|
|||||||||
Posted July 7, 2003
Regarding "Mourning in America" by Justin Raimondo:
After reading "Mourning in America," I was immediately compelled to write to you just to express how much I thoroughly agree. The column is classic Raimondo and is should be read by all those who cherish what America, the Republic, was and in some deranged, mutated and bastardized form is, and who find America, the Empire, to be a wholly repugnant sight to behold.
As our rulers ponder entering Liberia due to "historic ties," as President Bush himself said, they would do well to read Raimondo's column. It is the writing of an ardent patriot and a man whose love of American history no doubt comes partly from Garet Garrett's The American Story, a brilliant history book written by an Old Rightist. Of course, as of late, A Republic, Not an Empire carried the banner for anti-interventionism, written by the great Patrick J. Buchanan.
Just when one believes there may be hope, that perhaps someone can knock off King George in 2004, they blow it. Howard Dean, the most vociferous opponent on the Democratic Left of the Iraq War now screams that we must intervene in Liberia. (It's uncanny how each Bush went into Iraq due to their odd obsession with Saddam Hussein and a few months later in each case lefties all over the world were screaming that they must intervene in some impoverished, pathetic African nation for "human rights," and the whole leftist list of reasons to "go abroad in search of monsters to destroy."
Yet this weird fixation of intervention in places whose populace is literally a pitiful mass of unfortunate souls, incapable of building the kind of republican, constitutional government we had (until 1861), is not confined solely to the Left. Just Wednesday afternoon, the ignorant, foolish windbag of a talk show host, Sean Hannity, arguably (well, maybe not arguably) the most shamefully cheerleading idiot the Bush administration has on radio today, yells at conservative callers for being "isolationist." It made me sick hearing it, to be honest, and I can say that I will never even waste my time listening to his horrible show. When so-called conservatives – who enjoy massive audiences and lucrative book, TV and radio deals – call their brethren (or maybe distant cousins, as it were) in the ideological frontiers "isolationists" and yes, even "wimps," for opposing intervention abroad, the last day of conservatism in America is written off for good.
Sadly, I find no solace in the political spectrum of today outside of the Old Right paleoconservative and paleolibertarian circles – or "fever swamps," as some in the "mainstream" call them. Neoconservatives are determined to plunge into every hellhole on earth and if the cause is deemed "humanitarian" in nature by the Left, most of them will be aboard for the mission, too. Perhaps as we send 2,000 or so troops to Liberia, Jonah Goldberg will come out with a usually insightful argument for why we must begin our Marshall Plan for Africa RIGHT NOW! (Such an adventure would sure help that enormous, impoverishing deficit, wouldn't it?)
It is columns like Justin Raimondo's that make me go on and realize that there is still hope; perhaps our rulers will finally learn what they seemingly never do. Like the Israelites in the Old Testament who abandoned God and began to worship a golden calf, our rulers have long forgotten the Constitution, the founding documents and the Founding Fathers altogether.
Now they worship the welfare-warfare state with a currently greater expansion of the warfare part of that plan (though Bush seems to excel at the other side of the equation, too, with enormous Medicare plans and the sort). There is little hope. Unless, of course:
"No doubt the people know they can have their Republic back if they want it enough to fight for it and to pay the price. The only point is that no leader has yet appeared with the courage to make them choose." Garet Garrett's last two sentences in Rise of Empire, tell the story well; as well today as it was when the words were written.
The truth is that Americans need such a leader today. Someone who will not talk about the Constitution as if it were merely some sort of old relic that you have to say that you want to uphold and defend and blah, blah, blah. Someone who will grasp precisely what the Founding Fathers intended to be America's role in the world. Someone who will roll back not some distant "evil empire" or "axis of evil" but the welfare-warfare state at home and in so doing bring our troops home from all corners of the globe.
Because, without that leader, the great Republic of America will simply evaporate from the earth, like dew in the late morning hours.
Another exceptionally fine article by Justin. Only one question springs readily to mind: how, exactly, will we "fight against the depredations" of the evil empire?
