GoodBye Gancarski
I agree 100% with getting rid of Gancarski, if anything, it should have been done a lot sooner. I’m not sure I could have been as easy on him as you were (maybe you don’t think you were easy on him, but I was thinking of a Singapore-style public bare-assed caning). I can tell you that while reading most of your columns in the last few months, I have only read approximately 3 of Ganky’s in the last year. The reason: they were dull, myopic nonsense. His complaining about money is pathetic and disgusting, especially since there are people like me who work for the site (I’m a researcher) for nothing – and are happy to do so. If he was unsatisfied about the money he could have kept his mouth shut, secure in the knowledge that he didn’t earn his 25 clams. I also agree with rejecting the Moore column.
Why the hell should antiwar.com spend any time criticizing the antiwar left? They have no power in Washington, and if they did, wouldn’t they get out of Iraq? It’s clearly not helpful-with the exception of your excellent column about Chomsky, which pointed out that he’s really not anti-war at all, except when the war involves commies losing. I’ve listened to every one of Chomsky’s lectures on the web, and I’ve had the same concerns as you – all his talk about "International Tribunals" and "World Courts" is incompatible with a real anarchist. But that wasn’t the thrust of the Gankster’s attack on Moore, which was really just 5th grade sandbox name-calling. I also had a problem with Gank the Wank’s column about MoveOn.org’s comparison of Bush and Hitler. Although Ganky may have been right in a broad sense, don’t you think there’s a resemblance in diplomatic strategy? Both regimes use military threats: ‘Do what we want or we’ll crush you’ in place of real diplomacy. That column seemed out of place on the site, frankly. It distracted from, and confused the thematic drive of the site, which is that the neocons have to go because they’re dangerous as hell. Let me weigh in on your now-classic "Go F%$# Yourself" column – the one that deeply offended Gankookski. It was fabulous, I read it and laughed my guts out, just like your more recent review of Dubya’s disastrous appearance on Meet the Press. I’ll bet more people read that column because of the shocking tag-line than would have otherwise. You know Ganky got another job awfully fast. I wonder if he’s been talking to Horowitz for awhile about this? Perhaps I’ve been too hard on the Gankster. His columns did have one redeeming feature; they were a great cure for insomnia.
How would you respond to David Bedein’s argument about the origin of the Katif settlements?:
“Sharon, eager to placate State Department interest in the evacuation of Israeli settlements, announced that he was ordering the evacuation of the 17 Israeli settlements in the Katif district, the prosperous farming settlements that lie to the south of Gaza. Over the years, I have conducted numerous press tours to visit the UN Arab refugee camps and the Israeli Jewish settlements in Gaza.”
“There is a standard Gazan Arab response about what the Arabs consider to be ‘illegal Israeli settlements,’ and it does not include the Katif farming communities. From the point of view of the Arab refugee population in Gaza, the people who live in Katif did not uproot a single inch of Arab land, since these communities were founded on empty sand dunes. From the point of view of the Arabs in Gaza, the “illegal Israeli settlements” are spread throughout the Negev and the Israeli coastal region, where tens of Arab villages were uprooted following the failed invasion of the nascent Jewish state by the armies of five Arab nations in 1948.”
Ran HaCohen replies:
David Bedein seems to suggest that “proper” Israeli towns should be dismantled and their land given back to their Palestinian inhabitants. He is entitled to such extremist views, though my own way is more moderate.
I also do not pretend to speak on behalf of Gazan refugees, but as an Israeli. I have no data about use and ownership of the Gush Katif lands before their occupation by Israel, and I do not trust Bedein’s claims. But even if the dunes were empty, they belong to the Gazans and not to Israel, just like empty dunes in Florida belong to the State of Florida and not to neighbouring Cuba.
I wonder what Mr. Bedein would do if, say, Cuban army occupied his neighbourhood and gave every “empty” acre to Cuban settlers, while he and his family are assigned the status of nonentities deprived of any nationality, human and political rights, and subject to continuous siege and curfew. From his extremist disposition, I wouldn’t be surprised if he became a suicide bomber, even without being a refugee like the majority of Gazans.
