Posted March 30, 2003

Regarding Sam Koritz's reply to Scott Albers' letter posted March 27:

Mr. Koritz, I think you are a bit disingenuous in your answer. It is my impression that Israel and its supporters in the Bush administration and in think tanks and advisory organizations have huge influence on US foreign policy. I've admired your site for years, but with your reply I am totally in disagreement.

~ Anna K.

Sam Koritz replies:

I was not being at all disingenuous. Governments and their supporters lobby other governments with varying degrees of success, just as people try to influence other people's actions. Ultimately, and with few exceptions, such as children and the mentally incompetent, we, as individuals (and governments), are held responsible for our own actions. To argue that Israel, not the US government is responsible for the USA's invasion of Iraq, is to argue that the mightiest nation in history is collectively an imbecile or infant. I don't believe that's an accurate description of the USA, but even if it were, it wasn't an Israeli baby-sitter who gave the toddler a gun to play with.

Alex Chaihorsky: You said: "Ethics and logic aside, blaming Israel for US foreign policy ('monster at the center of this war') is counterproductive." I do not think so. Any truth is productive, any lie is counterproductive, especially in the long run.

Sam Koritz: I didn't state, and I don't believe, that antiwar activists should lie. Just the opposite: as I wrote, I am in favor of "accurate," "relevant" criticism of Israel. Perhaps my "ethics and logic" comment was unclear, so I will clarify: I believe that blaming Israel for US foreign policy is unethical and illogical, as well counterproductive.

AC: I am Jewish and I am an ex-Zionist. If Israel is meddling in our foreign politics there is nothing counterproductive in exposing it. If it isn't – then openly discuss why not. ...

SK: I didn't state, and don't believe, that antiwar activists should refrain from exposing Israeli meddling in US foreign policy.

AC: If in the future the mothers of those American boys who will be killed in Iraq will learn that Israeli Likudniks were (even partially) behind that push for this war, then you will see what was really counterproductive. ... One way or another, lose that "counterproductive" bull. As your readers we do not want you to be productive, – we want you to tell us the truth, however "counterproductive" some people with agendas may find it.

SK: Debating the strategy and tactics of the antiwar movement is entirely consistent with Antiwar.com's mission. "Counterproductive" would seem to be a perfectly acceptable way to describe harmful strategies. Nowhere did I suggest that telling the truth is counterproductive – just the opposite.

Mr. Koritz, most pro-war Americans who send you letters may not have the safety of Israel foremost in their minds, but they have been conditioned by decades of propaganda – and there is a connection between the slant of that propaganda, which touts the idea that America's best interests and Israel's are the same, and their support of the war. There are other connections as well, which further Israeli interests, not American interests. Other than Justin Raimondo, who at Antiwar.com is pointing out the third-party status of Israel in this war? You yourself play it down, subtly – and that is doing a disservice, in my opinion.

Like Scott Albers, I also wondered why you had, in effect, downplayed the Rachel Corrie story. It was subtle, but glaring, in spite of your "reason why."

~ M. McCormick

Sam Koritz replies:

I didn't deny "the third-party status of Israel in this war," I argued that it's counterproductive for war opponents to blame Israel for US government actions.

(Choosing news links, such as the Rachel Corrie story, is not my department.)

Amen to Sam Koritz about the incorrectness of placing Israeli machinations at the center of this war. (Even Justin goes overboard on this.) The neoconsevative war party is motivated by an American hypernationalism, whatever fetishistic or other attachments many of them have and feel towards Israel. Most Americans are also motivated by inchoate fears engendered by 9/11 (which wasn't done by Israel, conspiracy theories notwithstanding), a certain related prejudiced desire to stomp Mideasterners, and an unquestioned and dangerous sense of missionhood.

That Israel, and most especially the Likudniks, are cheerleaders and beneficiaries is part of the picture, but it is not the whole picture, nor its focus. Making it a focus feeds the David Frums who want to paint critics of the war and war party as anti-Semites, while also not helping in generating a true picture of the situation.

~ Matthew Hogan

Michael P. Hardesty (Oakland, California): Sam Koritz's comments on how wrong it is to blame Israel for its strident advocacy of US invasion of Iraq is just plain stupid.

