Tuesday, October 31, 2006
Compare and Contrast
Salon, October 31, 2006
- When we chose to invade Iraq, we made ourselves morally responsible for the consequences. This was not a debt we wanted to think about. And until the last few weeks, it was possible to repress it, by clinging to the hope that things would somehow turn out OK. That hope has now been dashed. Whether we stay or leave, Iraq is not going to be OK. And all we can do is watch as the deadly consequences of our folly, our rashness, our stupid self-righteousness, our inexcusable imperial hubris are visited on thousands of men, women and children -- only a minuscule fraction of them those "terrorists" we were supposedly attacking.
- Many Americans believed the President when he said Iraq had WMD and ties to the 9/11 terrorists. Believing him, many supported the war.
But now we all know the weapons did not exist. The ties to Al-Qaida did not exist. And that changes everything.
We have killed thousands of Iraqis. We were told they had weapons which were an imminent threat to us, and it was strongly suggested they were in league with those who had viciously and mercilessly attacked us. That gave us the moral authority to strike.
But they weren't an imminent threat, and they didn't have ties to 9/11. To say now that they could have been a threat someday, or that Iraq was "a dangerous place", or that we're all better Saddam is gone is not the same.
If the American people choose to look the other way at being misled into bombing and invading Iraq--at the cost of hundreds of American and many thousands of Iraqi lives--then we can no longer claim innocence. We are no longer bystanders.
In our society--the world's oldest and most successful democracy--it is not only our right, but our responsibility to hold to the highest standard of American principles those we elect to wield the sword in our name. It is the moral duty of every individual American to insist that our country always acts as the world's greatest force for good, for justice, and for truth. Because the end, quite simply, does not justify the means--least of all when the means is the first preemptive war in our nation's history.
If we the people fail to do our duty then we the people must accept responsibility for the result. We will be innocent no more
Comments:
Links to this post:
<< Home
Cut and Run, the position held by the majority of Democrats on the main issue of the elections is in reality not a winning stance for them. Ironically, it is because the situation in Iraq has deteriorated in recent weeks that the position of cut and run seems even more absurd now than it did several weeks ago. And please, let's not kid ourselves or quibble over terminology. Any accelerated timetable for withdrawal, no matter if called immediate withdrawal or 'redeployment' is tantamount to and in fact is cutting and running. As Michael Steele points out to his angry and defensive opponent in Maryland, Ben Cardin, what would the Democratic strategy be in Iraq if they find themselves in the position of determining what to do in the country? Rather than repeat Cardin's stammering response, let me save us the trouble and tell you that Democrats have no idea how to achieve success in Iraq. The only thing Democrats can say is that President Bush is not getting the job done. Even if that is true, in the minds of thinking people, Democrats are not simply absolved from having an actual position of their own on Iraq. Also, just for the record, 'Stay the course' is a quicker way of saying, 'stay until the job is done'. Unfortunately, Democrats did manage to redefine 'stay the course' as 'stay endlessly' and so the Bush Administration no longer uses that description. Democrats can attack a description of what were are doing in Iraq all day long, but when it comes to offering their own solutions, the silence is deafening.
So which is it? Do Democrats favor cutting and running (or whatever euphemism they want to call it) or do they simply have no position on Iraq? The answer is: they themselves do not know. It is my assessment that in many races, Democratic candidates have not thought beyond the Nancy Pelosi playbook of 'blame Bush'. Really, it was circulated apparently very well that if Democratic candidates just pound away on Bush enough, then it really won't matter if they don't ever bother to offer any solutions of their own.
So, the Democratic secret hope that things go badly in Iraq seems for the moment at least, because the insurgents are trying influence our elections, to be coming true. Their hopes and dreams of chaos in Iraq were in fact realized only too well, for now it is even more apparent that we cannot leave prematurely, because it would hand victory to all of the various enemies of our country. Really, can we all not agree that Hugo Chavez, Ahmadinejad and Osama Bin Laden are hoping, in fact actively and openly advocating, that we cut and run?
