Tuesday, June 06, 2006

Why Are We There?

I was under the impression that we are still in Iraq in order to help the people and government form a stable, representative democracy. This would mean that the where there is a war "in" Iraq. Not, as Rush Limbaugh put it, a war "against" Iraq. If you're saying that we are still "against" Iraq today, then you've either a) been asleep for the last 3 years or b) engaging in Freudian slip and are actually part of the bomb the Iraqi people into rubble camp.

It would be interesting to see who is still using the rhetoric that places America in opposition to Iraq, especially among those who argue that our presence there is for good.

2 comments:

Guglielmo Marchesi said...

"It would be interesting to see who is still using the rhetoric that places America in opposition to Iraq, especially among those who argue that our presence there is for good."

Well, "interesting" is probably overstating the case. My own observation is that the pro-war faction seems to be coming en masse out of the closet: the whole point of invading Iraq was to go over there and kick us some Ay-rab ass.

All that business with the purple fingers and talk of WMDs was just their way of acting straight. I guess June must be NeoCon Pride Month.

REB 84 said...

Making the World Safe for Hypocrisy

Why are we in Iraq? First we were told it was because Saddam had WMD and we could expect mushroom clouds over American cities if he were allowed to stay in power; then the goal was getting rid of a brutal dictator who gassed his own people and by the way has a "blood feud" with America; the latest rationale is that we are bringing democracy to a troubled part of the world.

The rad-con democracy domino theory is that Iraq will become a shining example of representative democracy in the Middle East that all its neighbors will desire to emulate. Yet, despite a couple of elections; this utopia seems further away than ever.

Meanwhile, back here in the USA, the Bush administration is quietly choking off funding to the primary organizations that are actually training Iraqis on how to set up and run democratic political parties, elections, and governments. Is this hypocrisy?

"The commitment to what the president of the United States will say every single day of the week is his number one priority in Iraq, when it's translated into action, looks very tiny," said Les Campbell, who runs programs in the Middle East for the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs, known as NDI.(see link to story in title) Apparently, there has been no response to these reports from the White House.

It appears that military and security spending is cutting back the only legitimate pro-democracy efforts America is conducting in Iraq. This is just the latest example of the Bush administration's failure to put the money where its mouth is. If we really want to know what politicians value, we need to find out what programs they fund and which they cut.

QuestionItNow

posted by REB 84 at 4/06/2006