Letters to the Editor
Published Letters: 361 Editor's Choice: 12
-
Freedom
[Read the article: David Brooks' field trip to the White House]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]his quote also struck me:
"It's more of a theological perspective. I do believe there is an Almighty, and I believe a gift of that Almighty to all is freedom. And I will tell you that is a principle that no one can convince me that doesn't exist."
I agree with Glenn's earlier position that yuo cannot know what is in Bush's brain--whether he actually believes it or just uses it as a pretext to do what his childish ego wants him to do anyway.
However, in this particular instance, this quotation is completely incoherent. There is no plan in place to bring "freedom" to the Iraqu=i people. Cheney said, early on, that only certain governments would be permitted. The current government is not one freely chosen in free and open elections, and is power at the sufferance of the US and its military.
Surveys cited over the last two years say that Iraqis want the American forces out, in numbers in the 60s now,and growing.
But, more to the point, there is no way, in a free Iraq, that a popularly elected government in an open election would select leaders who are implacable opponents of Iran, and implacable supporters of Israel. No politician could win an election in Iraq who proposed serving as a base of military operations against Syria, Iraq, Hezbollah and Hamas.
Freedom is not on the table here--unless freedom is defined as having a foreign viceroy in charge of your national security, and your government composed of craven opportunists sucking up to an imperial occupier.
The plan is permanent occupation of Iraq. Such an occupation carries the requirement that Iraqis not receive the Gift of Freedom from the Almighty, via his vessel, the crashing and burning Bush.
-
Imperialism is the greatest foe of freedom
[Read the article: Is the GOP political platform contrary to Catholic teaching?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]That's a great essay over at openleft.
This has been one of the most infuriating elements of watching the democratic candidates campaign for president. Nobody is pointing out that there is no discernible reason for the US to still be on a war footing. The threat of Terrorism does not necessitate the same commitment of treasure to the military--nor, more importantly, is there any other nation we need fear.
Using the status of sole superpower for imperialist adventures is just not in keeping with American values.
-
Late to the party but commenting nonetheless
[Read the article: Walkin' the neocon line]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I think the answer is pretty obvious. The Democrats are, by and large, complicit in the policy goals of extending power into the middle east via Iraq. If you were listening, you could hear Joe Biden saying this all along.
Moreover, they knew that the permanent bases were being built, bases designed for a permanent occupation of Iraq. Whether they voted for the bills or not, they knew that the plan was for a permanent occupation. They knew (digby puts this more delicately) that there were no plans for Iraqi sovereignty or representative government; no government opposed to Iran and supportive of Israel would even get double digits of the votes in any free election in Iraq.
Moreover, they couldn't even have a long-term basing agreement without a pliant puppet in place.
You could also see this is in the initial positions taken by the Democratic presidential candidates. All of them, Kucinich and Gravel excepted, left wiggle room for leaving those 50,000 soldiers there forever. And, still, when they talk about their "redeployment" plans, there's room for that redepeployment to turn out to be to permanent bases in Iraq. Even Richardson's "no residual force" is tied to negotiating a security agreement with Turkey, Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia--not a series of meetings likely to go smoothly.
And you can see it in the current debate, and the MSM reporting of the current debate. The question on the table is currently whether to reduce troop levels to the permanent levels sooner rather than later. There is absolutely no serious discussion of complete withdrawal--and we're hearing the drumbeat of the requirement that it will take at least a year to leave a country that was toppled in a month. Now, may Steve G. rest in peace and I disagree with him with some trepidation, this is a view that is not held only by people who support the war, but it is not obvious to me that a withdrawal would be systematically opposed--and that, especially, the folks in the South will follow the dictates of their leaders. If al Sistani says, "Let them go freely," then I think that's a strong possibility.
But the real point to this post is why we have never had the debate about retaining a permanent presence in Iraq. Nobody will lay out the reasons why this is necessary, or, ftm, isn't necessary. In my view, this is because, simply enough, it is a terribly unpopular policy that nearly everybody in the Beltway sees as inevitable, but those same nearly everybodies realize the country would freak if they were told that there will be a permanent occupation.
When Gravel raised some of these issues in South Carolina, CNN tried to exclude him from Manchester--and the coverage the next day was "crazy old man goes wild." The question of permanent occupation of Iraq, and the general question of why the US needs to remain on a war footing, even though the enemies of the US are limited to 3rd world countries and a rag tag collection of stateless individuals. The current threat to the US doesn't add up to that represented by a single Nazi tank division, or a hundred Soviet warheads.
These questions are not permissible questions to ask. That same cabal in a bubble--elected officials, the revolving doors of the military-industrial complex, and the weenie scarfing reporters--is preventing the question of the permanent occupation of Iraq from being debated or even discussed.
Since this occupation is the real reason for the war, this is a very unfortunate state of affairs.