The logical reaction, the one that would display integrity, of the DNC leadership would have been to publicly reject and denounce the proposed Wall Street investment. If the DNC leadership were capable of logic or integrity, of course, Trump would not be the putative (Putin-ative?) President. New Democrats still control the DNC. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, its prior leader, had to resign in disgrace when leaks disclosed that the DNC, despite her denials, was secretly and repeatedly putting its thumb on the scale to win the nomination for her fellow New Democrat, Hillary Clinton. Schultz is so deeply in Wall Street's deep pockets that she opposed regulatory efforts to limit predatory lending. (She later flip-flopped when it became clear she would face a progressive challenge to her seat.)
The New Democrats have proven wrong on every major issue they chose as defining how they differ from the democratic-wing of the Democratic Party. Wasserman Schultz illustrates their willingness to shill for even the worst of the financial plutocrats, those that predate on the poor, particularly minorities.
Brazile, Wasserman Schultz' (interim) successor at the DNC, exemplifies the murderous role that New Democrats have played in the use of military force. She co-wrote the infamous op ed, which they chose to place in the Wall Street Journal, attacking progressive Democrats for refusing to praise President Bush's 2003 invasion of Iraq based on the lies that it was supporting terror attacks on the United States and intended to use weapons of mass destruction (WMD) against us and Israel. Brazile complained that Democrats were "criticizing the president's handling of the war against al Qaeda." She was appalled that this criticism occurred immediately after Bush's even more infamous speech (on the very expensive prop, the aircraft career Abraham Lincoln, bedecked with the massive, fraudulent banner "Mission Accomplished") claiming our invasion of Iraq to be a triumph. Bush, wearing a flight suit, arrived in a Viking naval aircraft. He proceeded to spread the myths that (1) the conflict was effectively over and (2) the Iraqi people welcomed our invasion and supported our troops as liberators.
We thank all of the citizens of Iraq who welcomed our troops and joined in the liberation of their own country.
In the images of celebrating Iraqis, we have also seen the ageless appeal of human freedom. Decades of lies and intimidation could not make the Iraqi people love their oppressors or desire their own enslavement. Men and women in every culture need liberty like they need food, and water, and air. Everywhere that freedom arrives, humanity rejoices.
One had to read behind the lines, but Bush was already revealing that we actually did not know of any WMD sites and had found no WMD despite supposed ironclad intelligence and dozens of fruitless searches of the supposed sites as to which we supposedly had "ironclad" evidence of WMD.
We have begun the search for hidden chemical and biological weapons, and already know of hundreds of sites that will be investigated.
Bush then repeated the lie that Iraq had been supporting al Qaeda.
The Battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11th, 2001, and still goes on.
The reality was that Iraq was an opponent of al Qaeda before the U.S. invasion. It was only the U.S. invasion that made possible al Qaeda's later entry into Iraq (and eventually ISIS' entry into Iraq). Bush also claimed falsely that we had "destroyed" the Taliban in Afghanistan.
Bush then combined the two falsehoods that were his pretext for invading Iraq.
The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We have removed an ally of al-Qaida, and cut off a source of terrorist funding. And this much is certain: No terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime, because the regime is no more.
Iraq under Saddam Hussein, who was strongly secular, was an active opponent of "al-Qaida" (a fundamentalist Sunni group) rather than "an ally." It would have aroused fierce opposition from Iraq's majority Shia population if Hussein, a nominal Sunni, embraced al Qaeda, which teaches that Shias are heretics who should be killed.
We all know that Bush's lies led to catastrophic results for Iraqis and Americans. The Americans killed or maimed in Iraq came overwhelmingly from our working classes because there is no draft. The New Democrats, however, including Bill and Hillary Clinton, were enthusiastic and uncritical supporters of Bush's 2003 invasion of Iraq despite the Republican chicken hawks' infamous reputation for dishonesty and thirst for war.
On September 12, 2001, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld suggested to Bush that the terror attacks provided the U.S. with an opportunity to invade Iraq. We know now that Paul Wolfowitz, the leading "chicken hawk" used the 9/11 attacks as a pretext to promote a war against Iraq on September 15, 2001. (Wolfowitz, being Wolfowitz, proposed that we invade their primary oil production areas, install a puppet regime run by Ahmad Chalabi, a convicted bank fraud, and bankrupt the actual government of Iraq by cutting off its revenues.) The Jordanian court that convicted in absentia when he fled to avoid arrest found that he was running what criminologists would call an "accounting control fraud.") Indeed, the "chicken hawks" were actively planning the steps required to invade and create a new government in Iraq months before the 9/11 attacks.
The Bush administration's lies, eagerness to launch an offensive war, its embrace of the convicted bank fraud to lead Iraq who had no support among the Iraqi people, its fantasy that the Iraqi people supported our invasion, our failure to protect the museums (we protected only the oil ministry), and the extraordinary incompetence of the occupation (largely due to the neocon's ideology, rather than military ineptitude) promptly led to catastrophe. I urge people to read Imperial Life in The Emerald City: Inside Iraq's Green Zone by Rajiv Chandrasekaran (2007). It is a frightening account of the witches' brew created when you combine neoclassical economic nostrums, neocon ideology, the destruction of the rule of law, ignorance and disdain for the "other," and massive conflicts of interest. I believe that the Trump administration is creating such a witches' brew in America. By 2010, 74% of Democrats agreed that invading Iraq was a "mistake."
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
7
4
4
