Antiwar? What the hell? The reason your living so free is because of war. Its called patriotism, scumbags.
Mike Ewens: I am not living free because of the war in Iraq... show me the causal connection. Also, patriotism is a loyalty to your country (not the State) and the ideals on which the former was founded. Please demonstrate what ideals were reinforced and protected with regard to the war on Iraq.
CH: I'm really getting tired of you dumbasses talking about how President Bush is hoaxing all of these nuclear bombs in Iraq.
ME: Well, where are they? Was their elimination not the solution to eliminating the "threat" that was Saddam?
CH: I'm also tired of you p*ssies whining about carpet bombing in Afghanistan. What are you, f*cking blind? Osama killed thousands of innocents. What are we supposed to do? Walk into Afghanistan and peacefully search for the raghead SOB? Oh ok.
ME: You assume that Osama = Afghani civilians. Killing 1000s of innocent civilians is always wrong. As Murray Rothbard explains:
"To be more concrete, if Jones finds that his property is being stolen by Smith, he has the right to repel him and try to catch him; but he has no right to repel him by bombing a building and murdering innocent people or to catch him by spraying machine gun fire into an innocent crowd. If he does this, he is as much (or more of) a criminal aggressor as Smith is."
CH: I can see your point. Let's not do anything while he bombs us. What the hell do you call it when he drives a plane into the once glorious WTC? How about our Pentagon? How about the thousands of poor innocent people that died on September 11th? That's carpet bombing to f*ggots.
ME: I call it terrorism. You call it "right to seek revenge with the disregard for innocent life."
CH: How about more current things. For every month that we didn't take out Saddam's regime, thousands of people died. Those little cans of food we sent over (which are great) were hogged by the warlords. ...
ME: Utilitarianism.... evil. Killing one innocent to save 10 innocents is still killing an innocent. It is still wrong!
Then you continue with some abusive ad hominens... which I will ignore. Try to use arguments and reason to demonstrate your case against our opinions; it is more convincing and respectable.
Chris McShane: After reading some of the feedback on Antiwar.com, I cannot believe some people STILL hold to the idea that Iraq has anything to do with 9/11. Two members of the armed forces that wrote in to you were so off base about protesting being a "fad" and "not supporting the troops." A friend of mine told me a story of how he had a sign on his lawn "Bring the Troops Home" as soon as the troops were sent to Iraq and people looked down on him for it; now, those same people have similar signs up on their lawns.
Mike Ewens: Did you see the quote from Bush about 9/11 and Iraq? Check it out: http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/no-saddam-qaeda.htm.
CM: Also, I was very disappointed to read about what Howard Dean had said on Liberia. Looks like 2004 will be a Lesser of Two Evils election. While I'm not a conservative like many writers on the site, I think we can agree that it's disappointing that this potential replacement for Bush may not be much better than him.
ME: I agree... so, I don't think that I am even going to vote!
Regarding "Mosaic of Lies" by Justin Raimondo:
"It's highly unlikely the President of the United States got up there and knowingly fibbed about the existence of weapons that would surely not be found..."
Justin, my man! Lets call a spade a spade! Are you kidding? Why would he NOT lie?
Look. These people don't care if they lie or not. Once more: THEY DON'T CARE IF THEY LIE OR NOT.
It does not matter if they lose the next election or not. They've accomplished what they wanted to do and they'll sacrifice the next election for it. You know: Two steps forward, etc.
Not lie? PO-LEEEZZZEEEE!
Don't start wimping out on us now, Justin!
~ Michael Arnold, Broomfield, Colorado
Justin Raimondo replies:
I didn't say that Bush & Co. wouldn't lie, only that they wouldn't lie with the near-certainty of getting caught. Big difference.
While there can be no doubt about the pro-Israeli bias of the neo-cons who influence Bush's foreign policy, I think it is a mistake to categorize the recent scandal in Iraq as merely a war for Israel's interest. The truth, I fear, is far worse.
The same peach-fuzz Republicans at the Weekly Standard and the National Review were also staunch supporters of Clinton's bombing of Serbia (which is when I discovered Antiwar.com). They would bomb anyone – Christian, Jew, or Moslem, who stood in the way of their Imperial agenda.
I believe this bunch would gladly watch Tel Aviv go down in flames if it advanced America's "benign global hegemony." Their arrogance, chauvinism, stupidity and bloodlust matches that of Kaiser Wilhem II – their true spiritual ancestor. There is no conspiracy, but simply a grubby a little mixture of Zionism (Mr. Kristol), crass greed (Mr. Cheney), and academic delusions of grandeur (Mr. Wolfowitz), thrown together into a noxious stew that would gag the witches in Macbeth. Add a dash of George Bush's Sunday school Christianity and you get – The Bush Doctrine. It's the perfect symbiosis of every flaw in the American character. It would be funny if the consequences weren't so grave.
