|
|||||||||
Posted March 26, 2003
Regarding "San Francisco Rabble Brings Discredit on Antiwar Movement" by Justin Raimondo:
"They ought to be thrown in jail and beaten to within an inch of their lives."
Oh really? I don't live in San Francisco; so I haven't experienced this first hand. But, I don't think anybody should be beaten by the police.
Sorry, dude.
Justin Raimondo replies:
Okay, so I was ventilating. But I didn't necessarily mean beaten by the police: how about being beaten by the people they are making late for work?
Okay, you're obviously angry, but this is ridiculous. A person with a careful analysis of and hatred of state violence writes that people "should be beaten within an inch of their lives" by police. That, my friend, is f*cked up.
To hear this kind of smear from an antiwar columnist is really disappointing. I recognize that lots of different kinds of activities occurred (although no news report I saw said protesters tried to drag people of their cars), but a very large portion of it was basic civil disobedience, not "thrill-seeking".
Your first paragraph is completely contradicted by Morpheus M's recent letter. It provides a rational, conceptual framework from which to understood how such protests attempt to change foreign policy.
"Peaceful, legal, and massive demonstrations are the only way to stop this war." – Tried that. Not working. Bush not listening. Or maybe the demos just weren't massive enough? In Britain, up to 2 million (out of 60 million) demonstrated. Are they now to be allowed the use of civil disobedience, Justin?
"The crazed actions of a few opportunistic nutballs put the broader antiwar movement in danger – and discredit legitimate, meaningful forms of dissent."
Civil disobedience is a legitimate, meaningful form of dissent put sanely into practice by hundreds, if not thousands, of sit-down blockaders Thursday. Other people utilized other forms of dissent, it is true, but please address those one at a time, not lump all as "illegal = illegitimate = violent".
For someone who allegedly distrusts the state, you sure seem quick to recognize as legitimate only those forms of protest the state sanctions, and to call on its violent employees to attack protesters
Justin Raimondo replies:
The street thugs who have taken over the streets of San Francisco did indeed try to pull people out of their cars, including one woman whose plight was shown on KTVU television's 10 o'clock news program.
They also brought weapons with them: chains, stun guns, brass knuckles, and crowbars. Some "peace" protesters!
If attacked by these hooligans, people have a right to self-defense. And the police in San Francisco are PAID to protect us. While I don't advocate that employees of the State should be empowered to beat the crap out of these lumpen fools, if they try to stop ME from going about my business they will live to regret it. I'm big, I've got muscles, and I intend to use them – in self-defense, of course.
San Francisco is a beautiful city, and it is being taken over by lunatics who think they have a moral right to injure people in the name of "peace". I've lived here since 1970, and never – NEVER – have I seen such goings on, not even when Dan White murdered Harvey Milk and the city went bananas.
Here's an email with lots of caps for the staff at Antiwar.com, FANTASTIC JOB!! These are among the darkest days of my adult life, thanks for the honest reporting, and a special thanks to Mr Raimondo for the wisdom to condemn antiwar violence, the community of peace can NEVER give in to the thugs that have started this mess, without a nonviolent approach we will be the big losers. As soon as Iraq is taken, Iran will be totally surrounded by U.S. troops, LOOK AT THE MAP!!
Mr. Bush has stated the war will be longer and harder than it was expected. US troops are currently deployed in Saudi Arabia, The Republic of Georgia, Uzbekistan, Afghanistan, and of course, naval battle groups are in the Persian Gulf and the Mediterranean. Hang onto your socks, boys and girls, World War 4 may well have started! Perle may have gotten what he wants.
Your indictment of the violent thugs in san francisco does you credit. Too bad not many of your colleagues are following suit. The antiwar movement has few credible activists anymore. The great deal of their arguments are nothing more than anti-Bush slogans. Perhaps you will fare better. Perhaps you should spend some effort fighting these thugs instead of fighting Bush.
