May 3, 2007
Both Debates Were A Waste, Nobody Talked Seriously About Iraq (Brent Budowsky)
Within the boring and irrelevant format of too many candidates dishing too much spin for their party nominations, with the armada of full employment campaign analysts sounding gravely important trying to find a winner like counting the angels on the head of a pin, all the candidates did fine tonight.
None of the Democrats were JFK; none of the Republicans were Reagan; none of this was a surprise; and none of it mattered either to the quality of our national discussion, the standings of the candidates, or the verdict of history, will which remember none of this.
Our country has a really big problem, and it is Iraq. In neither debate did any of the candidates saying anything important, or memorable, or relevant to the outcome.
Now we learn that the Parliament of Iraq wants to insult American troops, make a mockery of the idea of Iraqi democracy, and infuriate our commanders by taking a two month vacation while American casualties surge. In the end, maybe they will, maybe they won't, but the real story is why they might and that no-one in either debate discussed the importance and enormity of what this tells us.
Now we know that there is a group called the office of commander in chief in Iraq, which reports to Maliki as his henchmen, or more accurately led by a henchwoman, that is removing some of the better Iraqi generals because they try to treat both Sunni and Shi'ite with dignity. They promote some of the worst Iraqi generals, because they view the surge as Americans dying to advance Shi'ite ethnic cleansing in the sectarian war Americans are policing in the middle.
This is a vile, revealing and sinister group that remains dramatically under-reported by the American media which doesn't miss a beat about which candidate scored minor points in irrelevant debates, in a campaign that says nothing, began much too soon, and adds little but gaseous emissions to an already polluted political atmosphere.
The hard and bitter truth about American involvement in Iraq is that it serves the goals of Shi'ites seeking military victory in sectarian war that seems destined never to end, while Iraqi parliamentarians consider prolonged vacations, the Iraqi Prime Minister has an office using the surge to escalate its sectarian warfare, and American casualties surge for reasons not discussed intelligently in either party's debate.
Now we know that even more American reconstruction money than we expected has been wasted while our troops give their lives, in yet another report from the Inspector General, adding to the $10 billion of missing or stolen American money, $12 billion of lost Iraqi cash, and the implications for American policy that were also not discussed intelligently in either debate.
The dance of death goes on in Iraq, the winds of words blow irrelevantly in these debates. The champions of each candidate enthusiastically claim total victory for their horse, the experts pontificate gravely about who won or lost, the sponsors get a little easy publicity, the voters learn nothing and the dance of death for American troops goes on in Iraq, unabated and not seriously debated.
Our troops die while gasbags talk, spinners spin, analysts analyze the irrelevant, and a desperately frustrated country awaits the debates and decisions that do not happen. The whole thing quite frankly is a waste and a farce that adds nothing, diverts attention from the urgent debate that is desperately needed but is not happening here or elsewhere.
The Congress should call the Joint Chiefs of Staff to testify in public, state with honor and clarity what they truly believe, then stand by their publicly stated views offering honest and honorable judgments about this war for the court of public opinion now, and the verdict of history later.
One hour of this public testimony would do more for American security, American honor and the lives of American troops than the hundred hours of these vapid debates that the American people will be asked to endure, and will largely ignore, when what they want is truth to power and courage of leadership.
America has a serious problem, and we need a serious debate about whether we are really supporting a government that has as much in common with our enemies as our friends, and about whether we should remove our troops from police roles that effectively take one side in a sectarian war while being shot at by all sides.
America has a serious problem, and we need a serious debate about redeploying our troops to less deadly and more productive roles within Iraq, and devising serious policies to reduce our casualties in Iraq.
America needs a serious debate about telling the government of Iraq that if they have offices of the Prime Minister that dictate terms that are hostile to our own, we will not continue this support, and not let Americans give their lives for a government that so mocks their words and our troops.
America has a serious problem, and we need a serious debate about why the result of the catastrophic policy could be the victory for Iran, and the friends of Iran, who are the owners and benefactors of the government our soldiers die for.
We did not get that debate when Democrats met. We did not get that debate when the Republicans met tonight. We will not get that debate from a leadership class that is obsessed with the politics of its own advancement and lacks the courage, clarity and honor to make the hard decisions of life, death and blood that the situation urgently calls for, and our people urgently pray for.
What we heard, in the Democratic debate, and now the Republican debate, was a feast of gaseous emissions in a political discourse already too polluted.
Too many people are dying and we must find a way to stop it. These debates are the bread and circus of why it happened and why it continues, when serious people in a serious country should be discussing how and when it ends.
Permalink TrackBack
Email This Post
Share this post
What's This 15 Comments
»
The Hill welcomes comment from anyone and will almost always post it whether it is favorable or critical, as long as it is substantive and advances debate.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Hey Brent, surely you didn't expect anything more. This is afterall, the neo-GOP, corporate fascists, contemporary Republicans. None of the Ten want to talk about Iraq in factual terms nor in the real world. We have an alternate universe the neocons are occupying and calling GOP. McCain, however, was digging around for the treasure chest of the industrial war complex.