Well, keep up the good work, and Vive Antiwar – the very best watchdog on the Internet.
I'm shocked that a person as generally perceptive as Justin Raimondo could write something like this:
"It's highly unlikely the President of the United States got up there and knowingly fibbed about the existence of weapons that would surely not be found."
Well, of course, most people felt there was a CHANCE that weapons would be found, I'll grant that. But what Bush (& Co.) said was that there WERE weapons, i.e., that they were SURE of it. And in that they were lying through their teeth, and they surely knew it.
Why would they do that? Well, first of all, there WAS a chance that they were right about some things (not about the nuclear weapons, they knew that was complete nonsense, but about chemical or biological weapons) so their first calculation was that they just might be proved "right enough" to cover their lies.
Second of all, they calculated (and, so far, correctly) that they could bluff their way through post facto with claims that Iraq and the world were a better place with Saddam gone, and ignore the WMD claims.
And third of all, they calculated that they rewards (oil, increased US dominance of the world, big contracts for cronies) would outweigh the possible risks of getting caught in a lie. ...
Regarding "Casualties in Iraq," edited by Mike Ewens:
I congratulate you on your excellent web site. It is one of my primary sources of info on the latest news.
I am somewhat puzzled though by your American casualty figures for Iraq. Islam Online has reported on two massive attacks at Baghdad airport where American forces suffered many casualties (deaths and injuries) and tremendous damage to military equipment. Yet, this has not been reported by your or other sites I visit. Are you been instructed by the powers that be to under report casualty figures and damage?
Mike Ewens replies:
Thank you for the email. Please send me the link to the data/ info concerning this supposed missing report. I use official data from the Defense Dept. and major media sources to gather the numbers for the casualties site, but I welcome any extra information that may enhance the accuracy of the page.
Regarding "Southern Iraq Ready to Explode":
I have noticed that some pro-war people have written and accused the Backtalk page of being a cheerleading section for the Antiwar website. There is an old saying that goes: "the truth hurts" and I suspect that these folks are a bit rankled by the fact that Bush's "war" has not turned out to be quite like it was hyped by him, the neocons and his pop media sycophants. In the link above, the observations of a Caucasian woman who has lived in Iraq for many years bear far more weight and veracity than the pre-written lines parroted by some collagen-lipped bimbo on Fox. While high-tech gizmos might win the war, nobody has come up with a substitute for troops to hold and control conquered ground. This may be finally beginning to dawn on the likes of Rumsfeld and other advocates of small "surgical" strike forces.
What the gripers ultimately fail to realize is that America has lost it's perspective as is well described in the following piece: http://www.fff.org/comment/com0307g.asp . The current mindset and political awareness of it's peoples are but a shadow of what was that of the founders. Many citizens have abdicated their civic responsibilities and are reaping the results of their laziness and lack of vigilance. It should be no big surprise that the private and government sectors are rife with conmen, liars and thieves who are running their agendas on the gullible and foolhardy.
But be of good cheer! Bush and his band of merry men are going to make America "safe"! Safe from what you may ask? Ultimately, I suspect that their efforts will make them and their corporate cronies much safer from public scrutiny and allow them run amok around the globe, blasting away at "rogues,""terrorists" and any other poor devil who happens to cross their path. Mock patriotism covereth a multitude of sins.
Regarding Frank Bousek's letter posted July 3:
Frank Bousek asks if I am "the Real McCoy libertarian and not just Russian Neocon making a list and checking it twice (for Armageddon purposes)!"
I hope I am (although I am more like a Conservative Republican of the paleo variety), so here is my e-mail (and this is the only one I use): alex_chaihorsky@hotmail.com....
You, or any Antiwar.com readers are welcome here any time, I will be honored. I guarantee a warm welcome, a cold bottle of vodka and heated conversation. And if we have too much of the cold stuff, you can stay in our guest quarters.
~ Alex Chaihorsky, Reno, Nevada
Regarding "McNews Comes Gunning for Greece" by Christopher Deliso:
Christopher Deliso's fine article "McNews Comes Gunning for Greece: Notes on ABC's Strange Offensive" highlighted a long and unsavory tradition in the American media to attack nations, groups and individuals based on flimsy, if not fabricated, information. I would like to add one additional reason for ABC's offensive that was overlooked by Mr. Deliso. The Greek government, Greek newspapers and some sections of the Greek populace have been very vocal in their support of the rights of Palestinians and very vocal in their anger and disgust towards the policies of Israel. In an article entitled "Greece Unites in Condemnation of Israel" that appeared in the Observer, Helena Smith described broad based support for the Palestinians in Greece, particularly after the assault on Jenin.
This Greek support is not a new phenomenon. In 1997, Development Minister Ms. Vasso Papandreou said ".....Greece is always by the side of the Palestinians. They are struggling to find justice and we will support them, as always, on a bilateral level." Foreign Minister George Papandreou has made similar, if not as far reaching, statements during Greece's recent tenure of the rotating Presidency of the European Union.
