Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Poor President Bush
After every war, the historians dig through the archives and discover that a great deal of what our government claimed as the reason for going to war was untrue.
Poor President Bush.
He apparently wants to invade Iraq more than anything else in the world. And just when he thought he had sufficient support to do so, foreign leaders started backing out.
So he went to the U.N. and gave a stirring speech – saying Saddam Hussein must allow weapons inspections or the U.S. will invade – only to have Hussein agree to allow the inspectors in.
What is the Point?
In his quest to go to war, the president is supported by writers and commentators who never saw a war they didn't like. That may be because they never have to go to war themselves – they just send others to their deaths.
To these people, the object isn't a democratic Iraq or U.S. security. The object is war.
The goal isn't peace in the Middle East or removing dangerous weapons. The goal is war.
The warmongers demonstrate that war is the purpose of it all by the way they promote it.
If you try to deal with any of their claims, they change the subject.
If you point out that Pakistan (a military dictatorship), India, Russia, China, France, Britain, Israel and the United States all have "weapons of mass destruction" (including chemical and biological weapons), the war-mongers say, "But Hussein gassed his own people."
If you point out that Bill Clinton gassed the Branch Davidians at Waco, the warmongers say, "But Hussein invaded Kuwait."
If you point out that the U.S. invaded Panama and Grenada – and has bombed numerous countries that didn't attack the U.S. – the war-mongers say, "But Hussein operates a brutal dictatorship."
If you ask if this means we must invade several dozen other countries in the world who are suffering under brutal dictatorships, the war-mongers say, "But Hussein has violated a dozen U.N. resolutions" (this is usually claimed by someone who doesn't think the U.N. should even exist).
If you point out that the U.S. also violates U.N. resolutions – and didn't even pay its dues for many years – the war-mongers say, "But Hussein has weapons of mass destruction," and we've come full circle and can start all over again.
If any of these claims were a truly serious concern, the war-mongers wouldn't be jumping around from one contention to another.
Lies and Damned Lies
After every war, the historians dig through the archives and discover that a great deal of what our government claimed as the reason for going to war was untrue.
After World War II, we found out that the Pearl Harbor attack was neither "unprovoked" nor a "surprise."
After the Vietnam War, we discovered that the Vietnamese didn't really fire on American ships in the Gulf of Tonkin, and so the Senate resolution escalating the war was based on a fraud.
After the Gulf War, it turned out that the Kuwaiti woman who told Congress that she witnessed Iraqi atrocities in Kuwait – and thereby incited several senators to vote for war – wasn't even in Kuwait at the time she "saw" the atrocities.
And so it goes. The politicians get us all whipped up, and only later do we discover that what we knew about the war and the enemy was a lie.
These Are Our Leaders
But, of course, it isn't just war that politicians lie about. They lie about their loyalty to the Constitution, they lie about their voting records, they lie about the contents of the bills they pass, they lie about the non-existent "budget surpluses."
And as though that weren't enough, they vote for bills they haven't read and don't understand. They browbeat committee witnesses on subjects the politicians know nothing about. They seize on any imaginable event as an excuse to arrogate more power to themselves and to take more liberty away from us.
And they expect us to go to war on their say-so.
You believe what you want. But as for me, until George Bush lays out specific, credible, verifiable, understandable evidence that Saddam Hussein poses an immediate threat to the security of the United States of America (not just to the "interests" of the U.S., as defined by power-hungry politicians), I prefer to keep my self-respect and oppose any thought of going to war.
I love America, not its government.
I am loyal to the Constitution, not to the politicians.
I love the traditional American way of life, not the 1984 version we're living today.
And I don't understand why it is so great to live in a country that's constantly at war with someone somewhere in the world.
He apparently wants to invade Iraq more than anything else in the world. And just when he thought he had sufficient support to do so, foreign leaders started backing out.
So he went to the U.N. and gave a stirring speech – saying Saddam Hussein must allow weapons inspections or the U.S. will invade – only to have Hussein agree to allow the inspectors in.
What is the Point?
In his quest to go to war, the president is supported by writers and commentators who never saw a war they didn't like. That may be because they never have to go to war themselves – they just send others to their deaths.
To these people, the object isn't a democratic Iraq or U.S. security. The object is war.
The goal isn't peace in the Middle East or removing dangerous weapons. The goal is war.
The warmongers demonstrate that war is the purpose of it all by the way they promote it.
If you try to deal with any of their claims, they change the subject.
