Take a minute to read an article about the College Republican National Convention by Max Blumenthal.
Generation Chickenhawk - The Nation
By the time I encountered Cory Bray, a towering senior from the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School of Business, the beer was flowing freely. “The people opposed to the war aren’t putting their asses on the line,” Bray boomed from beside the bar. Then why isn’t he putting his ass on the line? “I’m not putting my ass on the line because I had the opportunity to go to the number-one business school in the country,” he declared, his voice rising in defensive anger, “and I wasn’t going to pass that up.”
Attack of the College Republicans - Wonkette
Thanks for that chief. It has reaffirmed for me that we need to reinstate the draft. Then maybe these bastards will get off their high horses and practice what they preach.
“I believe in compulsory cannibalism. If people were forced to eat what they killed, there would be no more wars.” Abbie Hoffman
Its interesting to point out a specific instance. There are Republicans, Democrats, Independents and third partiers that all choose NOT to join the military.
This person simply stated they had a choice of a good education and didn’t want to pass that up. Does it make him lazy or evil? No. What about those who followed President Clinton out of the country to avoid the draft, evil? No. These are simply people who excercised their choices. Choices we as Americans should be proud to have.
Compulsory actions are antithesis to a democratic and free nation. I’m interested to see if people like Tony C would oppose the draft if it were reinstated after making a commment like this here. Hopefully we won’t have to find out.
If the literary point of this article is to paint Bray in the light of an alcoholic or at best drunken college student we should not forget that alcohol(ism) is not blind to one’s political affiliation.
My support of a draft–specifically some sort of automatic draft legislation–is contingent upon, and this has been explained in another thread, my beliefs that not only would it help deter such an empty support of the war but that it would grant each citizen an equal investment in the war. So, it’s not necessarily the case that I’d be excited about being drafted–because I wouldn’t–, but I do feel that a draft would be an extremely effective and deterring consideration when preparing for war. It just seems to me that a draft would prevent people from blindly going to war without ever considering fighting in the war themselves. And this article perfectly illustrates my previous sentence. That’s all I mean by supporting a draft.
I’m going to begin deleting comments that I feel need to be deleted. We don’t need a topic with 120 comments and half of those comments are people calling each other names.
If you are going to comment on this blog, please be intelligent. Consider this a warning. I won’t delete comments previous to this post. But I will begin weeding out pointless comments in the future.
LOL
the point of the article was to show that those that Crowe the loudest about supporting the troops and this war being something good and righteous are the first to come up excuses as to why they can’t serve.
Many here want to always throw Clinton into the draft dodging mix but , if you check the records there are far more Democrats in D.C. that have served their country proudly than their are republicans.
It’s easy to set up recruiting tables at inner city schools and set up Shops (recruiting offices in poor neighborhoods) I bet if most of the soldiers doing the fighting and the dying in this war were more affluent say the sons and daughters of this administration,
then maybe diplomacy might have been given a chance to work.
It is hypocritical that these young “patriots” think that getting wasted and becoming the next generation of slash and burn politicians when actual brave young women and men are dying is serving their country and fighting the war on terror.
I usually hate talking politics with my close friends (most of them are on the other side of the spectrum) but sometimes it happens to come up in conversation. As soon as the war issue arises, and they throw their support behind it, I ask them (not seriously but just to prove a point) “why dont you enlist?” All the same old excuses are used and the subject is quickly changed, but really, the actual reason why most people dont enlist is because they would never want to go out of their comfort zone. They enjoy their air conditioned houses in the suburbs and would rather stay here to drink and party than “serve their country.” I use that term loosely by the way. Now I wouldnt say that I dont like those things myself, but the fact is I dont support the war, and their isnt any point in involving myself in a cause that I feel is immoral and unjust. If you feel so strongly for a cause, such as the war in Iraq, take the damn ribbon magnet off you car and actually support your troops by going to Iraq.
Is that why Barbra Boxer, Bob Kerrey, John Kerrey and the list goes on and on said back in 1998 that Hussein had wmd’s and that something must be done. But we forget about all that don’t we cause they are democrats and they get a free pass right. Diplomacy doesn’t work with Saddam Hussein you should know that Robyn.
“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.”
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.
“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.
“Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.”
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.
“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.
“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.
“Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.
“There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.”
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.
“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.”
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.
“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction.”
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.
“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…”
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.
“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.”
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.
“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,
“He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do.”
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.
“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. “[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction … So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real …
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.
GIVE ME A BREAK ROBYN.
Chief I applaude you in getting rid of the name calling. Thank you.
