Greatest Strategic Disaster in US History
views are so shocking, one wonders what your evidence is.
One story that
has not appeared anywhere else in the news is that contained in the New Yorker
"Talk of the Town" this week. It concerns the lengths important figures
have had to go to warn people that we have no homeland defense and are in great
danger. Can you comment on this?
~ Caroline Luckie
Craig Roberts replies:
have no homeland defense against the Bush administration, which is systematically
destroying the civil rights that are the foundation of American liberty. Specifically:
Habeas Corpus (destroyed by the PATRIOT Act), the attorney-client privilege (destroyed
by the Lynne Stewart case), and the First Amendment (destroyed by the implications
of "you are with us or against us"). We have no homeland defense against the Bush
administration involving us in naked aggression based entirely on deceit. We have
no homeland defense against the Bush administration expanding its warmongering
to Syria and Iran (or anywhere else). We have no homeland defense against the
great and inexplicable ignorance of Bush supporters. Where do these people come
from? How can they fall for obvious lies day after day? How can they possibly
be so ignorant of the Middle East? Why do they believe that only terrorists will
be abused by the suspension of civil liberties? Why are no other countries in
the world – except the U.S. and Israel – worried about Iran and Syria and N. Korea?
Why aren't S. Korea and China and Japan beating the drums for attacking N. Korea?
I have been following your analysis of the Bush administration policies for quite
a while. I see things exactly as you do and wonder how we can get your analysis
into the mainstream media and out to where the general public might pay attention.
Craig Roberts replies:
"mainstream media" is highly concentrated, owned essentially by three companies
run for advertising profits. There is nothing mainstream about "the mainstream
media." The mainstream media is online.
of the Absurd
Malic in his recent article is discussing a new version of a Hamlet play in Sarajevo.
If I had read the article on a popular theater Web site, I would understand why
it is there, but finding the article on Antiwar.com has surprised me. I have read
the article with an avid interest, but the article reminded me of "unbiased" reports
during 1990s produced by Radio-Television of Serbia (RTS), which is a state-owned
news and public broadcasting agency based in Belgrade. ...
As it has been
stated on Antiwar.com, Mr. Malic left Bosnia after the Dayton accord, which
means that he left Bosnia at the end of 1995 or some time during 1996. On the
last consensus held in former Yugoslavia in spring of 1991, and the organization
of the consensus that began in late 1980s, the population in Bosnia-Herzegovina
had a right to declare (if they wanted) that they were speaking a Bosnian language.
The first democratic elections in Bosnia were held in autumn of 1990, when the
Croat, Muslim, and Serbian nationalist parties took power in Bosnia. The new
government consisted of the members from these nationalistic parties. HOWEVER!
The new government could not change the consensus regulations set by the previous
Bosnian and Yugoslavian government (may I add, a communist government)! Therefore,
Mr. Malic's arguments that the Bosnian language is a product of Bosnian Muslim
politicians are completely false! Not only did the Bosnian Muslims not have
a political party at the time of setting up the consensus regulations, but they
were majorly pro-Yugoslavian, and most of the Muslims on the last consensus
declared that they spoke Serbo-Croatian, which was one of the officials languages
in Yugoslavia, because they believed they would betray the Yugoslavian idea
if they decided to choose the Bosnian language as a name of their mother tongue.
strongly believe that Mr. Malic should have known these facts if he had lived
in Bosnia until mid 1990s. However, Mr. Malic's blatant ignoring of historic facts
is outrageous, so I feel that the further discussion of the rest article is completely
first part of your "argument" is a false analogy, completely unrelated
to anything I've ever written or even the matter at hand, so I will not dignify
it with a response.
second part had me confused for a moment, since you spoke of "consensus"
(which means unanimous agreement) when you meant "census" (statistical
survey of the population). Nonetheless, having deciphered this, I have to wonder:
what exactly are you arguing? That Bosnian Muslims were overwhelmingly pro-Yugoslav
on the 1990 census, and said they spoke Serbo-Croatian? But that proves my point:
the "Bosnian" language and the "Bosniak" nation were introduced
as political constructs in 1993-94, by the Izetbegovic government, in an effort
to delegitimize the Serbs and Croats of Bosnia. At the 1991 census, "Bosnian"
language and "Bosniak" ethnicity did not exist. Hence my description
of "Bosnian" as a "politically motivated product of Muslim leaders'
desire for linguistic distinction" is entirely correct.
for "blatant ignoring of historical facts," I cite your statement that
the Bosnian Muslims did not have a political party at the time of the census.
The "Party of Democratic Action" (SDA) was the first ethnic party in
Bosnia-Herzegovina, founded before the Communist laws banning ethnic political
organizations had been repealed (indeed, it was a SDA lawyer, Kasim Trnka, that
engineered their repeal), and thus had to choose a neutral name. Izetbegovic's
words and deeds have clearly shown since then that its "democratic action"
(if any) has been in the service of an Islamic fundamentalist agenda. It is an
agenda that has hurt the Bosnian Muslims most of all, as well as damaged inter-ethnic
relations in Bosnia to such a point they might not be repaired, ever. And that's
a historical fact.
