Reason to watch the debate
My birthday is Wednesday. I'll bake a cake in the morning and plan to blow out the candles during the middle of the final presidential debate. If my wish comes true, you'll be able to see George W. Bush getting led away in handcuffs broadcast live about 9:30 P.M. EST. Know justice, know peace. Not sure how justice would impact Kerry. Perhaps he and the majority of Congress could be censured by some ethics committee for passing the unconstitutional war authorization? But then how many could be on the Ethics committee without being hypocrites?
Then John Kerry the elder statesman could go through a transformation ala Tom Hanks in "BIG" and revert to the young John Kerry who testified in front of congress in 1971. With any luck, young John Kerry would recognize that all the arguments for staying in Iraq now are the same that were used to justify staying in Vietnam a generation ago, and he'd pull the hell out.
Sorry, but our need to "maintain stability" in Iraq is not a very compelling argument when you look at all the places that those arguers claim are now "stable," or places that we have brought stability to. See Cheney's debate comments re: El Salvador, Bush's comments about Musharaff bringing stability to Pakistan via coup, etc ad nauseum. By their examples, "stability" translates to any conditions that are good for US business, not necessarily good for democracy, sometimes the total opposite of democracy. Was Chile more "stable" under Pinochet? Would you call Saudi Arabia "stable" or Afghanistan stabilized? We don't need that kind of stability, and if that's what we're propping up in Iraq, then to hell with stability.
Then John Kerry the elder statesman could go through a transformation ala Tom Hanks in "BIG" and revert to the young John Kerry who testified in front of congress in 1971. With any luck, young John Kerry would recognize that all the arguments for staying in Iraq now are the same that were used to justify staying in Vietnam a generation ago, and he'd pull the hell out.
Sorry, but our need to "maintain stability" in Iraq is not a very compelling argument when you look at all the places that those arguers claim are now "stable," or places that we have brought stability to. See Cheney's debate comments re: El Salvador, Bush's comments about Musharaff bringing stability to Pakistan via coup, etc ad nauseum. By their examples, "stability" translates to any conditions that are good for US business, not necessarily good for democracy, sometimes the total opposite of democracy. Was Chile more "stable" under Pinochet? Would you call Saudi Arabia "stable" or Afghanistan stabilized? We don't need that kind of stability, and if that's what we're propping up in Iraq, then to hell with stability.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home