|
|||||||||
Posted July 23, 2003
Eric Garris Replies
What happens to any info gathered when one uses 'Email This' or 'Print This'? What or who is Clickability?
Webmaster/ Managing Editor Eric Garris replies:
No information is gathered unless you sign up to use their address book. Clickability is a service we subscribe to. No email addresses are retained unless you sign up. It merely uses a script to send the mail.
Just read Justin's latest column – great job.
One question. I sent in an email a few weeks ago with some links, including the one used about Jerry Falwell and his dispensationalist crew – did my email help out, or did you guys already have the skinny on Donald Wagner's perspective and research?
Just curious, because I sure want to help out on this "crusade" for truth and liberty. It would kinda make me feel good to know I contributed. If not, then I guess I need to work a little harder!
Eric Garris replies:
Yes, thank you.
That is how we get most of our stories, from volunteer researchers.
I
first want to say that I appreciate your website very much. It's refreshing
to have a site such as antiwar.com. However, I now approach you with a
question I hope you'll be able to answer.
Early Friday morning I was searching your site and find the title: "Furor
Over CIA Role in WMD Claim." When I clicked on it, it took me right
to the article with the same exact title. The article was at: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/06/25/iraq/main560449.shtml
I read a few other articles after reading this one, and then when I went
back to read something in the first article, the link took me to the same
website but with the title and content was different. The title was: "Bush:
CIA OK'd Iraq Speech." The dates were the same, July 11, 2003, but
the title and content had changed within no more than one hour.
Today, July 13, when I go to that same site, the date has changed to the
13th, and there is now a third title with an article containing different
content. The title is: "Bush Stands By Tenet."
By the way, when I go back to your site for July 11-12, I can't find the
title "Furor Over CIA Role in WMD Claim." I assume you changed
it to perhaps fit the article.
Oddly, in doing a search for the first title, I find that News & Wires
lists the original title: "Furor Over CIA Role in WMD Claim."
Yet when I click there, a different URL appears to CBS but it takes me
to the third title: "Bush Stands By Tenet."
Does CBS change title and content so quickly at the same URL/website?
Is this an example of what I've heard called a "screen grab"?
Do they continue to use the same URL/ website while constantly changing
the article found at that site? I've actually got copies of all three
articles, but I can't figure out what's going on.
I look forward to hearing from you, and thank you for your assistance.
Eric Garris replies:
Your assumptions are correct. The CBS piece changed overnight, although it retained some of the content in the morning (by afternoon, the entire piece had changed).
The story WAS constantly changing, and CBS does update stories on URLs, but I believe that some editor or higher-up ordered a change in the headline and thrust of the story.
Here
is a copy of the original story:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0710-12.htm.
Here is a piece about the "changing" CBS story: http://www.takebackthemedia.com/cbscia.html.
It would be nice if your "printer-friendly" option worked.
Eric Garris replies:
It works fine for most people, but you must disable any popup blocker you are using.
Since A.N.S.W.E.R. is one of the most prominent and active organizations in the country I find it interesting that they aren't listed on your site.
Eric Garris replies:
We
have promoted them when they are doing antiwar work in spite of the fact
that they have asked us not to get involved with their actions. We do
have them listed on our actions page:
http://www.antiwar.com/peaceactions.html.
I'm a regular reader and a contributor to Antiwar.com, firstly, and I love what you're doing, but I have one criticism:
On today's edition of Antiwar.com, I saw a photo of a melancholy soldier, over the caption 'soldiers' morale hits bottom in Iraq unfortunately, the soldier's nametag was visible. I've been hearing reports that some soldiers are facing reprimands for presenting the wrong face to the media – in the future, if you could attempt to avoid showing information that could get individual soldiers in trouble with their CO's (like names, units, etc.), I think that would be a good idea. These poor kids are one of the big reasons we want this madness ended, after all – we need to keep them from being scapegoats for the war party.
