December 5, 2005
Lies of the Democrats:
- The Democrats like to pretend that Clinton was more moral than Bush, because Clinton didn't attack Iraq. He resisted entreaties by the neocons, which makes him smarter than Bush, but we already knew that. In fact, it was Bush and Blair who were behind the no-fly zones and the immoral application
of sanctions against the Iraqi people, resulting directly in the deaths
of 500,000 Iraqi children (on being specifically asked about it
Madelaine Albright said
"Yes, we think the price is worth it"). Bush has killed 100,000 or so
Iraqis. Does that make Bush five times more moral than Clinton?
- The
Democrats are screaming loudly that they were lied to by Bush who hid
from them CIA qualifications about Bush's case for war. This is true.
However, there can be do doubt that the Democrats wanted to vote for
war. Bush actually did them a favor by giving them an excuse to vote
for the war the military-industrial complex supporters of the Democrats
insisted upon. The kicker is the closed-door Senate session when the
Bush Administration presented its 'evidence' that Saddam had killer drones capable of attacking the Eastern Seaboard. This is laughable, but was swallowed whole by Democrats eager to attack Iraq.
- Some
Democrats would like to pretend they present an alternative to the Bush
Administration on Iraq, but I don't see it. Even Murtha's famous
position is merely to redeploy American troops out of the direct line
of fire of the insurgents, and keep the ragheads in line with aerial
bombardments (Juan Cole's original suggestion)
and some kind of 'Salvador option' (i. e., the use of paid Iraqi death
squads). Since the Americans are already using aerial attacks and death
squads in Iraq, these new solutions will certainly not work, and troops
will be required until the Americans are ready to give up those
precious Iraqi bases. When the Republicans, as a kind of political
theater and bluff, presented a full withdrawal resolution,
the Democrats (with three noble exceptions), voted it down, proving, as
the Republicans knew, that the Democrats work for the same
military-industrial complex that the Republicans work for. You will
hunt in vain for any prominent Democrat to take any kind of moral
position on Iraq.
The fact is that there is no
opposition to the war party in the United States. When someone like
Juan Cole advocates an essentially immoral position intended solely to
maintain American control over oil while reducing American casualty
rates, with no real regard for the Iraqi people, and all the main
Democrats are far to the right of Cole, you know there is no hope. All
the Democrats are doing is posturing, trying to pretend that they an
alternative to the Republicans. They aren't.
|