Sam Koritz: I didn't state, and don't believe, that it is wrong to blame Israel for its strident advocacy of US invasion of Iraq. I believe governments should be held responsible for their foreign policy. What I stated was that blaming Israel for US foreign policy is counterproductive.

Michael P. Hardesty: No one is blaming Israel exclusively but that Israel and its very potent AIPAC lobby over here have played a significant role in fomenting this ghastly war is not in doubt.

SK: Actually, some people do primarily blame Israel for US actions. That's at least the implication of Mr. Albers' letter and Anna K.'s letter (above), for two examples.

MH: Nor should we soft-pedal criticisms of Israel because it is "Jewish", talk about affirmative action racism! I expect this kind of crap in The New Republic but not here.

SK: I didn't state, and don't believe, that we should soft-pedal criticism of Israel. I wrote that criticism of Israel should be "accurate" and "relevant."

I did not advocate affirmative action; I merely mentioned that inaccurate, irrelevant criticism of Israel from antiwar activists is likely to be especially alienating to people. As a matter of fact, I think that inaccurate, irrelevant criticism should be avoided regardless of the subject's demographic group.

MH: Most Palestinians would be happy if the US simply stopped subsidizing Israel. Period. Koritz's bogus concern about US intervention on "behalf" of the Palestinians is a red herring. If we simply stopped our trillions of dollars (since 1967) to the Israelis, that would suffice.

SK: I didn't claim that the US would intervene on behalf of the Palestinians. And I didn't write that most Palestinians insist on US intervention.

I wrote that "The blaming of Israel for US policy in the Mideast also leads to the advocacy of US intervention on behalf of a Palestinian state." I explicitly stated that the US-brokered creation of a Palestinian state will lead (and is leading) to Israel's insistence on US peacekeepers, while the Palestinians will lobby (and are lobbying) for EU and/or Arab peacekeepers. This is not at all a bogus concern; it's something that is currently being negotiated, and is, according to the reports I've read, the most likely outcome.

I'm glad that Mr. Hardesty agrees with my analysis of what the US government should do in the Mideast: simply stop funding Israel's military and withdraw, without brokering the creation of a Palestinian state or guaranteeing anyone's security. I hope that, though he didn't mention it, Mr. Hardesty would also agree with me that the same treatment should be extended to the other governments and actors in the region (and elsewhere).

(Incidentally, the US government has given billions not trillions of dollars to Israel.)

Regarding "Hebron, City of Terror" by Ran HaCohen:

I'm a Jewish university student, majoring in physics, in the United States (Ohio, to be exact). I've spent a little time in Israel, I lived there for 9 months during my Bar Mitzvah, and I've spent 2 weeks a year there for the last 6 years since. I'd really like to retire to Israel, and am really hoping it's still around in 45 years. I just found your column on Antiwar.com today, and I've read about 1/3rd of your articles. I agree with just about everything you say that I've read so far.

From the British history books I've read, that anti-Palestinian deportation accounted for 20% or less of the Palestinians who left Israel. Most of them claim that the Palestinians left primarily out of fear of being in a war zone, and because of assurances from Arab leaders that the war would be quick and decisive, and then they could return, but like you mentioned, history isn't a reliable source of facts. In principle, the deportation of some number of Palestinians from their land that surely occurred in some number (which, from my texts, was much smaller than 600,000), was wrong, and the Palestinians or their next of kin should be financially compensated.

In your article "The Ideology of Occupation", you said: "The celebrated UN resolution on the establishment of a Jewish state had a second part, calling for the establishment of a Palestinian (Arab) state too." While it's true that in 1947 there was a perfectly good international law basis for a Palestinian State, isn't that rendered kind of irrelevant by the Arab war against Israel of the following year, wherein Israel conquered the area partitioned as Palestinian? Israel can't be held to a stricter standard than any other country in the world, and I can't imagine any other country in the world being attacked by a superior military force, gaining territory in the counterattack, and then being told to give it back. The land that Israel (wisely) has given to the Palestinians was Israel's (and Israel's alone) to give.

