Michael McCurry, ex spokesman for Bill Clinton, has said it is important for Democrats to be supportive of Bush's "war" in Iraq because success in Iraq is very important. I guess it escapes him, along with Kerry, Biden, and Hilary Clinton, that there can be no success in Iraq. What on earth could constitute success in Iraq? Maybe if we could kill every last one of them? Maybe if we could force them through sheer military might to somehow become a democracy? Perhaps if we could win the "war or terror," whatever that might mean? Actually, the only success we could possibly have in Iraq is to complete the neocon's mission: establish a puppet government that will do our bidding, maintain permanent bases to make sure they don't stray from that goal, and manage to reduce the troops by some percentage. Is that what the Democrats mean by success? Unfortunately I think it is. I think so because I cannot for the life of me see what success could possibly mean other than that. Personally, I believe the only possible success would be if we could get the hell out of there without losing any more of our sons and daughters to this totally lost and immoral cause.
There is a caravan moving to Crawford under the theme "Cindy, you don't speak for us." This is quite probably something arranged by Karl Rove. But whether it is or not, I assume that these people are prepared to explain to the rest of us what the President can't - namely, what IS the "noble cause?" Invading a sovereign nation what was no threat to us, taking control of their natural resources, and killing large numbers of them in the process does not, in my view of things, constitute a noble cause. Don't forget there were no WMD's. There were no biological or chemical weapons. There were no planes or rockets that could reach the U.S. Iraq, after twelve years of sanctions, was not a threat to the U.S. or its neighbors (as they all agreed), there were no moving biological labs, there was absolutely no relationship between Osama bin Laden and Sadam Hussein. In short, there was no legal or moral right to attack Iraq. Now, one might argue that the U.S. is indeed desperate to control oil in the Middle East. And one could also argue that for some peculiar reason Iraq would not have sold us oil, and therefore we had to take over their country, or the threat of changing the price of oil into Euros instead of dollars was too threatening to overlook, and that is why we invaded and killed. Let us, for the moment overlook the question of protecting Israel. To admit all of this is basically to admit to war crimes. And if the American public is willing to accept this explanation it means that they, too, are complicit in these war crimes. So we dare not admit the truth. Thus Bush/Cheney and the neocons keep pushing the absurd claims that 9/11 had something to do with Iraq, Sadam was a terrible dictator (once we stopped supporting him), we are spreading democracy to the Middle East, and if we don't fight them there we would have to fight them here (the ultimate absurdity). One might remind them that before we illegally and immorally attacked Iraq there were no "them" there.
Need I remind anyone that attacking a sovereign nation that is not threat to you is a war crime? Torturing prisoners is a war crime. Hiding prisoners from the Red Cross is a war crime. War profiteering is a war crime. Lying to the Congress and the American people might not be technically a war crime but it is most certainly a crime of some sort and needs to be appropriately punished. At the moment there are nothing but lies and crimes spreading out in all directions. And so far nothing is being done about it. No one is being held accountable. The entire world is watching as the U.S. implodes. And Democrats, along with the neocons say nothing but "stay the course." How pathetic.