Yes, how in the world do they get away with it? Are we that ignorant and stupid in this country to want to reelect a president who has done nothing but make a complete mockery of the Constitution and the rule of law, caused close to 8,000 needless American casualties in a needless war, made us the most hated and mistrusted country in the world, and all but destroyed our army’s capability to respond to a real threat for years?
How is it that the criminals running the country are being allowed to get away with the horrendous crimes they have committed against their country and humanity? How is it that a group that has behaved so irresponsibly, that has done so much damage to the country and the great principles it represents, has not been impeached or driven out of office in disgrace? And, yes, where in God’s name have the press and the media been, in the greatest democracy the world has ever seen? It appears that the only ones in the world to be cowed by our military show of strength in Iraq were not our enemies, but the great, independent and free-thinking American media, one of the cornerstones of any true and successful democracy.
In response to Dr. Roberts’ admonishment to disband our intelligence agencies, I would ask, much as did he, how can any presumably informed person, pose such an idiot question? How can any informed person, such as Dr. Roberts, in writing an essay concerning faulty intel, not be aware, or if unaware, negligent of including the fact that the Pentagon’s intel concerning the invasion of Iraq was subverted and stovepiped through D. Feith’s (now defunct) Office of Special Plans? Clearly there is much to rework within the intel community to assure reliable info, but the disbanding of our intel agencies especially those within the Pentagon, could in no way serve the best interests of this country, its citizens nor their safety. Since Dr. Roberts wants to play, “What if?” I humbly ask him to answer his own question. What more monstrous federal hydra headed behemoth would fill the void left by disbanding our ailing intel agencies?
Paul Craig Roberts replies:
This reader needs to learn to read. I am making a rhetorical point. I stick by it. If our intelligence agencies gave such totally false information, they are far too great a threat to be permitted to continue in existence.
This article is absolutely right on target. I have been always bothered by the fact of the missing WMD. I questioned in silence why nobody was suspicious of the fact that WMD (biological, chemical or nuclear) require a high level of knowledge, industrial installations and huge amounts of money; then a group of demons gets them …, then cleverly hides them so successfully that an army of sophisticated inspectors (Blix and others from the UN) followed by thousands of military personnel, free to go anywhere, couldn’t find any trace of them. If the Saddam brutes were not hesitant to use them back in the ’80s, why now that the country was invaded by their worst enemy was no effort attempted to use them!? It is evident that no one believed the false premises to justify the war. Not Bush nor his cabinet, nor the CIA, nor the military commanders. And the press was a silent accomplice.
At this moment there is a blackout on news about casualties, except by Antiwar.com. I see the numbers rising but nothing in CNN, MSNBC or the networks. Nothing in the printed press either.
What does the persistence of such falsehoods say about the U.S. media? More importantly, what does the persistence of such falsehoods say about the unbelievable STUPIDITY of the American public? Pretty much sums up this whole sordid business.
Paul Craig Roberts replies:
“If you favor the return of the draft and war without end, vote Republican.”
Oh God!
And how do you think that voting Democrat will be any different?
Paul Craig Roberts replies:
Regardless, Bush must be held accountable. Voting Democrat is the only way to do it.
My one comment would be that there is a close correspondence between the percentage of the population of the USA believing the lies and the percentage of the population of the USA who are functionally illiterate.
My understanding is that well over 40% (I think I heard 48% last week) of USA adults have significant difficulties reading. Those people have to rely on the sound-bite electronic media reports for information and have no counter-information presented to them, unlike the people reading newspapers and the Internet new sources. The USA’s electronic media have been ultimately responsible for conditioning the population to accept the lies of the administration.
Paul Craig Roberts replies:
Could be. Could also be mindless patriotism, people who have wrapped themselves in the flag.
Poor Choice for a Fake Casus Belli
Gordon Prather wrote:
“The consequence of ‘liberating’ Iraq needn’t have been nukes getting loose, perhaps getting into the hands of terrorists. As far as the neo-crazies were concerned, any excuse would have done.”
Please tell him, that I believe he intended to say rationale for.
~ Greg Settles, Nolensville, TN
Gordon Prather replies:
Without question the use of Saddam’s nonexistent nuke program as a pretense for invading Iraq has vastly increased your chances of being nuked.
But that need not have been the consequence of Operation Iraqi Freedom.
