|
|||||||||
Posted August 4, 2003
"What Does Bush Have to Hide?"
Could anyone PLEASE explain to me why I am a "tin foil hat brigade" member? – if Israel knew, is it beyond the pale of mere reason to think it possible that Bush et al were also informed?
What better way to catapult ahead a neo-imperialist agenda than let America be sneak attacked again?
Pearl Harbour is but ONE example of this form of treacherous leadership in our history.
Justin Raimondo replies:
It is beyond the pale of reason to believe that "Bush knew" because there is no evidence for that assumption. There IS, evidence, however, for Israeli foreknowledge.
"'Bush knew' tinfoil hat brigade" – you continue to use this phrase in your articles and I would appreciate it if you would stop.
Comparing people who suspect that "Bush knew" with people who believe in alien mind-control is ill-advised hyperbole.
The "Roosevelt knew" people during World War II such as George Morgenstern and Charles Beard were also considered to be crazy conspiracy theorists. History has vindicated them.
Bush may or may not have known about 9-11, but it is not an unreasonable hypothesis. It is worthy of consideration and investigation. Hopefully, historians in the future (sooner rather than later) will present us with a credible interpretation of the event and Bush's knowledge or lack of knowledge about it.
It does no good in my opinion to insult people now with whom you disagree.
Do I think that Bush knew? I honestly don't know,but it is possible and it is not unreasonable to suspect that he may have known.
These two translations show just the opposite of what you are trying to convene to the public (I am sorry for this):
Die Zeit,
Dossier 41/2002
http://www.zeit.de/2002/41/Politik/print
200241 mossad.html
Translation:
"Mossad got Chalid al-Midhar in sight as well, of whom the CIA knew but did not stop him. Mossad is said to having warned the American colleagues about the terrorists several times especially about Chalid al-Midhar. The US government admits later on to having got such warnings before 9/11, but that they have assumed that attacks on US institutions outside the USA would be planned.
"According to information given to "Die Zeit" however the Israel secret service gave a name list of suspicious people who were staying in the USA for the preparation of attacks. Immediately before 9/11 only the CIA discerned the dangerousness of al-Midhar and asked the investigating authorities to search for him."
"CIA-PANNEN: Mossad-Agenten waren Atta auf der Spur," Der Spiegel, 1 October 2002
Translation:
"CIA Breakdown: Mossad secret agents were on track of Atta"
"New revelations get CIA into trouble: Obviously the secret service Mossad has informed the US authorities about the terrorist group surrounding Atta early. Also the German investigators came to know very late only, how much knowledge about the Hamburg students their US colleagues had two years before 9/11."
That means the Mossad agents informed the US authorities about their knowledge.
~ Gudrun Eussner, Perpignan, France
ProBush.Com
Just wanted to applaud you [Eric Garris] for your letter ... on that ProBush.com website. I agree wholeheartedly with your letter. No matter our feelings on the war, pro or con, free speech is what it's all about. And Sen. Abourezk has apparently forgotten that. Isn't it funny how those on either extreme promptly forget about the importance of being able to disagree when it's their name being dragged through the dirt?
It might be different if the senator hadn't once been a senator, if, say, he was a street sweeper, and not directly in the public eye. But he was a senator. As such, he is and always will be a public figure. Like it or not.
~ Rob Dewig, Bluffton, South Carolina
Israeli Fence
I HAVE READ YOUR ARTICLE ABOUT THE ERECTION OF A FENCE BY THE IsraeliS. I WOULD LIKE TO NOW, WHAT IS THE PROBLEM WITH HAVING A FENCE?
I HAVE HAD A FENCE AROUND MY PROPERTY, SEPARATING ME AND THREE OF MY NEIGHBOURS FOR THE PAST 30 YEARS AND NO ONE SEEMS TO OBJECT.
Associate Editor Mike Ewens replies:
What if your neighbor decided that his fence will encompass half of your backyard, leaving your pool in "his" yard? Would you call that a "just" fence?
Also, FYI: it's called "Caps Lock" – turning it off requires one simple push of a key.
"Mr. Sharon, Tear Down That Wall!"
Your moral convictions are staggering while the Administration and congress are bankrupt in theirs. I must send a donation to ensure your opinions are heard throughout this land.
I have just finished your "wall" column. Thank you!
If it matters to you, (since you must be somewhat hardened to the attacks) I do not find, in this or any other article I have read by you, anything I consider "Anti-Semitic".
The idea that any criticism of Israel must be "anti-Semitic" is probably the most harmful canard that has been sold to the Jews.