Robin,
As I pointed out in my original post the literary rhetoric of painting this student in a “getting wasted” light is exactly the kind of hypocritical hyperbole that was intended to emphasize the dislikability of the student.
I’m not trying to call any one specific person’s military record into question. I believe equal cases can be found for those who left. I do know people personally who tried filing as conscientious objectors but still went and did their duty instead of deserting.
By this light it is just as able to support the war and its intentions without participating for personal reasons as it is to object to the war but still serve for similar personal reasons.
What I wanted to point out is that these examples exist on both sides of the isle and the mentality of “us vs. them” invites prejudice.
Mike,
I can completely respect you for not enlisting if you don’t support the war and I think what you say is true for most people not going outside of one’s comfort zone.
I think we can think of enlisting in another way. Enlisting now to serve this country in this specific war would almost certainly mean that that person supports the war. And if you don’t support it then by all means don’t enlist. That’s whats great about a volunteer army.
However, in time of peace joining has less to do with any war. Does it mean we support the government that controls the military? Remember that every 4 years that government is subject to change so maybe joining is or should be viewed as a support of those in authority.
Does this mean that every Republican would join simply because the White House is painted Red or Democrats because it is Blue? Of course not. People still weigh their options and make choices that are best for them.
Personally, I never enlisted. I like to think if I was younger and in my prime I would. But I was ignorant to everything the military offered. I wasn’t aware of the opprotunities and didn’t want to be an infantry so I didn’t join. I also had a bad taste for the “politics” of the army from 2 years in ROTC so I chose not to. But I have had many good freinds that joined.
Tony,
I don’t see how a mandatory draft would create a greater sense of support for the troops back home. In previous wars where drafts did exist there was terrible treatment for those who served.
Support for the war can be summed up in the agenda of the general media. Bad stories always sell better than good ones. Bombs exploding and husbands that kill their wives make headlines while new schools being built in Iraq and husbands celbrating a 40th aniversary go unnoticed.
It is the negative publicity that hinders the support for the war not the volunteer status of those who serve.
Now if you want to postulate that a draft would create more thought as to whether we should enter into war or not, I would claim that it would lenghten the debate but hardly impact the outcome. Some would say that gives us a greater strength with more numbers. Others would say it impacts moral. Indeed if those who objected but were forced to join that would impact the moral.
Keep in mind that leadership often requires one to do what is right, regardless of popular opinion that may be to the contrary.
Cheif,
Feel free to delete this if you want, but I wanted you to see it first. This comment is not intended to name call or a personally attack anyone.
I have commented here before and my comment was deleted then comments disabled. All I did was point out something that had been pointed out in the news, because it was in direct conflict to statements made by one of your posters.
If you want to have an open conversation about the issues that face the democratic party you should be open to the criticism that can come from a public forum. Everyone can learn from those who disagree with them.
The Mysterious Stranger
(Excerpt from Chapter 9)
by Mark Twain
“Monarchies, aristocracies, and religions are all based upon that large defect in your race — the individual’s distrust of his neighbor, and his desire, for safety’s or comfort’s sake, to stand well in his neighbor’s eye. These institutions will always remain, and always flourish, and always oppress you, affront you, and degrade you, because you will always be and remain slaves of minorities. There was never a country where the majority of the people were in their secret hearts loyal to any of these institutions.”
I did not like to hear our race called sheep, and said I did not think they were.
“Still, it is true, lamb,” said Satan. “Look at you in war — what mutton you are, and how ridiculous!”
“In war? How?”
“There has never been a just one, never an honorable one — on the part of the instigator of the war. I can see a million years ahead, and this rule will never change in so many as half a dozen instances. The loud little handful — as usual — will shout for the war. The pulpit will — warily and cautiously — object — at first; the great, big, dull bulk of the nation will rub its sleepy eyes and try to make out why there should be a war, and will say, earnestly and indignantly, “It is unjust and dishonorable, and there is no necessity for it.” Then the handful will shout louder. A few fair men on the other side will argue and reason against the war with speech and pen, and at first will have a hearing and be applauded; but it will not last long; those others will outshout them, and presently the anti-war audiences will thin out and lose popularity. Before long you will see this curious thing: the speakers stoned from the platform, and free speech strangled by hordes of furious men who in their secret hearts are still at one with those stoned speakers — as earlier — but do not dare to say so. And now the whole nation — pulpit and all — will take up the war-cry, and shout itself hoarse, and mob any honest man who ventures to open his mouth; and presently such mouths will cease to open. Next the statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception.”
Charles,
I don’t know what comment and what post you are referring to. I’ve only deleted two or three comments since November (and one of those was at the request of the person that posted the comment). I would be willing to place money on the fact that I did not delete any comment of yours.
