Posted July 24, 2003

Regarding "Real Special: Office of Special Plans Behind Phony 'Intelligence'" by Jason Leopold:

Leopold has it right. I am a 25-year veteran of the US national security community, with two books on intelligence reform (see them at Amazon) and what I have seen documented in the open media suggests that the US intelligence community was weakened by simply not knowing (almost no open or clandestine sources), but it maintained its integrity. Elsewhere bloggers and others have documented 62 specific lies by Bush and gang, and I just consider it totally dismaying to see that half of America is blindly in love with this gang of liars, and the other half has dropped out.

~ Robert David Steele, Former spy, CEO OSS.Net

The combination of an ideology-driven administration and their having an all-volunteer military makes for a very dangerous combination. The screw-up in Iraq planning, with the help of the "Cabal", and the murdering of our service people would be enough to rid Washington of this bunch of Nazis, if we had draftees in Iraq! That is the reason that they do not want a draft. World history tells us plenty of empires whose professional soldiers were stationed far away from the homeland and the citizens became more and more detached from them. Their ranks became stretched so thin that the homeland itself was finally defeated by invaders (terrorists). All citizens must bear their share of the burden and pain of war, and be ready to say "enough, no more" to power-mad leaders, who would sacrifice our young people in pursuit of their dream of world conquest!

~ Ralph Simpson, World War II Vet in ETO, and lifelong Republican

Regarding "Casualties in Iraq," edited by Mike Ewens:

An article by Vernon Loeb of the Washington Post tells about "a US military investigation into at least seven cases of suspected suicide by troops deployed for the war in Iraq that began a week before hostilities started in March and have continued since major combat operations ended."

More unnecessary deaths that might have been prevented. How come we rarely get information like that? Are these related to the stress? Are these deaths included in the announced figures?

~ Nancy Cerullo, Monterey, California

Mike Ewens replies:

These numbers are difficult to confirm. They would be listed under "non-combat" deaths. I suspect that the true numbers will surface years after the conflict has ended.

"Bring 'em home", is Step 1. That will save us at least $1 billion a week. Step 2 is taking the $billions given to ungrateful countries like Israel, Egypt, Turkey, Pakistan, and Jordon (total $20 billion), and put that to good use right here, in the good old USA. Its stupid to go around making enemies with most of the world.

No one wants us to be the worlds policeman, and I certainly don't want to pay that cost in lives and taxes. Step 3 – leave the Middle East to the Middle East – Saddam, Khomeini, Mubarek, Hussein, and Sharon – let them sleep in their own beds, let the middle east boil – it shouldn't matter to us – those countries are filled with fanatics (some of whom were former terrorists) and they all deserve each other. The further away we stay from the middle east, the better off we will be and the less we will need "homeland security" (otherwise known as "the feds are watching you").

The Soviet Union tried to export communism across the world decades ago, then they invaded Afghanistan. After 10 years and thousands of casualties they ended up bankrupting their economy. Same will happen to us with our current deficits.

~ ACC, a concern citizen

Mike Ewens replies:

Couldn't have said it any better myself... you sound like the perfect noninterventionist libertarian!

Thanks for the e-mail.

Regarding "Worthless Words" by Nebojsa Malic:

Thanks for all the wonderful war skepticism you and the crew are doing, a viewpoint the world desperately needs to hear. I'v followed your Balkans column on and off, but I must admit I'm still fairly confused by the tangled history of events and viewpoints. Would you please consider making a graphical time line of both events and conflicting perceptions and viewpoints on events? Perhaps with an index including persons? In addition, do you consider Milosevic guilty of any crimes? Or is it simply inherently unjust to charge only Milosevic and not the other sides with crimes? I realize this is a very passionate issue for you and many others and I appreciate your detailed articles.

Unfortunately I'm fairly lost and could use a simple large overview. Below is my current oversimplified vague understanding of the situation in a time line format. How wrong is it?:

1990-1995
Croatia, Bosnia and Serbia have complex 3 way civil war. NATO pressures Serbia to Dayton peace accords. Western influenced politicians take charge in some areas over time.
1990-1996
Many disputed war crimes happen. Different versions of events like mass rapes, Sarajevo, and Srebrenicia. What crimes actually happened and by who?
1999
NATO bombs Serbia over very disputed Kosovo attacks. NATO occupies Kosovo. Milosevic loses power.

In addition, how and especially why is the US supposedly establishing an imperial presence in the Balkans?