Based on this background it should not come as a surprise that ABC has mounted a rambling and incoherent attack on Greece. The question was, "why Greece"? The answer is, "because she openly challenged Israel"!
In modern America, it is acceptable to question the actions of the United States government; however, for the major media and the fathead powerbrokers in Washington it is a high crime to question Israel. Those that dare to cross the line will be punished, either directly or indirectly. And as Malcolm X said, by an means necessary.
I agree with most of what Christopher Deliso wrote in his article "McNews comes gunning for Greece", but I would like to add that the US government WANTS the EU to be bigger by forcing other nations to join. Nations that are totally controlled by them and nations that will always ask Washington's advice before voting on any EU resolution. Remember NATO, the same thing was done to water down the powers of countries like France and Germany. It is funny how Washington opposes the entry of Turkey to the EU now while cheerleading for countries like Bulgaria and Hungary.
As an American woman who travels to Greece for the pure pleasure of it every three or four months, I can attest to the accuracy of Deliso's statements and conclusions. Even at the height of the bombing of Kosovo, I met with nothing but the usual warmth from Greeks. (I admit that I avoid the tourist-filled islands and travel throughout the mainland instead.) Other than a friendly welcome from the Greeks whom I meet, the only reaction I receive in my travels is one of surprise that I took the trouble to learn at least rudimentary Greek.
Thanks for an excellent article.
Christopher Deliso replies:
Thanks, Barbara. No doubt, the language front is a winner. But I'm surprised what you say about the islands – many are very friendly – and rewarding. Southern Crete, for example, is my favorite place in the world.
Terrific – as good an analysis as any I've read on this government-influenced web of lies on so many matters foreign. In all likelihood, a truly malignant conspiracy of US Supremacists and other neocon artists would wish for an Athenian repeat of the mess in Atlanta. I was there as a translator and I recall one day when several colleagues returned from the rehearsal of the Opening Ceremony, weak with laughter. The national delegations had been filing into the stadium for some time when suddenly the crowd erupted in loud applause and cheering: the Georgian athletes had just shown up. The next day, NBC was actually running maps of the Caucasus clearly identifying the Republic of Georgia. On the day of the actual Opening Ceremony, the crowd had been sufficiently coached that it did not shame itself before the whole world. Thank goodness for rehearsals.
Are They Obliged to Serve?
Already in need of new vacation spots, the neo cons are intent on going to Liberia.
I remember a president who promised a humble foreign policy, and derided the idea of peace keeping, hmmm, maybe he was killed on Sept. 11 and replaced by a neo con robot?
Is there any place on earth less relevant to the US then Liberia? Perhaps, but only Andorra and Lesotho come to mind. Whatever happened to US troops defending the Untied States and its citizens? Maybe we could start by actually policing our own borders. If you think I jest, look at some recent high profile cases of rape and murder, many of them have been perpetrated by illegal (criminal) foreign nationals.
Again we here the call of foreign nationals asking that our sons and daughters be sacrificed for the 'common good' of this or that troubled state. To quote LBJ who should have followed his own advice, "I will not send American boys 10,000 miles to do what Asian (Liberian) boys should be doing for themselves." The price of liberty is often blood, if Liberians are unwilling to solve their own problems why should we? ...
Regarding "Look to Iran for the Real Costs of the War in Iraq" Ivan Eland:
I wish to that more people would stand up and speak out against the idiotic Bush administration.
This article spoke the absolute truth! This whole "War on Terrorism" has forced my to take on a "devil's advocate" approach to some of these rogue nations. I am forced to ask myself, why do we, the American people, have a right to force other governments to adopt a "no nukes" policy all the while displaying our own for all the world to see (and fear).
I'm not saying other nation SHOULD get nuclear weapons, but these nations want them for the same reason we and the rest of the western nations do: Protection!
There is a collective idea that every "rogue" nation that might acquire "nukes" will turn around and use them on someone else. In most cases, this is not even remotely the case. It most cases it is to ensure others will not use such weapons on them. The cold war taught the whole world the effectiveness of "Mutually Assured Destruction."
That not to say that nukes are good and should be prolific amongst the nations of the world, but we as I nation cannot claim the right to HAVE such weapons and tell other they cannot! Although it is justified under the "Might Makes Right" principle, that principle is false at it's very core.
I am a semi-direct victim of terrorism. My brother lost his life on Pan Am flight 103. ... After almost 15 years, I am now certain that America is no less guilty and vile than any other nation out there. Our position is made worse by our constant need to trample on the sovereignty of other nations. A foreign nation is just that, a sovereign nation. ... Even if their ideas are different than ours, they still have a right to them. We are not the "right ones." There are no good guys or bad guys.
I remain sickened by my country!
~ Eric Gibson