You are right to criticize certain elements within the antiwar faction for their violent tactics. Such reckless behavior demonstrates an inconsiderate disregard for democracy and the well-being of our fellow citizens, while revealing an authoritarian mindset similar to that of the the warmongering clique. Such actions will not win us friends among the majority of the American population, which is rightfully offended by acts of vandalism and brutal thuggishness. I cannot understand why some people are so eager to rush headfirst into a buzzsaw.
Just because the war is indeed taking place is not cause for total despair. After the Bush Administration had invested so much political capital, time, money and effort in setting its policies and moving troops and equipment into the Middle East, the chances of the antiwar movement actually stopping the war were astronomically remote. Despite this disappointing initial setback, there are some very real signs for optimism.
First of all, the war was delayed. There is nothing governments fear more than gigantic crowds in the streets. The organized worldwide protests in February were very effective and ought to make all those opposed to the war very proud. Therefore, we now know that such large scale international organization is possible and can be repeated. The fact that the war could be delayed, despite the administration's determination to see it through, is quite amazing.
Second, outside of the US, there is not one single country where there is a majority of people enthusiastically supporting the war. That does not bode well for the future of the War Party. The future leadership of these nations is going to be comprised of people who resent American foreign interventionism. The fact that even now the US couldn't bribe developing nations, which would benefit from American aid and trade concessions, is a sign of things to come.
Third, the enthusiasm and morale for the pro-war side has shrunk. We enter this war having successively changed our rationale from terrorism, to weapons of mass destruction, to the liberation of Iraq and a remaking of the entire Middle East. There is more a sense of apprehension rather than rip-roaring enthusiasm. The fact that Bush enters the war without the support of the UN is damaging to his cause and his approval numbers, both abroad and even here in America.
Fourth, the imperialistic neoconservative faction is now exposed. For the first time I can ever remember, the mainstream press is starting to use the term "neoconservative" and is sometimes even questioning their ideas for the future.
Therefore, people should take heart and shouldn't take it so hard that this war is taking place. This war could not have been stopped. But future wars can be. The only way for to have bigger crowds, bigger assemblies, and a stronger more widespread base opposing future wars, is to be polite, civil and rational to those we are trying to persuade. Above all, we must be patient. In all things, hard work applied over time is the key to success.
To those discouraged, think of the antiwar movement as a newly found business trying to sell a product, in this case, an ideological one. We are trying to attract new customers and grow our company. Just because the majority of people haven't yet bought our product, does not give us the right to insult them or inconvenience their lives.
A setback is merely the presentation of a future opportunity.
Sounds like the author of this article didn't actually make it to the rallies, marches and direct actions, but rather wrote this obtuse editorial based on the coverage of the 10pm nightly news on CBS. Way to go! You've managed to select the most egregious actions of this protest from the already biased coverage in the corporate media. You might consider a name change to AntiProtest.com.
~ JS, San Francisco, California
Eric Garris Replies
I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts about a point that I've never seen proposed or debated on Antiwar.com or elsewhere:
If all Israeli citizens (except religious students) must serve in the army, and are therefore soldiers, do any of the suicide attacks really constitute terrorism, since they are attacks targeting not civilians, but the armed forces of an occupying army? Is that a valid argument?
Managing Editor Eric Garris replies:
As a practical matter, I don't think suicide bombings are valid resistance, because they are almost never self-defense. It is possible to conceive of an example of one that could be self-defense, but I can't think of a specific example where such a hypothetical actually played out that way.
I would be happy to see articles and discussions on this.
Backtalk editor Sam Koritz replies:
I have simple definitions of civilian and terrorism. People who are not in the military are civilians, and politically motivated killing of civilians is terrorism.
I'm certainly no scholar of Islam but I have read that the Koran forbids the killing of civilians. Osama bin Laden, so I've read, circumvents this prohibition by claiming that by funding the US military, US citizens forfeit our civilian status. Let's not participate in such dehumanization.
