Antiwar.com Blog

From Democracy Now:

The resolutions, every single one, and it got up to 56, more than 52, every single resolution begins with a plea to support and respect the troops. We need these people here. They’re first responders, they’re family, they’re friends, they’re workers down the street. They make up the fabric of society in Vermont. They’re an important part of that fabric. So, we began with that, and Amy, it wasn’t just lip service, as some have suggested. The rest of the resolution also supports members of the Guard. Let me just give you the high points of what we asked for. We asked for our legislature to assess the impact of the deployment, not just on readiness, but on our communities, on our families. We’re asking the delegation, Senator Leahy, Senator Jeffords, Congressman Sanders, to help restore a reasonable balance between states and the federal government, not in the case of every war, only in what we call “wars of choice.” We know that if this country is attacked, if there’s an emergency, if there’s an insurrection under the Constitution, there is no question that Guard members have signed up to serve, and that they would serve, and they would serve with enthusiasm and a sense of duty. Wars of choice are a whole different phenomenon. They’re relatively new. We have no national policy governing the use of these wars. It’s a big omission.

Vermont has lost more soldiers per capita than any state, and has the second highest mobilization rate for its National Guard and reservists.

The US congress has certainly come a long way since the days of John C. Calhoun and John Quincy Adams. Amy Goodman and Jackson Thoreau have both reported that congressman Sam Johnson (R-Texas) has called on president Bush to nuke Syria. Thoreau quotes Johnson as having said (at a church gathering, of all places – are these our old pals the Fundies?);

“Syria is the problem. Syria is where those weapons of mass destruction are, in my view. You know, I can fly an F-15, put two nukes on ’em and I’ll make one pass. We won’t have to worry about Syria anymore.”

Thoreau says the church crowd “roared with applause”. Now, I’m sure the administration is not seriously thinking about dropping the bomb on Syria, and that Johnson can’t possibly be the homicidal maniac he sounds like here. But this is still extremely inappropriate language for any US Representative to be using at this particular moment. What are the Syrians supposed to think?
And shame on this allegedly Christian (I’m assuming it’s some branch of Christianity) crowd for cheering Johnson. Do you suppose Christ would have cheered?

I also happened to catch this on the telly. The only thing James Wolcott left out of his otherwise spot-on post is that CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer is an alumnus of the Likudist Jerusalem Post and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.

Gary Leupp, writing in Counterpunch;

Before Bush’s Tribunal of Freedom and Godliness, Syria stands guilty until proven innocent. The sentence on its regime was pronounced even before this Year Four, as was the sentence on Iran. The plan is to execute both before Year Five. “This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous,” declared Bush in Europe. “Having said that, all options are on the table.” Indeed all the cards are on the table, they are all ridiculous, because they’re all in the same suit, all marked: “Attack!”

(emphasis mine)

William Rivers Pitt has a flawed, but compelling analysis of American Empire (posted at truthout.org), which he sees as having taken place in three stages;

There have been three stages of American empire since the creation of this nation. Each has fed the other, and each has been established and fortified by war. More importantly, each has been fortified by the vast profits derived by the few in the making of war. The first two stages did not collapse, so much as they were absorbed by the next iteration, carrying over all circumstances and attendant difficulties. We exist today within the third stage of empire, one that is sick at the core.

I would have to disagree with Pitt on his view of Fundies, or ‘Movement Conservatives’, as he calls them. Since when have these whack jobs wanted to roll back the New Deal? They talk a good game about limiting government and so forth, but the Fundie is the biggest socialist of all. And which entitlement programs have been “gutted”? Did Reagan gut any entitlement programs?

Is Paul Wolfowitz getting kicked upstairs?

From Aghanistan to Iraq to the World Bank — the list of neocon conquests is impressive. What’s next — the Vatican? Or perhaps they aim a bit higher ….