Also, what's your opinion on Jerusalem? The map at the top of your page seems to show it as part of the Palestinian State? I didn't notice any mention in the 9 of your articles I've read, which surprises me because to those of us in the U.S., it's such a big issue. I personally don't like the idea of splitting it up, and would prefer internationalization, with U.N. soldiers ensuring the safety and security of everybody and everything in it. Some here suggest that if you did that, it couldn't be the capital of Israel anymore, but I can't see why not. Here in the US, the capital isn't in any particular state, for good reasons, and I see it as similar.

I don't know if you've ever been to the US, but as far as I can tell, we really don't have much Muslim/Jewish antagonism here. The largest mosque in the US is in one of the suburbs, and there are a couple thousand Jews and about ten thousand Muslims here. There have been about 50 reported hate crimes against Jews and Muslims in the last year, but all of them were committed by white supremacists. Most of the Jews and Muslims shop at the same stores, and eat at the same restaurants (all the Kosher places are also "kosher" for Muslims – I forget the word for the Islamic dietary code), most of which serve both Jewish and Palestinian foods. Just letting you know that somewhere we get along, in case you sometimes feel a little hopeless.

~ Eric Fraker

Ran HaCohen replies:

Thank you for your message. My answers in a nutshell:

* We may never know the reasons for the Palestinian exodus of 1948 in their exact proportions. But Israel's fault is not just the deportation of some of them (by force or intimidation), but the ban on their return home after the war. Wise civilians always flee war zones; they don't lose their property because of it. Thousands of refugees who tried to return to their homes and fields – to stay, or just to pick up crops or possessions – were shot dead as "infiltrators" by Israeli soldiers in the years after the war.

* You ask: "While it's true that in 1947 there was a perfectly good international law basis for a Palestinian State, isn't that rendered kind of irrelevant by the Arab war against Israel of the following year, wherein Israel conquered the area partitioned as Palestinian?"

Israel occupied in 1948 just some parts of the area partitioned as Palestinian, and has given the Palestinians who stayed there Israeli citizenship. The Palestinians and Arabs have all (except some radical Islamists) accepted Israel's right to exist within these borders ("The Green Line"). The present Palestinian demand for a state is confined to the areas occupied by Israel in 1967, not in 1948. Surely you don't think that because Arab countries attacked Israel, millions of human beings (Palestinians) have lost their political rights forever (i.e. the right to have nationality of some state, be it Palestinian, Israeli or binational)? That the Palestinians should be punished by eternal occupation and deprivation of human and political rights for the hostile conduct of (other) Arab state many decades ago?

* I indeed shun the hot potato of Jerusalem, which is very complicated. In general, your suggestion (internationalisation) sounds good to me.

Eric Garris Replies

Maybe war isn't the answer but it disturbs me to see Americans protesting.

Other American citizens are proudly protecting American lives. You should support our troops. They are putting their life on the line for selfish people. How do you think this makes them feel? I don't see you giving your life for your fellow Americans. How do think the troops' families feel when they see this type of demonstration on TV not knowing
if their son/daughter/husband/wife is going to make it home?
Think before you Speak!!!

~ GA

Eric Garris replies:

Please check out this Hawk historian on the importance of antiwar protests.

In 1848 the leader of the antiwar movement after the Mexican War started was Abraham Lincoln, then a member of Congress. The framers of our Constitution spoke at length about the importance of citizens vocally questioning their government, especially during times of war.

But protesters must show support for our troops. The best way to support them is to bring them home.

So the war protest is not really about the war? Why didn't you protest Clinton in Kosovo, Iraq, or Somalia? Since you don't like our government, which government in the world do you like better? Most countries of the world you would be dead or in jail. Not even in Sweden could you say what you say here.

~ Ron Alcorn

Eric Garris replies:

We did. Antiwar.com was started in 1995 to protest Clinton's illegal war in Bosnia. We expanded during Desert Fox in 1998 and went full-time in 1999 to protest Kosovo. Here is an article about us from 1999, including photos of antiwar protests during the Kosovo War. Here is a summary of our history. I have been a Republican for 20 years.