As an American of the Jewish faith, I am grateful for any light shed on the actions of Israel.
When I consider the actions of Israel, and the response demanded by the "Jewish community", I can only compare it to what a Catholic might feel if told that in order to handle the sex-abuse scandal he must embrace pedophilia!
Israel may be a lot of things, but I have never been able to find much that was "Jewish" about it.
Please don't tire, watch your health, but keep it coming!
I'm a left wing, pro-peace Israeli....
You want to help the cause of a Palestinian state? Stay with the truth and don't be propagandistic The "wall" is actually a border which its final location is still in debate, but for now, whoever supports the idea of two identities, have to support a border. It's inconceivable that you will be against Israel's border with Syria, though its location is in dispute (the Golan heights is a Syrian territory and should be handed back to Syria as part of a peace agreement). Read the events themselves, not just the voices; open your eyes to what actually is in place – a continuous Jewish presence in Palestine, dated back 3000 years – the wars are different, the fighting factions come and go, but one thing remain indisputable – Jews were never wanted, no matter where they went; at least they have an army to defend them now. Hopefully, this army will be redundant when Israel's right to exist is as unequivocally accepted as Palestine's.
Hello from France
I came across your website through Michael Moore's one. He is our beloved American, over here. When Rumsfeld called us "an old country" he was right: we have been at war for centuries, and we know the cost of it! World War II, was a summon, and there was not a family that was not hit.
I belong to an "officers family" and met them all – upon graves. I never saw my father, who left for Vietnam when I was 3 months old, and got killed when I was 2 1/2 years old, 2 weeks before coming back. He graduated in Saint Cyr – your West Point – but I still remember the day when my mother bumped my head in the driving wheel when she saw all the shutters closed, when arriving at my grandmother's house: in Brittany it's the sign that someone is dead. I remember them mourning a picture upon a table. I remember the sound of his lead coffin grating, when they took it of from the van. And they had so many others to "deliver".
Today I'm 52, but my memories are still vivid. Going through the list of the dead ones in Iraq, was a terrible challenge: most of them might have been my children. What a waste.
It was easy to tell what was due to happen in Iraq I still hear Susan Sarandon saying " Before our boys start coming back in body bags...", but Deep America, only heard Fox News. Everyday, your kids are falling for the craziness of some neo-conservative, imperialistic, bigots... Do you know where my youngest daughter is? In Houston, Texas, W's state. And she is fighting madly against Republicans, not trusting the official news, though she is only 17, and asking me for sound articles from Le Monde. I must acknowledge that my friend Gayla, she is staying with, is a University teacher, and in Texas that means dangerous, intellectual, left-wing thinker. Just a democrat, as we see it here.
So, please: go on. You are the pride of America, and thank you for your action.
By the way, I'm an old buddy of French Prime Minister.
MERCI, MERCI, MERCI!
~ ANDRÉE CHALM, JOURNÉES A LA FRANCAISE, PARIS, FRANCE
"Bush's Vietnam-sized credibility gap"
You are correct: Mr. Wolfowitz, Mr. Cheney, Mr. Powell, Mr. Rumsfeld, Ms. Rice, President Bush and their supporters can't have it both ways. They deceived the American people and misled them with regard to the urgency of the need to use force.
Unfortunately, they did one more thing that was far worse than deceiving the American people. They used our armed forces, our tax dollars and the precious blood of our servicemen to destroy the lives of thousands of Iraqis. In THEIR rush to war, WE killed over ten thousand civilians and probably maimed another ten thousand as well. In THEIR rush to conquest, WE irreparably harmed the name, reputation and symbolism of AMERICA. In THEIR rush to war, WE ridiculed and dismissed the voices of all those Americans who understood that this adventure was a cruel and costly joke.
I raise one last question. If THEY cannot find chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, why did WE impose sanctions on the poor people of Iraq and why did we enforce the "no fly zone" to systematically wreck their ability to maintain basic services.
The infrastructure of Iraq has been destroyed. The people of Iraq have been made to suffer. The buffoons of Washington, past and present, continue on their merry way oblivious to the destruction and misery they have wrought. Who is responsible? Who is a war criminal? Who should be prosecuted?
Next October's "Surprise"
We know, based on past experience with this administration, that political expedience will dictate policy. We must, therefore, be prepared for a reverse "Wag the Dog" event to take place on or about October 22, 2004, to wit: A trumpet-blaring bringing home of multitudes of troops from Iraq, a banner-waving video presentation of their arrival (the Commander-in-Chief receiving them, of course) to spike the president's popularity for the election two weeks later.
