Antiwar.com Blog

As we say here at Antiwar.com, the best way to spread the best parts of the American way – the rights of the individual, free markets, self-government and so forth – is by example. That when we export our way with force, we lose our own liberty and, by killing people overseas and setting a bad example for those who would like to emulate us, we make matters worse for the average foreigner.

As John Quincy Adams put it in 1821:

“[America] has seen that probably for centuries to come, all the contests of that Aceldama the European world, will be contests of inveterate power, and emerging right. Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy.

“She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example.

“She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom.

“The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force. She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit….”

Here is an anecdote from an Antiwar.com reader in the comment section at my blog Stress. It seemed honest enough to pass on to the rest of ya’ll and a good way to illustrate the larger point:

“Did you know that the Malaysian government used America’s pre-emptive strike policy and Guantanamo Bay as an excuse/example when they decided to detain people indefinitely wihout trial? Their reason: ‘If America, the leader of the free world could do it, why not us?'”

Nice, huh?

(Note: I realize that “spreading freedom” as the driving force for the American empire has always been a bunch of propagada for children and the weak-minded, but still, the point is worth bringing up – if only to knock it down.)

Comments welcome at Stress.

And I thought his speeches were pathetic…

Here are a couple of parts of Bush’s Friday press conference that warrant some review (There are more, but I no longer have the patience.):

“QUESTION: Mr. President, former Secretary of State Colin Powell says the world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism. If a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and former secretary of state feels this way, don’t you think that Americans and the rest of the world are beginning to wonder whether you’re following a flawed strategy?

BUSH: If there’s any comparison between the compassion and decency of the American people and the terrorist tactics of extremists, it’s flawed logic.

It’s just – I simply can’t accept that.”

Thing is, Colin Powell, lying war criminal that he is, didn’t compare Bush to the terrorists. He simply said that when the President of the United States goes to Capital Hill demanding authority to torture people and use their coerced “confessions” in military “courts,” the basic bankrupt assumption of the American government’s power overseas – that they are killing people for their own good – is undermined. And that if foreigners quit believing in “our” benevolent motives (did anyone, ever?), it will make it more difficult to maintain our world empire over them.

Far too little, and way too late for you, Colin.

But Bush’s guilty conscience seems to have gotten in the way of his ability to address the question (What argument could he have made?), and he managed to instead only indict himself as the terrorist he was trying to deny he was to the question that was not asked:

“It’s unacceptable to think that there’s any kind of comparison between the behavior of the United States of America and the action of Islamic extremists who kill innocent women and children to achieve an objective.”

So The Evil Terroristsâ„¢ kill women and children to achieve an objective, huh? That’s what makes them different from him? So does that mean that Bush kills just because he’s a psychopath with no ends in mind? And that’s what makes it okay?

And what is this about the Terroristsâ„¢ having objectives? What about they are pure evil, ideologically-motivated madmen who hate us for our freedom and all of that?

Also, in the “equivalency of our leaders and those of our enemies” category; “Commander in Chief doesn’t give a rat’s ass about his soldiers” section, see here. When asked, “But, sir, with respect, if other countries interpret the Geneva Conventions as they see fit, as they see fit, you’re saying that you’d be OK with that?” Bush responded:

“I am saying that I would hope that they would adopt the same standards we adopt.”

Wow. There you have it folks. If American POWs have to be tortured so that Bush can torture, then that’s just fine with him. But he couldn’t have meant that. Right?

“QUESTION: This will not endanger U.S. troops in your…

BUSH: Next man?

QUESTION: This will not endanger…

BUSH: David, next man please. Thank you.”

—————-

In other news, the History Channel now says that Jefferson’s war against the Barbary Pirates was America’s “first War on Terrorism,” so I guess we’re all on board now.

(Comments welcome over at Stress.)

It seems to me that when the Bush administration makes loud accusations about a Middle Eastern state’s “weapons of mass destruction” programs, the average Joe would question it.

After all, they must have made up a hundred lies about Iraq: that the motivation for the invasion was to protect the people of America, that Iraq had “reconstituted nuclear weapons” (the evidence for which was forged documents and rocket tubes), that Saddam had a “long-standing relationship” with al Qaeda (providing training for plane hijackings, support for Mohammed Atta in Prague, even a wooden leg for abu-Musab al-Zarqawi), that there were storehouses full of “anthrax, sarin and VX nerve gas” “north, south, east and west of [Baghdad and Tikrit] somewhat,” that there were fleets of remote control planes that could fly to America and spray people with germs, that the Sunni insurgency fights for their “crazed ideology,” that “we’re making progress,” that…

Now the administration claims that Iran is working on a nuclear weapon. This even though anyone who watches closely can tell you that Iran’s capability to produce enriched uranium is far from what is required to produce weapons grade material. The CIA says it would take them a decade if they were to begin trying now, and the International Atomic Energy Agency has had open access to all their nuclear sites for more than three years with “no indication” that there is anything untoward going on.

77% percent of the people of this country believe that Iran will have nukes soon. So there’s your fake cassus belli, folks, it’s already done. (Not that Iran having nukes is any of America’s business, but neither I nor the Constitution set the premises around here.)

Congratulations America! Your stupidity and child-like willingness to follow the leader will continue to get untold thousands of people killed.

But every action has an equal and opposite reaction. One may recall the sage advice of the ancient Greek Oracle (via Malcolm Garris): “If the king attacks Persia, he will destroy a great empire.”

(Comments welcome over at Stress.)

The chief judge in the trial of Saddam Hussein says that Saddam was “no dictator.”

This is hilarious. The Bush administration helps arrange a show trial. And they can’t even get the story line straight in a kangaroo court.

The chief prosecutor complained that the judge has allowed “defendants to go too far, with unacceptable expressions and words.”

One presumes that the Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld will make sure the same problem doesn’t happen with the pending tribunals at Guantanamo.

Maybe Bush can arrange to have the same judge in case he is ever put on trial.

[Comment here]

Someone recently asked me, “Why is it that you say America cannot be a republic and an empire?”

Well, my friend, here is your answer: The Secretary of the United States Air Force wants to shoot you with microwave weapons in order, he says, to justify shooting them at foreigners.

“If we’re not willing to use it here against our fellow citizens, then we should not be willing to use it in a wartime situation [and we really want to shoot them at foreigners as soon as possible].”

Now comes the test. Will he be immediately fired, or will we all soon see hippies burning on TV?

(Comment over at Stress.)

Dr. David Beito reports that Historians Against the War has taken a refreshingly focused antiwar stance, welcoming those who don’t subscribe to a larger progressive/leftist platform. Details here.