C'mon dude! To post a picture like that is just wrong. It was a Saddam tactic, and you know it. You only did it to get more people to see one side, Your side. That picture of the little girl could have been anything? How do you know that's not 10 years old. How do you know that Saddam or the Republican Guard isn't responsible? How do you the Guard didn't put her and the others in harms way on purpose?! Or how do you know that she just didn't, unknowingly, run into the path or explosion radius of the missile? All you have is Arab reports and The Iraqi information minister, Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf. It's no secret that Saddam's Son controls the media in Iraq. I'm sure you have seen the weak attempt by the Iraqi media who filmed a segment on the other side of the downed Apache helicopter saying they shot down another one. From reading your letters, you seem to be a person of intelligence far and above myself, please don't tell me you believe everything you see from Iraq.

And even if is our fault, you know it was an accident. Civilians, even children, dying are an unfortunate part of war. Am I happy or unsympathetic? NO, I have 2 boys, twins, bit it has happened in every war ever fought. The only difference is that Musket's and Cannonballs didn't do as much damage as a missile. War is not perfect. Try to remember there are allot of things happening all at once.

~ A.B.

Eric Garris replies:

We know because the photo was taken by an American Associated Press photographer and was obtained from AP. The story that went with it was compiled from reports by non-Iraqi journalists on the scene, and mentioned the Iraqi claims. The Pentagon did not deny it, simply gave "no comment." This differs from denials they have issued on the marketplace bombing and elsewhere. At the time the story was written, there were "no confirmations" that the allies had bombed Basra but they have since admitted it.

You guys make it so easy to develop an argument against you. That image is most definitely proof of the horrible acts that the human species are capable of carrying out on their own kind. But it really gets my blood boiling when you attribute such an act to your own country. Now I am not saying that we did not do it, but who is to say we did? A picture does speak a thousand words, therefore it is just ignorance that possesses people such as yourself to automatically attribute such horrors to our troops!

Oh yeah, I forgot Saddam is such a kind and moral individual. He would never do such a thing to his own people. Yeah right!

I really do hate people such as yourself, Your like a disease, you spread your warped interpretation of what you believe reality to be. And believe me it is warped!

~ Seth Keaveny

Eric Garris replies:

The photo did not stand alone, there was an article attached to it, which gave the details of a US missile strike on Basra. The photo came from Associated Press. Non-Iraqi journalists confirmed the carnage, and the US later admitted bombing the area.

Of course Saddam would and does do such things to his people. There are scores of tyrants in the world, but it is not worth the sacrificing of freedom, the Constitution, or our capitalist system to liberate or feed the world. Other countries just as brutal that we could attack include a good portion of the nations of Asia and Africa. We could spend eternity at perpetual war, or we could stop arming tyrants (as we did with Saddam throughout the 1980s) and deal with the world with a strong defense at home and free trade abroad.

Regarding "The Argument of Force" by Nebojsa Malic:

Your article contains some serious errors.

You state that the Surcin clan has not even been mentioned. In fact, the Surcin clan has been mentioned in the past few days. At least seven of its members, including top members Milan Narandzic Limun and Ljubomir Jovanovic Staklenac, are among those arrested. You will find their names on the list of arrested criminals published by the Serbian govt., under the heading "Surcin Mafia".

Next you state:

"There are numerous indications that the state of emergency and the 'war on crime' are actually aimed at the government's political opponents and dissenters in general."

This is a serious charge which you fail to back up with any true evidence. You say that news have been limited to "official statements only". Now where on earth did you get that from? If that were the case, "Glas Javnosti", "Blic", and others would only be printing govt. statements, but last time I checked those newspapers have been printing their regular columnists and opinions in full force. ...

~ Dragan Gladanac

Nebojsa Malic replies:

I happily admit I was wrong about the Surcin clan. When the information coming from Serbia is incoherent and scattered, mistakes happen. Any news on Stanko Subotic-Cane, the late Mr. Djindjic's favorite air carrier? I agree with you that such a serious allegation as I've made should be corroborated. You say all the regular columnists are still publishing. Well, if 'Glas' has kept Kosta Cavoski around, they certainly haven't let him near their Internet edition.