We can speak more or less freely against the rulers (for now), but I think that we can all see what lies at the bottom of that slippery slope. You can vote (for the chicken hawk Bush or the newly-converted neo-con John Dean) but the choices are simply mirages. There really isn't a dime's worth of difference at the top.
We can only hope that somewhere in the world, a new order will rise to extend the bounds of liberty as America once did. Then we can transfer the Statue of Liberty and emigrate to a new home.
~ Carter Mitchell, Gurnee, Illinois
Texas rebelled against Mexico, of course, not because Mexico refused to accept it as a state, but because Santa Anna's 1835 Mexican Constitution abolished slavery.
Good stuff, perhaps enough to help in awakening more people to the 'soft coup' that has usurped the power of the American polity.
However, your comments re: conquest and seizure of America, are a little contentious. Serious scholarship now acknowledges that most 'Indians' were not 'nomadic', but had very well delineated territories and intertribal agreements etc. concerning those lands. Many tribes were permanently settled, agrarian communities others were traders and entrepreneurs of many and varied products. Obsidian blades from British Columbia have been found in ancient Indian village sites in Maine and Mexico! The Kwakiutal and Haida people of this coast had towns with houses made of cedar, in streets measuring 1500' long. So please be careful with your light hearted approach about the Indians; the firewater and atrocities bit is really selective considering what was done and continues to be done by the 'savages in human form' known as English, Spanish, Portuguese.
Our Canadian Indians are declining under the corrosive influence of the white man's culture. Many tribes have been eradicated and their languages are now lost. Alcohol remains a terrible problem but now all the other demons have been loosed upon the poor and ignorant such as 'crack', heroin, crystal meth'. With that goes all the other life-destroying penalties such as AIDS, prostitution, disease and much violence and child suicide. The real savages are those who bring war to peace, death to life! The behaviour of the U.S. forces is still as it was at 'Wounded Knee', still killing 'Injuns', with no comprehension whatsoever that 'what goes round, comes round'. Many Americans will die and then an election time will make their deaths meaningless as the political winds change.
Hope you don't mind these cavils, I eagerly await your next column and admire your efforts.
(If you need a nice peaceful holiday, come to B.C., lots to do, great food, pure water, healthy mainly literate people, no smog etc. I am not a hotelier! Vancouver is beautiful too!)
~ Denis Foley, British Columbia, Canada
...Let's discuss cities in America prior to 1492.
There were cities. A fair number of them. Even in New Mexico, there were towns and even cities that were occupied for hundreds of years! The natives of the Northeast built houses and stockades and lived as farmers! In the Midwest, they built not only cities and towns, they built monuments!
The Plains Indians were the nomads.
And if living in tents disqualifies one from living anywhere at all, this is the most obnoxious idea I can think of. So, the Mongols in Mongolia: many live in yurts. Does this mean you can steal all their lands and put them in prison camps?
You are the victim of a lifetime of propaganda. You cannot free yourself from this unless you open your eyes to humanity and what it means to be a free human. And no one is free unless they can reverse a position and see the other side.
Regarding "A Glimmer of Hope?" by Alan Bock:
"The point is, the global interests of the United States – whether viewed as narrowly as some of us would prefer or even in the more expansive vision of the American empire – will be little affected whether this dispute goes on for decades (as seems likely) or is resolved tomorrow. It has a minor impact on relations with Arab countries but no impact on access to oil."
I absolutely don't agree with this conclusion. I think it very clear that the Israeli/Palestinian dispute underlies much of the current and deteriorating relationship between Islam and the West. US support for Israel's continued de facto annexation of the West Bank and Gaza is what enables the right-winger's in Israel to get away with it and this annexation is at the core of the conflict. The vast majority of the world's 1.2 billion Muslims blame US support for Israel's intransigence and rightly so. Now this is compounded by the US occupation of Iraq which the Muslim majority believes also serves Israel's agenda.
Accordingly, American's will be increasingly held accountable by Muslim extremists for their policy on Israel/Palestine. This may eventually result in mass protests and potential revolts against their own governments who must kowtow to American might and policies in the region.
