Justin Raimondo on Fox Business Channel

Update: A video of the full show has been posted here. The first segment is Julian Assange, with Justin Raimondo (and his opponent) in the second segment. We will be posting the stand-alone segments in the next day or so.

Antiwar.com’s Editorial Director Justin Raimondo will be appearing this weekend on Fox Business Channel’s Freedom Watch, hosted by Judge Andrew Napolitano. The show airs Saturday, July 31 at 10am and 8pm and again on Sunday, August 1 at 7pm and 11pm. All times Eastern. Please note this is Fox Business Channel, not Fox News.

A preview of the show can be seen below.

Crack It Open for Bradley Manning

I’ve exposed perhaps too much of what makes me weepy in these pages; here’s more. It turns out PFC Bradley Manning, the 22-year-old intel analyst who risked his life to expose the banally recorded daily atrocities committed in service to the imperial project, is simply a good guy. He’s not a fame-seeker, unlike the slimy self-promoting pig who outed him, or on the side of The Terrorists. He simply wanted to do what he thought was right. I’m convinced of this now — as I read endless reams of coverage, I keep coming back to the human dimension of Bradley. He’s 22.

“Everywhere there’s a U.S. post, there’s a diplomatic scandal that will be revealed,” Manning wrote of the cables. “It’s open diplomacy. Worldwide anarchy in CSV format.”

He’s also a bit of an excited badass. Is that wrong?

You can read a better and longer analysis of the virtues of Bradley Manning in recent and forthcoming pieces by the tireless Arthur Silber. But if you don’t have time to read it through, you can get to the distilled essence of it here: a courageous, rash, intelligent, disillusioned, young man has risked his life to expose what he, and most of us who read this website, consider the world’s worst evils. If that doesn’t make him a hero deserving of your help, or at least your vocal sympathies, what would? As we continue sifting through this data — and there is MUCH more to come — how important will this man have been to the cause of peace, looking back from the future? Scott Horton summed it up in a recent interview with Mike Gogulski, the creator of the website championing Bradley’s legal defense:

“This ought to be the Dan Ellsberg moment — the part where people finally decide that they’re over it and they no longer support this, and they want and end to it sooner, not later.”

Open your wallet for Bradley. I’m sending him $100. You can also change your various profile photos to this “Google Bradley Manning” image — I have just changed mine. The London Times might be wringing its hands over the alleged outing of Afghan “informants” (likely mostly bribed tribal elders) as the “human cost” of the leaks — never mind the wars themselves, I guess — but Bradley tried to strike a blow for all humans.

Of course, we aren’t sure if Bradley leaked these particular documents, but it seems likely he did in light of his admissions and his access to US military records. If it later turns out he did not, his case will still be important for future whistleblowers. If there’s anyone who hates when their authority is challenged, it’s the authorities, and the brave people who defy them need all the help they can get.

House Vote on Afghan War Funding a Disgrace

In a 308-114 vote Tuesday the House of Representatives ignored a massive influx of new evidence underscoring the futility of the conflict in Afghanistan, approving a massive new appropriation of emergency war funding.

The vote came just two days after the world was treated to a massive leak of some 92,000 classified documents. The documents provided hundreds of incidents, in excruciating detail, showing just how poorly the war has been going, how many civilians have been killed, and how aware of both of these facts the military has been, despite its official claims to the contrary.

Though a number of the revelations that came to light were hardly secret to the analysts keeping a close eye on the Afghan War, the leaks have brought the grim realities of the war to the public in ways that nothing before ever could. Allegations of CIA assassination teams and massive, unreported civilian casualties are all well and good, but now having the actual documents detailing the events makes them impossible to ignore.  

And while this is true for the media, it is doubly so for the House of Representatives, which after last Thursday’s rebuke from the Senate faced an all-or-nothing vote to provide some $33 billion in emergency war funds in order to maintain the conflict for the rest of the fiscal year.  

Indeed, the most damning revelation of all may not be any of the particular incidents, disgraceful though they may be, but the fact that the military understands full well how poorly this conflict is going, even as it continues to tell Congress and the American public to expect blatantly unrealistic progress in the near term.  

Those of us paying attention knew that the war was going disastrously, and the military has known that the war was going disastrously, but now we know that they know, and that makes all the rhetoric to the contrary seem absurd at best and downright offensive when it comes to shipping tens of thousands of additional soldiers to the windblown hills of Central Asia to kill and be killed. The goals were always ill defined and now it should be clear to everyone that they are unattainable at any rate.

Yet when it came down to it, with all excuses gone, and with no ability to credibly claim the war is anything but an unmitigated disaster, the hawkish members of Congress did what they always do; voted for the war and condemned the leaks on general principle.

And all excuses are gone; no one can claim that they went into this vote with blinders on, or that pledges of impending progress from the military brass overwhelmed common sense. The 308 Congressmen, roughly evenly split between both parties, did the American public, humanity, and common decency a great disservice.

With the war getting worse by the minute, Congress has shrugged off its responsibilities and chosen to defer the decision to pull the plug on this heedless endeavor largely to save face.

But this delay, though it may appeal to some, comes at a dear price, one far beyond the $33 billion price tag attached to the war segment of the bill. Prolonging the war will mean hundreds of additional troops slain in the next few months, and untold thousands of innocent civilians. With all alleged goals out of reach at any rate, can the American public really countenance the cowardice our lawmakers needed to keep this war going?

