If you only follow the mainstream media, you may not have realized that there were free and democratic elections in Iraq this weekend for the first time in 5000 years of recorded history. While I feel this is not just a good thing, but an absolutely fantastic event of immense historical significance, much of the left in our country is less than enthused. Some of them are even contemplating the possibility that at some point in the future they may have to admit that Bush was right and they were wrong. Personally I find the resistance to admitting any sort of success in Iraq to be very much in conflict with the supposed "ideals" of the left wing. The Democrats have, supposedly, stood for freedom and democracy for 200 years, but in this case they are solidly in favor of supporting the reactionary Islamic fanatics instead of the everyday workingman who wants peace so that they can raise a family and make a few bucks.
The uninformed drivel continues from there. You can read it for yourself if you really want. Here's my response:
Don't get me wrong - I hate Bush, but nothing I'm going to write here has anything to do with that.
First, that was an uncalled for and unfair bash on media, suggesting that the mainstream media hasn't covered the elections - that is front page news, even on the "liberal bastions" of the New York Times and the Washington Post. Unless by "mainstream media" you meant your blog, where this is the first mention of the Iraqi elections you've made.
When people say the war was about oil, they don't mean it was about making gasoline cheap for the masses, they mean it was about a) securing a guaranteed supply for the US and b) making large profits for the oil company. I'm not saying that was our motive, just clarifying what the phrase means.
I'm against this Iraq war. Not that I have any love for Saddam. I actually think it's about time someone invaded and brought democracy. However, the white house's hypocrisy about this is alarming to say the least and leaves open the notion that they have ulterior motives. Here's what's scary: They said it was about WMD at first. When it turned out there were no WMD, they changed their reason. It's not that humanitarian causes are a bad reason, but a) if Republicans are so humanitarian, why didn't they support Bosnia? Why didn't we save Rwanda? Why didn't we send troops to Ethiopia? It makes for a hollow argument. b) what's the *real* reason? Was it incompetence (they really invaded because of WMD and then later lied to save embarrassment)? Was it really humanitarian (unlikely - see a; they only used the WMD story to gain support in congress)? Or was it something else entirely? I guess if you trust Bush you don't care what the real reason is. He's lied so many times to the American public (although not under oath about blowjobs, so everything's OK!) that I don't trust him or the administration. I will not agree with this war until I feel confident I know *why* we really went in the first place.
Let me also say that now that we're there and we've fucked up the place, we'd better fix it. I am an under no illusions that our lives and livelihood don't depend on a peaceful middle-east. I just wish we'd never gone in the first place.