It may well be the government is going after some very real criminals. But the government itself is the biggest racket in Serbia, and the way it is acting now hardly merits much trust or understanding.

Regarding "Washington's Hubris Invites a Fatal Iraqi Misjudgment" by Christopher Deliso:

"...When this whole mess is over, the war's power-crazed partisans will be held responsible for their reckless, treasonous actions."

I will happily serve on the jury, find them guilty, and approve capital punishment in the penalty phase. These guys make Jeffery Dahmer look like Mother Theresa.

~ Carter Mitchell, Gurnee, Illinois

Christopher Deliso replies:

Word!

Indeed, it is not enough for Richard Perle to “lose” his nonpaying job. I believe when the American people really learn how much they have been cheated and needlessly endangered – probably, when the next major terrorist attack occurs – heads will start to roll.

For a nation created out of people hailing from the rest of the world it is singularly strange that most Americans completely fail to comprehend how people in other places might actually harbor a love for their own land, in much the same way that Americans shout out their love for America. Why is it so difficult to see that perhaps Iraqis love their country and will fight to the death for it, no matter which leader might be heading the government? Could it be that the resistance that the American soldiers are facing grows out of some deep identification that Iraqis have with their home (and not some simpleminded choice between Hussein and "democracy")... an identification that is far, far older than the cobbled "democracy" of the US?…

Any people thus beleaguered would fight for their survival, dignity, integrity, and independence. The Americans love shouting to the world how they threw off tyranny at the start of their nation (usually completely forgetting that it was the French, fighting the British, who saved the day... one high school student here in Japan asked why the Americans don't destroy the Statue of Liberty, a present from France, if they so detest French conscientiousness... funny how a Japanese kid is knowledgeable enough about the world to be able to remember this... how many American would even know the name of the Japanese prime minister, or what the Hiroshima Peace Memorial looks like?) and take every opportunity they can get at international pep rallies to remind everyone how wonderful they are. But enforcing this misbegotten hubris and ignorance with force will certainly not guarantee that you will be seen as right or even be respected.

The Iraqis are on this Earth, too. This is their world, too. Iraq is their home. They will fight for it. As much as all those self-righteous American soldiers claim that they fought for America's right to "freedom".

America has already lost the war. It is only delaying the eventuality.

~ Miguel Arboleda, Tokyo, Japan

Christopher Deliso replies:

Yes, Miguel, in addition to the French fries, the French toast, and that statue, we will have to consider rescinding the gratitude to France for helping liberate us.

It grates against the cherished ‘we did it alone’ historiography, doesn’t it? Although I must admit I have a soft spot for Francis “the Swamp Fox” Marion of South Carolina, whose guerrilla tactics infuriated the Brits and who provided valuable support to General Nathaniel Green in the South. This ultimately led to Lord Cornwallis’ surrender. Ironically, Francis Marion’s tactics are now infuriating the latter-day Brits – those of the American Empire.

On election night I made the following statement, "If they elect George Bush President all hell will break out in this country." No one can say I was wrong.

~ H. V. Malmquist

So conflicted about this war. On one hand its important that none of our troops, who are mostly naive kids, come to harm. On the other hand I'd like nothing better than to see the hubris of the Perles, Wolfowtizs, and Rumsfelds be rewarded with a defeat so humiliating that it provides the impetus for sweeping these bloated, arrogant fools out of power and instituting a more realistic and humanistic foreign policy. Anyway, greatly enjoyed the article.

~ TC

Christopher Deliso replies:

As I said above, “out of power” is not enough. Incarcerated is more like it. Or, better yet, why don’t we send them to Iraq, if they are so tough? A little mono e mono action, no? I’m sure they’d kick ass.

This is a truly accurate article. We have been trying to tell the president this, but of course, he doesn't read his own mail or e-mails. He doesn't really give a damn what any American , except his inner circle, thinks anyway.

Thank you for the article. These kinds of articles need to keep coming so we can explain to those of us who were so war hungry, why things went the way they did and how the rest of the world sees us and maybe stop this sort of aggression from continuing in our name in the future.