I do not know if this is a crazy idea but I am willing to try anything. Any thoughtful person is aware that the reason for this war is that the media has launched a tremendous campaign of misinformation, sanitization and coverup.
My idea is to start spamming everybody possible with emails depicting pictures of dead Iraqi children and all the other images that the mass media is keeping from them. And with the pictures maybe a little text to tell them little things like Powell's lies to the UN and all the other lies from this administration.
I have a server and will be happy to become a spammer for this cause. I honestly think that every honorable person who is aware of the truth would contribute every email address that they know. If thousands of email servers could work around the clock. The "spam" would ask every "spamee" for all known email addresses which would keep the list growing.
I personally hate spam, but believe that it would be a greater evil to not try everything possible.
If anybody feels that this idea is workable please contact me and lets try it or feel free to try it on your own.
Eric Garris replies:
Don't do it. What happens is that people reply with retaliatory spam. If they can't identify the sender, they start spamming Antiwar groups. I get hundreds of email a day that are replies from angry spam recipients who blame us, since we are Antiwar.com. And then some get passed to me.
Over the weekend, I received over 8,000 emails with the appeal to the UN General Assembly. Probably took an hour of my time to go through them.
Regarding Eric Garris' reply to Lisa Wentz's letter posted March 24:
What is your friend doing driving an SUV?
~ Willie Watson, Prague, Czech Republic
Eric Garris replies:
Not that it is any of your business, Big Brother, but she has a handicapped child and needs an SUV or Van for the special access.
Incredible! What are you doing using a computer? Aren't you aware of the tremendous impact of non-recyclable computer components?
You
posted this picture as your front-page picture yesterday. Nice job of
propaganda. If you're going to make the claim of truth, tell the truth.
I am, by no means, supportive of this war. I am, however, supportive of
the troops that are over their doing their jobs – which give them
zero choice in whether or not to be there. Your photo, while being true,
does NOT give the truth of the situation, which can be found from a
link on your very on front page today. The truth of that photo is
that the white flags were used to convince American soldiers to put down
their weapon, and, when they did, the Iraqis opened fire – an ambush.
Why don't you tell that photo, instead of causing people to believe, incorrectly,
that our soldiers are shooting after Iraqi soldiers have surrendered?
You lose all intelligent battles when you resort to propaganda.
Eric Garris replies:
What propaganda? We ran an Associated Press story appearing in newspapers around the world, along with a story from a British paper. We didn't change the headline. We provided no editorial comment. The story says exactly what you say, regarding the false surrenders. And today we have a more extensive story right up top titled: "Iraqis Use Fake Surrenders, Ambushes to Trap Troops."
First of all I would like to inform you that I am a member of USAF. I don't know what source gave you that photo or if it is just for sh*ts and giggles but I would like you to know that it is entirely false. First, when have you ever seen an American soldier where a red-tinted ski mask in the desert? Second the only approved boot for dcu's (desert camo unit) is the tan suede. One is in uniform the other isn't. Second the United States of America has plenty of money to buy their soldiers desert camo colored flack vests, why are they wearing green? And the weapon he is holding. Ummmm, I am pretty sure we use M-16s now, or sometimes m-4s. But not that one. Thank you for your time.
Eric Garris replies:
You may not have heard, but there are Brits in the war. Those are Brits in the picture, and it is a story from the British newspaper. I guess you didn't actually read it.
The photo is from Associated Press and came from their embedded British reporter. Here is the source material from AP.
I have a question concerning the tragic photo of the dead Iraq soldiers in their trench clutching a white flag that is on your home page today: where did you get this photo? Is it directly associated with the story?
(You folks are doing a first-rate job in providing much, much, much needed journalistic balance to the one-sided coverage in the mainstream media. Kudos!)
Eric Garris replies:
Yes, it is exactly the same incident. I made sure to check it out fully.
The photo is from Associated Press.
