Below we post a selection of recent letters to the WSWS .
The content of this article [“The morality of plutocracy: the Washington Post and the Harken Energy ‘distraction’”] simply goes to show the iron grip the Bush administration and its corporate sponsors (including the media itself) continue to hold on the media. One can only wonder how the vast indiscretions committed by the president would be tolerated were it not for his riding a wave of emotion-hyped jingoism following 9/11 (another event that his name has cropped up in connection with, if not for complicity, at least for foreknowledge and failure to act). Will his planned attack on Iraq be similarly sugarcoated as a means of removing a potential “terrorist” from office and installing another form of government, in direct violation of UN policy—a government that will first and foremost protect the oil interests of Bush and his cohorts?
15 July 2002* * *
Excellent Article! [“Wall Street crisis staggers Bush”] Especially the paragraph that read, “Bush’s bellicose posture arose from weakness, not strength. The underlying economic and political contradictions continued to mount, and have now reasserted themselves at an even higher and more explosive level.”
I have felt for some time now that the US adventures all over the world sprang from weakness. I think that the capitalist world, “led” by the US, is choking on the Warsaw Pact! The US attempt to bail itself out militarily from this political/economic “triumph” is causing greater and greater trouble for itself.
Keep up the good work.
16 July 2002* * *
Just when I think I’ve read the best article from WSWS, I’m again impressed with the magnificent work you embody. The article by Barry Grey, “Bush’s past business dealings come back to haunt him,” is masterfully written and skillfully produced.
Cutting through the capitalists’ ruses with the truth, the author exposes the present accounting frauds by corporations as not just an affair by chance, but an orgy of fraud and corruption, purposefully engineered by the ruling elite to hide from the public that capitalism is in decay. He also shows that our government is only a one interest rule, by the capitalists themselves.
Great work. Thank you WSWS for providing the truth.
9 July 2002* * *
That is a great article on the Wall Street crisis and Bush, very honest and quite frightening. I’m going to send a copy to my five grown children. So, at long last the chickens are coming home to roost, and it does my heart good. The only thing I’m worried about is Iraq, and what this increasingly desperate administration has in the works for that country in order to divert the American public. Incidentally, I’ve been lamenting the absence of a vocal and active protest movement in the US, hardly any taking to the streets, etc., but the people are expressing their anger and fears and resentment instead by taking their money out of the stock market, which inevitably is the most powerful protest of all.
12 July 2002* * *
Thanks for doing what needs to be done and keeping the real meaning of freedom alive in a country that seems to want to follow this shallow man no matter what the results. I am for the second time in my life deeply concerned that these people of corruption and deceit are going to do as they please and destroy this republic. The first time was under Reagan and Bush Sr.
More and more it seems the media is ignoring the truth of the scope and depth of what has gone on from King George stealing the election to planning this war to get richer along with Captain Dick and all the Corporation Execs. We have become a sad nation and not because of 9/11 but because these men of greed will lie, steal, cheat and let Americans die to get what they want.
Thank you again,
9 July 2002
Regarding your report that the United States is planning an attack on Iraq [“US preparing full-scale invasion of Iraq”], it has been my understanding of international law that affirmative planning for offensive warfare constitutes a war crime and a crime against humanity. How can a unilateral or multilateral US-led assault on Iraq be viewed as anything other than an act of offensive warfare?
The US claim that Saddam Hussein is manufacturing weapons of mass destruction does not justify an invasion, even one termed a preemptive strike. There is no public call for assistance from neighboring states threatened by the Iraqi regime.
On the contrary, American news organizations are reporting statements from senior legislators such as Senator Chuck Hegel that even the pro-Western leaders of Muslim countries in the region think a United States invasion of Iraq would prove domestically destabilizing in their respective countries.
A preemptive strike against Iraq is especially unjustifiable by the United States, the world leader in the manufacture and deployment of all categories of weapons of mass destruction.
Should the United States launch a preemptive strike against Iraq it would make the United States a rogue state in possession of weapons of mass destruction and willing to use such weaponry in pursuit of policies beneficial only to itself.
The threat of a preemptive strike by the United States against the Iraqi government in the present circumstances violates the basic moral principles of proportionality and restraint regarding the use of lethal force by legitimate governmental authorities.
Please be aware that the United States government’s aggressive and unlawful intentions against the government and people of Iraq are subject to widespread and decisive disapproval domestically.
If the Bush administration is so stupid as to proceed with the immoral and unjustifiably aggressive action of an unprovoked assault on Iraq, it will result in a campaign of widespread, peaceful civil disobedience in the entire United States that will cripple the ability of the administration to govern until the speedy and certain electoral collapse of the current government.
Thank you for the opportunity to share my views.
10 July 2002* * *
At the conclusion of the Gulf War, US troops fixed plows to tanks and buried many Iraqi soldiers alive in the sand. How does this practice rate in various conventions trying to regulate atrocities in the conduct of war? I enjoy your continued coverage of the most important issues and the analysis you offer.
10 July 2002