From this perspective it is plain that a long-term solution to the Israel/ Palestine conflict would be the most effective "offensive" in the Bush declared "war on terrorism." This solution is impossible without a major shift in US policies towards the parties. The US is the only party which can help Israel see what is in it's own long-term interest. The threat of the withdrawal of US military and financial support is the only "reality-check" that can move the current Government of Israel to do what's necessary to end the conflict.
~ David Woolfson, Toronto, Canada
Alan Bock replies:
I fully agree that the United States should end its aid to Israel, as well as to Egypt and to pretty much the rest of the world. And insofar as American policy supports continued Israeli occupation of the West Bank (it does and it doesn't, rather fitfully and inconsistently in my view), it wouldn't be a bad idea to change it. And the continuing dispute probably has some small but real negative impact on US relations with other Arab and Muslim countries. I believe, however, that the Israel-Palestine dispute is as much a pretext as a real grievance in other Muslim countries. Osama bin Laden didn't talk about Palestine until quite late in the day; his real grievance was US troops in Saudi Arabia (which I would never have put there in the first place, as I wrote at the time), but the ongoing grievances of Muslim "fundamentalists" (a not-quite-satisfactory term), militants and even "moderate" Arab leaders are much more complex, having a good deal to do with a self-perception of Muslim societies as having declined since the "glory" days of the Ottoman Empire, legitimate outrage at oil-rich autocratic leaders and a good deal more. (See Raphael Pataki's The Arab Mind for a reasonably evenhanded discussion of some of the problems as well as some of the opportunities caught, missed and still available.)
As a human being, I hope the dispute can be resolved with as little additional bloodshed as possible. As a geopolitical observer who happens to be an American, I still think it would be best handled as a local dispute to be handled by the local people rather than the US and/ or the "international community." Interestingly, an article Tuesday in Israel's Haaretz, headlined "Arabs, Israelis drag their leaders to a truce" suggests strongly that it is those actually experiencing the results, in ways the leaders are somewhat insulated from, who have become so exhausted and war-weary as to drag more militant elements on both sides into a cease-fire. The locals experience the consequences and I think they're the key to a resolution, if there is to be one.
US Attacks Mosque?
Yesterday you ran an article stating that the US military had bombed a mosque. Today the news is that the explosion was caused during a bomb making class being held in the mosque itself. No doubt the imam was attending the class as he had his leg amputated.
Why haven't you run this story today on your webpage? Antiwar.com is clearly biased against the US and it's military agenda. I respect that and consult it daily for links to news stories I won't find on CNN.com. However, you have a moral responsibility to report this new development as it has a tremendous impact on the truth of the situation in Fallujah. If you cover up the truth, it is a clear indication that your agenda is top priority even at the expense of the truth. Shame on you.
~ David
Hernandez
Assistant
Managing Editor Jeremy Sapienza replies:
No, what we ran was an article saying that Iraqis accused the US of bombing the mosque. We also ran, right next to that story, one saying the US denied any involvement.
We try to cover as much of the world's news websites as possible, but we cannot possibly be everywhere at once. We do miss things. It would have been decent of you to simply provide a link, instead of accusing us of blaming the US military for something it didn't do.
Regarding "What I'll Be Celebrating on the Fourth" by Matthew Barganier:
Name me one right that you had before 9/11 that you don't have now. Don't tell me about rights deprived of aliens who entered illegally or who overstayed their visas. Tell me what rights you have lost.
~ TsF, Los Angeles, California
Matthew Barganier replies:
Please check the links before sending any more pouty e-mails. I particularly recommend James Bovard's "Surveillance State," which I linked to in my piece. The point is not particular rights lost since 9/11 – it's the ominous empowerment of government since that day.
Bravo! – Barganier's best one yet.
I'll keep it in mind as we're battered into a stupor by World War II documentaries and that God-awful Lee Greenwood song. Too bad the simple conviction that man should be independent and free now smells faintly seditious. The ideals of the American Revolution are as alien to our bovine republic as Zoroastrianism is to a Baptist, and quoting the Founding Founders is totally pointless: one might as well preach vegetarianism to a gang of cannibals.
Keep up the good work, but in the end we're merely scattering our bounty on barren soil.
Happy Fourth, and Don't Tread On Us!