Eric Garris replies:
I appreciate your concerns. This photo was from Associated Press and was cleared by the Pentagon's press people. However, I think your concern is still valid, and in the future we will avoid using photos with visible names.
Strictly speaking, Antiwar.com may not feel that a consideration of the presidential hopefuls and hopelesses is germane to the issue. I disagree. We (the antiwar movement) needs to be seriously weighing the options so we don't end up shooting ourselves in the foot with a second Nader type candidacy.
A Hillary/ Wes Clark ticket is one rumored possibility and a potentially powerful one so I ask whether paleoconservtives everywhere might not consider at some point a ticket with Arianna Huffington on it. Here is a conservative who despite some giddy moments has been more genuinely a compassionate conservative than Bush and Co., who has been staunchly antiwar, a defender of limited government willing to take on welfare kings not just queens, and some one who is truly a public intellectual and not a cheap-shot polemicist of the Coulter variety. Brains, beauty, and banter. Can't beat that.
Does anyone else out there agree? And if so, can you inform me what steps have been taken in that direction?
Eric Garris replies:
I would love it if Arianna would run, although she has never shown any inclination to run for office (probably another thing about her I like).
I hope you are not suggesting the a Hillary/Wesley Clark ticket would be one that antiwar activists could support. Hillary is just the kind of Democrat that would get us involved in multiple wars. Don't forget that she supported both the war on Iraq and the war on Serbia.
The staffers and volunteers of Antiwar.com are free to support and speak out for any potential candidates, but we cannot (as a nonprofit 501(c)3 organization) support any candidate.
Backtalk editor Sam Koritz replies:
I think Ms. Huffington was born in Greece, and so she can't become President of the United States.
Is this ["16 US troops killed in Taliban attack," Daily Times] corroborated? I don't see it anywhere else.
Eric Garris replies:
The Taliban issues news releases a few times a month saying that they have killed another group of Americans. These are never confirmed by the US.
I would not be surprised to learn that the US is covering up the number of combat deaths in Afghanistan, but I doubt that the numbers touted by the Taliban (numbering into the hundreds over the last few months) are accurate.
Bumper Sticker Suggestions
As a conservative who feels betrayed by President Bush I suggest two bumper stickers be produced and sold with proceeds used to impeach President Bush:
"S.O.S
– Save Our Soldiers
Fire the Liar"
and
"If you support the LIAR
you are a LIAR – Impeach Bush"
~ Robert McNabb, Mesa, Arizona
Feedback on Backtalk
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.
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.
Regarding DPT's letter posted July 17:
So you think glibly believe Mexico should take back the American Southwest as "Aztlan"?
Where do you live, and what planet do you come from? Do you REALLY think the Hispanics, let alone the Anglos (which, I confess, I am), REALLY, REALLY want to live in a THIRD WORLD COUNTRY, live in POVERTY, and relinquish other benefits (such as jobs) and freedoms we have here in the good 'ol USA that we simply wouldn't have in Mexico? Oh, and did I mention that millions of Mexicans leave Mexico every year to come here to LIVE A BETTER LIFE?
~ Deborah Lagarde, (far west) Texas
The Numbers Don't Add Up
Great work; I check you all every morning.
Your headline link today is an ABC News article about the number of dead US Service Personnel in Iraq approaching Gulf I, specifically:
"The total number of Americans who have died in Iraq since the conflict began March 20 stands at 212, including the death Monday in Balad. That number includes 69 deaths in accidents and other non-hostile circumstances. About two-thirds of the non-hostile deaths have come since May 1.
"In the 1991 war, 147 were killed by hostile fire. The war began Jan. 17 and ended with a cease-fire on Feb. 28. There also were 235 non-hostile deaths, including a number of soldiers who died during the U.S. buildup in Saudi Arabia and others who died in Kuwait after the fighting ended."
