Letters to the Editor
susan sunflower
Published Letters: 1376 Editor's Choice: 29
-
the first test of genuine leadership and consensus building will surround the issue of how we get out of iraq ...
[Read the article: How the Democrats differ on Iraq]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]and educating the American people about how wars end where there's no recognizable "other side" to negotiate and come to agreement with. I think, as in so many things, Americans have a simplistic and sanitized view of these things. Even in our civil war, we had an "other side" available to officially surrender eventually.
A few months ago, I discovered a "Recreate '68" website apparently devoted to "organizing" demonstrations at the 2008 Denver Democratic convention. While my first reaction was that this was an FBI sting - agent provacateur - fishing expedition RATHER THAN some peculiar boomer nostalgia, I have come to realize that just such a potentially ugly and divisive confrontation is possible if "our" candidates don't stop pandering to voters' demands for simplistic, "... and then they all lived happily ever after" answers.
Binden may be "right", "correct" and even "accurate" but it's not our country to divide, a sizable number of Iraqis oppose it AND -- probably dooming it -- it's a fat cat, "I got mine, fuck you" solution that "gives" peace to the Kurds and the southern Shiia (both big oil producing regions) while leaving the seething, less affluent middle on its own. Irrc, Biden has suggested it as a temporizing move ... to get the oil flowing .. but it's another "Peace to end all peace"...
The Democratic Convention in 1968 did a lot of things to the American psyche (and the trial of the Chicago 7 afterwards was amazing) ... like many others, I was almost there, my ride fell through... and I watched with a mix of admiration and horror as my peers DEMANDED the Democratic Convention acknowledge them and give up "business as usual." The 1968 convention frightened a lot of people as did the radicalization of left in general. It's wasn't all "peace love and understanding."
Unfortunately, Clinton reeks of "business as usual" ... I think the potential is there for a debacle in Denver unless "our" candidates educate and lead long before the convention assembles. While it's tempting to dream of a dark horse/white knight/clean hands Al Gore (or Bloomberg) candidacy, we need to stick to the ugly realities of the nuts and bolts of "how will this work?"
I believe we have to get all the way out..... Fasten your seatbelts, it's going to be a bumpy ride.
url for recreate 68: http://www.recreate68.org/album1_dnc_001.htm
-
from Wikipedia:
[Read the article: How the Democrats differ on Iraq]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The decision of a Presidential nominee was particularly difficult for the Democrats that year, due to the split in the party over the Vietnam War, President Lyndon B. Johnson's decision not to seek re-election, and Robert Kennedy's assassination. On one side, Senator Eugene McCarthy, D-MN, ran a decidedly anti-war campaign, calling for the immediate withdrawal from the region. On the other side, Vice President Hubert Humphrey called for a policy more in line with President Johnson's, which focused on making any reduction of force contingent on concessions extracted in the Paris Peace Talks.
The Democrats eventually settled on Humphrey, who would lose the election to Richard M. Nixon. The confusion of the convention, and the unhappiness of many liberals with the outcome, led the Democrats to begin reforms of their nominating process, increasing the role of primaries and decreasing the power of party delegates in the selection process. But the election for the Democrats would soon take a turn for the worse.
Many believe the democractic party has been "running away" from 1968 since then ... the party line, I believe, is that the dangerous radicals/activists took over and ruined the party.... Personally, I blame the Democratic party "morphing" into Republican-light ....
I remember the years of "peacemaking" that followed 1968 ... finally signed in 1973 ... as monumentally depressing. and, just for reference, April 30, 1975 was the "helicopters on the embassy roof" evacuation.
I'm not interesting in arguing "what we should do" ... I am interested in getting the wannabe presidential candidates to address the issue, educate the nation and discuss our options. Don't forget Humphrey lost to Nixon.
-
... "should they (the democrats) gain the presidency in 2008, they may then find themselves in a similar position in 2012 to the outgoing Johnson Administration"
[Read the article: How the Democrats differ on Iraq]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]yes, I think that's a real possibility... given the impatience I see with the current "democratic majority"
I think there will be elections, if simply because to NOT have elections would be unacceptable (see Florida 2000)...
It's gonna be a shitty decade for whomever is elected ... of which ever party ... we will need a "leader" who is willing to educate and involve the American people ... I'm just hoping we don't create a Hitler.
Credibility and communication skills are job #1.
As for "how" we get out of Iraq, our options will evolve depending on the conditions that are "set" or "accepted" ... we have to start with what "out" means ... THEN, maybe, we can talk about how and reasonably ask for assistance.
The logistics and mechanics of "getting out" will follow ...
-
The unalterable fundamental betrayal of the Iraq "adventure" was sending in too few people to get the job done ...
[Read the article: Operation Iraq betrayal]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]and failing to remedy this FACT ever. The inadequacy of their equipment is a close second.
This is true regardless of whether one regards this "endeavor" at its outset as justified or the illegal invasion of a sovereign nation.
The next time Tony Snow or one of his ilk complain that demanding, much less setting, an exit date signals to the "enemy" that they can outwait us, someone should ask what is signaled by sending in too few people to do the job and by failing to fix that problem when it becomes apparent.
I cannot understand why everyone is so "polite" about an administration that has been engaged on the wrong end of an apparent war of attrition (our available troops apparently are due to somehow "run out" next Spring). This is an administration that also declined to act on a whole summer full of warnings prior to 09/11 and who "dropped the ball" (and continues to "fumble") with regard to Hurricaine Katrina ... these are not paragons of good intentions and "workable strategies" unexpectedly becalmed by "bad luck."