Mike
Ewens Replies
Y'all keep up the excellent work. I hope my tiny contribution can help.
Just like Justin Raimondo delved deeply into the Israeli Art Student Scandal I'd like to see some concentrated reporting on the forged documents about the Niger uranium purchase. Bush not only lied to the public citing this during the State of the Union Address, but he also cited it as proof to Congress. Lying to Congress is a criminal offense. I've read the name of the man who traveled to Niger a year prior at Cheney's request, I've read the forged document(s) contained the signature of a man 10-years out of office, I've read his department does not exist anymore. But not all of this in one place. This one incident could be a linchpin and there seems to be enough info out there to track down who knew what/ when. ...
Associate Editor Mike Ewens replies:
Thanks for your contribution. I don't know of any reports on the uranium documents, but there is an interesting one about the "dossier" in the UK: http://www.computerbytesman.com/privacy/blair.htm.
I have searched the Internet everywhere looking for information on wounded American soldiers. I am finding this information suspiciously absent.
Due to body armor, emergency aide kits and emergency military care at the battlefield level I suspect anyone severely injured or wounded probably stands a better chance of surviving than a stateside civilian in a serious car accident. However, that does not belie the severity of a soldiers injured or the subsequent disabilities.
There may be 200 dead Americans but several hundred permanently disabled or disfigured Americans that the American public is not hearing about with the exception of a cute gal by the name of Jessica Lynch. However, all the guys with hands, feet, arms or legs missing or who may now be blind and wish they were killed are not even counted in the casualty statistics.
I know why the military would make this statistic hard to find but is this number actually non existent? Where can one find and track such a statistic? This conspicuous absence of this information may make for an interesting story.
Mike Ewens replies:
I suspect that this kind of information is released years after the war has ended. I would keep an eye on www.defenselink.mil for info.
Dirk A. Wilson Jr: I think that most of you antiwar a$$wipes should take a real deep look at the history of our nation. It's because of the actions of our leaders and hero's "some being family members in one way or another to us all" that have given you ungrateful group of idiots the freedom to take a walk in the park or go see a ball game.
Mike Ewens: In fact, one of those heroes was my grandfather who fought in World War II. I think that a good argument could be made for a threat in 1942 (read: Hitler), but the same cannot be said today.
DW: If we don't take and keep action on those who threaten us we won't have the freedom or right to say or do anything without the risk of execution.
ME: I agree! But you have yet to meet a few important requirements for "execution":
1.
An actual imminent threat
2. All other options instead of war exhausted. (Anyone say "containment"?)
3. If war is to occur, all must be done to prevent the loss of innocent
life. (That didn't happen.)
4. Forgot the 9/11 excuse. One, Bush
admitted there was no connection and, second, al-Qaeda
denied a connection.
No one has yet to satisfy these requirements, so these "threats to our freedom" were – and continue to be – non-existent.
DW: As a former Marine of 7 years I can understand why we need war, not to say that I like it because I don't, but I don't want to have to wonder when the next car bombing is going to happen as I am going grocery shopping or taking the one that I love to go see a movie. ...
ME: What does this have to do with Iraq? You continue to presuppose that Saddam was a threat or that he was in any way was capable of aiding people who wanted to disrupt your grocery shopping.
Ian Marano: I came upon you web page during a visit to the SETI@home web page. Out of curiosity I thought that I might look over your web page. To be frank with you, I am completely disappointed in you and the rest of those who subscribe to your point of views on war. I have been an enlisted soldier in the US Army for nearly 12 years of my life now. I am also a career firefighter in a major US city.
When 9-11 happened I responded without hesitation to help those in need. My FEMA search and rescue team was one of the first on the scene to the WTC and I spent nearly two weeks sifting through the remains of those buildings hoping to find something, or someone. Everyday, people from all over the city, the state of New York, our country and the world kept praising me and my team in our efforts. The support we received is about the only thing that kept me sane during those extremely trying times.