Interestingly ABC News Australia recently (June 23) posted some slightly different figures, based on data collected form Veterans Affairs, found in the following link: http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2003/s885743.htm, specifically (the story is part of a transcript):
"DOUG ROKKE: In the United States today, out of the little over 580,000 individuals that actively participated in the Gulf War I, well over 160,000 of them are labeled as permanently disabled from the United States Department of Veterans Affairs and over 8,000 are dead.
"The individuals that then continue to go into the region up through May of 2002, another 60,000 individuals are now labeled as permanently disabled and another 3,000 are dead minimal. And again this is coming from the residual contamination of war in that whole region."
The allegation of Dr. Doug Rokke (his web sit is: http://www.traprockpeace.org/ ) is that well over 11,000 US Service personnel have died as a direct result of Gulf I and a staggering number are "permanently" disabled.
Yet our five major government mouth pieces have been at best tacit, or publishing disinformation as the ABC News article posted on Antiwar.com today. As I said in my email to Peter Jennings et al this morning about this, "Only the truth serves the interests of ALL Americans; whom do you serve?"
Please link more on this as I believe few in America – even those tuned to Antiwar.com – are aware of the significant levels of casualties and deaths that result from these foolish US adventures.
~ Bjorn Rafto, former US Naval Officer
Face It: Bush Lied!
It's fascinating to watch the slow-motion deconstruction of the Bush Administration's fraudulent PR campaign for war in Iraq. Soon, the debate will progress beyond nit-picking over aluminum tubes and forgeries and arrive at the question which screams to be addressed: How and why, in the aftermath of the 9-11 attacks, did the White House change the subject from Bin Laden and Al Qaeda (those actually responsible) to Hussein and Iraq?
There was never a credible connection between the 9-11 attacks and Iraq, but the administration simply couldn't close the deal on Bin Laden and Al Qaeda so they shifted the agenda to a more convenient, stationary target. Our foreign relations are a shambles, the economy's in the tank and the White House is now scrambling to offer up scapegoats in the intelligence community. Why is it so difficult to accept the fact that this president and his cronies LIED to keep the "wartime president" momentum going with a public legitimately furious over 9-11? The only two things this administration has proven good at are prevaricating and getting more people, both Iraqi and American, killed!
The question has been raised many times whether this President Bush might suffer the same reversal of popularity as did his father, following astronomical approval ratings during the first Gulf War. The answer is now on the horizon, only the son will depart the stage with a burden his father avoided: disgrace!
Regarding "Americans Are Crazy" by Sascha Matuszak:
When a phrase such as "Americans are Crazy" comes up, it seems that there is not a lot of thinking going on in the mind of the speaker. A usually accurate response is, "Some are and some aren't".
A more pertinent remark that could quite accurately sum up the idea of such a shortsighted remark could reasonably be, "the majority of the electorate is stupid". That should accurately place the idea into a not-so stupid phrase while acknowledging the results of democracy; that is "one stupid person, one stupid vote"!
Regarding "Military Morale Hits Bottom in Iraq" by Justin Raimondo:
"There is much to Lowry's contention that the Left, as embodied by Howard Dean and his supporters, represents but another wing of the War Party. During the Clinton years, liberals embraced the idea of 'humanitarian' intervention in Bosnia, Haiti, Kosovo, and elsewhere. Certainly a great deal of the antiwar sentiment in the Democratic party is due to sheer partisanship."
There's only one viable antiwar candidate, and that's Howard Dean. At least he spoke out against the war when it was politically risky to do so. I'm certainly not in favor of any US intervention in Liberia (or anywhere else). However, Dean's candidacy is the only meaningful game in town for those of us interested in making a political statement against war. So, after a lifetime of Libertarian and Republican activism, I am registering Democratic and supporting Dean.
So, please think twice when using the phrase "Howard Dean and his supporters". Not all of his "supporters" think alike.