It will be interesting to see what happens if Democrats win back a degree of political power in a few days. Will our troops be immediately withdrawn, to the utter glee of our enemies? Or will Democrats be too busy conducting the various congressional investigations into the Bush Administration, attempting to re-live the 2000 and 2004 elections, to bother conducting a war on terror? I defy any liberal reading this to show me where I'm going wrong with my analysis. And please, if you challenge me, try to come up with a specific vision of what should be done in Iraq. I won't hold my breath, for I have yet to hear any left leaning individual anywhere offer a drastically different and/or substantive solution to the major issue of the day, the War in Iraq.
So which is it? Do Democrats favor cutting and running (or whatever euphemism they want to call it) or do they simply have no position on Iraq? The answer is: they themselves do not know. It is my assessment that in many races, Democratic candidates have not thought beyond the Nancy Pelosi playbook of 'blame Bush'. Really, it was circulated apparently very well that if Democratic candidates just pound away on Bush enough, then it really won't matter if they don't ever bother to offer any solutions of their own.
So, the Democratic secret hope that things go badly in Iraq seems for the moment at least, because the insurgents are trying influence our elections, to be coming true. Their hopes and dreams of chaos in Iraq were in fact realized only too well, for now it is even more apparent that we cannot leave prematurely, because it would hand victory to all of the various enemies of our country. Really, can we all not agree that Hugo Chavez, Ahmadinejad and Osama Bin Laden are hoping, in fact actively and openly advocating, that we cut and run?
It will be interesting to see what happens if Democrats win back a degree of political power in a few days. Will our troops be immediately withdrawn, to the utter glee of our enemies? Or will Democrats be too busy conducting the various congressional investigations into the Bush Administration, attempting to re-live the 2000 and 2004 elections, to bother conducting a war on terror? I defy any liberal reading this to show me where I'm going wrong with my analysis. And please, if you challenge me, try to come up with a specific vision of what should be done in Iraq. I won't hold my breath, for I have yet to hear any left leaning individual anywhere offer a drastically different and/or substantive solution to the major issue of the day, the War in Iraq.
That's about as substantive of a response as your team can muster I guess. You also are following the Nancy Pelosi playbook of 'forget constructive debate, just bash'.
You didn't make a point, you just regurgitated a bunch of irrelevant talking points that relate to reality, and our post, not at all. "Cut and run" isn't a real thing -- it's a talking point. And like all of the rhetoric that the Bush Administration has substituted for policy since coming to power, it will do nothing to change reality. It's just more of the same crap.
While the right is busy screaming their untethered talking points and stomping their feet, reality is falling down on the heads of our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan -- and will soon fall on all our heads, too. When it does, the Right will scream and stomp some more, and claim it was everyone else's fault -- because all they have to cling to is the wall they've erected between themselves and reality.
Unfortuately, their wall will fall on all of us when it falls. And it will fall -- because reality is a bitch, baby, and it doesn't listen to Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity.
The mission in Iraq was predicated on a lie, it was badly executed, and we don't have the means to turn it around -- that's reality. That's where we are, and how we got here. Everything else -- all the talking points and the screaming and stomping -- is crap.
Post a Comment
While the right is busy screaming their untethered talking points and stomping their feet, reality is falling down on the heads of our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan -- and will soon fall on all our heads, too. When it does, the Right will scream and stomp some more, and claim it was everyone else's fault -- because all they have to cling to is the wall they've erected between themselves and reality.
Unfortuately, their wall will fall on all of us when it falls. And it will fall -- because reality is a bitch, baby, and it doesn't listen to Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity.
The mission in Iraq was predicated on a lie, it was badly executed, and we don't have the means to turn it around -- that's reality. That's where we are, and how we got here. Everything else -- all the talking points and the screaming and stomping -- is crap.
Links to this post:
<< Home