If you point out that Pakistan (a military dictatorship), India, Russia, China, France, Britain, Israel and the United States all have "weapons of mass destruction" (including chemical and biological weapons), the war-mongers say, "But Hussein gassed his own people."
If you point out that Bill Clinton gassed the Branch Davidians at Waco, the warmongers say, "But Hussein invaded Kuwait."
If you point out that the U.S. invaded Panama and Grenada – and has bombed numerous countries that didn't attack the U.S. – the war-mongers say, "But Hussein operates a brutal dictatorship."
If you ask if this means we must invade several dozen other countries in the world who are suffering under brutal dictatorships, the war-mongers say, "But Hussein has violated a dozen U.N. resolutions" (this is usually claimed by someone who doesn't think the U.N. should even exist).
If you point out that the U.S. also violates U.N. resolutions – and didn't even pay its dues for many years – the war-mongers say, "But Hussein has weapons of mass destruction," and we've come full circle and can start all over again.
If any of these claims were a truly serious concern, the war-mongers wouldn't be jumping around from one contention to another.
Lies and Damned Lies
After every war, the historians dig through the archives and discover that a great deal of what our government claimed as the reason for going to war was untrue.
After World War II, we found out that the Pearl Harbor attack was neither "unprovoked" nor a "surprise."
After the Vietnam War, we discovered that the Vietnamese didn't really fire on American ships in the Gulf of Tonkin, and so the Senate resolution escalating the war was based on a fraud.
After the Gulf War, it turned out that the Kuwaiti woman who told Congress that she witnessed Iraqi atrocities in Kuwait – and thereby incited several senators to vote for war – wasn't even in Kuwait at the time she "saw" the atrocities.
And so it goes. The politicians get us all whipped up, and only later do we discover that what we knew about the war and the enemy was a lie.
These Are Our Leaders
But, of course, it isn't just war that politicians lie about. They lie about their loyalty to the Constitution, they lie about their voting records, they lie about the contents of the bills they pass, they lie about the non-existent "budget surpluses."
And as though that weren't enough, they vote for bills they haven't read and don't understand. They browbeat committee witnesses on subjects the politicians know nothing about. They seize on any imaginable event as an excuse to arrogate more power to themselves and to take more liberty away from us.
And they expect us to go to war on their say-so.
You believe what you want. But as for me, until George Bush lays out specific, credible, verifiable, understandable evidence that Saddam Hussein poses an immediate threat to the security of the United States of America (not just to the "interests" of the U.S., as defined by power-hungry politicians), I prefer to keep my self-respect and oppose any thought of going to war.
I love America, not its government.
I am loyal to the Constitution, not to the politicians.
I love the traditional American way of life, not the 1984 version we're living today.
And I don't understand why it is so great to live in a country that's constantly at war with someone somewhere in the world.
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
a great quote to ponder:
"Loyalty to the country always, loyalty to the government when it deserves it".
-Mark Twain
"Loyalty to the country always, loyalty to the government when it deserves it".
-Mark Twain
All of your points are so very true CP92. At last a SF Indymedia contribution which is concise, well written and exceptionally well organized. Thanks!
Is Clinton a war criminal?
Jeffrey T. Kuhner
Published 9/22/2002
ZAGREB, Croatia.
Former President Bill Clinton faces possible war crimes charges by the prosecutor's office at the U.N. tribunal in The Hague for the former Yugoslavia.
As the media remains riveted by the trial of former Serb dictator Slobodan Milosevic, an overlooked but far more consequential case is that of Croatian Gen. Ante Gotovina. The Gotovina case threatens to destabilize Croatia; it also raises the possibility Mr. Clinton and several of his other top administration officials will be indicted by the Balkans war crimes tribunal.
The decision last year by the ruling coalition government in Zagreb to hand Gen. Gotovina over to The Hague tribunal has sparked a political crisis in this small country. While the general remains in hiding, the popularity of Socialist Prime Minister Ivica Racan has plummeted.
Gen. Gotovina was indicted in June 2001 by the prosecutor's office at The Hague on charges that he exercised "command responsibility" over a 1995 military operation that resulted in the expulsion of 150,000 ethnic Serbs from Croatia. Supported by the Clinton administration, Croatian forces launched a massive, three-day military offensive — known as "Operation Storm" — on Aug. 4, 1995, in which Croatia recovered territories occupied by rebel Serbs following the country's drive for independence from Yugoslavia in 1991. Gen. Gotovina is not accused of committing or ordering war crimes, but simply of being in charge when alleged atrocities were committed.