Here's
a scoop for you. I got it from ...
http://www.ziua.net/docs/8054.html. It is in Romanian. Here is the translation.
I have not been able to find any English language confirmation.
"Elizabeth,
the daughter of the American vice president Dick Cheney, who traveled
Saturday to the capital of Jordan, Amman, intends to join the groups of
volunteers who want to become human shields in Iraq, according to Rompres,
which cites information published by the Itar-Tass agency. According to
unidentified sources, Elizabeth Cheney intends to join the "human
shields" as a sign of protest against the launching by the US of
hostilities against Iraq. It is expected that the "human shields"
will organize protest actions in front of the most important government
institutions and installations in Iraq."
(G. Coman)
Eric Garris replies:
This is a hoax. It is a shame that so many of the Russian and Eastern European media are willing to print virtually any report given to them without checking it out.
Liz Cheney not only is not a human shield, she works for Colin Powell as an assistant secretary of state.
Thank you all for your continued effort to provide the world with information and news about antiwar activity. I have a question regarding the comment "The Missing Iraqi POWs and the Geneva Convention" by Eric Garris.
Someone told me the following:
"From what I understood the Geneva convention is broken if the prisoners are forced to tell their name and id to the cameras. So in one case we see Iraqis POWs but we don't know their name (anonymous Iraqis POWs), while on the others the US prisoners give their id to the cameras (named US POWs). That's where the convention is broken."
Know my question, who is right? I found the convention online here: http://www.civil-rights.net/webdocs/geneva_pow.html – but didn't succeed to find the corresponding article.
Thank you
for your answer.
~ Joachim R.
Eric Garris replies:
That may be a different section. Article 13 says that prisoners may not be displayed for "public curiosity." There is no mention in Article 13 of prisoner names.
"Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity."
You now have an article on your site entitled, "US Soldier and Kuwaitis Kill 1, Wound Sixteen US Troops". It's interesting in the article you don't mention anything about how Kuwaitis were involved in the incident. Apparently, you are trying to create the illusion that you know that Kuwaitis were involved, in order to cause fear that foreigners are so much against the war that they would resort to this. Or, perhaps it is just propaganda for your followers to use in their antiwar campaigns.
Sir, by putting forth these lies, you not only do not advance your cause, but you also make it so much easier for people that support the war to make you look foolish. If you cannot garner support for your cause without lying, your cause is pathetic.
GOD BLESS THE USA!!!
Eric Garris replies:
The story was updated overnight and the "facts" have changed. When I went to bed it talked about the Kuwaitis, but I am hearing now on MSNBC that they have been cleared.
Although you did it in an accusing and rude manner, I thank you for letting me know and I am making the correction now.
POWs
Following the precedent set by the US in its war in Afghanistan when it decided to not observe International laws, and the Geneva convention when it came to Taliban soldiers who it did not consider to be prisoners of war, and shipped them to American base in Cuba. Can't Iraq be justified in doing the same thing, after all the US has engaged in illegal war against and occupation of Iraq. That is, Iraq now can claim that captured Americans were illegal combatants who have engaged in terrorist activities against Iraq. After all, the US has already set the example for other countries to follow. But when it comes to the US it always 'do as we say not as we do'. All this mess the world finds itself in now demonstrate the shortsightedness, the arrogance, and illogical thinking of Bush and his cabal.
Resistance
It's easy to become despondent (very easy), but I've just returned from the antiwar demonstration in London, attended by close to one million people from all over the world, including Americans and Iraqis. People are looking for the smallest ways in which to indicate their resistance and, in the hospital and university in which I work, we are meeting next week to decide what to do next. A group of British lawyers are looking to build a case to take Tony Blair to the International Court of Justice for war crimes – George Bush can't because he was refused to allow the US to become signed up to it.
Thanks for a great website. Any messages of support will be passed on to our many colleagues here, reminding everyone that the world does not have a problem with the American people – just its leaders, as we have here in Britain.
