Posted March 21, 2002

Sent a Check

I have sent Antiwar.com a check for $75. I just realized that this is more than what I spend on the New York Times -- I think your website is excellent. The variety of sources and the opinion columns are always good to read.

~ Tom S., Massachusetts

Counterfeit Christian

Just what we need, another Counterfeit Christian to tell us what is right and wrong. Between Bennett and the extremely mediocre ex-Buffalo Bills quarterback Jack Kemp, you have two guys who are dividing the American Right in order to "outflank" the growing antiwar movement. This has always been the strategy and purpose of phony groups like Embalm America. It is the old "divide and conquer" strategy used for centuries. It would be interesting to follow the money trail on these two guys to see who is really paying their salaries. Bennett needs to dust off his Bible and remember how the Pharisees falsely accused Jesus and his Apostles of treason and caused them to be killed by the Romans. Bill Bennett needs to look in the mirror (as we all do!).

~ PJC

College Football

Today I read at least five articles linked to, and posted on Antiwar.com relating to an attack on Iraq. Explain to me one thing. (We can direct this criticism at Scott McConnell if you prefer.) Why is everyone discussing the pros and cons of the invasion of another country as casually as one describes college football? Does the office of homeland security already have a gun to your heads? Invading Iraq is not "lawless," it is illegal (i.e., a crime). Invading Iraq is a bad idea not because it will shatter the anti-terror coalition, it is a bad idea because it is unprovoked cold-blooded mass murder. And "morally dubious"? How about "morally outrageous"?

What is most alarming to me about this whole business, is that it appears that the UN has finally given up the ghost. Though 4/5 [of the] members of the security council oppose unilateral action against Iraq, none of those members are even thinking about trying to stop it. Most likely because everyone realizes that the UN is as powerless to prevent the invasion of Iraq by the US as the League of Nations was powerless to prevent the invasion of Ethiopia by Italy on the eve of World War II.

~ CD, Japan

Scott McConnell replies:

The author makes a good and moral point. I think however that decisions -- real foreign policy decisions -- are more often made on the basis of how the decision-makers coldly calculate their interests -- interests of their group within the polity, (the idea that arms-dealers spurred intervention in World War I is a variant of this) interests of the state ("national interest" ) or some general ideological interest (expansion or protection of communism, free markets, fundamentalist Islam, you name it). Compared to these, the seemingly straigtforward but often plastic and ambiguous formulations of international law count not for nothing, but for less. In cases (most cases, actually) where competing interests oppose each other, one needs to sort out the most compelling ones. Or at least try to. International politics remains, however, an anarchic society without an accepted sovereign, at least for now.

Friend of My Enemy

...Mr. Bush wants to attack Iraq because it is claimed that they are developing weapons of mass destruction, but who is supplying Iraq with these biological weapons? Why doesn't the Bush Administration try to find out the source of where they are being bought from? If it was Russia or China are they going to declare war on them? I tell you what he would not dare. What is going to happen in Iraq if they are threatened to be attacked? The Saddam regime is going to counterattack, I am sure that a lesson was learned from the Afghan war that the the friend of my enemy is my enemy, so the Kurds will suffer most, if they indicate that they are siding with the allies.

~ Mike P.

'Actions'

A little over a week ago I sent you a long bombastic letter complaining about Antiwar.com's lack of links to sites or coverage focussed on taking action -- as opposed to just reading about the mess we're in. Since then, I've more thoroughly sampled your site, and while you may not post links to action on page one, they certainly are there; they just require a bit of work (an extra click or two) to locate.

We live in an age of information overload. So many of us rely on the Internet for news (hoping of course to be given some real facts amongst all the fluff), and I don't think it would be completely wrong to say that relatively few of us have the time to participate in "actions" (such as old-style demonstrations or marches) that might be given broad media coverage. But then of course it may be just that "they" have finally mastered the art of not covering any real dissent at all -- leaving us to the Internet and our prayers for world sanity in the privacy of our homes, at our monitors, late at night after we've managed to pay enough bills and taxes just to keep that roof over our proverbial heads.

I do apologize, however -- I wrote from personal frustration and ignorance. I still want to see something actually happen out there in the world. I have a real fear of preaching to the choir when the church is burning down around me -- and honestly don't know what to do. I'm sad to read on your site that you're in financial trouble (with a million visitors a month!?) and hope people will rally around to support the work you're doing.

~ N.L.

Rockwell

[Regarding Justin Raimondo's column of March 18, "Big Bill is Watching You":]

Many thanks for this fine piece of work. Lew Rockwell is one of the smartest guys around and his site is a joy. I doff my Stetson to his courage, and to yours sir!

~ Michael B.

Finances

In Justin Raimondo's column today [March 18] he refers to AVOT's $500,000 gift from Lawrence Kadish, and said "that's probably more than a hundred times what Antiwar.com has raised since 1999!". Well that would imply that Antiwar has raised less than $5,000 in three years, and now Antiwar hopes to raise $20,000 in 30 days. If this is true then including the contribution I sent in today I have contributed about 5% of Antiwar's 3-year revenues, a bit hard to swallow! Did Justin make a typo or have the finances really been this bad? If the latter then I am all the more happy I sent my humble contributions your way, since the best antiwar site out there is more cash-starved than I ever imagined.

~ Joe C.

Justin Raimondo replies:

Okay, okay, so maybe I exaggerated a little bit. I'm terrible at math, anyway.