Here’s a passage from a speech by Congressman Abraham Lincoln reflecting on President James Polk’s war on Mexico. It seemed relevant:
“Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so, whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such a purpose — and you allow him to make war at pleasure. Study to see if you can fix any limit to his power in this respect, after you have given him so much [power]. If, today, he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada, to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, ‘I see no probability of the British invading us’ but he will say to you, ‘Be silent; I see it, if you don’t.'”
(Sent in by a reader from the state of Washington whose source was: Lincoln: Speeches and Writings 1832-1858, The Library of America)
The Los Angeles Times reports today that our President rejected the global “no” of the weekend with this classic statement: “Size of protest, it’s like deciding, ‘Well I’m going to decide policy based up on a focus group.’ The role of a leader is to decide policy based upon the security — in this case — security of the people.” I’m sorry but where’s he been hanging the last couple of years? I suggest he just head down the hall to advisor Karl Rove’s office where I’m sure he could find out a good deal about rule by opinion poll and focus group.(Evidently, by the way, the brilliant ploy of sending Americans into a duct-tape tizzy was launched after consultations with ad agencies.)
To read the LA Times piece click here
In the meantime, Bush’s “coalition of the willing” out there in the wilderness of global opposition looks like an increasingly balky and fragile thing. Only today, the British tabloid the Mirror reported British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw “conceded that the enormity of the antiwar protests at the weekend made it ‘very difficult’ to launch an invasion of Iraq. The Foreign Secretary acknowledged the sheer size and strength of feeling against a potentially devastating new Gulf war. He told the BBC: ‘It was a very, very large demonstration, probably the largest one we’ve seen in our recent democratic history in London. We have to take account of public opinion.’ When asked if the government could start a war without public backing, Straw said it would be ‘very difficult indeed in those circumstances.'” To read the Mirror piece click here
In the meantime, our Turkish “allies” are threatening not to ask their parliament to vote any time soon on allowing US troops to be based in and launch an invasion from Turkish territory — not, at least, unless the US aid package proves up to snuff. According to a New York Times piece today (“Proposal by Turkey Stalls U.S. bid to Use Its Bases”), “Turkey’s leaders say that despite their country’s 50-year-old military alliance with the United States, they are finding it difficult to disregard the public’s antiwar feelings… [T]he Turkish government officials said polls showed that 96% of the Turkish people opposed the war.” And, once again, we hear mutterings from our supposedly supremely confident military — well, maybe we’re not quite ready, how about hanging in there until mid-March, maybe we could fight in April … and so on. Stay tuned.
Below you’ll find a roundup of the best of the post-demonstration weekend columns from around the country and England. Robert Scheer of the Los Angeles Times (“By acting like a man trying to fight his way out of a bar, Bush has squandered his post-Sept. 11 credibility..”); James Carroll of the Boston Globe (“Beware a nation announcing its innocence e”n route to war.”); George Monbiot of the Guardian (“Those who are planning [an Iraq war] have recognized that their future dominance can be sustained by means of a simple economic formula: blood is a renewable resource; oil is not.”); and Paul Krugman of the New York Times (“On Saturday, news anchors on Fox described the demonstrators in New York as ‘the usual protesters’ or ‘serial protesters.'”) Tom
(Sent in by a reader from the state of Washington whose source was: Lincoln: Speeches and Writings 1832-1858, The Library of America)
The Los Angeles Times reports today that our President rejected the global “no” of the weekend with this classic statement: “Size of protest, it’s like deciding, ‘Well I’m going to decide policy based up on a focus group.’ The role of a leader is to decide policy based upon the security — in this case — security of the people.” I’m sorry but where’s he been hanging the last couple of years? I suggest he just head down the hall to advisor Karl Rove’s office where I’m sure he could find out a good deal about rule by opinion poll and focus group.(Evidently, by the way, the brilliant ploy of sending Americans into a duct-tape tizzy was launched after consultations with ad agencies.)