Ron Paul & Dennis Kucinich: US Troops Out of Pakistan

Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich introduced a resolution to amend the war funding bill aimed at enforcing the War Powers Act to get US troops out of Pakistan.

The amendment failed, receiving only 38 votes (32 Dems and 6 GOP). Shortly thereafter, the House overwhelmingly approved the war funding bill 308-114.

At least it provided an opportunity for some actual debate.

Here’s Ron Paul:

Here’s Dennis Kucinich:

Weigel vs. WikiLeaks

On his Twitter feed Monday, Dave Weigel, journalist, posted the following (emphasis mine):

The WikiLeaks Afghan dump is depressing. Very tired of our effort there being subjected to this kind of crap.

When Glenn Greenwald pressed Weigel to clarify what “kind of crap” he meant, Weigel answered:

I mean the disclosing in a way that hurts us. It’s not like we’ve been prevented from knowing things are going poorly.

This caused a minor stir among Weigel’s Twitter followers, with one responding:

You prefer being lied to? You really *have* crossed over to the dark side…

To which Weigel replied:

I support the war and agree to disagree with a lot of people on this.

Greenwald continued to prod Weigel for clarification, but Weigel ignored the questions, huffing, “I don’t ‘debate’ on Twitter. If it’s important I take it to email. This is a wretched medium for debate.” Meanwhile, some members of #teamweigel began tweeting their disapproval, distaste, and even shock.

I can’t imagine why.

Dave Weigel supported the invasion of Iraq, and he continued to ridicule and slander war opponents until the precise moment that it was no longer professionally advantageous for him to do so. He is a shape-shifting seeker of the Inner Ring who has already been called a liar twice by his former bosses. Here’s Matt Welch of Reason on Weigel’s suggestion that he was let go from that magazine for being too mavericky (a recurrent form of self-gratification for Weigel):

To the extent that this gives the impression that Dave’s job was in any way tied to him voting for Obama, I need to shout from the rooftops that this is emphatically not the case. If it were, Ronald Bailey would no longer be our Science Correspondent and Tim Cavanaugh would not be our back-of-the-book columnist. …

There were multiple factors at play in the Weigel/Reason separation, none of them having to do with voting records, and many (though not all) pointing to what Dave alludes to in his post: What he wanted to write about, and what we needed him to write about, were two different things. …

Another clarification, especially for people unfamiliar with Reason: There is, to put it mildly, zero professional sanction at this magazine for being “a little less favorable to Republicans,” or being “pro-gay marriage and pro-open borders.”

And here’s Nick Gillespie:

In his public mea culpa (which like all examples of the genre is long on mea and short on culpa), former Washington Post blogger Dave Weigel suggested his long journey upwards began with his being fired from Reason magazine.

Full disclosure: I was editor in chief of Reason from 2000 to 2008 and hired Dave, who was eventually let go by my successor, Matt Welch. Dave suggests that the separation came about because he had strayed too far off what we sometime call the “libtard” reservation. …

As Matt Welch has written, Dave certainly didn’t earn any supervisory ire by voting for Obama-Biden or even for being from Delaware (though this latter condition has never been a clear plus for anyone except maybe George Thorogood and Cesar Romney). Similarly, the implication that Reason would be bothered by a staffer’s attacks on Republicans or support for gay marriage and open borders makes about as much sense and holds as much value as fiat currency.

Actually, while Maverick Dave was with Reason, he made some pathetically strenuous efforts to ingratiate himself with the herd (another recurrent theme in Weigel’s career). In Reason‘s 2008 presidential election survey, Weigel gave the following answer to the final question:

5. Leaving George W. Bush out of consideration, what former U.S. president would you most like to have waterboarded? Lyndon Baines Johnson. While his children watch.

Leaving aside the warped question and the demented reply – Weigel and his pal Spencer Ackerman seem to have studied rhetoric at the Mel Gibson Finishing School – do you think for a minute that Weigel would say such a thing (or anything negative at all) about the father of Medicare and Medicaid in his new gig as an MSNBC commentator? More recently, in an odd act of self-defense, Weigel actually admitted that he wrote things he didn’t believe on Journolist in order to “suck up to the liberals.” And that was for a tiny, exclusive audience that was supposedly organized to allow “extremely smart people” to say what they really thought! What ulterior considerations inform Weigel’s reporting and analysis for us dumb yokels drooling over our Hungry-Man dinners in front of the tube?

Anyway, now Weigel’s “supporting” “our” war in Afghanistan, the It War of the militant center that employs him, and people are surprised? Please.

P.S. I’ll go ahead and write the rebuttal for Dave and his clique. Yes, I’m a loser nobody who blogs for the objectively pro-fascist Antiwar.com. I only wrote this because I envy Dave’s sweet job at the Washington Post (oops!), his large circle of friends, and the cool, emotionally mature professionalism he demonstrated in Boogiegate. Did I leave out anything? Oh, right. Yada yada yada anti-Semite. (Hey, you said it, Adolf!) When you get through with me, maybe you can respond to Welch and Gillespie.

P.P.S. For more on the Weigel-Journolist fiasco, if you’re not sick to death of it already, I strongly recommend two posts by Arthur Silber: 1, 2.

WikiLeaks Files, Now Organized in html

WikiLeaks now has the Afghan “war logs” up in html, which you can browse a number of different ways: be sure to read the introduction for navigation instructions (it’s easy).

And, again, thanks to Wikileaks, Julian Assange, and – especially – Bradley Manning, who sacrificed his career (and his freedom) so that we might know the truth.