WHY ARE WE IN NAJAF?
Fri Aug 13,12:03 AM ET
Op/Ed - Richard Reeves
By Richard Reeves
SAG HARBOR, N.Y. -- Sen. John Kerry (news - web sites) has not been successful so far in articulating answers to questions about whether and how the United States should go to war. But he will be guided by this draft of military application policy:
"The United States should not commit its forces to military action overseas unless the cause is vital to our national interest. If the decision is made to commit its forces to combat abroad, it must be done with clear intent and support to win. There must be clearly defined and realistic objectives. There must be reasonable assurance that the cause we are fighting for will have the support of the American people and Congress. Our troops should be committed to combat abroad only as a last resort, when no other choice is available."
The author of those words, slightly paraphrased here, is not working in the Kerry campaign. Those are the words of President Ronald Reagan (news - web sites), condensing the thoughts of his secretary of defense, Caspar Weinberger, whose original version, part of a speech he made in late 1984, included the phrase "or of our allies" after "vital to our national interest."
So what are we doing in Najaf? Is killing the followers of a nasty Shiite preacher, killing them at the gates of the most holy shrine of Shiite Muslims all over the world, vital to the national interests of the United States and its allies?
And why is it that we are killing Shiites, the wretched of the earth in the secular Sunni Muslim country of Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)? That is the same Saddam who murdered the father of the preacher five years ago. Was that our clear intent and realistic objective in invading Iraq (news - web sites)?
Would the American people and Congress -- and our allies -- have supported a $200 billion war to get preacher Muqtada al-Sadr?
And was invasion our last resort? Even the war-maker himself, President George W. Bush (news - web sites), never claimed that. In the beginning, he said, it was the last resort because the United Nations (news - web sites) had not found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. When there were no such weapons, he said Saddam was a very bad guy. That was true -- and it was true 20 years ago when we were supplying him with weapons to use against Iran. But was he a great enough threat to go to war ourselves? Was killing Iraqis after the war our last resort?
"I know what I'm doing when it comes to winning this war," said Bush last Wednesday on the campaign trail in Albuquerque. That's good to hear. What exactly are you doing in Najaf? Killing bad guys, I guess. If that is the criteria for putting the Marines around the shrine of the Imam Ali, then we will be at war forever, everywhere.
Reagan, no "girly-man" he, began thinking hard, and differently, about sending young men and women into harm's way after 241 U.S. Marines on a peacekeeping mission to Lebanon were killed by a truck-bomber who crashed into their barracks near the Beirut Airport in October 1983. (Fifty-eight French soldiers were killed in a simultaneous blast.) Seven years later in his autobiography, he wrote:
"Perhaps we didn't appreciate fully enough the depth of the hatred and complexity of the problems that made the Middle East such a jungle. Perhaps the idea of a suicide car bomber committing mass murder to gain instant entry to Paradise was so foreign to our own values and consciousness that it did not create in us the concern for the Marines' safety that it should have."
Reagan pulled the Marines out five months later, saying: "In the weeks immediately after the bombing, I believed the last thing we should do was turn tail and leave. ... Yet the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics forced us to rethink our policy there."
It was then that Reagan wrote his list of policies regarding use of the military and concluded with this: "I would recommend it to future presidents."
August 14, 2004
I couldn't have said it better myself. Article by Richard Reeves.
August 09, 2004
Powerful RNC Video about Kerry
The RNC/Bush team have released this 12 minute video showing clips of Kerry speaking about Iraq.
This is powerful stuff that will not only ring true with republicans that eat this Kerry Flip-Flop stuff right up, but also Democrats, most of whom oppose(d) the war and want a strong candidate that will (did) too.
This is a preview of what the RNC in New York will foucs on, Kerry's Senate record.
Heh, I hate to say this but I was right. I looked at Kerry's Senate record and knew it wouldn't fly quite so well in the general election and that a person without a long Senate voting record is always a better bet. Oh well, Kerry's not my man, but he certainly will need to respond to the video and maybe we can help him do that.
They really did some cheap editing with this video. Several times, if not more than half of the time, Kerry's sentences are cut off in the middle, and the viewer has no idea what his point is. For several quotes in the video, audio and visual are not provided, they just past some crap up there and expect the American public to believe what they say. At one point there is a quote from Kerry and then a written quote which tries to use an ellipse to splice together two sentences which were not originally together.
Nonetheless, powerful propaganda.
This is powerful stuff that will not only ring true with republicans that eat this Kerry Flip-Flop stuff right up, but also Democrats, most of whom oppose(d) the war and want a strong candidate that will (did) too.
This is a preview of what the RNC in New York will foucs on, Kerry's Senate record.
Heh, I hate to say this but I was right. I looked at Kerry's Senate record and knew it wouldn't fly quite so well in the general election and that a person without a long Senate voting record is always a better bet. Oh well, Kerry's not my man, but he certainly will need to respond to the video and maybe we can help him do that.
They really did some cheap editing with this video. Several times, if not more than half of the time, Kerry's sentences are cut off in the middle, and the viewer has no idea what his point is. For several quotes in the video, audio and visual are not provided, they just past some crap up there and expect the American public to believe what they say. At one point there is a quote from Kerry and then a written quote which tries to use an ellipse to splice together two sentences which were not originally together.