Kucinich
Why is it that one of the best news sources for the truth about the world and national events has not provided the one real antiwar Democratic candidate a voice? Dennis Kucinich has had his message to the American voter squashed by the corporate media powers in this country because he speaks the truth.
He voted against the war in Iraq, against funding the war and against the PATRIOT Acts – something none of the other candidates did. This man of integrity needs the help of sites like yours. Please give Kucinich the forum he needs to reach the American voter.
Eric Garris replies:
We are a nonprofit 501(C)3 educational organization and are not allowed to endorse or support any candidates. We have provided a number of news stories about Kucinich.
However, I must say that I am extremely disappointed with his campaign’s decision to make a deal to elevate Edwards to competitive status in Iowa in exchange for the promise of a couple of convention delegates. Electoral politics is so counterproductive.
In my opinion, Antiwar.com is a really impressive site, offering countless information and giving impulse to think about the necessity of war. But I would suggest to complete your “Casualties in Iraq” page by the number of the Iraqi soldiers that died last year during the Coalition’s attack. I read something about 60,000 killed soldiers but I do not know any official body count. …
Mike Ewens replies:
I would love to run a count of Iraqi soldiers killed but unfortunately, your source is not reliable. If you have a link or a good count, I will run it the minute that I get it.
Ran HaCohen dances around the issue, in a slightly arrogant way, in his reply to Rafael Wajnsztajn.
Israel is the target of obsessive criticism and/or hatred, and so-called antiwar activists ignore other conflicts and misery in the world. Dissertations could be written trying to explain this, but one small fact is true. Your columnists and your website participate in this.
Ran HaCohen replies:
“Obsessive criticism” compared to what? Please give me other examples of countries that have been running an occupation over millions of people for more than three decades, and then we’ll see. Remember how the world reacted when Iraq occupied Kuwait? And at any rate, judges are seldom impressed by a criminal’s claim that other thugs are still free. Besides, Israel is also the target of obsessive support and/or love, financial and otherwise (by the US government, by Christian fundamentalists etc.), and you don’t complain about that. Israel apologisers always demand for it all the prestige of a modern, western, open democracy – but then they complain when it is judged by these very standards they demand, rather than enjoy “reductions” given to backward third-world dictatorships of which no one expects any better.
Rants
I notice you’re done with the “fun-raising” but I wonder how many of your BIG columnists sent you checks? You give them free airtime and then collect from little folks. Also how come you don’t feature more columns from bloggers who call the NeoGoons outright traitors? I realize you guys are mostly former shell-shocked Repubbers but get some real RANTS ON THERE – okay? …
Mike Ewens replies:
Perhaps they (big columnists) have written checks…. It doesn’t matter, for our “collecting” from the “little folks” is still voluntary, so no harm is done. If you do not feel like contributing, that is your choice. However, if all the “little folks” made that same decision, Antiwar.com would be no more.
“RANTS”? Those are the last things that we want to run. Our site and its commentary attempt to convince and educate. Rants by bloggers (many of which I assume are full of conjecture and ad hominens) do not fit these criteria.
This “11,000” number is quoted quite often. Although I agree that there is an underestimate in the wounded numbers, the 11,000 includes a huge amount of soldiers who get colds, stubbed toes, and other strictly non combat injuries. I can’t speak for Charley Reese, but the site I manage (http://antiwar.com/casualties/) cites the official wounded number because I believe that it most accurately and reliably estimates the cost of combat.