~ Cindy Maurer

Christopher Deliso replies:

Thanks, Cindy, I appreciate the support. Peace to you.

Grrrreat commentary – a sharp and merciless analysis! Keep hitting hard! The "sword" of a spirited intellect is indeed the ultimate weapon – as the coming months will prove beyond doubt, too long we were tortured with the stupid soundbites a la Washington, soon all the think-tanks and spin-doctors can pack and go home, just like Mister Perle

~ Wolfgang Maus, Los Angeles, California

Bravo to Mr. Deliso for this thoughtful examination of the unbelievable arrogance that has lead America into this horrible situation. The troops in the field have been betrayed by the inept, narcissistic Rumsfeld, and the blind, ideology-fueled certitude of the Perle/Wolfowitz/Cheney axis.

I am ashamed by this unnecessary war, and shocked by the stupidity of this enterprise, conducted in a manner that is sure to wreak the maximum carnage on Iraq and its people, on our soldiers abroad, and on America's image in the world. The neo-con imperium, which sought to refute the Vietnam syndrome, is now in the process of giving us a new military catastrophe of a comparable nature, one which in the long run may prove to be America's version of the Soviet adventure in Afghanistan. A bloody takeover of Iraq may be the eventual outcome; an equally bloody occupation will almost surely follow.

A plague upon them all for all the needless suffering they have brought into the world.

~ Ray Greene, Los Angeles, California

Christopher Deliso replies:

Perhaps Hubris is the 8th Deadly Plague?

I believe that because Iraq is fairly flat and ruled by a (previously) unpopular dictator, the Americans thought the campaign would be even easier than Afghanistan. Everyone predicted they would fail there, but it went better than expected. Thus their arrogance went through the roof. America’s Afghanistan, though belated and geographically distant, has arrived.

Regarding "A Perle of High Price" by Justin Raimondo:

Very simple, Justin, The Joint Chiefs are pissed off big time – and Pearle's just the first head.

~ Bob Trutnau, Seattle, Washington

Chemicals

I heard part of a story today on NPR about the Pentagon exploring the use of "non-lethal chemical agents", as those sometimes used in riot control, for the purpose of war fighting. The story went on to say that although this practice is expressly forbidden by a Chemical Weapons Treaty to which the U.S. is a party, the brass was looking for ways to get around it. The commentator was stunned by the obvious hypocrisy of this action. I believe it was a story from the British press.

Please consider running a feature article on this subject on your site if possible. The public would be well served. Maybe it would make CNN?

~ Dave Charleville, Victor, Idaho

Regarding "What You Aren't Being Told About Iraq" by Firas Al-Atraqchi:

Lies, damn lies, and the Iraqi National Congress (INC), an Iraqi opposition group made up of millionaires and businessmen, launched a massive public relations gambit to convince the US that it should intervene in Iraq.

Ah yes, greed, envy and betrayal, a blight on humanity. Well, the INC has made a Faustian deal with The Empire, which will bring misery and despair for both the Iraqi people and the American taxpayer. Empire is not a Constitutional Republic, but rather a corporate fascist state, with a tightly controlled mass media, and an undereducated, if not decadent electorate. Iraq is in big trouble.

What intrigues me is that Saddam Hussein consistently fails to disclose his connections with the Bush Cabal, Bush Sr/Rumsfeld, Iran/Contra, CIA and other associates of the subvert Iran crusade. Why not hop on Al Jazeera, and proclaim to the world: "Yes I had/have chem/bio weapons, but guess where they came from?" The treasonous hypocrites who proliferate dangerous technologies for profit are getting off too easy.

~ Paul G., Austin, Texas

Firas, great article about the TRUTH of what is REALLY happening in Iraq. As a 77 year old former World War II U.S.M.C. combat machine gunner who fought in the Pacific jungles against Japanese SOLDIERS (not children, women and noncombatants as that moron Bush does) it saddens me to see our American press so cringed by, and linked to the Government that they refuse to publish the TRUTH to the American public. Also, what is disgusting to me is that Bush without compunction destroys a 5000 year old civilization, and it people for oil, money and power. I submit, Firas, the man is mad.