Recently, I have returned home from Iraq. I spent nearly five months in Iraq. While there I traveled quite a lot and I met many local people. They are some of most grateful and courteous people I have ever met in my life. This may seem rather hard to believe with the recent news people see and hear on TV. I have witnessed first hand that what really happens in Iraq is not necessarily the real news. I know, what an amazing discovery, right? However, I can personally attest that the Iraqi people are in fact appreciative, and very grateful that Saddam and his thugs are no longer in control.
Mike Ewens: I am very glad that you got home safe. Unfortunately, 201 of your fellow soldiers were not so lucky. I am trying my best to keep track of this costliest cost of the war on Iraq.
Of course the Iraqis are happy to be free of Saddam. Does that justify the invasion and the subsequent dead Americans? I can't say that it does. America is not a police force, no matter how competent and strong our armed services are. Also, some of your fellow soldiers in Iraq aren't receiving the same hospitality you did:
"What are we getting into here? The war is supposed to be over, but every day we hear of another soldier getting killed. Is it worth it? Saddam isn't in power anymore. The locals want us to leave. Why are we still here?"
That was from a sergeant in the U.S. Army's 4th Infantry Division.
IM: While deployed overseas I couldn't help but to be completely disappointed and honestly disgusted with the whole antiwar protesters, and the media that chose the cover them. Every day I had an opportunity to watch BBC, Fox News, CNN world, and even Al-Jazeera, and I couldn't believe my eyes when I see kids from our high schools across the USA in protests as if it were some kind of a fad. What about those demonstrators, surely these are some of the same people who cried for revenge, and blood letting of Osama Bin Laden and the Al Qaeda when 9-11 occurred. Have we forgotten so soon? I know I haven't, and I'm certain that FDNY hasn't either.
ME: No I haven't forgotten 9/11, although I don't know what that has to do with Iraq. I quote President Bush:
"(Adam Boulton, Sky News, London): One question for you both. Do you believe that there is a link between Saddam Hussein, a direct link, and the men who attacked on September the 11th?
"THE PRESIDENT: I can't make that claim.
"THE PRIME MINISTER: That answers your question."
This and the denials from al-Qaeda leadership that they have no contacts with Saddam is enough evidence for me that "Operation Iraqi Freedom" had nothing to do with 9/11.
IM: Please don't be swayed by what the media provides you. The media is simply out for the juiciest story to make a dollar. While we at home enjoy the comforts of an American life; coffee shops/ book stores, fast-food, football games, super-grocery stores etc., our soldiers are not. Trust me on this, I know. They sit everyday wishing they were home, waiting for a simple letter or a chance to call home. So, I thank you for your time, consideration and allowing me to express my freedom speech as you have. Thanks America for being there when I needed you at the WTC, please extend your support to those who are trying to prevent another 9-11.
ME: I couldn't agree more with your claim about the media.
I will continue to support the troops; I will demand that those this Washington BRING THEM HOME NOW! Until then, I will try to make sure that the public knows that our troops are suffering and dying in Iraq – in the hopes that more people will demand their return. Then, the soldiers can again reap the benefits of the freedoms they miss.
Thank you for your email and for making it through your campaign in Iraq.
Spc. Rebecca Schneider, 773rd Maint. BN: I understand that your subscribers are antiwar. I have yet to hear a good argument for your stand on this matter. I believe war is horrible, yet it is sometimes necessary for the safety of our homeland and lives.
Mike Ewens: "Safety of our homeland and lives" was the biggest point of contention. Namely, a threat never existed and if it did, there were plenty of options that could have been tried (read: war is the last resort).
RS: Perhaps the people who share your stand on the war have not followed the news for the past three years. I believe we must stop terrorism at any cost, even at the cost of civilian women and children. Many civilians lost their lives in the attacks on the Twin Towers. Was it through any fault of their own? The brave soldiers over seas do all they can to keep America safe.
ME: It is clear that this doesn't hold for the mission in Iraq. Through no fault of their own, soldiers were sent to fight a war that was not in the interest of American security. Many tend to assume that by opposing the actions of soldiers we are "against them" or don't support them. However, it is their leaders who make the orders that we are denouncing. Thus, we are not "belittling" our troops when we call for their return. Instead, we are trying to keep them from entering the quagmire.