~ Michael Ewens, Associate Editor /Student Coordinator, Antiwar.com
So John Derbyshire is planning to vote for Bush, even though he concedes that the man is an absolute moron. Wow, that’s integrity for you. It is embarrassing to watch fairly intelligent people on the right attempt to defend this crude simpleton. Watching the pitiful Dennis Miller show the other night, it struck me that the guy he was apologizing for would not understand any of his referential humor (and probably not even like him). But that is not the worst of it. The conservative pundits that spin for Bush know he is not just an unread, barley coherent, arrogant, spoiled rich kid, they know he is a world class liar. It is sickening to watch the last drop of integrity ooze out of the Republican party as one whore after another desperately shills for this war criminal. That Alan Keyes is able to make any sense of this administration’s ignoble deeds only confirms my long-held opinion of him as well. And I might add that it is people like Keyes, the lying, nasty conservative writers and pundits, as well as Bush and the rest of his neocon gang, that have forced me out of the Republican party at age 50. I voted Democratic in the last election, and will cheerfully do so again in November. I talk to other recovering Republicans frequently who feel exactly the same. I used to think “Liberal” was a dirty word, but I prefer it to “Conservative” now. It’s like “Christian.” When I see who claims to be one, I want to call myself anything else.
The president’s laughable performance on “Meet the Press” may have reminded Justin Raimondo of George Orwell’s “duckspeak,” but I was reminded of the inane and intentionally comedic ramblings of Prime Minister James Hacker on the ’80s BBC series “Yes, Prime Minister,” who, when forced to give unscripted answers, resorted to stringing along random Churchill quotes.
That, as I say, was intended as comedy. Now it is our reality.
Here’s an interesting development: before the war we kept hearing about THE AXIS OF EVIL – i.e. Iraq, Iran and North Korea. (Never mind that they were totally unconnected in any way.)
Now we see burgeoning before our eyes a real AXIS OF WEASEL – i.e. Washington, London and Canberra. In all three capitals the same weasel talk fills the air to justify an unjustifiable war.
Thank you for the outstanding service you render sane people around the world!
I was taught once that one sure sign that someone is lying is that their eyes unconsciously move to the left – has something to do with the right side of the brain being the one responsible for imagination and fabrication. Bush was CONSTANTLY looking to the left, throughout the entire stuttering ordeal. Never once to the right, or up or down. Always left.
The only time he didn’t seem to be dodging leftwards was when he was going on his spiel about feeding the hungry and curing African AIDS. He apparently really believes in that. …
I‘ve long enjoyed reading your invaluable collection of news stories and columns; in fact, I find your site to be my most valuable source of information regarding the US’s relationship to the rest of the world. But, enough of that. I’m sure you’ve heard this lots of times before, but I was struck by your reference in your February 9 column about how ‘the children’ and lots of trumped-up hyperbole were used to sell the Iraq war to US citizens. It’s interesting to note that the very same methods have been used by drug-war hawks for 30 years to keep slamming more and more nonviolent offenders behind bars. I think the antiwar movement and the anti-prohibition movement could greatly benefit from getting together, since the enemy each battles are drawing nearer and nearer to being one and the same!
~ Kevin McWilliams, Aerospace Engineering Senior, University of Colorado
While I do enjoy reading Antiwar.com’s articles daily, I’d appreciate if you may remove the cigarette off your mouth. It has been there for years! You may inadvertently be advertising for the cigarette companies. …
Justin Raimondo replies:
Hey, the picture is a completely candid and honest one. It’s the Real Me, folks. Take it or leave it.
Bush’s Military Service
I have never seen one person with so many excuses for so much that happens in his life. President Bush tells us that he completed his military service obligation, was honorably discharged, and has pay records to prove it. However, he can’t remember anyone who trained with him at the time. And his commanding officers didn’t see him present for duty during the time in question. Excuses instead of answers! I can remember the names of guys that were in my Army Basic Training and Advanced Individual Training Courses in 1968! If one of them had become President of the United States, I’d be sure to come forward to support him if his military record was suspect.
And don’t be fooled by military pay records. They are not proof of anything other than that Bush was paid. Find out where the checks were sent and who cashed them and where they were cashed. It wouldn’t be the first time that the government has paid someone for work that they didn’t do. Which is called fraud. …
Andrew Vierling claims that the USA had a duty to ‘protect’ (which some might interpret as ‘steal’) the entire Japanese Empire. MacPherson does not cover this point, though Antiwar.com ideology does, albeit indirectly and in relation to today’s conflicts. However, in a confused and confusing trope, Vierling also alleges that “To summarize, no one ever argues that the firebombing of civilian centers like Berlin and Hamburg were unjustified due to the atrocities committed against the Jews during W.W.II, even though ten of thousands of civilians were killed.” But even in 1940 Kingsley Wood (UK Chancellor the the Exchequer) opposed bombing of civilians, albeit on the prudential grounds that this would stop the US from joining the UK’s war (all the same, more credit to the perceived virtues of the US population). And continually, Bishop Bell of Chichester (a member of the House of Lords) denounced on moral grounds the bombing of German civilians. The Independent Labour Party had one MP who opposed the war for much of its length.
