Much has been said in print about which Democrat can beat Bush in November. I would say it would have to be a Democrat who is willing to be outspoken in opposition to the greatest failure of American foreign policy in the history of the nation. If you can’t take the man to task on that, does anything else you have to say mean anything at all?
Throughout the process of misrepresentation leading to the decision to go to war in Iraq it was obvious, to everyone not blinded by a desire to seek genocidal vengeance against Muslims, that the U.S. was abandoning the “war on terrorism” in favor of the Bush family allegiance to Big Oil.
It was obvious that Bush was determined to use Iraq’s inability to prove a negative as an excuse to seize control of the oil fields. As Hans Blix put it, how can you be “100 percent certain” the WMDs exist and simultaneously able to produce “zero” intelligence regarding their location? All those who voted to authorize this misadventure did so shamefully out of fear of being labeled unpatriotic. This was as obvious then as it is now. Now they all want to blame the CIA.
The culture of violence that dominates American politics insulates itself in the belief that visceral anger and hatred justifies murder. George Bush has leveraged that anger to his own evil agenda. The U.S. is reviled the world over. Members of Congress supported this and now want to claim ignorance of the obvious.
The only ethical transcendence of this shame is to admit to it and now move to impeach the administration. Do any Democratic presidential candidates in Congress have the courage to do what is necessary? If not, do they deserve the nomination?
Bothell
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