I don’t plan on deleting comments that oppose the views of democrats and this blog. I haven’t done it in the past and don’t plan on doing it in the future. This is an open-forum and it will continue to be. I just don’t want people to be suprised if a comment that says “you’re an idiot” (and that’s all it says) gets deleted. I don’t plan on deleting many comments but it will happen.
Charles,
Thank you for your opinion but I wouldn’t call this article a hyperbole at all. Since the RNC convention last summer and the Colleg Republicans Convention last month Several reporters have interviewd sereval Young Republicans.
Two key questions were asked of them 1. do you support the war in Iraq? 2. would you consider enlisting?
The interesting part of this and other articles that are out there is that a lot of these young people who support the war and call other americans that don’t unpatriotic when asked to put their money were their mouth was came up with every excuse known to man and then some.
One had the nerve to say she wanted to be a politican one day and wanted to live to see that. (what blatant nerve)
It takes some major conjones for the very people who call liberals terrorist for wanting to explore peaceful options before going to war and unpatriotic for not serving when they give such trite answers as to why they will serve themselves.
The War is going well according to this administration and young Republicans yet the President himself just asked more young men and women to enlist. I say if Young Republicans consider themselves the only true Patriots then they should be the first in line at the recruiters office.
“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.”
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.
“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.
“Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.”
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.
“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.
“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.
“Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.
“There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.”
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.
“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.”
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.
“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction.”
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.
“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…”
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.
“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.”
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.
“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,
“He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do.”
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.
“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. “[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction … So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real …
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.
Robin,
Hyperbole was intended for the comentary portion of the article that illustrated the student in question and inferred that the RNC was a beer garden. I think we are all guilty of hyberbole, and there isn’t anything wrong with that alone.
As I read the article I picked up on a tone that was trying to put an ethical spin against someone the writer disagreed with rather than simply stating the facts of the interview.
I have no doubt that there were many people there who support the war but had little or no intention of joining. Lets face it, it was a Collegiate RNC. That means most of the people were probably already in college right. I bet if we went over seas and surveyed those service we would get a very high ratio of those who enlisted.
Personal fears are emotions we must all face. No one should fault someone for not wanting to risk their life if they feel incapable of making that sacrifice.
As for peaceful solutions, I believe very strongly that many attemps were made. Let’s not forget that Iraq was a nation with a leader that did not listen to diplomatic solutions. He invaded his sovereign nieghbors, had many plans for WMDs (which should not have been the key point of the war), used chemical weapons on his own people and refused to adhere to a dozen UN sanctioned diplomatic solutions.
Joe-
Thanks for reminding us that you get your arguments directly from the RNCs talking points. What’s noticeably missing from any of these Democratic quotes you’ve thrown-out (twice) is talk of a full-scale invasion that deposes Saddam and imposes America’s will on a foreign country creating a power vacuum and terroristic nightmare for Iraq’s citizens. Yes, Democrats recognized Saddam as a threat - do you think that justifies President Bush’s thus-far disastrous choices? Does that make our criticism of his choices ANY LESS VALID?
Charles-
I don’t buy your claims that falling support for the war is just a result of “negative publicity.” The fact is that President Bush has NEVER leveled with the American people about the costs of this war. He has cut taxes for the rich while the poor have been sent into battle with inadequate supplies (armor), poor leadership (Abu Ghraib), and likely insufficient numbers. He has allowed billions of dollars in war profiteering to disappear without a trace into Haliburton’s coffers. Meanwhile, the entire burden of this war is being passed onto this nation’s children - either they’re the ones who are doing the actual fighting and dying or they’re the ones who are going to end up paying for it. Not only will they be paying Bush’s debt (+interest) - there’s a very real possibility this entire ordeal (largely of OUR creation) could become a regional conflict our children will be fighting on & off for decades. Where’s the upside to that? What’s there to support? “We broke it, we bought it”….I can almost buy that one….but what’s there to like about it. We were supposed to be welcomed as liberators. Instead, we’ve brought terror into the Iraqis’ lives.
Where is all this good news when even Republican Senator Chuck Hagel admits “Insurgent attacks are more frequent than a year ago. Bombs used by insurgents are growing more deadly, piercing America’s best protective clothing and equipment. Oil production is down. Electricity is less available than a year ago. Economic development is lagging. Ninety percent of the humanitarian and economic aid pledged by 60 nations hasn’t reached Iraq because of the continuing violence. Only one Middle Eastern country has an ambassador in Iraq”? All that with more than 1700 Americans dead and you want to talk about school’s opening up and running water? These people had excellent schools and infrastructure until we blew them up.