And atrocities against the Jews had NOTHING to do with the Allied conduct of the war. Bombing innocent Germans was justified on the grounds (wholly false, as it turned out) that it would break enemy morale. As at Evian 1938 , the Jews were an embarrassment to the ‘democratic’ imperialist powers, or at best a mere illustration on the margin of allied war propaganda. Debate (denounced as ‘revisionism’) on WWII is only starting in the UK with e.g. John Charmley’s life of Churchill etc. Since WWII triumphalism is important to Bush/Blair aggression, the debate is growing in importance.
I hope Raimondo is correct and this turns into Bush’s Watergate.
I’m not sure of Justin’s suggestion that Bush was duped by the neocons.
There is much more to US policy than simple duping. The US is fighting for the life of the dollar vs the euro. Saddam changed to the euro in November of 2000. Bush’s first statements before the NSC the next January were, how do we get Saddam.
The truth is, the US cannot allow oil to be sold for Euros. The world’s oil supplies are our Fort Knox. If we loose control of the World’s oil fields, and other countries can buy oil for euros, then the dollar is dead.
Our leaders have put all of our eggs into the oil basket through years of deficit spending and counting on oil. Damn them.
Cyber-Campaign Demands Congress Censure Bush
It’s the day after MoveOn held a press conference calling on Congress to censure Bush. I am a member of MoveOn so I knew this was going to happen. Today as I read my many newspapers from around the world, I cruise through my list of US newspapers (New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times, etc.) and don’t come across a reference to the news conference until I hit Al Jazeera in my foreign newspaper section. Guess that about says it all, doesn’t it?
~ Isis Douglas
Volunteer for Your Local Draft Board
Are you quiet? Can you pretend to be a sheep?
Volunteer for your local draft board: Local Board Membership Information Request.
If the draft is ever implemented, it will cause quite a shock if the local draft boards suddenly find themselves full of antiwar activists.
If we can pack the boards with people who believe that ANYONE who wants to be deferred from the draft should be deferred, then the whole draft system would collapse.
Bin Laden May Have Recruiting Problems
On Feb. 9 the Los Angeles Times reported on a “letter seized from an al-Qaida courier [that] shows Osama bin Laden has made little headway in recruiting Iraqis for a holy war against America, raising questions about the Bush administration’s contention that Iraq is the central front in the war on terror.” (“Bin Laden May Have Recruiting Problems” by Jim Krane, Associated Press writer)
The article explains how the Bush administration has tried to show this intercepted letter as evidence that Iraq is indeed the front-line of the war on terror, when in reality it shows the opposite: that al-Qaida has a presence in Iraq because of the Americans, but are unable to round recruits among Iraqis who are tentative about aligning with foreign agitators.
It occurred to me that the Bush administration’s attempt to show al-Qaida’s presence in Iraq as proof of the ties between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden is not unlike someone trying to show that the presence of anti-globalization protesters at G7, NAFTA, and FTAA summit meetings as proof of the collusion between the protesters and the corporations themselves. Here’s why: the American military is going about its mission to expand “freedom”, “democracy”, and “justice” in the world. Likewise the financiers of the corporate world are representatives of the push to establish “free trade”, “economical prosperity” and “open markets”.
Al-Qaida represents those whose aim is to tear down “degenerate”, democratic, consumerist society; not unlike the aims of anti-globalization protesters aim to tear down the consumerist practices and lifestyles resulting from (their view of) a corporate world.