However, by this standard, the Clinton administration is also guilty. Washington provided valuable military and technical assistance to Operation Storm. The Clinton foreign policy team rightly concluded that the only way to tilt the strategic balance of power in the Balkans against the Serbs was to arm and unleash the Croatian army.
Zagreb's lightening military offensive not only restored Croatia's territorial integrity, but more importantly helped to achieve the central goal of American foreign policy in the region: putting an end to Mr. Milosevic's dream of an ethnically pure "Greater Serbia." The operation significantly advanced U.S. interests in the Balkans, helping to pave the way for the Dayton Accords that brought peace to neighboring Bosnia.
Yet U.S. support and approval for the military offensive means the indictment against Gen. Gotovina could lead to the prosecution by tribunal at The Hague of Mr. Clinton and other administration officials on charges of having "command responsibility" for alleged war crimes that were committed during the operation. The prosecutor's office now is examining whether to investigate Mr. Clinton and former Ambassador Richard Holbrooke for their role in Operation Storm. It is only a matter of time before they are made to appear before the tribunal.
The Bush administration has become increasingly concerned with the implications of the Gotovina case for the United States. The State Department is now urging the tribunal's chief prosecutor, Carla Del Ponte, to send cases involving Croatian military officials back to the domestic courts in Zagreb. But Mrs. Del Ponte has refused to cooperate, insisting that Gen. Gotovina be arrested and sent to The Hague.
That would be a mistake. The indictment is deeply flawed and should be dropped immediately. There is no evidence Gen. Gotovina acted improperly or oversaw war crimes. Most of the atrocities committed — the murder of 500 civilians, the looting of property and the burning of 40,000 homes and barns — took place after the operation was completed, when the recovered territories fell under the control of local police.
Moreover, the Gotovina case establishes an ominous precedent for U.S. foreign policy. The importance of Operation Storm was that it served as a model for Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan. The Croatian military acted as the de facto ground troops for the United States in its effort to defeat Mr. Milosevic. A similar approach was taken in the war in Afghanistan. The Northern Alliance provided the bulk of the ground forces during the Bush administration's campaign to topple the Taliban regime from power.
But if the theory of "command responsibility" is upheld in the Gotovina case, then the United States can be made accountable for the actions of its allies around the world. There will be nothing preventing the International Criminal Court from making U.S. officials responsible for isolated criminal acts that have been committed by Northern Alliance troops.
Ultimately, the Gotovina indictment threatens to limit Washington's ability to project its power around the world. In fact, the case is emblematic of the dangers inherent in international tribunals that have little transparency and are not rooted in representative institutions.
There can never be lasting peace and reconciliation in the former Yugoslavia until justice has been done to the victims of the Balkan wars — whether they be Croats, Muslims, or Serbs. There are still plenty of war criminals who remain at large. They deserve to be indicted and sent to The Hague. Neither Mr. Clinton nor Gen. Gotovina are one of them.
Jeffrey T. Kuhner is an assistant national editor at The Washington Times.
Copyright © 2002 News World Communications, Inc. All rights reserved.
Jeffrey T. Kuhner
Published 9/22/2002
ZAGREB, Croatia.
Former President Bill Clinton faces possible war crimes charges by the prosecutor's office at the U.N. tribunal in The Hague for the former Yugoslavia.
As the media remains riveted by the trial of former Serb dictator Slobodan Milosevic, an overlooked but far more consequential case is that of Croatian Gen. Ante Gotovina. The Gotovina case threatens to destabilize Croatia; it also raises the possibility Mr. Clinton and several of his other top administration officials will be indicted by the Balkans war crimes tribunal.
The decision last year by the ruling coalition government in Zagreb to hand Gen. Gotovina over to The Hague tribunal has sparked a political crisis in this small country. While the general remains in hiding, the popularity of Socialist Prime Minister Ivica Racan has plummeted.
Gen. Gotovina was indicted in June 2001 by the prosecutor's office at The Hague on charges that he exercised "command responsibility" over a 1995 military operation that resulted in the expulsion of 150,000 ethnic Serbs from Croatia. Supported by the Clinton administration, Croatian forces launched a massive, three-day military offensive — known as "Operation Storm" — on Aug. 4, 1995, in which Croatia recovered territories occupied by rebel Serbs following the country's drive for independence from Yugoslavia in 1991. Gen. Gotovina is not accused of committing or ordering war crimes, but simply of being in charge when alleged atrocities were committed.