Regarding Volunteer Coordinator Anastasia E. Kellar's reply to Jim V.'s letter posted March 22:
Anastasia says that Eric Garris has been working 18 hours a day. How dare he slack off at a time like this! What has he been doing the other six hours? Please investigate. (I would have sent this earlier, but have had trouble getting out of bed this afternoon.)
Dangerous Precedent
I'm a Belgian citizen and I want to express my satisfaction about your initiative. Just as any intelligent homo sapiens it is my belief that preemptive war is a dangerous precedent and I believe this aggressive war to be unjust, illegal and unnecessary. I simply can't believe that this war is being fought in the name of the American people: it is my belief that Americans are peaceful people that are proud of their Constitution and the rights it defends and grants. It is inconceivable for me that an American president can violate this Constitution by going to war without the Congress formally declaring war upon Iraq and by ignoring international consent of the UN. Although I will be the first to acknowledge that Saddam is a monstrous dictator, he has done nothing against the US or American people that justifies this war.
I'm also deeply sorry that Mr Bush ignores even the simplest truth about international politics: international respect is earned, not conquered with arms of mass destruction. To me, Mr Bush is a war criminal and should be impeached as soon as possible by the American people. No man, not even the President of the US, should have the right to sacrifice other people's life for a "just cause", not only those of the innocent Iraqi people but also not those of American soldiers whose role it is to defend peace, not to be sent to an unjust war. I'm proud of the fact that certain European countries such as France, Belgium and Germany did not simply comply with Mr Bush will, but dare to express their opinion about what the US were heading to. And I'm ashamed to have to live in a country, the Netherlands, that proclaim that this war is just and that they should support the US politically.
Mr Bush has clearly demonstrated that to him democracy is irrelevant: if international consensus is not in line with what Mr Bush wants, he can simply choose to ignore it and carry out his war plans. This makes Mr Bush also a dictator whom I suspect to have the plan to impose a world order on the rest of us in which the US rules the world by force. It makes me angry and it makes me sad and it makes me feel powerless like it probably does millions of Americans. And I'm frightened by the idea of being called a traitor for dissenting with a bunch of war greedy ignorant politicians.
I sincerely hope that the American people will confront Mr Bush with his acts and hold him accountable for what's happening now in Iraq.
True Conservatism
A heartfelt thanks for your work and your defense of true conservatism and not the bastard child of Bill Buckley (whose style I once admired but whose statism is repulsive).
As an immigrant who has been a devoted student of western culture all her life, I have been appalled by the way, whenever, even in the mildest manner, I criticize US foreign policy, I am attacked as anti-American by people who have wouldn't know Madison from Hamilton. There are only two countries where there is a special epithet attached to critics of GOVERNMENT POLICIES NOT PEOPLE – the US (anti-American), Israel (anti-Semite)...what does that say about the role of civic religion in these countries? Worship of the state is a dangerous and fanatical thing and has nothing whatsoever do with love of one's land and the people among whom one lives.
I was appalled at the trash email in the Schwartz fan club sent to Justin and almost equally appalled at Matt's quotes from National Review - For the record, Burke supported the prosecution of the great "nabob" Hastings who plundered India in the 18th century – Burke was the most ardent defender of the rights of oppressed people in India and Ireland, was a defender of the Americans and loathed the Jacobins and their desire to export revolution. Yes, he did put down riots with a heavy hand – because he feared the spread of revolution; that is the very OPPOSITE of fomenting revolution abroad courtesy of the CIA.
Ramesh Ponnuru and co. should read Burke before mangling him (hopefully something by Russell Kirk - whom I had the great good fortune to read early on). The neo cons author – to their everlasting intellectual disgrace – misappropriate him in the most shameful way.
Justin – we need semantic and intellectual clarification more than we need street fights: let us start by recapturing the real meaning of words like "terror," "liberal," "free-market," "aggression," "mass-destruction." The sabotage and murder of language is what enables the sabotage and murder of flesh and blood.