Wherever the financiers go, the protesters are sure to follow. Wherever America goes, the protesters are sure to follow. For the Bush administration to state that the al-Qaida presence in Iraq is indicative of their ties to that place is like the G7 summit leaders to point to the protesters outside their own selected venue and conclude that this city must represent the central front in the war on corporations! The US chose their venue, but the damned thing is, the people whose home that venue is, did not ask for their convention.
It’s the Oil, Stupid!
This is my first attempt to write Antiwar.com. Let me start by saying I appreciate your excellent work even where I’m not in full agreement with the libertarian party line.
An important but so far little discussed factor in the unfolding civil war(s) in Iraq and beyond concerns the distribution of oil. By now most people are probably aware Iraq contains the second largest known oil reserves in the world just behind Saudi Arabia. But within Iraq most of those reserves are concentrated in the southern Shiite region and to a lesser degree in the Kurdish north. The middle Sunni Arab area is comparatively barren of oil. Likewise in Saudi Arabia most of the oil is concentrated in eastern provinces where Shiites also predominate while the central and western Sunni territories are barren. As the Saudi regime becomes increasingly unstable, those Shiites will likely launch their own separatist movement. When combined with Iran the overwhelming lion’s share of Persian Gulf oil could easily end up in Shiite hands.
The Persian Gulf collectively contains around half or more of the world’s known oil reserves. The mostly Sunni Muslim Caspian Sea area contains another quarter or so. And the whole rest of the world combined contains the remaining 20-30%. These figures are approximate and there is some disagreement among experts, but I think you get the idea.
There is also disagreement among petroleum geologists as to when “peak” oil production will occur. By this is meant the stage at which energy expended to extract oil grows to a point of diminishing returns such that net energy acquired – or “energy profit” (as opposed to dollar profit) – begins to decline. Some feel this may well occur within ten years – see for example “The End of Cheap Oil” by Colin J. Campbell and Jean H. Laherrere, in the March 1998 issue of Scientific American – or even sooner (see “Hubbert’s Peak: The Impending World Oil Shortage” by Kenneth S. Deffeyes). The most wildly optimistic (see “Closed Coffin: Ending the Debate on ‘The End of Cheap Oil’” by Michael C. Lynch, Chief Energy Economist, DRI-WEFA, Inc., U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet “New estimates of undiscovered oil and natural gas, natural gas liquids, including reserve growth, outside the United States,” and USGS Assessment 2000) give it up to 50 years, which is still not such a terribly long time in the bigger scheme of things. Perhaps the single best overview for the lay reader might be “The Party’s Over: Oil, War and the Fate of Industrial Societies” by Richard Heinberg. Additional online resources include peakoil.net, odac-info.org, oilcrisis.com, dieoff.com and for a more “conspiracy theory” approach fromthewilderness.com.
My own sense is that libertarian ideology, at least as I’ve thus far encountered it, is poorly equipped to deal with this impending crisis. Needless to say, the same is also true for the orthodox left. Both seem in deep denial as to the centrality of the oil factor, as is most of the general public for that matter. The arguments over Israel are a case in point. This war really is about oil, not about Israel. America has kowtowed to Israel because Israel has played a strategic role in keeping key oil producing regions off kilter and thus vulnerable to US pressures, NOT because of the power of Zionist lobbies in, of themselves. The tail does not wag the dog in real life! Antiwar.com has rightfully exposed the roles of AIPAC and Christian Zionists, and done a damn good job of it, but they’re not really the ones ultimately calling the shots. It has been the western, primarily US, military-industrial-complex that has subsidized capitalism-as-we-have-come-to-know-it through cheap oil and Israel has played an important, though subsidiary, role in that.
The issue boils down to the availability of energy, and relative cost of that energy, in the creation and maintenance of all manner of technological and social infrastructure – including markets, allegedly “free” or otherwise, and this in turn leads directly to the ultimate taboo subject: population growth, something about which orthodoxies on both the left and right have buried their heads deeply in the sand.
These topics open a whole new can of worms I’m not overly qualified to deal with myself. Instead I’d refer readers to the sources I mentioned as a jumping off point for further discussion.
~ David Sprowls