However, by this standard, the Clinton administration is also guilty. Washington provided valuable military and technical assistance to Operation Storm. The Clinton foreign policy team rightly concluded that the only way to tilt the strategic balance of power in the Balkans against the Serbs was to arm and unleash the Croatian army.
Zagreb's lightening military offensive not only restored Croatia's territorial integrity, but more importantly helped to achieve the central goal of American foreign policy in the region: putting an end to Mr. Milosevic's dream of an ethnically pure "Greater Serbia." The operation significantly advanced U.S. interests in the Balkans, helping to pave the way for the Dayton Accords that brought peace to neighboring Bosnia.
Yet U.S. support and approval for the military offensive means the indictment against Gen. Gotovina could lead to the prosecution by tribunal at The Hague of Mr. Clinton and other administration officials on charges of having "command responsibility" for alleged war crimes that were committed during the operation. The prosecutor's office now is examining whether to investigate Mr. Clinton and former Ambassador Richard Holbrooke for their role in Operation Storm. It is only a matter of time before they are made to appear before the tribunal.
The Bush administration has become increasingly concerned with the implications of the Gotovina case for the United States. The State Department is now urging the tribunal's chief prosecutor, Carla Del Ponte, to send cases involving Croatian military officials back to the domestic courts in Zagreb. But Mrs. Del Ponte has refused to cooperate, insisting that Gen. Gotovina be arrested and sent to The Hague.
That would be a mistake. The indictment is deeply flawed and should be dropped immediately. There is no evidence Gen. Gotovina acted improperly or oversaw war crimes. Most of the atrocities committed — the murder of 500 civilians, the looting of property and the burning of 40,000 homes and barns — took place after the operation was completed, when the recovered territories fell under the control of local police.
Moreover, the Gotovina case establishes an ominous precedent for U.S. foreign policy. The importance of Operation Storm was that it served as a model for Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan. The Croatian military acted as the de facto ground troops for the United States in its effort to defeat Mr. Milosevic. A similar approach was taken in the war in Afghanistan. The Northern Alliance provided the bulk of the ground forces during the Bush administration's campaign to topple the Taliban regime from power.
But if the theory of "command responsibility" is upheld in the Gotovina case, then the United States can be made accountable for the actions of its allies around the world. There will be nothing preventing the International Criminal Court from making U.S. officials responsible for isolated criminal acts that have been committed by Northern Alliance troops.
Ultimately, the Gotovina indictment threatens to limit Washington's ability to project its power around the world. In fact, the case is emblematic of the dangers inherent in international tribunals that have little transparency and are not rooted in representative institutions.
There can never be lasting peace and reconciliation in the former Yugoslavia until justice has been done to the victims of the Balkan wars — whether they be Croats, Muslims, or Serbs. There are still plenty of war criminals who remain at large. They deserve to be indicted and sent to The Hague. Neither Mr. Clinton nor Gen. Gotovina are one of them.
Jeffrey T. Kuhner is an assistant national editor at The Washington Times.
Copyright © 2002 News World Communications, Inc. All rights reserved.
What does Bush's lack of veracity have to do with whatever Clinton did? I support neither.
However, a post from the Washington "Times" is inherently suspect. Also, this illustrates the pathetic paucity of those who have an illegitimate agenda. Rather than answer questions, they roll out out irrelevant counter accusations.
So lame.
However, a post from the Washington "Times" is inherently suspect. Also, this illustrates the pathetic paucity of those who have an illegitimate agenda. Rather than answer questions, they roll out out irrelevant counter accusations.
So lame.
The response above is from our local juvenile troll. Feel free to totally ignore it (and him)
The response above is from our local juvenile troll. Feel free to totally ignore it (and him)
we ja it is at least a war game, I think both of your articles point to 2 things the theather of the senate,
and government, the part about lies is good. They are actors, with lines put in their mouth by "the real leaders" , the real criminals who are infact behind things.
While the clinton piece seems to show the two faces of the Prez. or tyrant, under the good tyrant and under the bad tyrant, what is the difference? It part of the system. . . and that is what needs to change .
and government, the part about lies is good. They are actors, with lines put in their mouth by "the real leaders" , the real criminals who are infact behind things.
While the clinton piece seems to show the two faces of the Prez. or tyrant, under the good tyrant and under the bad tyrant, what is the difference? It part of the system. . . and that is what needs to change .
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$190.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network