Enough of this Crap--Let's Get it Started!
On July 23, 2002, the head of British intelligence reported that Bush and Cheney were intent on invading Iraq and planned to "fix the intelligence and facts around the policy". Five years later a million people have died in Iraq as a direct result of these lies with no end in sight. Torture has been institutionalized, habeas corpus eviscerated, and illegal spying made routine. New Orleans lies devastated along with the Constitution and the rule of law. And Bush and Cheney are making a mockery of the Democrats' feeble gestures towards accountability.
Enough is enough, and this July 23rd we will launch a new phase in the movement for peace and justice. We call it the Orange Revolution because starting that day wearing orange will signify that you want Congress to START IMPEACHMENT and STOP THE WAR. The majority of Americans, who want to see Bush and Cheney impeached and want an immediate end to this war, are made effectively invisible by a complicit media. Wearing orange will be our signal to each other, and to the world, about where we stand. Anything orange will do: a t-shirt, a wristband, your shoelaces. Get creative and send us your ideas. Here are a some great items you can wear designed specifically for the Orange Revolution:
http://www.democrats.com/orangerevolution
The Orange Revolution will be launched with acts of civil disobedience in Washington, D.C., and elsewhere to show Congress that we are serious.
posted by Stuart Shea at 10:22 PM
6 Comments:
I'm going to offer a contrarian argument. What if the choice in Iraq is between awful and horrific? In other words, what if withdrawing troops leads to genocidal levels of death in Iraq? Won't that be our responsibility, not just for starting the war, but for leaving? The problem is that Bush didn't invade Iraq alone: he did it with Congress' authorization.
Should the worst come to pass, the world will rightly say "you Americans think your lives are worth expodentially more than Iraqi lives. You cause this mess, then leave when *your* death toll and expense get too high, regardless of the human costs." What happened to "you break it, you bought it"?
A legitimate argument can be made that our presence in Iraq causes more problems than it cures, but that's not what the debate has been about. When ABC's Jake Tapper tried to ask Harry Reid the "what about the Iraqis?" question, Reid blew up at him and refused to answer. Worse, some try to blame the Iraqis for "not wanting peace," as-if any of us if we were there would be sticking our necks out in that hell scene.
The Iraqis are the ones who have to ask us to leave, in my opinion. It's not our choice anymore. Until then, I'd like to see us shift our tactics to a plan favored by Joe Biden called "soft partition." We would redirect some of the billions we are spending there to separate the fighting populations and work to ensure that Iraq's oil revenues are equitably distributed (less the Sunni regions turn into an Iraq Gaza Strip -- currently the Bush administration is pressuring Iraq to accept a very pro-western oil plan). Would this work? Possibly (probably) not, but at least there's some historical precedence for it (Bosnia, Kosovo). And, as they say, the least we can do is try.
9:05 AM, July 20, 2007
This comment has been removed by the author.
10:28 AM, July 20, 2007
Jonathan,
I appreciate and share your concern for everyone who's over there in the middle of the fire. Of course, I don't believe for a minute that the reason that Bush & Co. are still there is because THEY give a damn about Iraqi lives.
That being said, I'm not sure that our continued presence there stabilizes anything. I'm not sure if our presence anywhere stabilizes anything, in fact. Wouldn't it make sense that much of the hostility in the Middle East, Asia, and Central America comes from resentment at our, as well as the Russians'/Chinese's/French's, military presence over a prolonged period of time?
When you say it's the Iraqis' job to ask us to leave, I wonder if you mean the puppet government or the people. Seems like a lot of the people never wanted us there in the first place.
I just don't feel it's our responsibility any longer to contribute bodies, $, etc. to this fight. "You break it, you bought it" would only apply if the majority of the American people had bought a product that was being sold legitimately--i.e. without deception. And it wasn't. Time to get out and stop pretending that we care about fixing the problem. And stop depending on foreign oil. And stop consuming so much. Etcetera. Etcetera.
Speaking of consuming, btw, we need to have Indian buffet again soon. Peace.
10:28 AM, July 20, 2007
Gaging what the "will of the Iraqis" is admittedly nebulous and difficult. I've seen a fairly recent poll showing about 60% wanting us to stay, but who knows how accurate any poll there can be. Actually I wouldn't be surprised if the Iraqi government asked us to leave (it's Shia dominated) and if there was no overwhelming protests from the Sunnis I'd consider that acceptable. I'm definitely willing to lean towards "they want us out" -- I just don't like us unilaterally making the decision.
I guess I view "you break it, you bought it" from the point of the shopkeeper. Say someone pulls a prank on me and makes a false (but real-looking) advertisement for a local chinastore saying all there stuff are indestructable and you can drop pieces on the ground. I do this and break an expensive piece. The storeowner will want to be paid -- he/she may be sympathetic and tell me to go after the prankster, but they won't martyr themselves for my mistake.
I'm a little biased here because I don't think that people back in 2002-03 really believed the war was about WMD's, despite all the talk about it. America had an undefined rage post 9/11 that Afghanistan hadn't quieted. I think the real motivations ranged from flexing our muscles against someone who thumbed us in the eyes (Saddam Hussein) to the Tom Friedmanesque "Hail Mary pass" to somehow transform the region to a realpolitik desire to have more control over oil resources. I think a lot of Dems in Congress who voted for the war were afraid to stand against that and used WMD's as a cover.
I'm ready to support the first candidate who will seriously reduce oil consumption! While I wasn't expecting it, I had a small hope that Obama would campaign as Paul Tsongas with looks and charisma. No such luck... I do plan to cut down on beef (too weak to completely drop it) because of this:
http://environment.newscientist.com/article/mg19526134.500-meat-is-murder-on-the-environment.html
Yes, I'm getting hungry just thinking about Indian buffets. And will there be any book events soon or should we start hunting for it soon as the stores clean up from the Harry Potter parties?
3:18 PM, July 20, 2007
I think Cheney was behind a deal with someone, concerning oil. Bush wasn't smart enough to come up with the inside plan. He wanted to finish the work of his Father and made a mess instead. I think Colin Powell said what Stu's article said long ago. If you agree with the war or not Bush had wanted this from the start. What will happen now? Will Hillary in her banana color paint suit be able to solve this. Or Mr. Edward, haircut $1000. Or all talk not experience Obana. We will have to stay tuned.
5:08 PM, July 24, 2007
Well, I'm not sure what Hillary Clinton's wardrobe or John Edwards' haircut have to do with anything, and his name is Obama...I would offer humbly that it's time to consider some alternatives, even if you don't like their fashion choices.
11:05 PM, July 24, 2007
Post a Comment
<< Home