Comment by Chris in NM — May 3, 2007 @ 10:56 pm
America does have a serious problem: the Democrats will stoop to anything, even forcing a defeat when victory is finally in sight.
Yes, there is this group under Maliki, or at least it has been so alleged. No, he is no angel. And no, it doesn't follow that the solution is to cut and run. This is not about whether Maliki is an angel, or Iraqis are lazy and like to take vacations. This is about the future of this country in a life and death struggle with the resurgent Islam. Thoose who want to turn mistakes into a defeat are worse than those who don't plan properly. Victory is the only choice.
Comment by Igor R. — May 4, 2007 @ 12:17 am
[...] Both Debates Were A Waste, Nobody Talked Seriously About Iraq [...]
Pingback by Make Them Accountable / Our troops die while gasbags talk — May 4, 2007 @ 7:51 am
I don't know what annoyed me more about the Republicans in their debate last night. The Democrats, while disagreeing (as usual) over methods, the Republicans still seem hell-bent on thinking there's some kind of victory to be had here. How in the world can anyone claim "victory is in sight"? This was can't be won because it's not our war now, it theirs. McCain thinks the monster can be kept from attacking our own towns and villages by chaining the sacrificial virgin to the rock. Sure, why come here to attack Americans when there are plenty there to kill? Giuliani is apparently counting on the "memory hole" when he invoked Ronald Reagan's steely eyes staring the Iranians into submission. That little "arms for hostages" / Iran-Contra thing didn't hurt either. So Condi is finally having talks with Syria and Iran. (Talk about acknowledging a failed policy). How many lives might have been saved if they had tried that 4 years ago? I'm just waiting for any of these candidates to cut the BS. We need new ideas, not the same old crap thats coming from people who have been involved in forging the same tired policies since Richard Nixon.
Comment by Jay K. — May 4, 2007 @ 8:53 am
Why should they simply discuss Iraq? America has a lot of other issues. Of course, since the democrats are invested in our defeat, then the subject must be Iraq. There is no clear victory there. Everything else is going well if you believe in collectivism. You know, Medicare and Medicade.
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — May 4, 2007 @ 9:36 am
It's not just Iraq. There is little to no serious talk about any issue. If it isn't some trivial wedge issue, a politician is loathe to talk in any detail.
But they're always ready to demonize and say the ridiculous, like Guiliani's recent assertion that terrorist attacks are all but guaranteed should a Democrat be elected. The sad thing is that this kind of nonsense gets traction with some voters.
Politicians talk to us like children, afraid to say anything substantial or honest.
I'd like to hear something like we can't keep spending ourselves deeper into debt, or we need to conserve, or unlimited growth forever is not possible, or we cannot continue to occupy a foreign country.
I didn't watch either debate. I cannot tolerate the scripted answers, spin, and rhetoric. There should be a gong for when a politician goes to the script when answering a question (or more like evading a question).
The only breath of fresh air is Mike Gravel, who I didn't even know was in the race until I saw some clips from the debate. Agree or disagree with him. How wonderful to hear somebody actually speak his mind.
Comment by Paul — May 4, 2007 @ 9:44 am
What's needed are debates where the candidates debate instead of letting the media "guide" candidates to the safe stuff.
On Iraq, for example, here's what Ron Paul says on his web site: "What is the best way forward in Iraq? Where do we go from here? First, Congress should admit its mistake in unconstitutionally transferring war power to the president and in citing United Nations resolutions as justification for war against Iraq. We should never go to war because another nation has violated a United Nations resolution. Then we should repeal the authority given to the president in 2002 and disavow presidential discretion in starting wars. Then we should start bringing our troops home in the safest manner possible."
Comment by Stephen B Coulson — May 4, 2007 @ 11:52 am
Perhaps you didn’t actually see the debates or watch any clips on the internet. For the Democrats, former senator Mike Gravel stole the show with his anti-war comments, in spite of the smirking, condescending moderator, who smarmily smiled at Gravel the way someone smiles at a senile grandparent.
For the Republicans, it was Ron Paul. While I don’t agree with all Paul’s views, I agree with his stance on Iraq: “we” should never have attacked, and we should get out.
I would vote for either of these men.
But, you probably knew these facts, except for whom I would vote, and just didn’t report them. After all, the facts wouldn’t fit your rant. Also, unreported in your diatribe, are the following:
“Now we learn that the Parliament of Iraq wants to insult American troops, make a mockery of the idea of Iraqi democracy, and infuriate our commanders by taking a two month vacation while American casualties surge.”