To read the LA Times piece click here
In the meantime, Bush’s “coalition of the willing” out there in the wilderness of global opposition looks like an increasingly balky and fragile thing. Only today, the British tabloid the Mirror reported British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw “conceded that the enormity of the antiwar protests at the weekend made it ‘very difficult’ to launch an invasion of Iraq. The Foreign Secretary acknowledged the sheer size and strength of feeling against a potentially devastating new Gulf war. He told the BBC: ‘It was a very, very large demonstration, probably the largest one we’ve seen in our recent democratic history in London. We have to take account of public opinion.’ When asked if the government could start a war without public backing, Straw said it would be ‘very difficult indeed in those circumstances.'” To read the Mirror piece click here
In the meantime, our Turkish “allies” are threatening not to ask their parliament to vote any time soon on allowing US troops to be based in and launch an invasion from Turkish territory — not, at least, unless the US aid package proves up to snuff. According to a New York Times piece today (“Proposal by Turkey Stalls U.S. bid to Use Its Bases”), “Turkey’s leaders say that despite their country’s 50-year-old military alliance with the United States, they are finding it difficult to disregard the public’s antiwar feelings… [T]he Turkish government officials said polls showed that 96% of the Turkish people opposed the war.” And, once again, we hear mutterings from our supposedly supremely confident military — well, maybe we’re not quite ready, how about hanging in there until mid-March, maybe we could fight in April … and so on. Stay tuned.
Below you’ll find a roundup of the best of the post-demonstration weekend columns from around the country and England. Robert Scheer of the Los Angeles Times (“By acting like a man trying to fight his way out of a bar, Bush has squandered his post-Sept. 11 credibility..”); James Carroll of the Boston Globe (“Beware a nation announcing its innocence e”n route to war.”); George Monbiot of the Guardian (“Those who are planning [an Iraq war] have recognized that their future dominance can be sustained by means of a simple economic formula: blood is a renewable resource; oil is not.”); and Paul Krugman of the New York Times (“On Saturday, news anchors on Fox described the demonstrators in New York as ‘the usual protesters’ or ‘serial protesters.'”) Tom
Damned If They Do, Damned If They Don’t
Robert Scheer
The Los Angeles Times
February 18, 2003It would be so much easier if the Bush administration just dropped the confusing pretension of an earnest campaign for truth, international cooperation and the rule of law. The reality is and has been that the U.S. is determined to invade Iraq whether or not it has weapons of mass destruction and no matter the findings of the weapons inspectors or the judgment of the Security Council.
The troops are now in place, the special ops expeditions and bombing runs have intensified and Secretary of State Colin Powell is now a full-time blustering hawk blasting away at and cynically distorting the inspectors’ reports before they can finish reading them to the United Nations.
Here’s the problem, though: Americans don’t want it to go down this way.
To read more of Scheer click here
The age of innocence
By James Carroll
The Boston Globe
February 18, 2003”THIS IS THE patent age of new inventions/ For killing bodies and for saving souls,” Lord Byron wrote, ”All propagated with the best intentions.” The lines serve as an epigram for Graham Greene’s ”The Quiet American.”
That novel first appeared in 1955, but a filmed version arrived in theaters last week, a timely renewal of its prophetic relevance. Michael Caine’s performance as Thomas Fowler, the opium-ridden British journalist who jousts with – and befriends – an American intelligence operative, just received an Oscar nomination. Americans may go to this movie for the superlative acting, but in the ”patent age” of a coming war, they may find something more.
Graham Greene was a connoisseur not of good and evil, but of innocence and corruption.
To read more of Carroll click here
Too much of a good thing
Underlying the US drive to war is a thirst to open up new opportunities for surplus capital
By George Monbiot
February 18, 2003
The GuardianWe are a biological weapon. On Saturday the anti-war movement released some 70,000 tonnes of organic material on to the streets of London, and similar quantities in locations all over the world. This weapon of mass disruption was intended as a major threat to the security of western governments.
Our marches were unprecedented, but they have, so far, been unsuccessful. The immune systems of the US and British governments have proved to be rather more robust than we had hoped. Their intransigence leaves the world with a series of unanswered questions.
Why, when the most urgent threat arising from illegal weapons of mass destruction is the nuclear confrontation between India and Pakistan, is the US government ignoring it and concentrating on Iraq? Why, if it believes human rights are so important, is it funding the oppression of the Algerians, the Uzbeks, the Palestinians, the Turkish Kurds and the Colombians?
To read more of Monbiot click here
Behind the Great Divide
By Paul Krugman
The New York Times
February 18, 2003There has been much speculation why Europe and the U.S. are suddenly at such odds. Is it about culture? About history? But I haven’t seen much discussion of an obvious point: We have different views partly because we see different news.
Let’s back up. Many Americans now blame France for the chill in U.S.-European relations. There is even talk of boycotting French products.But France’s attitude isn’t exceptional. Last Saturday’s huge demonstrations confirmed polls that show deep distrust of the Bush administration and skepticism about an Iraq war in all major European nations, whatever position their governments may take. In fact, the biggest demonstrations were in countries whose governments are supporting the Bush administration.