The argument on the Iraq war should not have been about how many troops it would take to win, not on whether there would be insurgent post-war actions, and not on bringing democracy to the Islamic world. Rather, we should have argued our right to invade a sovereign nation which posed no threat to us. The arguments should not have hinged on statements like "Even Clinton believed they had blah, blah, blah?." Or "He even used gas on his own people [eleven years earlier]." Who knows what Clinton really thought about Saddam's supposed arsenal after years of overflights and missile attacks on Saddam. What we do know is that before going to war over nebulous claims, a President must sort the wheat from the manure used to grow it. Which Clinton, to a degree, showed he would do -- not lobbing missiles until the CIA verified targets (some hours too late). As a late, sainted President said, "Trust, but verify." Especially on intelligence that was being disputed daily (read the papers! Better, read Fiasco, by Ricks). The morality of going to war on such flimsy notions is abominable, and that should have been the issue, not how we would win. This rush to war was on the basis of evidence that was so questionable, in many portions so obviously and undeniably fabricated, rivals that which was presented many years ago by Joe McCarthy. To our shame the country believed McCarthy's lies, as they do today the Administration's lies, and the eager embrace of those lies, still defended by some 30% of the populace, makes one doubt the so-called Christian virtues of our nation. We should be crying out for the blood of the liars who got us into this. Where is the accountability that we demanded from the Enron criminals, or does money mean more than lives lost?
The question posed last night to Democratic Party candidates, would they bomb and kill Bin Laden if innocent civilians were to die from the bombs?, brought mixed responses. They mainly asked : "How many collatoral deaths would there be?" Here is what the question should have been: "Would you have bombed Bin Laden if Chelsea would have been killed, or Bill (we may speculate as to what Hillary's response would be to that), or Mrs. Obama, or Biden's children, or Edwards' wife and kids? Or your trophy wife, Mr. Kucinich? By the way, candidates, there is a lie detector strapped to your chair." Remember Dukakis's demise after such a question? I would have been fascinated to hear their responses. It is easy to be a blind bombardier, killing those you don't know in the name of patriotism. After all, what is an Iraqi civilian's life worth -- a husband, grandmother, father? The lost lines of succession that end abruptly when a child or father dies for no reason --"collatoral damage." Obviously, the life is not worth much to the responders.
Since there is no morality in politics, only winning or losing, I conclude with what should be obvious. The Democratic party, which I support because, overall, they, not the Right, bring to the public the social welfare it needs, is badly in need of unification and a spinal implant. They undeniably gave the right the ammunition it will use until election day -- it has started already on the right-wing radio talk shows and will prop up the Right's base by depicting the liberals, progressives and left wing as cave-in wimps. If Hillary gets the candidacy, the number of voters who would definitely not vote for her (over 40%), will thereby ensure a close election. The Right's propaganda machine will use this issue of liberal wimpiness or flip flopping to again be the tipping point in the election. It was the difference in 2000 when they branded Gore as a liar, and in 2004 when they (chickenhawks and right wing veteran Republicans) successfully halted Kerry's momentum by attacking his war record. It is a crying shame that even with the country behind them, the Democrats caved in from their previous position of installing benchmarks with date-certain goals and lost the chance to brand Bush, the Vetoer, as the man who doesn?t support our troops, as the man who is against funding.
The morality of this war is now clear -- there wasn't any. And the words of the Ugandan poet, B'halu, resonate once again:
Cheney, Fredo, Rice and Rummy,
Headed by the chimp-like dummy,
Not a decent voice among 'em,
Surely Nurenburg would have hung 'em.