Iraq: The Democrats Are Just As Bad
In his column, "Iraq: The Democrats Are Just As Bad," Justin Raimondo offers this as to why both parties uphold the occupation:
"[I]t is the natural tendency of the Washington elites to assume the efficacy of government action as the solution to all problems."
That is, I think, too charitable an interpretation. The underlying truth is much darker.
Speaking as a onetime legislative aide myself, politicians and their hangers-on generally are enthusiastic seekers after power. It is their purpose, why they’re there and work desperately to stay there.
The Democrat professionals don’t want to get out of Iraq (or Afghanistan, or Japan, or you-name-it), because they know that someday they’ll be back in power, and when they are, they want the maximum apparatus of U.S. power in place.
In much the same vein, the Republicans and the so-called conservative movement used to urge the abolition of the federal departments of energy and education – until "their people" got in the helm. Power sure is a lovely thing in the right hands, isn’t it?
At least we can’t accuse the Democrat leaders of hypocrisy here. They’re respectfully waiting for power – and the Bush imperial legacy – to pass its booty over to them, hats in hand.
~ R.P. McCosker, Kensington, California
You mentioned Paul Hackett as being an "antiwar Democrat." How much do you really know about him? Did you ever visit his Web site? I went there with the intent to donate, but I found there a statement defending our actions in Fallujah. Much of the rest of what his Web site said led me to believe he was a DLC type who was more upset with "the way we went to war" than with the war itself. I ended up not contributing and, if my perceptions were correct, I’m glad he didn’t win.
As Truman said, give me a choice between a real Republican and a Democrat trying to act like a Republican, I’ll take the real Republican every time. That way a real Democrat can challenge the Republican in a later election. Of course, if the Republican is Ron Paul, I’d probably continue to vote for him no matter how real the Democrat is.
Justin,
I got a call from a fundraiser from the Senate Democratic Blah Blah Money-grubbing group this evening – boy did I let that poor telemarketer have it!
I assume I’m on their list because I’ve given money to our Senator (Debbie Stabenow) who voted against the Iraq War three years ago.
The telemarketer started off with a list of dishwater issues about how bad the Republicans are (seniors, prescription drugs, yadda yadda). I cut her off as politely as I could and told her that I didn’t care about any of that stuff – but why are we waging an illegal and immoral war in Iraq, and why are so many Senate Democrats supporting it?
I went on at some length, and I did mention that I would give money to Chuck Hagel before I would ever give money to any fund that supported pro-war Dems like Clinton, Biden, etc.
Yeah, pretty lame, beating up on a telemarketer, but I was as polite as I could be, given that I’m as angry as I’ve ever been about the direction this country is going.
~ Bill Heaphy
As a grassroots Democrat who has voted the straight Democratic ticket since 1960 (except for the 1968 election when I withheld my vote from Hubert Humphrey), I completely agree with Mr. Raimondo. If anyone of the current roster of prospective candidates, e.g., Clinton, Biden, Edwards, Kerry, Dean, etc., is on the ticket in 2008, I shall withhold my vote. I hope that a 3rd party will rise up from the antiwar, anti-greed, grassroots Republicans, Democrats, and independents to challenge the entrenched machines of the Democrat and Republican parties.
In all my reading of the Tiger Force atrocities I am not surprised to finally stumble upon analogies to Cormack McCarthy’s Blood Meridian. After 35 or 40 years you guys have only begun to touch on it. It is deeper than you can imagine: illegal missions in SE Asia and Latin America, assassination, murder. War is an atrocity!
Israel and 9/11: New Report Connects the Dots
Anyone with federal experience can see that the so-called "DEA report," on which this charade is based, is not even an official report (no letterhead, no signature, no proof of originating office, no "to" or "from," no clearance stamp, etc.). It was clearly never requested, authorized, approved, or sent to anyone. It is thus not, in fact, a DEA report! Have you read the following?:
On March 6, 2002 the Washington Post published an article stating that the alleged DEA report was actually an unofficial draft by a disgruntled DEA official. According to the Post, "allegations … of a massive U.S. probe of Israeli spies appear to have been circulated by a single employee of the Drug Enforcement Administration who is angry that his theories have not gained currency … [and who] appears to be leaking a memo that he himself wrote." …
You are perpetrating a fraud. Get a grip!
~ Gonville Bromhead