~ Joe O'Donnell

Nebojsa Malic replies:

A complicated issue like this can't really be summed up in a few short sentences. But I will see if I can put together an overview column.

Regarding "Mid-Eastern Terms" by Ran HaCohen:

The thing I love about middle eastern "Experts" is they simply badmouth Israel and not the Palestinians; true, many more Palestinians have died than Israelis, but the number of Palestinians killed includes Palestinians killed by Palestinians, suicide bombers as well as gunmen.

The realistic number of war casualties by the Israelis is more around but under 1000.

~ C. Libinarius

Ran HaCohen replies:

That's a blood libel. The (approximate) number of Palestinians casualties I mentioned – 2,500 – does not include the handful killed by Palestinians, convenient as it may be for you to think otherwise.

Mike Ewens Replies

A friend recently sent me your web page.

Would you be so kind as to send me your source for the statement regarding Howard Dean's desire to send American troops to Liberia – I surely do want to question him directly on this, if this is true – and would not want to support him for candidate

~ Barbara Kummer

Associate Editor Mike Ewens replies:

Here ("STATEMENT FROM HOWARD DEAN ON WORSENING CRISIS IN LIBERIA"):

"As a member of the international community, and the world's leading power, we share responsibility for helping to resolve such conflicts throughout the world. Our British allies stepped up to the plate when they intervened in Sierra Leone three years ago to stabilize that situation. The French have gone into Cote d'Ivoire; and French and British troops are now doing duty in the eastern Congo. African governments have sent peacekeepers into Burundi, and West African leaders have pledged to again send thousands of peacekeepers to Liberia. Now, the British, French, UN Secretary General and our West African partners are all calling on the U.S. to assist Liberia. I believe that the US must do its share."

Regarding Nathan Higgins' letter posted July 22:

Nathan Higgins: My request ignored, I appeal to your reason
once more.

Seeing as how there are still editorial links on your front page to someone spewing sewage about the manufactured Nigergate scandal, I will once again try to convince you that you are hurting your credibility as a legitimate source of information by pursuing this absolute fabrication of a story. This link, for all intensive purposes, debunks all the myths that are being perpetuated in the media and by your front page: "The Phony Scandal," by Fred Barnes, The Weekly Standard – it's a lengthy read, yes, but still worth the trouble.

Already, many of those who have a political interest in ousting Bush have started to change their tone over his alleged deception, and that's because on this issue, there never was any to begin with. A few confused comments by a few of the White House staff, and suddenly there's a scandal? If you truly believe there was willing deception on this issue, you are blinding yourself to the facts.

Mike Ewens: Your request was "ignored" because you failed to convince me, or any of the other members of the Antiwar.com staff, that we shouldn't cover Niger-gate. Again, you send a link – with your bland interpretation that it "debunks" all the myths.

First, the WS article plays a bit with semantics (i.e. "the British learned"). Sheldon Richman of FFF "debunks" this approach:

"To say someone learned something is to vouch for the information learned. (Would we say that before Galileo, astronomers had learned that the sun moved around the earth?) Bush could have stated, 'British intelligence believes that Hussein tried to buy uranium. But we are not convinced yet.' He didn’t say that. There would have been no point in doing so because it would not have won support for his war."

The WS article reads:

"THERE ARE TWO QUESTIONS regarding the Africa sentence. One is how it got in the speech. The second is why the CIA, which had qualms about the veracity of the intelligence information, didn't demand it be stripped out. A somewhat similar sentence had been scratched at Tenet's insistence from a speech by Bush in Cincinnati last October in which he outlined the case against Saddam. But a senior administration official said last week the Cincinnati reference cited specific amounts of uranium and the State of the Union didn't. That, the official asserted, was a 'critical difference.' The more general reference in the State of the Union wasn't problematic, he said."

Of course a "senior administration official" asserted that there was a "critical difference" ...they are in the administration! After reading the article, I am still unconvinced that the administration didn't use the uranium statement to mislead.

Further, I still quarrel with using a more specific statement about the uranium that was nixed in October while a more general statement was included in the president's most important speech – the State of the State. The president has a responsibility – especially when justifying war – to use the best and most credible evidence. He made a statement about what the British knew and which our intelligence had reasonable doubts of, in the hopes of convincing America to go to war. Standards should be set EXTREMELY high when the topic is war. You have yet to demonstrate that the President met any requirements.