Nonetheless, powerful propaganda.
What Republicans Really Stand for
I dunno whether I despise the Ivy-League educated elitist moderate pro-business Republicans like Bush that run the party and simply pander to the Religious Right, or the Religious Right that actually gets out the vote for them.
But today I want to focus of the radical right with three great examples...
James Hart Is running in for the U.S. House of Representatives in Tennesee on a Eugenics platform. According to James, low IQ based on genes is the cause of poverty and urban decay, thus eugenics is needed.
As someone who has spent a decent amount of time, both academicly and individually, studying genetics I can say that he is probably off on the whole Eugenics thing though. This social darwinist that he worships wrote on a false pretense that natural selection was a brutal process of competition and killing. From what we know now, we know that environmental changes have more to do with natural selection than brute killing, and that COOPERATION is and has been at least as important a part as the brutal competition 'survival of the fittest' notion of the early 1900s. Btw, in 1919 the Supreme Court upheld South Carolina's right to use Eugenics and the ruling still stands. The Eugenics movement started not in Nazi Germany, but in America.
What is facinating about this guy though is that he is right-on as far as the economic issues go: NAFTA, Jobs, Tax Cuts, Social Security, and Worker's Rights.
Susan Wagle: There is now a war between the religious radical right of the Republican Party of Kansas and the ruling-class pro-business corrupt branch of the Republican Party. The religious right has oulled into the lead. This week republican moderate and Wichita Mayor for over 20 years, was defeated in a primary by Susan Wagle. Now Susan tried to pull all funding to the University of Kansas because she didn't approve of the content of their sex education class. It was really quite embarrassing. What's even worse is that she not only stands by her bill that would have ruined KU, but she is making it a centerpeice of her re-eleciton and fundraising efforts. Susan beat Knight for a Kansas State Senate seat in my city 64% to 36%.
There is also a guy running on an anti-evolution platform. We fought not to re-elect two of the State Board of Education members who made Kanss that laughingstock of the nation with their anti-evolution campiagn a while back. Well, the far right's moneymakers are back and putting up candidates.
The Religious Right will seriously vote for anyone!
But today I want to focus of the radical right with three great examples...
James Hart Is running in for the U.S. House of Representatives in Tennesee on a Eugenics platform. According to James, low IQ based on genes is the cause of poverty and urban decay, thus eugenics is needed.
As someone who has spent a decent amount of time, both academicly and individually, studying genetics I can say that he is probably off on the whole Eugenics thing though. This social darwinist that he worships wrote on a false pretense that natural selection was a brutal process of competition and killing. From what we know now, we know that environmental changes have more to do with natural selection than brute killing, and that COOPERATION is and has been at least as important a part as the brutal competition 'survival of the fittest' notion of the early 1900s. Btw, in 1919 the Supreme Court upheld South Carolina's right to use Eugenics and the ruling still stands. The Eugenics movement started not in Nazi Germany, but in America.
What is facinating about this guy though is that he is right-on as far as the economic issues go: NAFTA, Jobs, Tax Cuts, Social Security, and Worker's Rights.
Susan Wagle: There is now a war between the religious radical right of the Republican Party of Kansas and the ruling-class pro-business corrupt branch of the Republican Party. The religious right has oulled into the lead. This week republican moderate and Wichita Mayor for over 20 years, was defeated in a primary by Susan Wagle. Now Susan tried to pull all funding to the University of Kansas because she didn't approve of the content of their sex education class. It was really quite embarrassing. What's even worse is that she not only stands by her bill that would have ruined KU, but she is making it a centerpeice of her re-eleciton and fundraising efforts. Susan beat Knight for a Kansas State Senate seat in my city 64% to 36%.
There is also a guy running on an anti-evolution platform. We fought not to re-elect two of the State Board of Education members who made Kanss that laughingstock of the nation with their anti-evolution campiagn a while back. Well, the far right's moneymakers are back and putting up candidates.
The Religious Right will seriously vote for anyone!
August 05, 2004
How does this moron not choke on his own food... Oh wait, he does.
Today Bush said, "Our enemies are Innovative and resourceful and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
Audioclip available here.
This guy is not qualified and doesn't deserve to be President.
Why wait until November, impeach this imbecile now!
Long Live 'The Pretzel'
Audioclip available here.
This guy is not qualified and doesn't deserve to be President.
Why wait until November, impeach this imbecile now!
Long Live 'The Pretzel'
August 04, 2004
Republican National Convention Platform
I have received an exclusive peak at the 2004 RNC platform. It goes as follows:
Freedom through conformity
Sadam is Osama
God is Country
Ignorance is power
Shalt not kill is shalt not murder
Supporting troops is shutting up
More deaths is more security
Five Votes is Democracy
Left is Wrong
Right is Left
Country is God
Life is Death
Black and White
Us and Them
Up is down
Ignorance is Strength
Freedom is Slavery
War is Peace
Obey
Freedom through conformity
Sadam is Osama
God is Country
Ignorance is power
Shalt not kill is shalt not murder
Supporting troops is shutting up
More deaths is more security
Five Votes is Democracy
Left is Wrong
Right is Left
Country is God
Life is Death
Black and White
Us and Them
Up is down
Ignorance is Strength
Freedom is Slavery
War is Peace
Obey
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
