Rolling Stone has an article that documents how the anti-war crowd was betrayed by the very Democrats that they elected. Now, I don't agree with the anti-war crowd, mostly because I think that we cannot afford to lose, and there does seem to be progress because of the "Surge." (Trademark pending).
But nonetheless, I can sympathize with those who believed that the Democrats would make a change, only to have that belief crushed under their booted heel.
There ought to be a special ring of hell for those who cynically betray the naive for their own political purposes.
Oops, that would be a pretty full ring, now wouldn't it?
12 comments:
Iraq was, from the beginning, a bipartisan effort - it was well understood by the leadership of both parties that, with the disappointment in the size of Caspian Sea reserves, that we needed to lock up Iraq's oil for the foreseeable future. This required an invasion, bases, and permanent troop occupation, along with a massive propaganda campaign.
And face it - the American public likes war. It wasn't hard to line them up behind the attack. But they don't like prolonged wars, so as they have tired of Iraq the Democrats have been in a quandary - how to stay in office and keep genuine anti-war people out of office, and keep the public from revolting.
The answer has been symbolic gesturing against the war while supporting it at every critical turn. I've written about this from the beginning. It's a bipartisan war, has been from the beginning. Glad you are finally on board.
Hey - Occam, you got a razor that we could use here?
Mark - if it was about just getting oil, the most efficient means would have been to tell Saddam, "We will drop the sanctions, and let you kill your own people, so long as you sell us all of your oil."
You forget that prior to 9-11 American foreign policy is based on stability. Stability means predictability, which means that you are less likely to make a mistake with calamitous results.
What about the article, especially in light of our own senior senator?
I remember in 2002 when it seemed as if Max was running as a Republican. He always had pictures of him and Bush in all of his commercials. Now, as the chairman of the Senate Finance committee, he has the power to cut off spending on the war and yet he refuses to use it. So my question: Why no true anti-war candidate in the Democratic primary? Could it be that the anti-war crowd is really just anti-Republican?
Kind of takes away from any claim to moral superiority doesn't it?
Occam would say it's about oil. It's not about democracy, as the US has never shown any particular interest in that, except to thwart it. It wasn't about Saddam, as the US support Saddam right through his most sordid crimes. It wasn't about WMD's as he had none - when it was known that he did have them, with Bush, I, the US did the rational thing, and backed off. So Occam would say this: Look to the most logical reason for invading and occupying a country: Control of its resources. It's about two things: Control of oil - "control" being key, and bases - the 14 military bases and the ability to permanently house 100,000 troops are critical.
All you who can look at this and walk away saying it's not about oil are hard to fathom. I have a bridge ...
Who is the true anti-war candidate in the Democratic Party - unfortunately, Dodd and Kucinich. It's not Hillary for sure - she supports the war. It's not Obama - he would not get favorable press coverage if he were anti-war. It wasn't Edwards - he supported the war. It wasn't Biden - he supported the war. Read what I said above - these people support the aggression for strategic reasons that they are unable to talk about publicly, since we don't admit the reasons for the invasion to ourselves.
Sorry, I can't buy the "occult hand" theory of the universe that you ascribe to. I think that it is just cold calculating politics, and Baucus is just one more example.
I just wonder why no one on the anti-war side is upset. Must be that being anti-Republican is the real reason. I have said in the past, that if Bill Clinton had done what Bush has done, he would have had the support of the Republicans, and more than half the Democrats.
[Note: Mark T. has been removed from his blogging headquarters by men in a black helicopter. Please be patient. We expect Mark to return shortly with more information on the real war in Iraq and “peak oil.” Meanwhile, please tune your hidden radio receivers to Radio Caracas for the latest news on Mobile Exxon’s terrorist attack against Venezuelan oil production.]
Is it so hard to imagine that our leaders don't consult us or level with us? Can you be any more naive? Good grief - look at us! We teh public, we are emotional and unpredictable - there is no wisdom to be gained from the voting public. We are only to be brought along, lied to as necessary, told enough to form wrong judgments - our opinions are to be managed, but certainly not heeded. This idea that they are always being straight with us is right out of Mayberry.
Well, Mark, if that’s the way you feel about Chavez and Venezuela, I suggest you move back to the USA.
What an Idiot!
My goodness, Mark, you’ve lost another argument and resorted to name calling. I’m going to report you to Dave Budge!
You were arguing? Well then, is that all you got?
I usually don't do the name calling thing, but you really are an idiot.
“Is that all you got?”
Stealing Wulfgar’s lines now, eh? Whew. That’s desperate. What’s next? Get Steve to start altering people’s comments so nobody can make a fool out of you?
No, Mark, when you say something new AND sane, I’ll be there to point out your mistakes.
I've made the pig mistake, as in when you get in the pit with one you are going to get dirty.
Good bye.
Post a Comment