~ Albert C. Mezzetti

Thank you for making the point, obvious but often overlooked, that interviewing ex-pat Iraqis living in the USA is a bargain basement method of assessing support or opposition among the exiled for this war. The question of authorship of the forged documents cited by Secretary of State Powell during his UN presentation remains vivid. Having initially favored the explanation that the Israeli government is behind the forgery I now feel that it can't be quite so direct an involvement if an involvement there is! The ineptitude of the forgeries implicates a group such as the INC, who appear incompetent. Hard to know what is for show and what isn't.

If the US government is so obtuse as to ignore the many agendas at play then it deserves whatever it gets from these people. Thank you for articulating a perspective worth attending.

~ Ted Pastrick

Regarding "Reality Discredits the Chickenhawks" by Alan Bock:

If by "...an American victory..." you mean the immediate cessation of the war and the removal of all US troops from Iraq,I agree with you. I suspect, however, that that is not what you mean.

Pragmatism,like penicillin, is a useful one-shot prophylactic against absolutist dogmatism;but it is harmful as a daily nutritional supplement. An honorable,principled position requires us to demand that the imperialist usurpers in Washington cease and desist now, today, immediately and return control of our nation, its military and its government to the people of the United States.

Pragmatic quibbling and fawning will only weaken the intellectual and moral immune system of our nation and encourage the warmongers to ignore us and continue to dismantle our Republic. Truth, integrity and honor are, I realize, old-fashioned words; but they still resonate with me and I can only hope that they also resonate with enough of my fellow countrymen to save our Republic.

~ Robert Backas

Alan Bock replies:

I suppose I have to admit that my comment was essentially a pragmatic one.

I would prefer the immediate cessation of the war, the return of all American troops to the United States, the demobilization of most of them and the immediate adoption of a policy of nonintervention. I suspect that the likelihood at the moment – though I refuse to give up hope for the long run – is quite low, perhaps below zero. So I thought that the least harmful outcome at the time of the invasion would be a swift and relatively bloodless American victory. I'm open to revising that opinion and may be in the process of revising it – and I take the point that it's better to stick with principle most of the time and preferably all of the time. I don't think I've been fawning, but you might do better to ask the government people and politicians I've dealt with over the years – they come in for editorial boards during elections and when they want something – if I've ever fawned.

The following pattern of steps was taken in the order given below in each of the First Gulf War, Yugoslavia War, Afghanistan War and now this Gulf War. Since they are each repeated in the exact same given order, step 3(c) would not appear to be true accidents as it is happening at the same point, again, in the following sequence:

(1) Political demands without force against civilian leaders (Saddam, Milosevic, Mullah Omar, again Saddam);
(2) Political demands and pressure on Military Leadership to get a Coup;
(3) Deadly force in the following sequence:

(a) first bomb the civilian leader (i.e., 18 March 2003 which failed to kill Saddam);
(b) then bomb Military Leadership (to get Coup which failed);
(c) bomb TV, Radio, and "accidentally" civilians (now in progress to get an uprising);

Since steps 3(a) and 3(b) where 100% accurate like hitting a fly on the nose or down the chimney of a building with precise accuracy, they lay question to step 3(c). Step 3(c) would appear deliberate as the sequence of the above algorithm is always repeated in the same order provided above in each prior Wars in exactly the same order . Step 3(c) is to encourage an uprising by deliberately targeting civilians. Targeting civilians to encourage an uprising is a War Crime.

~ Anneli A.

Congressman Kucinich

Against all odds, there were enough signatures, e-mails telegrams and phone calls within the last 24 hours to Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich of Ohio to persuade him to introduce before the House of Representatives in Washington, D.C. a little known resolution that deprives the President of his authority to wage war.

However, we must now persuade Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert that there is a growing consensus if not a plurality to mandate the resolution for a House ballot.

Therefore, please take a moment to e-mail Speaker Hastert by simply saying, "I am in favor of introducing HJ Resolution 20 for a vote."

Speaker Hastert's e-mail: Speaker@mail.house.gov

Please do this NOW.

Thank Congressman Kucinich: http://www.kucinich.us. ...

~ Susan Bright