Libertarians must seize this opening to recapture our true heritage and change the course of conservatism. Your work fills this profound need.
1942
... In 1942 you would be arrested for treason, just take that in mind.
Sam Koritz replies:
In 1942? I seem to remember that Congress declared war around that time – a Constitutional requirement for "war," and something that hasn't happened since. Hard to have treason without a "war," I'd think.
Anyway, 1942 wasn't a great year for political liberty in the USA, what with the government imprisoning Americans for the crime of being ethnically Japanese and all.
Regarding "Manufacturing Dissent" by Justin Raimondo:
I've wanted to write a letter like Jefferey Bogdan's (Backtalk, March 23, 2003) for a while now. It is indeed a sad shame if Antiwar.com's readers were turned off to Chomsky's body of work. I respect Raimondo, but I doubt he has perused Chomsky. It is clear to me that both men share very similar thoughts on US foreign policy, and nowhere in what I've read has Chomsky ADVOCATED a US interventionist policy.
His bleating for United Nations interventionism in East Timor doesn't make him the gung-ho interventionist (and 'sellout') Raimondo makes him out to be in his article of September 13, 1999. All he was saying is that if the United States is so eager about the UN taking action in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, wherever, the US might as well lend support to UN action in East Timor.
The 'shock and awe' I felt reading THE FATEFUL TRIANGLE: THE US, ISRAEL AND THE PALESTINIANS is something I won't forget easily. It is truly the bible for anyone interested in the Middle East. And it takes a brave man to come up with this kind of book in America. I'm sure Raimondo would agree, having dealt with the issue of the Israel 9/11 connection himself.
ANYWAY, love the site.
While I was reading Justin's latest article ("Commisar Frum"), I followed a link back to an old article criticizing Noam Chomsky, and I have to admit, I liked what I read. I've been a fan of Chomsky for a while, because he says a lot of things that need to be said (the hypocrisy of the US government, etc.).
But at the same time, his writings do have a weaselly quality to them, and Justin excellently exposes the source – for an avowed "anarchist", Chomsky really loves the notion of the Uberstate. This inconsistency in his thought is irritating.
As
for myself, well, I'm still a pinko/commie/liberal, dreaming of
the ideal state which rules the whole world, but I recognize Justin's
point – such a state is seriously dangerous, and could easily be
worse than the empire that Bush is building today. Balancing justice and
control is a tricky proposition. I wish we had some better ideas out there.
Regarding "The War at Home" by Justin Raimondo:
Excellent article Justin. I am a 77-year-old former World War II U.S.M.C. combat machine gunner who spent 2 1/2 years in the Pacific jungles fighting Japanese SOLDIERS (not children, women and noncombatants as that Moron Bush does), to defend Americas Constitutional Liberties. I think, when our troops return after this empire war, THANKS TO BUSH THE AWOL KID, they will be reviled the same way those troops were/are who were in Vietnam on a war of conquest.
~ (former Sgt.) Albert C. Mezzetti
Regarding "Congratulations America: Proud Parents of 22 Million Iraqis" by Charley Reese:
Every reader of Antiwar.com should take the time to Email Charley Reese's column "Congratulations America: Proud Parents of 22 Million Iraqis" to the White House and the 100 gutless US Senators who foisted this war on to Americans. Kellog, Brown and Root will profit handsomely – as good old loyal Texas Bush/Cheney boys – but will the average American? Say good-bye to any true homeland security and say hello to the new world disorder . Although recent media polls claim to show a majority of Americans support this war, that support is a mile wide and an inch deep. Did anybody notice the 2-3 missiles "accidentally" shot into Iran? In military terms that is called a "Shot across the bow", and was NO accident but rather a warning, provocation or bullyboy tactic. Be very afraid, for your country, and those of the world; the empire builders have Iran in their sites next.
