Most Americans readily understand, after experiencing the horror of the 9/11 attack on our nation last year, that evil exists, and that those seeking to destroy what we hold dear are indeed the epitome of evildoers. But not the radical academics and Hollywood celebrities, who are trying their best to resurrect from its coffin the old '60s anti-Vietnam War coalition.

Thus, coming to the ad pages of the New York Times will be what they call"A Statement of Conscience," calling on the"people of the U.S. to resist" American policy, which they claim shows"grave dangers to the people of the world," who want us to join them in resisting"the war and repression that has been loosed on the world by the Bush administration."

What leads these '60s relics to make the most preposterous of arguments? To in effect argue that we face no danger from any nation or any group of terrorists, that the danger stems from our own imperial overreach?

The names on the petition provide an answer. Most are recognizable Old and New Left protesters from the early 1960s; some in fact are elderly pro-Communists whose political life began back in the 1930s.

They have been groomed on the belief that the United States is an imperialist power bent on oppressing the poor people of the world. They see Iraq as Vietnam, with the United States once again trying to destroy a people seeking only independence and a people's revolution.

THE reality of our new situation makes not one dent in their ingrained world view. The petition-signers seem unaware of the dangers posed by radical Islam, al Qaeda, Saddam Hussein and other powers which form what our president has rightfully called"an axis of evil." Indeed, they mock the view that a simple contest exists between"good v. evil," when the real issue is the effort to wage"war abroad and repression at home."

Included in their list of such horrible acts of aggression are what they call the"attack" on Afghanistan, the"trail of death and destruction" caused by - Israel - and the blank check the U.S. government wants to kill and bomb whomever it wants.

Their description of America today: a country under the thumb of"repression over society," with free speech"suppressed," groups falsely called"terrorist," a nation they hint sits on the edge of totalitarianism. Their answer: Refuse orders, resist a draft if instituted and support all"resisters." The"machinery of war" has to be stopped.

This old heated rhetoric and '60s-redux arguments can easily be ignored - that is, if one does not pause to look at the luminaries in our intellectual life and the entertainment community that have signed on to the campaign.

They include directors Robert Altman and Oliver Stone; actors Ed Asner, Ossie Davis, Susan Sarandon and Danny Glover; singers Ani DiFranco and Pete Seeger; writers Kurt Vonnegut and Gore Vidal; radical cop killer Mumia Abu-Jumal, and scores of others - a virtual Who's Who of the leftover Old and New Left activists, writers and artists.

It is a true Popular Front. Playwright and actor Wallace Shawn is on the list, alongside ex-Weather Underground leaders Bernardine Dohrn and C. Clark Kissinger.

COINCIDING with this effort is the Historian's Petition to Congress, instituted by Joyce Appleby, a past president of our country's two major historical associations, and feminist historian Ellen Carol DuBois of UCLA.

Their petition has a more limited goal: They purport only to ask the Congress for a debate and vote on"whether or not to declare war on Iraq," although it is clear from the introduction to the petition that their real goal is to"stop war with Iraq," which they wistfully hope will not occur if there is a"full-fledged congressional vote." If this does not happen, they plan to be in our nation's capital on Sept. 25 to present the petition to Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle and House Speaker Dennis Hastert.

The signers compose a great majority of our professional historians, including some of the most distinguished members of the profession. As Joyce Appleby explained in an open letter to the profession, she and DuBois started the petition because listening to the president at his Crawford ranch left them frustrated, since they know that Americans"feel agitated by the drumbeat of remarks about possible military action."

Should we go to war, Appleby thinks that it would amount to an"unprovoked attack on another country." Any threat from Iraq and Saddam Hussein disappears from her field of vision.

Appleby is furious that the president says he will soon make up his mind,"as though he were a king." This, she pines,"is not what the Founding Fathers intended."

In a forum in Newsweek's issue on 9/11, Appleby fears Bush is"returning us to a Cold War mentality," one in which the United States fought"quasiwars and proxy wars and [ran] covert operations and [used] spies and [practiced] domestic intimidation."

Now, she complains, we seem to be"moving right back into that Cold War mindset, in which we will have a black and white world of good versus evil, and we'll be a part of suppressing dissent around the world," as well as invading"American rights at home."

Appleby and her colleagues are, it seems, living in a dream world - one in which the evil United States is oppressing every nation, and those resisting its grasp are simply opponents of a new imperialism.

Sorry, Ms Appleby. This historian does not buy your arguments. As Larry Miller wrote in The Weekly Standard last Jan. 14,"No matter what your daughter's political science professor says, we didn't start this." Change that to your son or daughter's historian.

WITH all its imperfections, America stands for freedom and democracy - values held in short shrift in those areas of the world where radical Islamic fundamentalists plot to destroy us. Perhaps you can't be a historian to understand this basic truth, or maybe George Orwell was right when he said that there are some things so stupid that only an intellectual can believe them.

Editor's Note Sean Wilentz, a signer of the historians' petition, objected to Mr. Radosh's characterization of Ms. Appleby's position. Mr. Wilentz emailed Mr. Radosh with his objections. Mr. Radosh subsequently included Mr. Wilentz's email in a mailing to HNN:

I have no idea what Joyce's views on going to war with Iraq are, or what she expects, wistfully or otherwise, will be the outcome of that vote. That's all beside the point. I, for one, fully expect that Congress will vote to go ahead. Fine. I have no problem in trying forceably to curtail weapons of mass destruction. But when Bush through Fleischer announced he's going ahead without Congress, I was alarmed. Even if one is a fervert Bush supporter -- which obviously I'm not either -- to lead the country into this kind of war without Congressional approval would be politically dangerous (for Bush) as well as constitutionally dubious. You've read much more into the thing I signed than is there, I think -- and to link it with the moron anti-war left is unfair and misleading.

---

This article first appeared in the New York Post and is reprinted with permission of the author.