There is no reason to get into pretzel contortions to explain why John Kerry was less wrong than G. Bush. The most vindicated critique of this war did not come from Democratic politicians. It came from the streets. Democracy is no longer in the cash-whore Congress. It’s in the streets, including the virtual street of the Web.
via IPA:
Khadduri worked on the Iraq nuclear weapons program beginning in 1981; he left Iraq in the late 1990s. He is author of the book “Iraq’s Nuclear Mirage: Memoirs and Delusions” and currently edits the “Free Iraq” blog. In November 2002, Khadduri wrote the article “Iraq’s Nuclear Non-Capability.” Before the invasion of Iraq, he warned that if the U.S. occupied Iraq “rivers of blood” would flow. He said today: “The lack of outrage on the part of people in the U.S. — as well as in Arab countries — over the lies leading to war and what is happening now in Iraq is amazing…”
I was going to link to a post for a commenter on Kevin Carson’s blog to show how easily rabid partisans can sing a different tune when prompted by the hierarchies conducting the band. I didn’t because it seems the “Free” Republic has deleted the threads in which their loyal posters defended poor Saddam against Clinton’s illegal bombing campaign.
Robert Scheer talks to Amy Goodman about his firing by the LA Times. He’s been a columnist there since 1976. Knight Ridder, a source that consistently provided some of the best Iraq coverage, is considering “sale of the company.”
Antiwar “Progressives” who are really just AntiBush have no moral ground to stand on. Soldiers and Iraqis are nothing more than pawns in their political games just as they are for Freepers.
“….they’d kill us all to make a buck.”
I agree with the denunciations of the Democrats, but I feel the need to add that people who are genuinely opposed to the invasion and occupation of Iraq or at least who are more opposed to it than they are opposed to Bush -i.e. not “move on” crowd who I believer were mostly opposed to the invasion and many, if not most, of whom are opposed to the occupation but they are far more opposed to Bush than to the U.S. running Iraq- are few and far between. Partisan politics of the binary nature so dominates the political culture of the U.S. that it is hard to get a hearing on any issue if you do not participate in that type of politics.
So what should be done? I don’t know for sure, but I’m tempted to say that now is the time to stop defending Democrats, or Republicans, when the other side charges them with things that are basically true but embellished with falsehoods, as was the case in Bush’s speech on November 11. Instead, we need to concentrate on the larger issues and hope that leads to gaining ground.
The tactical problem with this is that a lot of the time this will make us (and I use that to refer to the diverse group of people who are fundamentally opposed to at least some aspect of the “war on terror”) irrelevant to popular conversations. It would mean, for instance, that when the question of Scooter comes up, saying something like, “pardon him as the guilt/innocence issues on this small matter will almost certainly distract from the larger issues of how the invasion of Iraq was promoted by Team Bush.”
The ethical problem with this is that it does mean being tacitly in agreement with the politics of idiocy and falsehoods that already is dominant.
I’m just writing off the top of my head here, but I do think that finding a way around/out of/to destroy the binary politics of the U.S. is essential for significant change.
“now is the time to stop defending Democrats, or Republicans“
micah- It seems to me there are two kinds of partisans; some like love addicts in the nightmare relationship incapable of seeing what’s obvious to strangers.
Then there are those who engage in the deliberate obfuscation of facts in order to keep their fellow Americans ignorant to the faults of their party.
Neither group can be swayed by tactics, or negotiations and compromise – they’d be repelled by even the suggestion.
And if individuals can support specific actions taken by either party without drinking the KoolAid why not the antiwar movement? So long as priorities are not compromised and the focus is on facts in hand not tongue in cheek promises that Santa Claus will deliver.
Cindy Sheehan proved the American people appreciate someone with the guts to demand answers to questions the press and parties refuse to ask. There should be a Ray McGovern or Karen Kwaitkowski challenging George to a debate as he takes his lying ass across the world on his PR offensive.
He is offensive. Someone with the skills to reveal the corner where he hides but from which he cannot run should be out there doing so. NOW.
One other thing. Where are the Iraqi voices in the antiwar movement?
Did you happen to see this hit piece Rolling Stone did on the Sept. March on Washington?
