Johnny the Recanter.
Edwards said, about 2 years ago, he was wrong on the Iraq war:
"Almost three years ago we went into Iraq to remove what we were told -- and what many of us believed and argued -- was a threat to America. But in fact we now know that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction when our forces invaded Iraq in 2003. The intelligence was deeply flawed and, in some cases, manipulated to fit a political agenda.
It was a mistake to vote for this war in 2002. I take responsibility for that mistake"
Edwards deserves some credit for admitting his "mistake" (if a mistake it was). On the other hand, when you think about it, the implications of that mistake are staggering. If Bushco manipulated intelligence to the degree that some of the "recanters" suggest, or created false pretenses for large-scale war, Bush and his cabinet should be facing trial for very serious crimes. Murder for one. It's entirely reasonable to put the leading US Dems on trial as well for collusion of some sort.
Additionally, while we here at Contingencies respect Edwards for his recanting, we recognize a certain shoddy BS quality to it. That's a great faux-pas, obviously, that cost the lives of thousands, and billions of dollars. (that's not to say the allegations of misrepresentation have been proven to be true--though millions of people seem to think they are true). The admission of guilt on the Iraq war then appears nearly confessional, a type of political atonement--Johnny Recanter comes clean! A self-effacing quality plays well in the liberal Simulacra--Edwards enters the cosmic Rehab, is healed, forgiven, and Moves On. Justice not really a concern, and indeed "square", man.
Notwithstanding the atonement hustles (and subtle ad populus, really), politicians like Edwards are not ordinary citizens. The Dems would have known much more about this than Jane Q. Pubic does: they would have been briefed by the military, intelligence, CIA, etc. So it's not like they get a 15 minute run-down on the situation and say thumbs up or not to an invasion (if that's it, they definitely should be on trial).
The democratic politicians were involved in the process leading up to war for months. Edwards may have recanted; on the other hand, that recanting might be more like, "I recant" ("but really know much more about this then I let on").
Dems could have voted against IWR (some did, like Boxer). They could have raised a stink, filibustered, etc. Then, having learned there was deception, pressed much harder for investigations--and legal action ( some World Court--or Russell Tribunal---sort of panel). Assuming that Bushco used deception, false pretenses, misrepresention to justify the Iraqi war effort, the pro-war Democrats are, I believe, party to that deception. So voting for Hillary, or even Edwards, arguably, implies voting for a war criminal.
Click for ~Gott
Tuesday, October 02, 2007
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
- ► 2011 (249)
- ► 2010 (266)
- ► 2009 (184)
- ► 2008 (146)
- GehryvilleDisneyMuzakHall (Gehry)Whoa.
- Snitch Trek""""Born in El Paso, Texas to Eugene Ed...
- Narcissists-on-Drugs"Progressive rhetoric has the ...
- What is a lie to a pragmatist? (Cont. retrofit)....
- Fear ye the Pandybat..............."""""The soutan...
- Consensus Science: the Al Gore Truth-process Just ...
- How to lie and be PC: the New Worlds way. Nearly a...
- Al ain’t exactly EinsteinBig Al, peacemaker, manag...
- Alex C. on Al G."Al Gore's Peace Prize"By ALEXANDE...
- Teddy A. in da House.Adorno: old-school marxist wh...
- Nietzsche reflects on his one time pal, Wagner.".....
- No title
- The case for mocking religion/HitchensThis is an o...
- Movin' like a shadow above "How then do you become...
- Johnny the Recanter.Edwards said, about 2 years ag...
- He is risenSt. BZ.
- ▼ October (16)
- ► 2006 (69)
- ► 2005 (57)
- ► 2004 (28)
Those bogus liberals who vote for a Hill or Edwards are thus supporting war criminals, more or less. Perhaps Hill. is not AS guilty as Bush or Cheney (assuming their crimes could be proven). but guilty as most conservative hawks, nonetheless.
Of course some "liberals" are just psychotic freaks incapable of reason, obsessed with "character" instead of acts, deeds, reality, and their entire programme is motivated by some odd Freudian rage or resentment--or is it a misplaced protestant moralism.
It’s funny how so many “Democrats” are willing to forgive Hillary, who is arguably about as conservative as any dixie GOP hawk (see some commentary on Counterpunch), excepting the few token liberal positions on abortion or health-care. And she probably knows more about what really went down in Iraq over the last 15 years than about anyone in the Senate (some writers, not all marxists (Nader, for instance), have argued that Bill Clinton arranged the iraqi war years ago).
The conditional holds (unless someone cares to falsify it): if Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rice/Blair are war criminals, HRC is a war criminal. Moreover, given her biblethumping and association with xtians such as Billy Graham, she's just as theocratic and hypocritical, notwithstanding her Eleanor Roosevelt schtickt.
Edwards not far from Hill’s politics. Those people who will support Hillary (and Edwards, to a lesser degree) are more or less conservatives and Investor-Crats with a few ID-politics hints, not really interested in any substantive changes to corporate America.
Post a Comment