~ Mike Stamper, Windsor, Connecticut
Very good piece on the left/ right imperialism. And the remarks about how the British empire "dissolved". The dissolving empire fell apart thanks to two of the worst conflagrations to hit humanity: World War I and World War II.
Millions and millions of humans died as the Russian and German and Japanese and British and French empires collapsed or in the case of Russia, convulsed and then grew again in a new alliance with the American empire. The destruction of the Chinese empire by the British empire destabilized Asia and allowed the Japanese to take the lead and they very nearly totally destroyed the British Empire there but were stopped by the American empire.
The British empire kept the shredded remains briefly after becoming an appendage of the American empire and the French empire struggled on until the 1950s when it finally collapsed and handed over the imperial headaches to an eager America.
Now, having learned nothing from Vietnam, America goes forth to recreate the British empire in exactly the same places Britain failed to hold previously. And we wonder why we are being ripped apart, internally and externally.
Monty Python used to mock the British empire. In the movie, "the Meaning of Life", they open with a voice over announcing, "in the third world, things were much worse for the people" and then shows Liverpool! The British working class lived miserable lives during the empire and they lived in degrading conditions while providing the grist for the imperial mill. They died for this empire by the millions. And when it collapsed, this was when they finally were able to wrestle some power from the rulers and better their lives at long last.
We can only hope we can save our lives too, before we go bankrupt.
"A conquered country needs to stay conquered, and that requires an occupation; we'll be in Iraq anywhere from 5 to 10 years, according to the experts and influential members of Congress."
This quote from JR's latest column plumbs the depth of ignorance of the American public and its leaders. Empire is forever – you can't go home, and you can't quit. There is no 5 or 10 year pump priming after which everything runs itself. The British worked for 200 years – and the results are available to see.
We must stop this madness now. Empire is slavery – for the emperors.
Regarding "Is Iraq Hell on Earth?" by Anthony Gancarski:
I am so sorry that you think someone used the case of Scott Speicher as a reason to go to war. Those people who put up the billboard are Scott Speicher's friends and supporters. They have had to work very hard at getting his name out so that he is known by everyone including folks like you.
When did you hear the President or any other top executive bring Scott Speicher up by name or without being questioned by the media first? I am not sure you understand what 12 years is. Senator Bill Nelson just came back from Iraq with what he called "fresh evidence" and said we may finally know what Scott's fate is. The war has already happened and they no longer need new support for a war, so what is he trying to do now (and by the way he is a Democrat nonetheless)?
Please have more respect for the family that is waiting for an answer on the fate of their father who left to bravely serve our nation 12 long years ago.
~ Kristina Lade, Bradenton, Florida
Regarding "Santorum's Sins" by Justin Raimondo:
A very good article, as usual – thank you!
A question, is Rick Santorum so frightened that if the truth comes out, he and his religious right will not be able to witness the "second coming" as promised in the bible? This is the carrot the Zionists hold out for these very misguided people. If history repeats itself, they, the Christians, will be thrown to the lions as soon as the Zionists get what they want – land and more power.
When the truth finally comes out and the world wakes up to the fact this war is not about terrorism, but about the Zionists, and Israel having America fight its dirty wars, there will be a huge backlash against Israel, and the neocons in America. Is this what the Zionists are frightened by? Is this the reason this bill is being drafted?
As quoted by Oxford University: "Freedom of expression is a fundamental tenet of university life" – we need more debate in the world, not less!
Shame on you Rick Santorum, shame, shame, shame, for letting yourself get conned, yet again.
Regarding "Top US General in Iraq to Soldiers: Shut Up!" by Mike Ewens:
This war is highly politicized. One aspect of this is the public promises made to the people, and to the military personnel. None of this would have been necessary if this war was being fought in defense of these United States. Rumsfeld is primarily responsible for this public relations fiasco.
The Bush
administration and its neocons should have studied FDR's machinations
before World War II. Once Pearl Harbor was attacked his
administration did not have to promise that the boys would be home in
x number of days. The current administration, however, had to promise
that this war would be short and sweet in order to get the public to accept
it.
