Letters to the Editor
-
TomOfCDA
I mean, none of the other times mentioned in Greenwald's excellent article had a competitive general election attached. Perhaps I'm just bitter after the week that has been, but really, if the Repugs take away the Dems signature issue -- troop withdrawal -- it's hard for me to see how this unprincipled collection of Dumbocratic cowards stands a chance in 2008.<.blockquote>
It was conventional wisdom before both the 2004 and 2006 elections that Bush would start to withdrawal troops in order to claim victory and eliminate dissatisfaction with the war from the election. That just isn't how Bush works.
-
Addendum about Iraq's best interest
While it certainly would benefit Iraqis in certain ways to cease all violence and allow Bush to have his way, I can certainly see an argument from any Iraqi saying "but having permanent US bases in Iraq is not in our long term interest and neither is being forced to privatize our oil fields to US companies"
There is increasing compelling evidence that the whole fiasco really is just about the Oil, was only ever about the oil and every other justification has been ad hoc or post facto rationalizations.
Those "no blood for oil" signs were more prescient than we thought.
-
actually, the status quo may serve the democratic party better than any progress ...
over on Common Dreams there is an article regarding the recent vote, pointing out succinctly that the Democratic party is NOT "a", much less "the" peace movement ... and, for that matter, MoveOn -- which is an adjunct of the Democratic party is either ....
Both Party and MoveOn exist to get democrats elected.... anything that reduces generalized unhappiness with how things are is likely seen as undermining the support they received in November... while Bush is certainly "to blame" ... 18 months of blaming Bush, particularly with a Democratic majority (though paper thin), is likely become at least ANNOYING ...
So, my advice is to stop expecting the Democrats to lead the "peace movement" ... just hope they pay attention in old-fashioned, "if the people will lead, the politicians will follow" fashion.
Democratic Spin Won’t End the War in Iraq
by John Stauber
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/05/25/1440/
"Iraq for the Iraqis" is quite a different message than "Bring our Troops Home Now" (but leave all those other folks) ...
Perhaps each of us needs to figure out what we mean by "end the war" and start speaking CLEARLY to THAT end. Personally, I mean "Iraq for the Iraqis"
-
Same song, second verse, supposed to get better, always gets worse
The recurring "imminent troop reduction" refrain is matched by another, equally callous: the "imminent increase in insurgent attacks" aka "imminent increase in US troop casualties" warning. It's being voiced currently, with standard hand-wringing regret, to "prepare" Americans for blowback resulting from the Surge. If it sounds familiar, it should. It's trotted out as often as the "troop reduction" theme, often simultaneously. We were warned in 2003 to expect "increased dead-ender retaliation" after Saddam was captured. We were warned that terrorists would increase attacks to disrupt elections in Iraq & the US. We were similarly warned that al Qaeda, demoralized, on the run, (yet again) would try to derail the effectiveness of the Iraqi 'unity government', etc.
Now it's the Surge.
These "unusually candid" (but oddly metronomic) warnings to expect more troop casualties are invariably (some might say paradoxically) cited as "proof" that the enemy is on its' last legs, growing desperate, the current strategy has (sigh) thankfully "turned the corner" & is now showing "early signs of real success". Upon which the Administration shill reprising this dreck will gravely pronounce his "genuine but cautious optimism." While the warning of imminent increased casualties have been more prescient than the promises of imminent troop reductions, their validity as proof of imminent insurgent/al Qaeda defeat remains as groundless as anticipations of major troop draw downs.
Both refrains - the promised "imminent troop reductions" & warning of "imminent increased casualties" are eerily familiar, but not only for their repetition in this conflict. They were used, almost verbatim, to explain how promised troop reductions became escalations & why increased casualties meant imminent success, in the long-forgotten disaster of Vietnam.
-
Every time a democratic politician or pundit says things will be "strategically better" in September, all I think say is, "that's why we need a draft."
I have been really appalled by the acceptance of the "collateral damage" that has been done, is being done and is yet to be done to our personnel and their families in the next 3+ months ... next year or two ... they're hostage.
true, few of them probably expected very much from the Democrats, but still ... lives are at stake... children are learning to talk, entering kindergarten, graduating high school ...
-
susan sunflower:
I have a couple problems with this line of thought.
I have not seen evidence that anyone in the Democratic party is actually working to protract the Iraq war in order to win in 2008. It is possible such thoughts may exist in some people's twisted heads, but motive is not sufficient proof of this. Additionally, it is just as likely that voters will reject Democrats if they fail to end the Iraq war as voters expected in 2006. This would be a difficult conspiracy to manage without any overt leaks of such thinking by those who abhor such tactics.
Even if such thinking exists among some of the more manipulative and soulless leadership elements of the Democratic party, to cast aspersions at MoveOn (And by proxy blogs like DailyKos or other explicitly pro-Democratic party private entities) is not warranted. Some such sources will note the possibility that Iraq continuing will likely benefit Democrats, but their desire to have the war end seems genuine and their outrage over the supplemental, sincere.
Frankly, the supplemental has been a PR disaster for the Democrats (as well as a moral travesty, but I'm just sticking to a very cold analysis that a sociopath might engage in). It would take one hell of a clairvoyant strategic genius to have any certainty that this will pan out well for the Democrats.
I cannot reject your thesis wholly, as I cannot mind read, but it is not convincing compared to the more likely conclusion: The Democrats really are their traditional disorganized and conflicted selves, and weak centrist cowards in the party withdrew their support for timelines on the basis of bad advice from the consultant class working from a 2002 Conventional Wisdom playbook. That, as a whole, the Democrats would end the war if they had free rein, but simply chickened out, scared of the shadows of the past and the 28% President.
This is hardly a glowing endorsement of them, but by this picture they still remain a damn sight better than the lock-step lemmings of the Republican party willing to march the country off a cliff following the leader.
There is a moral difference between the man who does a wrong, and the man who is too cowardly to stop him. At least the latter would do no harm on his own.
Nonetheless, we should strive to make the Democratic party into the man who will step in and stop the crime.