Is Cooking Up Two More Wars
I stand in utter
contempt of the Bush administration. It has demonstrated a mind-numbing combination
of arrogance and utter ignorance. Yet I still find it difficult to believe that
they would do something so perilous to the world at large, i.e., launch a nuclear
attack on Iran and/or North Korea. With potential threats to Israel's existence,
the prospect of disruption of oil flow and the possibility of war in the Far
East, do you really think they would try this? To make sense, they would have
to be completely dedicated to Armageddon, perhaps believing in the Rapture and
other absurd notions. Well, perhaps they do. Have you actually seen some documentation
of such invasion plans?
Kwei J Quartey, M.D.
Craig Roberts replies:
see now. The Pentagon has revised its war doctrine, now calling for "preventive
nuclear attack" against non-nuclear adversaries. Bush, Condi Rice, et al., continuously
issue military threats against Iran, Syria, and N. Korea. The U.S. has no troops
to spare. The U.S. has not enough available troops to deal with Iraq. So what
will the U.S. use to attack Iran, Syria, and N. Korea?
scenario is my greatest fear. How can this president, with low ratings and no
credibility, take us into two more wars, use nuclear weapons, and survive the
wrath of the Congress and the American people? Surely a nuclear attack on Iran
and Syria would mean Bush's ouster.
John H. Bohn
Craig Roberts replies:
Bush attacked Iraq and everyone acquiesced. He probably believes he can get
away with it a second time. Agatha Christie said that a person who gets away
with one murder will do a second. Hitler grabbed two countries. It was only
with the third (Poland) that war started.
War Is the Question
know very little about ANSWER but I do know that Krauthammer, perhaps the most
bitter and cruel of the neocons, is making much the same case against ANSWER that
Marc Cooper makes in a piece carried today on Antiwar.com.
will be used to divide and conquer the antiwar movement if we permit it. After
ANSWER will come Cindy Sheehan, and the nauseating Krauthammer uses ANSWER to
get at Sheehan. And of course he uses red-baiting to get at ANSWER. (I thought
with the end of the Cold War, we should have seen the end of that.)
Sheehan will come UFPJ and then Antiwar.com.
the Dems are saying to their antiwar base that they would not appear at the demo
because of ANSWER, an argument made by Cooper. Well then why did they not organize
their own antiwar rally which with their resources would have been much larger?
No, ANSWER is the wedge to divide us. We should not give in to that. ANSWER worked
very hard to organize the rally and they count as a colleague Ramsey Clark, a
great anti-imperialist. And they have the following of many youth who loved their
speakers. If ANSWER is successfully attacked, then another ANSWER will emerge,
and we will start over again. And the exclusion of ANSWER will take many idealistic
young people out of the antiwar movement. That will be a major defeat for us.
do not know much about the Marxist group that may or may not stand behind ANSWER.
While the now-dead Communist movement was wrong about many things, it sure was
right about imperialism. So let us guard against divisions and protect the weakest
among us. To do so is to protect us all. ...
~ John Walsh
Corn's latest arrogance is infuriating. Corn's derision of Americans who went
to D.C. to protest is that 300,000 Americans are irrelevant. But Corn hasn't
offered an alternative for ordinary Americans. ... JUST WHAT DOES CORN THINK
ordinary Americans can do, except everything they can think of – including protest?
We aren't invited to Washington Journal to show off our talent like Corn.
We aren't all articulate Cindy Sheehans. We don't all have organizations paying
for our voices to be heard. We aren't invited to, nor can we afford to, travel
from one media venue to another to be interviewed. Ordinary Americans do everything
we can do, including stand up and be counted. We represent thousands of others
who couldn't be there on the day of the event. ANSWER is not the issue; mainstream
America came to D.C. out of frustration with this administration. Corn's dismissal
is arrogant, infuriating, and depressing. Corn rejects our Constitutional right
– indeed, responsibility – to "petition our government for redress of grievances."
Is Corn even able to contemplate his ultimate betrayal in this sense? What's
worse, we are so irrelevant that Corn doesn't even have to respond to those
who read his dismissals of them because he doesn't provide e-mail for responses.
Cleric Exposed as an MI5 Double Agent
this is why Bush isn't looking for Osama bin Laden and blames Iraq for 9/11?
there ANYTHING about this war that is real?
Oh yes, the thousands of dead
and Espionage: Guilty as Hell
again a great article. It really points out to me just how corrupt and traitorous
our government is. When the top officials of the government have no shame or fear
of impropriety by their attending the annual meeting of AIPAC in the middle of
an investigation into espionage which resulted in the indictment of two of that
organization's top officials, it really points out the need for a McCarthy-type
purge of our federal government. The only question is would there be anyone left?