Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Democrats need to answer this article by Jeremy Scahill on war complicity

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
EVDebs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-21-05 11:48 AM
Original message
Democrats need to answer this article by Jeremy Scahill on war complicity
A 'Loyal Opposition' Won't End the War

By Jeremy Scahill, AlterNet. Posted November 21, 2005.

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/28491/

Dems need to show that Clinton's 'containment' policies toward Iraq, along with the UN inspection efforts, were doing the job that Bush's overt war efforts finished off, that is, regime change in Iraq. However, the whole issue of terror, whether by state sponsorship or individuals operating outside of state sponsorship is avoided in debate entirely.

Once reqime change succeeded the war phase was over and the occupation phase began. "Planning" was ignored entirely. It was ALL visions of sugar plums dancing in neocon's heads...and the whole propaganda mechanism backed by US military psyops and Operation Mockingbird took over.

Duping the Dems by selling everyone a false bill of goods on Iraq, as the neocon's and GWBush's privatized intelligence efforts have paid off, doesn't absolve the Dems. But Scahill's article just shows that Clinton was deft at playing off these neocon insiders during his two terms in office. That he succeeded in delaying the Vulcans for as long as he did is to be commended.

Does Mr Cahill really think that a Democratic president would have stayed in Iraq after removing Saddam from power ? Ignoring Ray McGovern, Gen Zinni, Gen Shinseki, and all the others who said this war could be done in a month...it's the occupation that will kill you.

No, Mr Scahill, just like GHWBush and Brent Scowcroft in 1991, we would NOT have thrown out the Powell Doctrine and occupied Iraq as long as UN inspections were working...

"Essentially, the Doctrine expresses that military action should be used only as a last resort and only if there is a clear risk to national security by the intended target; the force, when used, should be overwhelming and disproportionate to the force used by the enemy; there must be strong support for the campaign by the general public; and there must be a clear exit strategy from the conflict in which the military is engaged."

from PBS's Powell Doctrine
www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/teachers/
lessonplans/iraq/powelldoctrine_short.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-21-05 11:55 AM
Response to Original message
1. This is posted in editorials ....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri May 03rd 2024, 11:14 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC