Antiwar.com Blog

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?”

With the 10th anniversary of the Dayton Peace Accords yesterday, every liar, calumnist and imbecile in the mainstream media has felt the need to flap their gums about it, preferably in the context of paeans to American interventionism, empire and “commitment.” In the same breath that praises the Clintonian Empire for ending the “genocide” in Bosnia, they parrot the current party line that Dayton needs to be revised and abolished, because it simply doesn’t work any more.

“Stephen Schwartz” (a.k.a. Suleyman Ahmad), that old champion of the Islamic cause, goes a step further, claiming that Dayton was unfair (“not felicitous,” to use his flowery prose) to the Muslims of Bosnia. Under its provisions, the 45% (sic!) “plurality”saw “Muslim Bosnia” (sic) reduced to 28% of the country’s territory, just as they “had created a real army that was winning their land back.”

Most of his article in yesterday’s online “Weekly Standard” is the standard prattle of Muslim (or is it “Bosniak”? Ahmad himself doesn’t use the term, strangely enough) apologists: Croatia and Serbia conspired to carve up Bosnia, and were held off only by the lone efforts of heroic and virtuous Alija Izetbegovic; Britain, France and Russia conspired to help the Serb “aggressors” and stop the military intervention on the Muslim side, the only just solution to the war; etc. Continue reading “Delirious Dayton Drivel”

You’ll recall that Jonah Goldberg recently declared anyone who accuses Bush of lying about prewar intelligence “paranoid,” even if Bush did lie. I wonder what Jonah thinks of his ideological chums Michelle Malkin and Glenn Reynolds, who, along with a slew of other imbeciles, were absolutely positive that a momentary live glitch on CNN was evidence of secret al-Qaeda sympathies at the network. I suspect he would say that at least they’re paranoid about something important.

Via.

Profiles in cowardice:

“A close ally, Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, was anxious to open a second axis of attack on Iraq—and was aware of his growing antagonism toward the war. The two met and agreed that he would make his case in private to the party conference. After that, on his own, he would introduce a resolution calling for withdrawal of troops from Iraq ‘at the earliest practicable date.’ Pelosi and the other liberals would keep their distance, while their own Marine charged up the Hill.”

In spite of the pro-Pelosi spin given by Newsweek, this contemptible cowardice on the Democratic House leader’s part makes me ashamed to be a San Franciscan. While Pelosi — who shows up to constituent meetings in $10,000 outfits, bedecked in jewels like some Oriental potentate — keeps her distance, she vicariously gets to enjoy the embarrassment of the Bushies, as she scotches any vote on Murtha’s pro-withdrawal resolution in the House Democratic caucus.

Aside from that, she has yet to apologize to her constituents for voting to endorse the invasion of Iraq. As Stephen Zunes, a professor of political science at the University of San Francisco, points out:

“The day the war broke out in March, San Francisco’s downtown business district was shut down by thousands of anti-war protesters in a spontaneous act of massive civil disobedience. In response, Pelosi denounced the protesters and rushed to the defense of President George W. Bush, voting in favor of a resolution declaring the House of Representatives’ ‘unequivocal support and appreciation to the president …for his firm leadership and decisive action.’ She personally pressed a number of skeptical Democratic lawmakers to support the resolution as well.”

When oh when will the City by the Bay wake up and demand some answers from their Congresswoman?

Meanwhile, this immoral and disgusting war goes on, and we have to continue living in a Bizarro World where phosphorous isn’t a chemical weapon — except when it is.

Send Pelosi and the cowardly Democrats a message: give her a call, and ask her when she’s going to acquire a backbone: 202-225-4965