~ Douglas Herman, USAF, Kodiak, Alaska
Thank Goodness for Antiwar.com
Please forgive the eschatological tone of this letter. I find it difficult to write about the current neocon putsch in any other terms. I guess you're not actually paranoid when you know there are kooks under the bed.
I've become increasingly perplexed of late what happened to the traditional position of conservative isolationism. The current "neo-conservative" trend in the Republican party takes the worst tendencies of liberalism – the naive belief that we can and should fix all the world's problems – and mixes it with a pernicious form of isolationism, metastatized somehow into "unilateralism." I will argue that multilateralism is a better policy than isolationism. You will likely argue the reverse. But certainly we must agree that either of these is preferable to unilateralism.
In your current article, you refer to this brew as Leninism. This shows your conservative bent: that Leninist totalitarianism, with its stated desire to export its world view at the end of a gun, is the worst of devils. From the other side of the fence, I see such tendencies as fascist. But the terminology is immaterial; the potential threat is equally real, whatever name you give the beast.
There has been much moaning on the left, about the "conservative" takeover of the discourse in national politics. But I now realize this is a facile position. There is nothing conservative about using a structural deficit to fund a huge military.
The old radical left, like Horowitz, and the new radical right, like Limbaugh, have formed an alliance of devils.
The moderate left, and the moderate right need a truce. As common ground, there is perhaps a room traditional belief in the "great society" reforms on both sides; the original welfare state, after all, was implemented by a conservative. Whether the belief in a minimal level of welfare is the pragmatic one of Bismarck, or the egalitarian one of Rawls, the result is the same: some level of social insurance. In any case, we can agree that the current policies are disastrous.
The Rockefeller Republicans have been betrayed, and badly, by their party. The irrational criticism you received from Frum is frightening. I see similar scare tactics used against the left: I am dismissed as a "radical leftie", when in fact the Clinton Democrat is significantly to the right of the Democratic party under Carter.
In any case, it's good to see that conservatism is not dead.
~ Peter McIlroy, moderate Democrat
Focus on Tangible Results
I applaud the nonviolent protests against this war that are taking place all over the world. Individuals can vote with their presence and voices, and I urge all who are truly concerned to take time to make a public statement of some sort. I also encourage a clear distinction between protests against the policies of the current administration and the volunteer military being ordered to execute those policies. I'm hoping we learned this lesson from Vietnam, and will honor these volunteers while opposing their Commander-in-Chief.
I believe, however, a more effective strategy to begin right now is one that reminds the current administration where their authority is derived from, and how it is can be withdrawn. I don't know how to develop the action for the following; I hope this will stimulate those who are effective with this activity.
We must start getting commitments from blocks of voters, all over the country, that they will vote this administration out of office in 2004 along with those congressional members who have either actively supported this action or mutely stood by. These commitments must be publicly accounted for and their totals registered constantly, either by respected polling groups or social agencies. These numbers must be displayed in all media forms as part of the antiwar protest efforts, and used as a lever to renew a public discussion on the development of domestic and foreign policies. I want to see a running tally on CNN right next to the alert status color.
The objective is to hasten the return of all troops in Iraq to their homes, minimize our interference with the social development in the Middle East, forestall future excursions of this sort into other sovereign nations, and rein in the increasing deconstruction of our Constitutional means of social interaction. The goals indicating successful achievement of this objective will either be a body politic that starts examining all sides of these issues, or a new administration in less than two years. Right now, my preference is the latter. Pity it isn't spring of 2004 right now.
Politics prides itself as the art of the possible. In our country the possible is only possible when the people agree, and the best way to get a politician's attention that we ain't agreeing is to tally up the votes that will eliminate them as a representative.
I'll keep up my participation in the protests, and hope someone will turn this idea into a reality I can support. Until then, I'm looking forward to next November.