NH: Those forged documents were NOT the basis for the claim, if they were, your argument might hold some water, but let me repeat, the forged documents were NOT the basis for the claim. Some rumors even exist that the documents turned up first at the French intelligence agency, who, believe it or not, has an interest in making America look bad.

You aren't even beating a dead horse anymore, you're just pounding sand.

ME: Explain. What claim? It really doesn't matter... the President and his staff knew that the uranium claim was inconclusive... he should not have used it!

Honestly, I agree that Niger-gate is a bit much (although still worth discussion). So, I will try to appeal to the libertarian in you one more time... Gene Callahan of LewRockwell.com writes:

"It may very well be that administration officials sincerely believed that Hussein possessed or was developing WMDs. They may have honestly thought that it was in the best interest of Americans’ safety to initiate 'regime change' as soon as possible. But they did not present their case in terms of belief and likelihood. They presented it in terms of certainty. And in doing so, they were lying. They may have even felt that such exaggerations were justified because they believed that the threat Iraq presented was so grave, but that does not change the fact that they were lies."

The fact that the president lied, misled and ignored crucial evidence is what angers me. We don't think Niger-gate is the be-all-end-all but demonstrates how politicians use words to their advantage. You are still falling for it, by defending the President's ambiguous language. Where is the skepticism about politicians that libertarians use so well?

Wasn't quite sure how to get the ball rolling on this, perhaps you can help?

What about a 'Wear an Orange Ribbon' campaign to raise awareness of, and enable people to show support for, those being detailed without legal representation in Guantanamo Bay?

(The orange is to symbolise the orange overalls they have to wear.)

~ AN

Mike Ewens replies:

Not a bad idea... although I don't know how much grassroots energy you could garner with it.

Evan Martin: You are just like the hippies that wanted peace in the '60s.

Mike Ewens: I hate hippies. We don't want "world peace" we want the US out of the dealings of foreign nations.

EM: You are the reason men came home to no greeting from their fellow Americans. You are the virus that caused the mental sickness most of the brave men endured.

ME: Ah, I see dissent is bad. How American! I would argue that the "virus" originates in the horrible missions that our men and women are sent to do... from "liberating" the oppressed to "ridding the world of evil-doers" I also think that the nature of war has something to do with it. I doubt that my occasional op-eds that criticize the administration's foreign policy do damage to our troops. Moreover, what about the troops who are bitter about the situation in Iraq... by your logic, they are doing the most harm to our servicemen.

EM: If not handled carefully Iraq could turn into the same situation, in the US, as Vietnam.

ME: Yes and I pray that doesn't happen. Are you inferring that my actions would be to blame? Yeah, it was Paul Revere's fault that the British were coming – I forgot!

EM: It will be a sad day, a day of hopelessness and loss, if that day comes. Civil disobedience and protest are legitimate ways of stating your views, but when is it time to stop and try and better the situation at hand?

ME: Protest and "disobedience" are the only avenues I know of. The only way, in my opinion, of making the situation better is bring the troops home NOW. However, I don't pull the strings in Washington. All I can do is try to pressure those who do.

EM: All that can come of this protest is doubt in the hearts of American citizens which leads to the loss of meaning for this war, which is to free a people ruled by a tyrant and patrolled by thugs.

ME: Whoa! Slow down. This does not follow. Protest lead to "doubt in the hearts of Americans"? Doubt of what? Also, we protested the war because we thought it had no meaning!!! You say that meaning involving "freeing people" Where is that in the Constitution? Further, if you think that the US military has a duty to "free" and "liberate" than YOU are responsible for NOT invading Iraq years ago, or NOT invading the Congo, or NOT invading CHINA.... etc. Guess that you wouldn't mind perpetual war.

EM: America will prevail!

ME: Against what? Me and my ilk? I didn't know I was at war with the US.

Wasteful

...The Brookings Institution military analyst Michael O'Hanlon, who describes our volunteer military as "one of the best military institutions in human history," warns that "the Bush administration will risk destroying that accomplishment if they keep on the current path," said Paul Krugman.

War is ridiculously expensive and wasteful. Any dollar spent on it is a dollar too much – much less billions of dollars! Boy, I was never so happy as when I got out of the U.S. Army as I was drafted in 1972! And they are thinking about draft people again!

To go out and kill others, or train to do so. That sort of training, and especially the killing, warps your mind and affects your spirit after a while, as many veterans will tell you-and as you can see by these military men who casually conducted biological warfare tests on American cities, and who nonchalantly studied the effects of nuclear radiation on American troops!