Since we know this will happen – we know it, we know it – we must now prepare a countermeasure. I have an idea, but I don't want to tarnish others'. Could you send out a query to your many readers to learn their ideas? Not just what might be done those many months from now, but now and in the intervening months to preclude/ prepare for/ obviate/ obstruct such a known eventuality?
"Phony Justifications for War"
Thanks for the article, you are dead on right! How did we get so far off track?
Look where we are now. My read on this war is – 224 US soldiers and thousands of Iraqis have died and more are dying each day because of an American war based on White House lies. The United States has been disgraced because of these lies. As a veteran who served honorably as an officer in the United States Navy, I am now ashamed of my Country. The only way the U.S. can regain its dignity in the world community is to impeach Bush and to make his advisors defend their actions in a courtroom.
Murky Motives
As a former liberal, I will point out that many liberals hate Bush because he is a symbol of conservative values and conservative domestic policy, and would have no problem with say a 1997-model Clinton doing what Bush is doing in Iraq. American dead in Iraq then become a grisly political weapon to wield in yet another meaningless political dogfight back home. Hating Bush is no reason to not be in Iraq. The reason not to be in Iraq is the same as the reason war supporters sometimes give for staying there – that people get killed more frequently in some American cities than in Iraq. A high urban rate of death is just one of the things that make you think something isn't quite right with the home turf – and if something's not quite right with the home turf, why should a liar from Arkansas, Texas, or wherever spend blood and dollars on someplace that's NOT the home turf? That's just number one.
Number two is that the POTUS went to military action without presenting a solid case to anyone anywhere. Number three is that the POTUS killed seven thousand people or so for no discernible reason whatsoever. Will we have to wait until 2050's textbooks are published to get the motives? I might not live that long, and I'm curious. (By the way, many of your columnists are very smug and knowing and have amassed all sorts of theories to repeat, but as far as I can tell NOBODY knows for sure why Bush went to war except a handful of people, and that alone is a strike against it). ...
"CIA adviser says team building 'solid case' on Saddam's program" (London Telegraph)
I can just hear the dictum spewing forth from the White House and the Pentagon: "You'd better find some WMD evidence and find it quick!"
Cowhand Bush, who did not have the patience to wait for the UN inspectors because he was cocksure that Saddam had the goods, now expects gullible Americans to sit on their hands and wait for his hand picked crew to "discover" something. I have stated before that the main reason that Bush & Co. have not yet found any WMD in Iraq is that things are still too chaotic there for them to fabricate and plant the evidence. What the CIA statement is really saying is: "give us enough time to gain control over the country and put our hand-picked stooges in place and we'll find some WMD for you".
May I suggest two more books that could make the Malic list of non-anti-books on Bosnia:
The question of whether Yugoslavia was the subject of secession or whether it was in the process of dissolution when violence erupted is not a trivial one. It is brilliantly analyzed in the context of the uti posidetis uris "principle" of international law and Badinter Commission in:
Peter Radan, The Break-up of Yugoslavia and International Law (London: Routledge, 2002)
The second one (edited by myself, so no praises) is an attempt by philosophers, international relations scholars, political scientists, and international law scholars to give an account of "humanitarian intervention" in the context of the 1999 attack on Yugoslavia.
Aleksandar Jokic (ed.), Lessons of Kosovo: The Dangers of Humanitarian Intervention (Calgary: Broadview Press, 2003) ...
~ Aleksandar Jokic, Assistant Professor, Department of Philosophy and Conflict Resolution Graduate Program, Portland State University, Oregon
Apartheid Wall
How easy it is for you to slander Israel with headlines like "Ignoring Bush, Sharon Vows to Keep Building Apartheid Wall" [originally titled "Israel Will Keep Building Security Fence"] knowing how the word apartheid is received by all fair-minded people. You knowingly foster prejudice and hatred and misinformation by defining Israel's actions in that way. I lived in Israel and after each suicide bombing it was a natural self-surviving thought: why can't we just build a wall to keep the bombers out? This is why people thought to build the wall, not to oppress the Arabs. If the Arabs suffer because of it, or if it influences political outcomes, again, they have brought this upon themselves.
"Where Will Timothy McVeigh Strike Next?"
Excellent article! Something worth noting, that several Vietnam vets I know have told me, is that although 58,000 Americans were killed in Nam, double that number have committed suicide following the war. The VA here can barely deal with all the needs. Hawaii, a place pretty darn close to Paradise, actually has the highest per capita of PTSD in the country. I know several of these guys. Some of them make McVeigh seem eerily normal.