~ M. Mann, Salinas, California
Regarding "This Isn't About You" by Justin Raimondo:
I agree with the article – I have never before been involved in a protest. I believe that community action, voter subscription, and open forums are the best avenues for change. In light of that, I am participating in a novel action – austerity. I am participating in a boycott on all corporate merchants. I know this, if widespread, will affect the economy, but pouring billions or trillions into the military-industrial complex will drain it anyway.
Our representatives and national government refuse to listen to us – so we must get their attention in the only way possible, by affecting their bottom line. They were shaking in their collective boots with the poor retail results over the 'Holiday Season', so that's where we need to concentrate our attack. Stop spending on anything but absolute necessities. We must all be willing to sacrifice to protect our rights and freedoms – what better way to start than by boycotting corporate interests. Stop buying from chain-stores. Stop buying movies and CDs – you can rent many free from the local library, or trade with friends. Cancel cable and dish services. Plan a local vacation. Put off new clothes, new appliances, new cars – where possible, buy from want-ads, garage sales, Internet, and any other community/neighborhood supportive outlet. Stop eating out – patronize only locally owned restaurants. Cancel magazine subscriptions. Insist that your newspaper support the people, or refuse to advertise in it. Plant a peace garden – or organize a community garden. There are myriad ways to curtail personal spending – and the benefits will accrue in additional savings as well as making a political statement.
Yes, this may hurt the economy – but only short term. In the long run, having government responsible to the will of the people and supporting education, healthcare, and the 'common good' of our society instead of that of corporate interests will be beneficial. This is a patriotic and worthwhile sacrifice, and we can do it if we all work together – nothing else will impact corporations except a lot of red ink. This does not entail civil disobedience – but we can protest in this way and make our wishes known to our representatives – they are, after all, supposed to represent us, not multinational corporations. This plan works slowly, but it does work – nothing else has so far. Europeans recovered from WWII with an austerity program – we can use the same ideas not only to recover, but to demand justice and democracy be restored in our country. Start on an austerity plan, and write to your representatives – tell them what you're doing and why. Talk to friends and neighbors – join or start a local community action group. Spread information – spread education. Organize. Save.
Austerity Now. Boycott Now. Make a Difference – Now. We can do this – we can reclaim our country.
~ Sandy Lambrecht, Menomonie, Wisconsin
A Simple Matter
Justin, I know you like to compare the neocons with the Soviets, but I think a comparison with the Nazis is more apt. The similarities between the methods of Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly with those of Hermann Goering are frightening. For three hours every day these two Goering-clones scare their clients into believing Saddam is a gnat's ass away from destroying our way of life and that protesters should be either killed or prosecuted to extrajudicial lengths because they are "bad" Americans who are putting the rest of America in danger. Question is; did they come up with this strategy on their own or did the leaders clue them in?
"Naturally, the common people don't want war ... but after all it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country."
- Hermann Goering, In War
Regarding Beverley Walker's letter posted March 22:
If Senator Byrd weeps so much for his country why the hell can't he muster some courage and try to correct the situation when he can do something about it ? I refer specifically to Senate Resolution 95 of March 20 in which he and his accommodating colleagues voted 99-0 to praise the President and the troops. The most direct way to stop this war is for Byrd and his colleagues to stop weeping and start really supporting this country by voting against Bush and bring the invading troops home. Fat chance they will ever do that.
The crocodile tears of Byrd are truly sickening as he gives his O.K. to the killing of Iraqi men, women, and children. He and his colleagues are nothing but followers of the Imperial Bush, basking in the glory of power and military might and waiting for their opportunity to seize the imperial throne.
Ms Walker's praise of Sen Byrd is an unfortunate example of the way many antiwar people are duped by the power brokers in the imperial capital of Washington D.C. Throwing fig leafs to the opposition the powerbrokers cover their schemes to enslave the American populace through war and oppressive taxes. The war and tax machine is centered in Washington DC Does anyone really think it is going to willingly vote itself out of such power and "glory."
~ DW