Antiwar.com Blog

Just in case anybody hasn’t gotten around to watching this yet.

The Huffington Post is headlining the latest congressional Democrat to find his cajones when it comes to the Iraq war, and they direct us to this Seattle Times story, which relates the “agonizing” of Rep. Norm Dicks (D-Washington) over the issue, and informs us of the following rationale for Dicks “loudly and proudly” supporting the invasion:

“Dicks thought Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and wouldn’t hesitate to use them against the United States.”

What a load of crap: there is no other way to put it. Does Rep. Dicks really expect us to believe he was convinced the Iraqis were about to nuke Seattle? Get off it, Norm — you aren’t fooling anybody.

Not even the President — deluded as he is — really believed that cock-&-bull story about Saddam bombing American cities from the air using unmanned drones. As the Washington Post reported

“In an Oct. 7, 2002, speech, Bush mentioned a potential threat to the U.S. mainland being explored by Iraq through unmanned aircraft ‘that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons.’ The basis for that analysis was a single report that an Iraqi general in late 2000 or early 2001 indicated interest in buying autopilots and gyroscopes for Hussein’s UAV program. The manufacturer automatically included topographic mapping software of the United States in the package.

“… Senior members of Congress were told in September 2002 that this was the “smoking gun” in a special briefing by Vice President Cheney and then-CIA Director George J. Tenet. By January 2003, however, it became publicly known that the director of Air Force intelligence dissented from the view that UAVs were to be used for biological or chemical delivery, saying instead they were for reconnaissance. In addition, according to the president’s commission, the CIA “increasingly believed that the attempted purchase of the mapping software . . . may have been inadvertent.”

Rep. Dicks is, quite simply, lying. He voted for the war for the same reason as most of his Democratic colleagues: because it was popular. Because he was caught up in the post-9/11 hysteria generated by the War Party. Because he has reflexively supported U.S. military intervention overseas, along with the Democratic party Establishment, without giving it so much as a second thought. And now he — and plenty of others like him — wants to do what’s popular, now, and jump on the antiwar bandwagon.

Not so fast, bub.

These people — yes, I’m talking about the Democrats in Congress — need to be held accountable just as much (if not more so) than the Republicans. They, after all, empowered the War Party: they gave a bipartisan gloss to a decision that led to the worst strategic disaster in American history. They didn’t just sit on their hands and let the pro-war wave wash over them — they stood and applauded, “loudly and proudly,” as the war fever reached fever pitch.

To hell with them. To hell with Norm Dicks. Let them pay the political consequences of their complete lack of leadership — and, yes, their cowardice — as the winds of war swept away all opposition except for the stalwart resistance of a few.

While the left-Democrats over at the Huffington Post are too busy attending glitzy parties and bashing Walmart for selling affordable products to working-class people who want to increase their own standard of living — and, unlike Arianna, can’t afford to shop on Rodeo Drive — to notice that the blame for this war extends to both parties, Antiwar.com will not shy away from the truth: Norm Dicks, and every single member of Congress who voted for this war, should do the honorable thing: apologize (especially to the families of the fallen), or fall on their swords and resign.

As the war in Iraq drags on, less and less attention is being payed to the daily carnage there.

In addition to the hundreds of Iraqis dying every week, an average of three American troops are dying every day there. In the first 24 days of this month, 76 GIs have lost their lives.

A total of 2,105 US troops have died in Iraq since the invasion.

Frequent contributor Jorge Hirsch writes:

Iran dropped a bombshell with a full-page ad in last Friday’s New York Times (Nov. 18, 2005, p. A11). It presents clear factual information and levelheaded arguments on what kind of nuclear program Iran is pursuing and why, and why the European offer to Iran of August 2005 is not acceptable to Iran. Iran’s ad has information that I found illuminating, including the reasons for Iran’s desire for nuclear energy, the reasons given by Iran for why they did not disclose their program for many years, details of the negotiating process started in 2003, and details of Iran’s proposals aimed at providing reassurance that it is not pursuing nuclear weapons.

I hope people will read these documents and make their own evaluations. I hope the Europeans and the United States will respond to Iran’s points with equally clear, factual information and levelheaded arguments that the rest of the world can understand, rather than with real bombshells.

Since I could not find the Iran NYT ad elsewhere on the Web, it is reproduced verbatim below.

Continue reading “Are Iran’s Arguments Sound?”

Arthur Silber has a thorough treatment of the latest in the Padilla case. There’s good news and bad news:

The good news is the Supreme Court will not have an opportunity in the near future to declare that the president has dictatorial powers. That’s very good news in one sense, and it shouldn’t be underestimated. The bad news is that the Court also will not have the opportunity to say that he doesn’t have such powers. That’s the risk the administration wasn’t willing to take.

Read the whole thing.

Frequent contributor Jorge Hirsch writes:

“Iran dropped a bombshell with a full-page ad in last Friday’s New York Times (Nov. 18, 2005, p. A11). It presents clear factual information and levelheaded arguments on what kind of nuclear program Iran is pursuing and why, and why the European offer to Iran of August 2005 is not acceptable to Iran. Iran’s ad has information that I found illuminating, including the reasons for Iran’s desire for nuclear energy, the reasons given by Iran for why they did not disclose their program for many years, details of the negotiating process started in 2003, and details of Iran’s proposals aimed at providing reassurance that it is not pursuing nuclear weapons.

“I hope people will read these documents and make their own evaluations. I hope the Europeans and the United States will respond to Iran’s points with equally clear, factual information and levelheaded arguments that the rest of the world can understand, rather than with real bombshells.

“Since I could not find the Iran NYT ad elsewhere on the Web, it is reproduced verbatim below.” Continue reading “Are Iran’s Arguments Sound?”