Not only does Tim Dickinson spin events on the Ellipse completely alien to my experience there, and I was in front of the press stage, but he concludes that all voices should be silenced in this debate except for those serving in the military and their family members. To say the antiwar movement must be limited to military voices, and to feature this in a magazine that is read by a target group of that same institution, is tantamount to recruiting.
I was talking about not supporting Dems or Repubs when they are right, although that sometimes can be problematic as they may be right about a small point and miss the larger picture, which becomes further obscured as a result of the attention they bring to what it is they are interested in, but rather it is a waste of time to care about Dems being unfairly slandered by Bush because they did not have access to the exact same info about WMDs in Iraq that the White House did since the WMDs did not add up to a case for war.
RE “Iraqi voices in the antiwar movement,” if you are talking about people in the U.S. or at least outside of Iraq, they appear to be as silent now as they were during the build up to the invasion, but then again maybe everyone is just missing them. And before anyone says something to the effect of, “they support U.S. policy,” I will point out that I don’t hear from such people either. As far as in Iraq, there is a lot of it. A month or two ago, I believe the legislature asked the U.S. to provide details on what its plans for a continued military presence in Iraq were. I do not believe there has been a response.
I did read Tim Dickinson’s piece -IIRC the same issue had Matt Taibbi’s bizarre story on Lynndie England that, despite lots of great prose, essentially ridiculed England for wanting to say that torture was condoned but then went to say that her trial was meaningless because it wouldn’t get at the real culprits- and I have mixed feelings about it. On a practical level, he is probably right. The more military connected the “anti-war” movement is, the more effective it will be. (There wouldn’t have been anywhere near as much attention paid to Cindy Sheehan if she were just a person angered by Bush’s invasion and occupation of Iraq, for example.) On the other hand, this is anti-intellectual and I don’t want the U.S. to be able to save face because if that happens, it means just about everybody will once again support the next big military action whenever it comes up.
What I don’t see is how the article amounts to recruiting. Joining the military so you can more effectively, at a later date, argue against U.S. military interventions is not a path I see many following. Also, I’m not sure what the target demographic for Rolling Stone is. It might be, at this point, people in their late twenties and on who are still “cool.”
I’ve yet to see a Dem or Republican that can be trusted even when they appear to be finally getting something right. They care about polls and covering all bases, not much else. McCain’s alleged stand on torture was conveniently neutralised by Graham and each endorsed the other’s BS so when elections roll around they can honestly say they supported both positions whilst nothing at all changes, at least for those in Gitmo. I heard a comment today that all this talk about troop withdrawal next year is for the Iraqi’s benefit so they’ll stay interested in the December elections as in, see, it really is your country! Hasn’t the plan been for some time to increase troops before then decrease after? But I think these politicians’ feet should still be held to the fire when they come out in support of these issues. That’s what I meant by supporting specific actions not the parties or candidates.
I’d guess RS‘s demographics include baby boomers increasing the likelihood adolescents and teenagers in those homes are turning its pages with the hand that isn’t holding a cell phone. Then there’s the online presence, too. It’s tantamount because Dickinson first misrepresented the speakers and organisations (why didn’t he ask Sheehan if her speech had been cut short – the wrong reply would have scuttled his agenda?) then declares only soldiers or affiliated have a legitimate right to protest the occupation. He doesn’t spare a word delving into the mindset of active duty soldiers, the indoctrination that keeps them loyal to their brothers even when they disagree with the mission, or the societal and emotional waves their families ride, or that active duty personnel cannot legally speak out even if they wanted to and those that make it home who did experience horrors are lucky if they can live with what they’ve done let alone embark upon a country-wide tour recounting it over and again.
In effect, he filters the truth to convince less informed readers that all other occupations funded by US taxpayers aren’t worthy of discussion or germaine to the occupation in Iraq and they should only resist that one if and when the occupiers tell them it’s okay. He then takes a stroll down the “responsible” road upon which every stalling politician in D.C. has set-up a “stay-the-course” podium, hoping against hope if they can just keep people off their backs for another year or two there will be enough dead and imprisoned Iraqis that the country will appear reasonably calm and whatever population is still alive and “free” will finally “accept” permanent bases and the U.S. presence that goes along with them.