But war is all a colossal waste, no matter what the money is spent on! Peace would be so much cheaper, as well as much more productive!

~ Ted Rudow III,MA, California

Google

Try this very soon, before Google fixes its site:

1) Go to Google.com
2) Type in (but don't hit return): "weapons of mass destruction" (without quotation marks)
3) Hit the "I'm feeling lucky" button, instead of the normal "Google search" button
4) Read what appears to be a normal error message, carefully. READ THE WHOLE PAGE.

Someone at Google really has a sense of humor.

~ Mary McCormick

Backtalk editor Sam Koritz replies:

Actually, Google didn't make the page.

The "I'm feeling lucky" feature brings up the most popular page about the subject searched for, in this case weapons of mass destruction. For more on this story see "Feeling Lucky."

Tony Blair

After this weekend events, Tony Blair would be well advised to follow the eccentric rock star Prince's example and change his name to "The Liar Formerly Known as Prime Minister Blair". Alternatively, he could dump Alistair Campbell and appoint his close friend Stephen Spielberg as his Mr. Campbell's replacement. Mr. Spielberg creative energies could then be released on a high-profile Downing St. video entitled "Saving Tony Blair", complete with dramatic footage of cruise missiles demolishing residential sections of Baghdad and WMDs that turn invisible in the presence of "coalition" troops.

I have other suggestions but they are too rude to print.

~ Steven Vujacic, Bermuda

Where Was NORAD?

Given the general unraveling of the lies told by the British and American governments regarding the invasion of Iraq; and, more importantly, the seeming indifference of the majority of American people to this revelation, perhaps it is time to reexamine the events immediately leading to the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. Large, subsonic commercial passenger aircraft were hijacked, diverted from their flight plans and sent into highly restricted US airspace; where, they, unmolested, successfully destroyed the World Trade Center and damaged the Pentagon.

In the late 1990s, when the plane carrying pro golfer Payne Stewart, failed to make a turn scheduled in its flight plan, fighter-intercepters were dispatched WITHIN 12 MINUTES to determine the cause. These fighters were part of the North American Air Defense Command (NORAD), which has been tasked SINCE 1958 with protecting US and Canadian air space.

Where was NORAD on September 11, 2001? Did air traffic controllers contact NORAD of the flight deviations by the "hijacked" aircraft? The air search radar at military bases throughout the northeast and mid-Atlantic would have seen the errant passenger jets. BASED ON STANDARD NORAD POLICY, fighters would have been scrambled and intercepted the doomed aircraft. ...

~ R. Fallin

Dr. Kelly

I'm no Sherlock Holmes, but am I the only one who smells a rat in the "suicide" of Dr. Kelly? I am not finding a lot of questions in the media as to his untimely demise.

There are several strange matters involved in this man's alleged "suicide" that even an armature forensic science buff would question:

1) His choice of method is odd. Take tranquilizers, and slit his wrist? Hmmm. Not very fashionable. Leaves open a real possibility that someone gave him the tranquilizers and slit his wrist for him.

2) Slits only one wrist? Not likely for someone so committed to killing himself. By the way, was he right or left handed?

3) No suicide note? This from a loving father who was looking forward to marrying off his daughter later this Fall? Again, not very believable, and inconsistent with with someone overwhelmed, who would be more likely to want to tell his story, and would certainly want to let his loved one's off of any possible emotional hook of responsibility.

4) In his recent communication via e-mail, he spoke of wanting to get back to Baghdad, and mentioned the presence of "dark actors playing games". The press seems to want to use these words as evidence of a man under great pressure who is contemplating suicide, rather than as a man who is frightened for his life and attempting to communicate his fear. This seems more like a profile of a man who was future pacing, wanting to put all of this behind himself and get on with his life, with his wife and daughter, as well as return to his work life. These are hardly the ramblings of a man at his rope's end.

5) This tragedy took place in conjunction with Mr. Blair speaking to the American press and telling them that his country stands behind the intelligence that Mr. Bush used in his State of the Union speech. Clearly, that was not, and is not the truth. In fact, the one person who could have disputed that claim was Dr. Kelly, who may or may not have been alive at the time Mr. Blair was making his statement. "Dark actors" indeed".

6) It appears very strange that the same press which looked so desperately into the suicide of Vincent Foster, in an attempt to find some other explanation, and indeed evidence for murder, would sit so strangely quiet at this time.

~ Dennis Cox, Shelton, Washington