None of the current military has fought in a declared war in defense of these United States. They can hardly be faulted for taking seriously the utterances of the top people in Washington. General Abazaid (and the likes of Rumsfeld) need to understand what kind of military they have today. The rigor of military discipline will not suffice in phony wars.
Coming Home?
Prior to the invasion of Iraq, the Bush administration waved the flag and told all patriotic Americans to "support our troops". The phrase was Bushspeak for support-the-war. Now the Iraq situation is coming apart and the troops are starting to give us insight which we never heard from the "in-bed" media. Our soldiers truly need our support now because the administration is already beginning to demonize them and their families, and it will only get worse. So will the American people support the boys who were willing to give their lives for America, or "the Boys" who profited from their sacrifices?
The New Blair-Bush Morality
Blair told a joint meeting of the U.S. Congress that toppling former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was justified irrespective of the suspected armament that has failed to materialize. "We promised Iraq democratic government. We will deliver it," Blair said.
Blair is an intelligent man; there is no denying his ability to rationalize the most egregious conduct. But not finding the WMDs was not the issue; lying about it was. His specious defense was met with enthusiastic approval by the Bush administration and, presumably, by much of our congress. But will it play in Peoria and the rest of the world? We recently had a leader of similar expertise but Americans didn't take to kindly to his behavior so he became the second American president to be impeached. Doesn't honest and integrity count for anything anymore? Does the end justify the means?
There is not one democratic Muslim government in all the of the world, let alone in the Middle East. Who or what gave us the right to chose Iraq instead of some other country for our experiment in spreading democracy? Did the country have to be in the Middle East? Why not in Africa? And why stop at Iraq? Who's next? Iraq had a secular government like ours and Britain's not a theocratic one. Women had a greater degree of freedom in Iraq than in any other Muslim country. Now they are fearful that it might be lost and it very well might be. How can we guarantee that it won't? What assurance do we have that we will succeed on our endeavor? How long will it take? At what sacrifice in blood and pelf?
Sixty percent of Iraq is Shiite Muslim. Will a government elected by the majority in Iraq respect the rights of minorities such as the Sunni Muslims who formerly ruled the country and other minorities such as the Kurds? We've experimented with democracy for over two hundred years and still find that difficult to accomplish. How can the Iraqi people learn to do that perfectly overnight?
I say "experimented with democracy" because we still don't have one of our own. If we did, George Bush would not be president of the United States. Why will we not abolish the Electoral College? Why won't we make Election Day a holiday to make it easier for people to vote? California and the twenty-one least populous states in our union each have about 33 million inhabitants. California has two Senators; the twenty-one states forty two. Are the people of California fairly and democratically represented in the United States Senate? But that's another subject. Right now the salient question is: Why doesn't truth matter anymore when we made such a big fuss about it in the Clinton administration?
Neoconservatives
Here's a thought as to the etymology of "Neoconservative." Given their weird theories of "creative destruction," the term should refer to Neo, chief character of the Gnostic film and game series The Matrix.
Neo-cons don't wear black leather and shades, but they should. In keeping with the Manichean theme of The Matrix, Ledeen, Cheney, Perle et. al want to attain the City of God – by blowing up the City of Man.
Some teenage Matrix-ers just got arrested in New Jersey for preparing a small-scale version of "creative destruction." Their defense should be, "Gee, Your Honor, we're just following the logic of the Federal policy elite."
Are there Max-cons as well as Neo-cons?
Subject: Regarding "Saddam Meets the Man from U.N.C.L.E." by Justin Raimondo:
One more simple rebuttal that author failed to mention. A 10 kiloton nuclear device detonated within a cave would create a large seismic disturbance that would have been detected worldwide. This is the main technology for monitoring nuclear testing. A device detonation has a different seismic profile than any naturally occurring earthquake.
~ Scott McMorrow