If, for example, the polls had showed that soccer-moms would support Operation Iraqi Freedom if hard, convincing, evidence could be found that Saddam Hussein was producing kiddie-porn and posting it on the Internet, then the neo-crazies in the White House and in the Pentagon would have ‘found’ such “evidence.”
If kiddie-porn had been the casus belli – rather than nonexistent loose nukes – Bush would still have launched Operation Iraqi Freedom. Congress would still have supported the invasion. Billions of dollars would still have been spent and thousands of US troops would still have been killed or maimed.
Seems to me it’s not stupidity, it’s smart if you are enriched and kept powerful by manufacturing enemies. Follow the money. Nearly half a trillion dollars is being spent for “defense” that didn’t keep us safe from 20 fanatics with box cutters and that now generates terrorists faster than they can be killed.
Keep up the good work. …
Etc.
As a previous contributor to Antiwar.com, I feel encouraged to mention that, for news junkies like us, your site seems awful sluggish to gather and present the news. To be specific, the amount of labor involved in updating the site seems minimal.
I also find blog entries presented under the news rubrics to be misleading.
Further, I wish you would source your headlines to their provider on the main page – don’t make me go to the article before I can find that it is written, for example, by the lying Washington Times.
Overall, the visual presentation on your site leaves a lot to be desired in terms of clarity and discipline.
I’d like to thank you for your good efforts and encourage you to excel.
Matt Barganier replies:
Antiwar.com is not primarily a breaking news source. Most of our readers will probably have heard of any huge news event before checking our page. We try to comb the Web for the most detailed and relevant stories on a given event, including details that are either buried or omitted altogether in the mainstream press. That takes time. Of course, we could just run the Reuters or Associated Press feed on the page and let readers pick through it themselves – which wouldn’t be very useful, would it?
As for sources, why do you assume that a story from the Washington Times cannot be valuable? There are serious, talented journalists at many outlets whose general editorial slant may be problematic. One story from Fox News describing a foreign-policy foul-up is worth ten from Mother Jones, because no one can scream about Fox’s anti-Bush bias.
The other problems seem to be rather subjective. Some people like the site design, some don’t. We can’t please everyone.
Do you know any place I can find a map that shows what areas in Iraq where the casualties have been? …
Do you know where the heaviest concentration of casualties have been? I know someone going over soon and would like to know how safe or not-safe the area is.
Michael Ewens replies:
I suppose that you could use the filters available on this site: http://icasualties.org/oif/Details.aspx.
Select Country: US and Place of Death: wherever and see which ones have the highest number. I warn you though that this is not a reliable gauge of what will happen in the future. For example, Najaf was fairly peaceful for nearly 10 months and now it has the highest casualty rate.
I like your page a lot, it is part of my daily routine. I have noticed that you are staying out of the Kerry war service debate. I think it is telling a lot about your editorial stance. You had a lot about Bush’s problems when he had his turn but you ignore Kerry’s attempt to cash in on his time as part of the war party and the fact that he is no different than Bush when it comes to war. You are giving Kerry a pass in a very hypocritical way.
Eric Garris replies:
Not true, we ran very little about that issue. And we ran more about Bush’s defense on this issue than the people who were attacking him.
I personally think Bush was much more moral for staying out of war than Kerry, who was willing to kill.
To me the most profound change seen in America today by some of us who have served in America’s wars is viewing the disdain seen towards those who did serve and the admiration extended to those who avoided serving. There may be many theories why this has occurred. My view is that Americans have held a certain love for the wise guys in our society. For example, who is more admired – the honest trash collector or the criminals in our society? I have yet to see a movie made with a trash collector portrayed as a hero; the success of The Sopranos says much about our nation’s attitudes. In the past, having served in our military was a virtue exploited by many of our leaders. The results today seem to indicate Americans feel anyone stupid enough to have served is unfit to lead this nation. Few … of the people who have gotten us into this mess in Iraq wore an American uniform. The disdain often openly expressed towards enlisted personnel is surely one of America’s best kept secrets. Is this because they are members of our minorities, often undereducated and poor, thus more easily deployed to distant forays because our leaders believe them to be expendable nobodies whose family members are often forced to subsist on Food Stamps while those who avoided serving (such as many of Bush’s advisors) have amassed fortunes from the wars they helped to start?
~ SBjr
