G
gilliam
Guest
From TKS:
I’m thinking of this comment from an interview with Canadian columnist and anti-war author Naomi Klein. Ignore her “we haven’t delivered democracy” comment and focus on the final lines:
Questioner: We need to be talking about our moral responsibility toward Iraqis. I’m glad someone is finally saying that. Klein: There’s almost a sense that to do so would be to weaken our position. I was talking to a journalist a few weeks ago and I was saying that I believe our responsibility is to hold Bush to his lie. They promised democracy, sovereignty and liberation. They haven’t delivered, but our job should be to demand that these become realities. His response was, “So what you’re saying is that something good could come from the war, right?” He was trying to trap me. I realized when he did this that this was a big reason why anti-war forces have refused to have positive demands — precisely because it will be used against us. It will seem as if something good could come from this war. My response to this is: Who the hell cares? Who cares about our anti-war egos? Which is really what this is about.
There are many, many people in this world who are wedded to the idea that absolutely nothing good can come from the coalition invasion of Iraq. These people had no jubilee in their hearts when the statue of Saddam came down. They didn’t play Queen’s “Another One Bites the Dust” when Uday and Qusay were ixnayed. They enjoyed no “in your face” fist-pumping when Saddam was pulled out of the spider hole. Every insurgent suicide bombing was good news to them, in a way, because it gave them another chance to say, “see, I told you so.” Failures made their position look wiser; successes made it look foolish.
That is why certain people keep attempting to rehash the debate of March 2003. When, say, Condi Rice is nominated for Secretary of State, they relish the chance to say for the millionth time, “Bush lied,” and “we shouldn’t have invaded Iraq.” Of course, that is as relevant as debating tactics in Kosovo, or Gulf War I, or World War II. The die is cast, the decision is made; the only thing that can be changed is what we do now, at this moment.
But the most ardent of the war opponents don’t want to live in the moment. And they want nothing to do with this moment, with the pictures of happy Iraqis lining up and voting across their country. It disturbs the image of children flying kites in Saddam-era Iraq that they enjoyed in Fahrenheit 9/11.
Almost any war supporter would hear the daily reports of casualties, the reports of simmering tensions between Sunni and Shia and Kurd, and wonder if the forces of democracy had bitten off more than we could chew. Would the Iraqi people “get” the rights and responsibilities of a citizen in a democracy? Or had decades of oppression turned them into addicts of the frightening, but predictable lash of the dictator?
Today we have our answer.
nationalreview.com/tks/054630.html
I’m thinking of this comment from an interview with Canadian columnist and anti-war author Naomi Klein. Ignore her “we haven’t delivered democracy” comment and focus on the final lines:
Questioner: We need to be talking about our moral responsibility toward Iraqis. I’m glad someone is finally saying that. Klein: There’s almost a sense that to do so would be to weaken our position. I was talking to a journalist a few weeks ago and I was saying that I believe our responsibility is to hold Bush to his lie. They promised democracy, sovereignty and liberation. They haven’t delivered, but our job should be to demand that these become realities. His response was, “So what you’re saying is that something good could come from the war, right?” He was trying to trap me. I realized when he did this that this was a big reason why anti-war forces have refused to have positive demands — precisely because it will be used against us. It will seem as if something good could come from this war. My response to this is: Who the hell cares? Who cares about our anti-war egos? Which is really what this is about.
There are many, many people in this world who are wedded to the idea that absolutely nothing good can come from the coalition invasion of Iraq. These people had no jubilee in their hearts when the statue of Saddam came down. They didn’t play Queen’s “Another One Bites the Dust” when Uday and Qusay were ixnayed. They enjoyed no “in your face” fist-pumping when Saddam was pulled out of the spider hole. Every insurgent suicide bombing was good news to them, in a way, because it gave them another chance to say, “see, I told you so.” Failures made their position look wiser; successes made it look foolish.
That is why certain people keep attempting to rehash the debate of March 2003. When, say, Condi Rice is nominated for Secretary of State, they relish the chance to say for the millionth time, “Bush lied,” and “we shouldn’t have invaded Iraq.” Of course, that is as relevant as debating tactics in Kosovo, or Gulf War I, or World War II. The die is cast, the decision is made; the only thing that can be changed is what we do now, at this moment.
But the most ardent of the war opponents don’t want to live in the moment. And they want nothing to do with this moment, with the pictures of happy Iraqis lining up and voting across their country. It disturbs the image of children flying kites in Saddam-era Iraq that they enjoyed in Fahrenheit 9/11.
Almost any war supporter would hear the daily reports of casualties, the reports of simmering tensions between Sunni and Shia and Kurd, and wonder if the forces of democracy had bitten off more than we could chew. Would the Iraqi people “get” the rights and responsibilities of a citizen in a democracy? Or had decades of oppression turned them into addicts of the frightening, but predictable lash of the dictator?
Today we have our answer.
nationalreview.com/tks/054630.html