Antiwar.com Blog

Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards is out on the stump:

“Iran is serious about its threats,” former US Senator John Edwards has told an audience in Israel.

“The challenges in your own backyard – represent an unprecedented threat to the world and Israel,” the candidate for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination told the Herzliya Conference, referring mainly to the Iranian threat.

I don’t know about New Hampshire, but I’d say Edwards is off to a strong start in Tel Aviv.

In his speech, Edwards criticised the United States’ previous indifference to the Iranian issue, saying they have not done enough to deal with the threat.

Hinting to possible military action, Edwards stressed that “in order to ensure Iran never gets nuclear weapons, all options must remain on table.”

On the recent UN Security Council’s resolution against Iran, Edwards said more serious political and economic steps should be taken. “Iran must know that the world won’t back down,” he said.

Take that, Dubya.

After opening his speech with great praise for Former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, Edward’s continued to express great appreciation for the Israeli people and the special bond between the two countries, saying it was “a bond that will never be broken.”

Sure, Ariel Sharon is the greatest – he’ll always have a place in our hearts – but Edwards needs to get hip, reach out for that youth vote. There’s a new badass to kiss in the Knesset.

In a further display of support for Israel, Edwards went so far as to suggest that Israel should even be made a member of NATO, saying it was only natural that the organization would seen [sic] to include Israel next.

Sure. And when are we going to do something about Israel’s exclusion from the Arab League? The Organization of American States? The United Federation of Planets? When, dammit, when is an American president finally going to get to work on these vital matters?

[Edwards article via David Beito.]

This Saturday should see the biggest antiwar demonstration in Washington since September 2005. Details here.

I will be heading down to the big show. When I go to these events, I tend to saunter more than march, savoring the circus elements of these festivities and spending as much time on the periphery as in the throng.

Stopping Bush from expanding the Iraq war and from attacking Iran are by far the most important short term issues in American politics. War unleashes presidents to do their worst, with scores of millions of Americans guaranteed to cheer any new oppression of their fellow citizens.

Some people might avoid this march because of differences with the sponsoring organizations. Shizam, if I paid close attention to the words from the podium at these events, I might never go to any of them. I have been struck how often the demonstrators seem significantly more serious and reasonable than the speakers. But people are there to oppose the war, not to swear allegiance to every nitwit  who nabs the microphone for 2 minutes.

Likewise, some people might avoid publicly protesting because they want to avoid being in the same square mile as the fringe elements that show up for these events. I’m not talking about the undercover policemen. People who incite violence may be getting paid time and a half for working on Saturday.   There is no collective liability for all the ideas at the protest.  People who show up to oppose the war are not culpable because someone else shows up with a sign advocating bombing whomever.

 On the other hand, some of the people there might look at me and also shake their heads ruefully.   (“Antiwar event attendees are supposed to be clean shaven. Is it really necessary to be chomping on a cigar? And where did he get that hat? No one wears hats like that in Brooklyn.”)

Attending an antiwar march is one of the easiest ways to drive neoconservatives visibly insane. The New York Sun suggested in February 2003 that the New York Police Department “send two witnesses along for each [antiwar march] participant, with an eye toward preserving at least the possibility of an eventual treason prosecution” since all the demonstrators were guilty of “giving, at the very least, comfort to Saddam Hussein.”

Political entertainment doesn’t get much better than an editorial like that.

The forecast for Saturday is   49 degrees and Sunny.   Fine weather for a tromp around the city.   The last time I checked, all the local breweries are scheduled to be open.

I don’t know how much good it will do but this is one of the most visible legal means of protesting government policy.  Enjoy it while it lasts.

Feel free to post your thoughts on marching – or not marching – at my blog here. 

New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson is running for President. While Richardson is not hugely active on the international scene, you may remember him as the man who helped broker a cease-fire in Darfur.

But what I’m really interested in here is the media’s coverage of his announcement. Here are a handful of the headlines I’ve seen over the weekend:

• Bill Richardson announces bid for White House
• Richardson Touts Experience As Cure For Underdog Status
• Democrat Richardson seeks office
• New Mexico governor takes first step toward White House bid
• Richardson to Seek Democratic Nomination

Basically just the sort of headlines you’d expect for this story, right? Now lets look at the take News Corporation’s The Australian has on it:

Latino throws his sombrero in ring

Is it just me or is that an odd choice of headline?

Antiwar Radio: Frida Berrigan

For Monday January 22, 2007, Antiwar Radio features Frida Berrigan, senior research associate at the World Policy Institute and member of the National Committee of the War Resisters League about her great article “Raptors, Robots and Rods from God,” on the subject of the U.S. military’s plans for the future technology of mass murder.

MP3 here.

Frida Berrigan is a Senior Research Associate with the Arms Trade Resource Center of the World Policy Institute. A graduate of Hampshire College in Amherst, Massachusetts, Frida worked with a Central America solidarity organization for two years before coming to the World Policy Institute. Maintaining an interest in U.S. foreign policy towards Latin America, she also focuses on nuclear weapons policy, weapons sales to areas of conflict particularly in SE Asia, and military training programs. Most recently she has published articles in the Providence Journal, the Nonviolent Activist and the Hartford Courant.

Comments welcome at Stress.

But you should read what Arthur Silber and Jonathan Schwarz have to say anyway, because they present two unpopular arguments better than anyone else has.

Antiwar.com is pleased to announce the winners of its first-ever Student Essay Contest, held summer 2006. We had numerous entrants, and we congratulate all who took the time and energy to give us their views. In particular we are happy to report participation from around the world – although as Antiwar.com’s readership is quite international, this really should be no surprise. All participants will receive a Certificate of Participation; winners will receive a check and Certificate of Award.

Senior division (10th/11th/12th/just graduated)
1st: Michael Long, USA
2nd: Jamie Stern-Weiner, UK
3rd: Hilary Worden, USA
Honorable Mention: Masumba David, Uganda
Honorable Mention: Khadija Hassam, Dubai UAE

Junior division (9th grade or younger)
1st: Madeline Reese, USA
2nd: Ayn Codina, Costa Rica
3rd: Stephanie Augustine, USA

We will be running the winning entries over the course of the next two weeks. First up is Stephanie Augustine of the United States, 3rd-place winner in the junior division.