"US Colonel Kidnaps, Holds Family of Iraqi General Hostage"
Concerning Col. Hogg's orders to detain the wife and daughter of an Iraqi general, he may be in violation of three punitive articles of UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice). The first is unlawful detention. I don't know any where in US law, military or civilian, where officers of the Constitution are allowed to detain family members in a capture attempt. If there is such a law I would like to know about it. I doubt there is such a law, because such an act is extortion, a second violation of the UCMJ. As far as an officer knowingly taking part in such actions, it is conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman.
Some might argue in defense of Col. Hogg's orders, that they were effective in capturing the Iraqi general. Such a result is irrelevant, because it disobeys the law, and it disobeys what no honorable man would do in good conscience. I guess the words, "death before dishonor" have become just as meaningless as the UCMJ and the Constitution, that its officers have sworn to uphold and protect.
Here are the articles, judge for yourself. Notice how both Art 97 and 127 apply to all persons:
897. ART.
97. UNLAWFUL DETENTION
Any person subject to this chapter who, except as provided by law, arrests,
or confines any person shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
927. ART.
127. EXTORTION
Any person subject to this chapter who communicates threats to another
person with the intention thereby to obtain anything of value or any acquaintance,
advantage, or immunity is guilty of extortion and shall be punished as
a court-martial may direct.
933. ART. 133. CONDUCT UNBECOMING AN OFFICER AND A GENTLEMAN
"Wolfowitz Spins the Aftermath"
Nice! I, too, believe in bringing everyone home. I agree that imperialism is the true danger to America, and must be discredited and destroyed. But, I also believe that deterrence is the only way to peace, not appeasement or treaties. Trying to prevent nuclear proliferation is bad policy. If friendly nations (Kuwait, Iran(?), Taiwan, Israel, etc.) are at risk, we should supply them with whatever weapons they might need; and let them defend themselves. The only alternative is imperialism.
Neither domestic gun control nor international arms control works. I'm no lefty – I'm a libertarian. ...
"The World's Most Dangerous Place"
While I find your site generally very interesting, I find your designation of the Indian subcontinent as the most "dangerous place in the world" [sic – actually, "world's most dangerous place"] to be not only a tad racist, but also rather inappropriate considering that it is the US that has launched most of the wars of the last half-decade.
Unlike the US, which has used nuclear weapons TWICE on civilian populations, India has repeatedly pledged NEVER to be the first to use nuclear weapons. Moreover, the Indian govt. has repeatedly called on all nuclear capable nations NOT to put their weapons on HAIR-TRIGGER alerts.
On the other hand, not only does the US refuse to eschew a first strike, it has often threatened the use of nuclear weapons – and more than once against Iraq.
Given the huge arsenal of "Weapons of Mass Destruction" that the US possesses, and uses routinely – it is highly provocative and even somewhat insidious to shift blame, and describe the Indian Subcontinent as the "most dangerous place in the world".
Such a designation is particularly troubling when it comes from a site that is supposedly an "antiwar" site, and should know more about the horrible military inequities that exist in the present world.
I might also add that whereas Pakistani military Generals have on more than one occasion threatened the use of nuclear weapons against India (in a first strike) – with the tacit approval (perhaps even encouragement) of certain sections of the US media and Pentagon brass, India has stuck to its no first-use pledge. ...
Misconception
There is a basic misconception that the Iraq war has inadvertently turned out badly due to bad intelligence and miscommunication. Oh, my, mistakes were made. Isn't it regrettable? Donald Rumsfeld erred on the side of caution. He was trying to protect US. Thanks so much, Don.
Here's the misconception: This Iraq war has turned out exactly the way its proponents wanted: America soldiers (150,000) are now permanently mired in Iraq for years to come.
Who benefits?
The main beneficiaries are: the Israeli people and the American oil companies.
(1) The Israeli people are much more secure knowing that Saddam is ousted and 150,000 American boys are in the neighborhood.
(2) The oil companies have profited because they now have access to the enormous Iraqi oil fields.
All that crap about Weapons of Mass Destruction and, even more, about building a democracy in Iraq and spreading democracy throughout the Middle East was nonsense. Did you really buy it? How gullible are you?
If democracy worked well in the United States, we would have had a legitimate discussion of invading Iraq. That never happened.
This war turned out exactly the way its proponents wanted: Israel is more secure and the oil companies are in the Iraqi catbird seat.
And as for American boys dying every day and American taxpayers spending a billion dollars a week on the Iraq occupation?
Hey, man, get a lobby and buy a newspaper! This is the way the great American democracy works.
~ Bruce Hayman