How We Learned to Hate Iraq But Still Love War
04 August 2006 10:48 am by Taylor Marsh
| 100,000 March Against U.S. and Israel in Baghdad |
It's just so, well, Republican. There's more here,
here, here
and, well, everywhere.
Talk about a boneheaded play by Lieberman. That it was covered in the local
papers is a killer. He should have known better.
Now people are starting to think about not only Tuesday, but beyond.
Evidently, Lieberman is more into the
latter than the former, which means he's still going to run into the biggest
issue facing us today: Iraq. Not even Sean
Hannity endorsing Joe can help him with that one, especially now that Thomas
give us 6 more months Friedman is asking for Plan B. He's not talking about the pill
either.
It is now obvious that we are not midwifing democracy in Iraq. We are baby-sitting
a civil war.When our top commander in Iraq, Gen. John Abizaid, tells a Senate Committee,
as he did yesterday, that “the sectarian violence is probably as bad
as I’ve seen it,” it means that three years of efforts to democratize
Iraq are not working. That means “staying the course” is pointless,
and it’s time to start thinking about Plan B — how we might disengage
with the least damage possible. …Time for Plan B, by Thomas Friedman (Times
select)
Welcome to reality, Mr. Friedman, it's a bitch of a revelation when it hits,
isn't it?
Today, over 100,000
people marched in Iraq against the United States and Israel. That's the
way it goes, because we are forever entwined, no matter the party in power.
The actual foreign policy water's edge in this country is our alliance with Israel, which is set in
sacred stone.
… As for Marshall Wittman, Holy Joe's very best blog buddy, I doubt there's
enough Prozac in the metropolitan Washington D.C. area to get him through
the next five days. If I were Marshall, I'd put the number for the crisis
clinic on my speed dial list now, instead of waiting for election night.But there's one big problem with all this hyperventilating: It wildly exaggerates
the anti-war fevor that Ned Lamont supposedly represents. Oh I know Ned says
he's anti-war, but he only means the war in Iraq. The war in Lebanon, on the
other hand, is just fine by him. And he's already pledged he'll be just as
staunch a friend of Israel and the Israel lobby in this war as Holy Joe ever
was or ever could be. So bombs away. …
Frankly, as I've said many times before, I'm not against all wars, but I've
always been against the Iraq war. That's why all the fulminating on the issue that the
Democratic Party is an “anti-war” coalition has always struck me as
not only odd, but abjectly wrong. That's why the whole Joe, I'm really a “Scoop”
Jackson Democrat, Lieberman campaign is falling short. No one actually believed the
Democratic Party is now or will ever be an “anti-war” party. In modern
America, as we stand today, there simply is no anti-war political party. This
goes for 2008 as well.
We still love our bombs. Eisenhower didn't know the half of it. The military industrial complex fuels our economy. Wars make the world go 'round. It's how we get our heroes.
The Democratic Party will not nominate a “peace” or anti-war candidate
in 2008. I doubt if it will happen in 2012 either. So whether Joe folds or decides
to run in the general election he still has one large problem. Iraq is and always
was a loser, but now we've not only got him on tape, but the leading war hawks,
not to mention the generals and some serious authors are on record proving why
it was always a loser.
You can't promote democracy through the barrel of a gun. You can't trumpet democracy then say you don't like who won. Our role in Iraq is done.
There isn't one wit of difference between Lamont and Lieberman on Israel or
Middle Eastern “policy” as it stands today: ineffectual, counter productive,
and wholly tilted to one side, never mind democratic elections in the Palestinian
territory or Lebanon. However, there is one big difference in our approach to
the region: Democrats at least engage. Republicans wage war campaigns, period. Sure, Democrats
will drop bombs as well as anyone, but at least we give peace a chance, which
will never be the phrase uttered from a Republican, not ever. To them, WWIII is all.
In fact, Lieberman can't even run a peaceful election campaign. He really is
running like a Republican, which is why he's going to lose.
UPDATE: One of my new guest bloggers, who will post tonight, offers his own appraisal of Mr. Thomas. I hope you stop by early tonight and check out his wingnut round up. It's good.
