« Evils known and unknown, done and left undone | Main | Hard to please »

Coulda, woulda, shoulda...

By Michael J. Smith on Tuesday August 29, 2006 07:01 PM

Reechard writes, in connection with the perennial argument that a Democratic President would not have invaded Iraq:
Kerry's pre-invasion dudgeon is well-doc'ed. No need for DNA testing along this blood trail; just spy the WMD fretting and brow-furrowed war fever in the fingerprints at http://www.independentsforkerry.org/uploads/media/kerry-iraq.html. Here's Kerry at his pithiest, some months before he ran on the Send Me ticket:

"And while the administration has failed to provide any direct link between Iraq and the events of September 11, can we afford to ignore the possibility that Saddam Hussein might accidentally, as well as purposely, allow those weapons to slide off to one group or other in a region where weapons are the currency of trade? How do we leave that to chance?"

Sourcing Hillary's cheery outbursts on Iraq is left as an exercise for the reader.

But would it all have been different had the Gore-Liebs duo succeeded Our Man With The Wet Havana? We might fantasize that Gore would have broken with his hawkish past, but to do so requires explicitly ignoring his post-9/11 go-get-'em speech before the Council on Foreign Invasions, er, Relations in February 2002 (text and analysis here: http://jeffweintraub.blogspot.com/2003/11/al-gore-on-iraq-february-12-2002.html).

There has been no Dem "silence" on Iraq, either before or after. The 2004 platform and subsquent talking points have made one technocratic promise after another of occupying better--better ally recruitment for better killing and better oil extraction. No, they signed no PNAC manifesto; why stoop to second-raters when you're accustomed to a starring role?

Comments (3)


OK, OK, the dems were shameless on Iraq, worse on Israel/Lebanon. You're right, "silent" was the wrong word. On foreign and economic policy, the Dems are practically identical with the other party. The authors of Afflicted Powers, a book everyone on this site should know, call the current bi-partisan American foreign policy "military neo-liberalism." Enough said.

I can't defend Kennedy, but I'll pose one question to the person who mentioned him: who do you suppose assassinated him and his brother? A left-wing conspiracy, angry that he wasnt advancing relations with Cuba, cutting back the CIA, advocating civil rights and disarmament quickly enough; or a right wing conspiracy afraid he was starting to do just those things? Was it the left or the right that murdered MLK?

We all agree, I think, who the real enemies are here. They work in walnut-panelled suites high above the Manhattan and Houston skylines and are driven home by chauffeurs. They run both parties. Why are we wasting our breath on the Democrats?


Bobw --

I have no idea who assassinated JFK, but I personally always suspected it was Castro, and I figured he was not only justified, but far more astute than his imperial antagonist -- a sacrificial loon with a telescopic sight is much more reliable than an exploding cigar, or a poisoned wetsuit, or any of that James Bond silliness that the New Frontierists loved so much.

To tell the truth, I think Kennedy deserved to be killed just for introducing berets into the US armed forces.

Okay, okay, I'll get serious. No idea, really, who killed JFK, and couldn't care less. What was the political significance of his death? Nil, as far as I can see, except that he was replaced by a much more intelligent individual. For what that's worth, and it ain't much.

As for MLK, a far more important and interesting figure than that glib, shallow arriviste prepster JFK -- sure it was the Right who killed him. But what does that have to do with Republicans vs. Democrats? Who was President when King was shot? Hint: it was April of 1968, for anybody who didn't happen to be riding an urban subway when he first saw the headline.

Bob asks, "Why are we wasting our breath on the Democrats," and I would answer, because they're the low-hanging fruit. They're the component of the shell game that's most vulnerable -- the weak, lame, limping elk that the wolves quite correctly go for first.

js paine:

invade iraq
that may have gotten more americans killed
but this is a cosmo site
right gang?
we weigh human blood equal here
no matter the national source

peace keeping kills too

parachute gore kerry st hill into he green zone
and they'd try to stop the intercommunal violence
peace keeping kills

containment kills too by other means
pre emptive
human rights based bombardments kill

well ....
talk about a dimes worth of difference ....
and here's the real deal

there are contexts where the donks would spill more
amerikan blood too

liberating north korea
in september 1950
was a donkey operation after all
in fact i contend signaled
the total "the end "
of the donk phase we "minimalists" call
heroic corporate global reconstruction


and now
since smart bombs can't beat hezy wezy war
the dems are the party of more boots

conjure "the peace keeping"
that may bring

Post a comment

Note also that comments with three or more links may be held for "moderation" -- a strange term to apply to the ghost in this blog's machine. Seems to be a hard-coded limitation of the blog software, unfortunately.


This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on Tuesday August 29, 2006 07:01 PM.

The previous post in this blog was Evils known and unknown, done and left undone.

The next post in this blog is Hard to please.

Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.

Creative Commons License

This weblog is licensed under a Creative Commons License.
Powered by
Movable Type 3.31