Could it be possible that Iraqi Parliament wants to take a long break so they don’t have to sign away their oil rights to private western interests, under pressure from the US government – you know, the folks who brought Iraq Operation Iraqi Liberation (O.I.L), er… I mean freedom and democracy? (And what is funny about your self-righteous outrage is that that’s exactly what GWB has been doing – vacationing – while troops are being killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, while Americans were being killed in New Orleans. Heck, he sat in a classroom reading to small children while the country was under attack on 9/11/01. Where is your outrage over these events.)
And who asked for the "surge?" I'm thinking it was the brainiac, GWB. After all, it's not as if his family members are going to be in harm's way.
“The hard and bitter truth about American involvement in Iraq is that it serves the goals of Shi’ites seeking military victory in sectarian war that seems destined never to end…”
Are you blind, insane, unable to read, or what? The Americans are not in Iraq at the invitation of the Shiites. Most Iraqis want US troops out. If the Shiites are having their goals “served” this is just another example of unintended consequences of really stupid US foreign policies. We may be the richest and most powerful nation on the planet, but our leaders sure as heck are not collectively very smart.
“Now we know that even more American reconstruction money than we expected has been wasted while our troops give their lives, in yet another report from the Inspector General, adding to the $10 billion of missing or stolen American money, $12 billion of lost Iraqi cash, and the implications for American policy that were also not discussed intelligently in either debate.”
OK, I’m guessing you are insane. Do you not realize that Americans are the ones wasting the Iraq reconstruction money? Overcharges by Halliburton. A mercenary army of 126,000 making upwards of $300 a day. Bribery. Oh, and what about this:
“Feb. 6 (Bloomberg) — Representative Henry Waxman, kicking off hearings on government contracting, questioned former Ambassador L. Paul Bremer today on what happened to as much as $12 billion in unaccounted-for cash spent when he was in charge of rebuilding Iraq.
A report from Waxman's House Oversight and Government Reform Committee said the money represented more than half of Bremer's budget from May 2003 to June 2004. The report described contractors being told to bring big bags to collect shrink- wrapped bundles of money and one episode where a Bremer staff member was allegedly told to spend $6.75 million in a week.”
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aRfRyhT0yHzU&refer=us
And you call yourself a ‘pundit?’ Isn’t that someone who is supposed to know about what he/she writes? Methinks you are a sham.
Comment by Sirk — May 4, 2007 @ 12:33 pm
Jay K., "the sacrificial virgin chained to a rock" is quite an interesting and revealing metaphor you have for the US armed forces. I say it's even more interesting than illiterate children forced to sacrifize themselves because there are not opportunities for them, or crazed killers of women and chilren.
The idea of "fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here" irritates the left mostly because it involves proactive confrontation of evil, not because it's obviously possible for THEM to find another 19 "volunteers" as the supply of non-sacrificial virgins in the afterlife is unlimited. It's fighting THEM everywhere that counts, it's better than buring your head in the sand. If you think playing nicy-nicy will make THEM your friends, think again.
Comment by Igor R. — May 4, 2007 @ 1:51 pm
Good post Sirk
Comment by Chris in NM — May 4, 2007 @ 2:16 pm
Sirk, yes Americans are both the masters and pawns of the Shiites at the same time. The Zen of America hatred.
Comment by Igor R. — May 4, 2007 @ 4:33 pm
Of course no one talked seriously about it. Serious discussion would invariably lead to withdrawal.
And our "leaders" won't permit that. This war makes them SERIOUS AND INFLUENTIAL PEOPLE, and they have no plans to give that up, no matter how many of the great unwashed they must sacrifice to continue.
Comment by Realist — May 4, 2007 @ 5:53 pm
Realist, you're only a "realist" in an Orwellian, double-think way. You've already made the conclusion that all is lost and that only the insanity of our "leaders" is what's keeping this stupidity going. Without any data (who needs data for something SO obvious to every Democratic Presidential candidate) you think that any serious discussion means withdrawal. How about the fact that Iraq today has a violent death rate lower then Washington DC?
Take a look at the Iraqi Dinar to US Dollar exchange rate. You think that everybody who is building the Iraqi economy and investing in their stock market (that explains the shape) is a fool? Look what happenned after the November US election, which was the reason for most of the violence. You've been brainwashed to the point where you can't even imagine how wrong you are, like one of those people in "The Matrix" hooked up to the artificial reality network.
http://www.safedinar.com/IraqiDinarExchangeRate.asp?graph=3year
Comment by Igor R. — May 4, 2007 @ 8:00 pm
Ron Paul was speaking out against the war as usual so this article is disinfo.
Comment by Dave — May 5, 2007 @ 11:39 am
Realist, you’re only a “realist” in an Orwellian, double-think way.
How would you know? It doesn't sound like you have any connection to reality at all.
Comment by Realist — June 14, 2007 @ 2:07 pm