For every tiny step forward we make, we’re nowhere near returning this country to normalcy. Rumsfeld admits the insurgency could take well more than a decade to quelch - it may go on indefinitely. Meanwhile, nothing breeds terror like terror - no matter who’s actually setting off the bombs in Iraq’s streets it’s our presence that many are going to associate with bringing this curse into their lives. Hell, we even admit it - we gloat over it. We have an entire Republican Congress running all over the country saying it’s better to fight the terrorists in Baghdad than in Boston. Better THEY kill their own people than some of ours. Yeah, that’s the message we need to be sending to win the hearts and minds in Iraq….to win them for Osama Bin Laden, that is. Oh wait, who’s he? A person sure wouldn’t know from what President Bush has been saying for the last 3 years.
Is that hyperbole? No…it’s outrage. This was the wrong war at the wrong time, and the American people are beginning to catch on to that fact. The only thing keeping this war going is the hopes of people like you that things can’t possibly be as bad as they seem. Except in those cases, the truth is they’re usually a whole lot worse.
Kyle,
If you want to quote Kerry as “the wrong war at the wrong time” Lets not forget his other quote “I actually voted for it, before I voted against it”.
There are dozens of reasons why proper equipment and training doesn’t reach the front line. Most of it falls under the heading of politics, specifically party politics.
I have no doubt that President Bush gave us and the world bad information with regards to WMD. However, that does not illegitimize the dozen other valid reasons for leading the invasion.
Schools were better off under Saddam’s reign. The same reign that denied education to women. This is the same reign whose idea of health care was gassing its own people. This is the same reign that systematically beat and tortued its own Olympic team. We all remember the Olympics don’t we, they represent diplomacy and peace, but be damned if you can’t win a gold, we’ll break your kneecaps?
War is hell, there is no getting around it. But I don’t recall getting to vote in Iraq’s election. In fact I’m not aware of anyone that isn’t a citizen of Iraq that got to vote.
The transition is a difficult one, most of the insurgents are not Iraqi Nationals. They are gaining support from Iran and Syria. The strides to establish freedom and democracy will succeed there.
The terrorists hope that we do not have the resolve to do what is neccessary. They hope that that edge is what will allow them to win. Their hope is that we will say this war is not worth it. The people of Iraq aren’t worth it, and freedom is not worth it. Then they will know that terror and their tactics of emotional fear have succeeded.
Democratic societies show an increase in education, income, quality of life and personal liberties. Democratic countries are less likely to war with their neighbors without provocation. How can we say that freedom and democracy is not worth showing the resolve to someone who hides behind a mask and murders children?
If freedom is worth it to the Iraqi people, they will claim it for themselves…as has always been the case of free people. Voting alone does not make you free. Saddam Hussein was elected numerous times. Freedom demands that you actually BELIEVE in democracy and the fundamental right of man (and hopefully woman) to self-determination.
Our presence, while perhaps necessary in the extreme short-term, can only truly corrupt faith in Iraqi self-rule. There is no such thing as an occupied democracy - so long as we are in Iraq, in many Iraqis’ eyes, their own government will be illegitimate. Likely, we WILL inspire reactionaries and unite the Iraqi people most only in efforts to rid themselves of these outsiders using their country for geo-political/economic gain.
WMD was a mistaken justfication? Then what truly justified our invasion of Iraq. If it is the rights of women and human rights abuses, our friends the Saudis have a much more oppressive regime than the enlightened-by-comparison rule of Saddam. The Saudis, not to mention Iran, have also given much more comfort and aid to terrorists.
You speak as if all we need is the resolve to see this through to the end. But what end is that? And does it really stop at Iraq’s borders? Most importantly, if it becomes clear that a majority of Iraqis no longer want us in their country, would we leave? If President Bush answered questions such as these, maybe those of us who DO give a damn and don’t WANT us to fail (even if failure seems quite probable) could get behind our efforts. We wouldn’t have to be called unpatriotic for asking questions every American has the RIGHT and DUTY to know the answer to.
“Staying the course” is not enough because so far that has involved deceit and turning a blind eye at every corner to the harsh realities of this war. We need more than pep talks. We deserve more than self-glorification. President Bush owes the American people concrete policy objectives, and some sort of time table by which we can gauge our efforts. It’s called ACCOUNTABILITY - the life blood of democracy. We owe it to ourselves and, yes, we owe it to the people of this fledgeling Iraqi democracy.
Kyle,
I also love how Ben Nelson aggrees that gitmo is fine and that liberals are trying to pump up this nasty campaign against gitmo and it’s commanders. Hog wash. All of your party’s liberal attacks against america and our commander and chief.