by Jon Utley
Antiwar sentiment was a major issue for the first time at this year's giant
CPAC meeting in Washington. Thousands of young conservatives attended, some
5,000, and for the first time, Ron Paul was voted the favorite presidential
candidate with 31% of the vote. His speech about how governments use wars to
take over dictatorial power was constantly interrupted with roaring
applause. Top leaders of the conservative movement spoke, . . .
Sarah Palin was not there. Romney spoke including praise for Bush and Cheney
and came in 2nd in the straw poll with 22%. He was followed by Sarah Palin
with 7% and Tim Pawlenty with 6%. Gingrich and Huckabee both came in with 4%.
Most different this time was the strong antiwar contingent of mainly Ron
Paul supporters. Even many YAFers (Young Americans for Freedom) seem to have
turned to antiwar sentiment, judging from the voting. There were still
several pro-war panels including one arguing how Americans needed to limit
our freedoms in order to save ourselves from Islamic fanatics and fascism.
Another argued for war with Iran. However, there were also important
speakers arguing for constitutional limits on the executive, such as Dimitri
Simes of the Nixon Center, Pat Nolan of Justice Fellowship, Bruce Fein and
others, certainly much more than in Bush times. . . .
FULL TEXT
Zbigniew Brzezinski, "Terrorized
by 'War on Terror'," Washington Post, March 25, 2007
["The best victory is to win without actually fighting. Supreme excellence
consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting."--Jon Basil
Utley, "Sun Tzu and
America's Way of War," antiwar.com, February 3, 2010]
[What we are talking about today is our reaction to 9/11 - because that is
really what the war on terror has been - a reaction, not a strategy.
After 9/11 - a ruthless, tragic, terrible event, burned into our minds and
our hearts - the United States had alternatives. We could have, as we had
done in so many other cases of terrorism, pursued the criminals through the
system of law enforcement. This would have meant a slower process, a process
that would have been less emotional and less political, and would have
required international police and intelligence cooperation. After 9/11, we
had the sympathy of the world, and strong offers and guarantees of their
support. It would have taken time - although in retrospect, this approach
would have taken far less time, less money and destroyed fewer lives and
livelihoods than what we really did. A conservative approach would have
saved trillions of dollars. It would have educated Americans on the rule of
law and the Constitution, rather than blinding them to it. And a
conservative approach, because it cares about history and culture and
community, would have ensured that Americans more deeply understood
terrorism, and how to prevent it. Instead, we are repeatedly lied to by our
government, on everything, but particularly on the real lack of success, the
real cost and the extreme risk of our ongoing and endless "War on
Terror."--Karen Kwiatkowski, "American
Military Policy and the War on Terrorism," lewrockwell.com,
February 23, 2010]
[The neocon mindset about Muslims is much like the mindset of plantation
owners in the Old South. As long as the slaves were obedient, respectful,
and subservient, everything was fine. Oh, sure, slaves would periodically
complain about their condition in life but, by and large, such complaints
were considered acceptable. What was not acceptable was resistance and
opposition to slavery itself, especially when it turned violent. That was
when a message had to be sent. Such an uppity attitude simply could not be
tolerated.--Jacob G. Hornberger, "Why Neocons Hate
Muslims," fff.org, February 23, 2010]