RS: I become very angry when I hear antiwar cowards belittling what these soldiers do in a days work. Despite our stand on the war, our soldiers deserve our utmost respect. When they are called to duty they do not have a chance to answer "no" and would not if they could. They do not know what awaits them as they step off the aircraft, they do not know what awaits their families in their absence. Soldiers are special people and they are doing an outstanding job overseas.
ME: Here you again incorrectly equate disagreement with those in the White House with disrespecting our soldiers.
Of course, they are doing their "duty" – and doing it well – we just believe that their "duty" had nothing to do with invading and occupying Iraq. We at Antiwar.com never wished ill upon our troops. In fact, we demanded they come home. Unfortunately, recent news demonstrates 201 of them would have loved to do just that.
Bring 'Em On
"Bring 'em on!" says George Bush. But those weren't the words he used when he ducked the Vietnam war in the Texas National Guard. "Let's you (our troops) and him (Iraqi guerillas) fight," says our brave leader. That's better than trying to find the causes of the unrest and to bring law, order, and economic stability to Iraq, isn't it?
Another thought: If the two trailers discovered are such lethal weapons, why doesn't the Pentagon incorporate them into its arsenal? What a stupendous discovery! We can rule the world with those two trailers alone. Now the Republican apologists are saying that they have uncovered documents that show that Iraq once had programs to make exotic germ and chemical weapons. What's surprising about that? Of course they had them and some of the papers might still be lying around. They got the information and know-how from us which they used against the Kurds and Iran when it was Enemy No. 1. The real issue is did they have an active program and actual weapons at the ready on the eve of our invasion when macho George refused to let the UN inspectors continue their work and said that we had to invade to prevent an immediate attack against us. We wiped out Iraq's resistance in about 30 days, or so thought our brave commander-in-chief, creating some kind of world record. But is this war over yet? Are we going to set another record given our enormous deficits, both federal and state, and general economic malaise. Will this become the war we couldn't afford?
Many of George Bush's defenders, like Senator John Warner of Virginia, say that Americans like his belligerent talk. It raises our spirits and those of our soldiers, they say. His cheerleading and pep talks exploiting the 9/11 tragedy has made him enormously popular to be sure. But do Americans really like a leader who boasts, brags, smirks, swaggers, and taunts, especially when the results are dubious? How does that saying go? "Actions speak louder than words." What material benefits has the United States gained from his leadership so far that are exceptional? Are we better off now than when he took office? Will someone count the ways, please?
Regarding "No Exit?" by Justin Raimondo:
I am sorry I missed the column about Raimondo's heart attack, please accept my best wishes for a complete recovery.
Reading Schwartz on Raimondo and Raimondo on Schwartz convinced me that Schwartz is definitely on the loopy side of the controversy, scatological online cartoons and all.
I was also pleased to notice that Backtalk does not filter out dissenting opinions, true to the spirit of genuine debate. So, kudos to a great crew. I've sent 50 clams to support your site as a modest token of my sincere appreciation.
You are an honest, pugnacious, and effective voice in the most important debate of the new century — the true bane of US supremacists.
Regarding "Paintball Terrorist?" by Mike Ewens:
Bad guys are bad guys and paintball is just a game. Wonder what these bad guys drove? Had for breakfast? Look on the 'net and find how the crown Princes of England play paintball, also Maurice Gibb of the Bee Gees did, William Shatner does, lots of people play paintball. Millions. This Gordon Kromberg (assistant US attorney handling the case) is a paintball player too.
"'It's very easy to jump to conclusions on facts like these. You know the guys are playing paintball, they're playing soldiers,' said Kromberg, who said he has donned fatigues himself and played paintball. 'On the other hand, if they're doing more than that, maybe there's a problem.'"
Hey, wouldn't it be great where all you could do was play at war and never actually have real wars? Go look at the pictures of the players at the big professional tournaments (www.warpig.com). They aren't camou'd up in the woods. The World Cup of Paintball will be at Disney's place in October this year.
Mike Ewens replies:
I played paintball once.... what does that make me? Ha! I am curious how that Royer story develops, it could say a lot for the future of paintball.
Thanks for the email and link.