For over a year before George Bush and Dick Cheney sent Americans into Iraq to protect this country from the ‘gathering threat’ that was Iraq, they were telling the world that they had proof of weapons stockpiles and programs. They made declarative statements such as, “Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.” (8/26/02, Dick Cheney to VFW National Conference) and “Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.” (3/17/03, George Bush Address to the Nation). Yet some three years after the preemptive invasion of Iraq, the Vice President says, “We never had the burden of proof....” (11/21/05, Dick Cheney Speech to American Enterprise Institute) Indeed, he insists that the burden of proof was on Saddam Hussein to prove weapons did not exist.
At every turn Saddam insisted that there were no weapons or remaining programs. Former UN weapons inspector, Scott Ritter insisted that there were no weapons or programs since shortly after the Gulf War. Hans Blix, UN weapons inspector on the ground in Iraq up to the time of the US invasion, said before the UN in February of 2003, “How much, if any, is left of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and related proscribed items and programmes? So far, UNMOVIC has not found any such weapons, only a small number of empty chemical munitions, which should have been declared and destroyed.” As a matter of fact, on February 24, 2001 Secretary of State Colin Powell said in Cairo, Egypt, “[Saddam] has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction.” Yet on March 19th 2003, George Bush determined that the time had come to employ “the last resort” and take military action against Iraq. Did George Bush listen to or even acknowledge a dissenting voice in the run up to the invasion? Did he and Dick Cheney have some specific knowledge that inspectors on the ground could not have? We may never know because Dick Cheney now says, “We never had the burden of proof...”
I’m not sure where Dick Cheney thinks he is but in the America where I grew up, the burden of proof rested on the accuser, not the accused. Certainly this is most imperative in the case of preemptive war. To be preemptive means that you are attempting to prevent something from occurring. To be successful in that endeavor, one should then produce evidence that he actually prevented something. In the case of Iraq, we were told Iraq had the capability to do harm to our country if we did not invade. Where now is the evidence that justifies the use of preemptive force? We have seen Saddam’s proof. Where is Dick Cheney’s?
The burden of proof is a heavy load. As of today, some 2097 Americans have died in Iraq. They have carried the burden. Some 30,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed as a result of bullets, bombs, lack of medicine, fresh water, electricity, and security. They too have carried the burden. 15,000 Americans have returned from Iraq having lost limbs, eyesight, mental capacity, and probable hidden illness from exposure to depleted uranium. They continue to carry the burden. The only people who have not carried any burden are the members of the Bush administration who ordered a preemptive invasion of Iraq based on erroneous intelligence about weapons of mass destruction. Isn’t it time for some burden sharing?
Chad (The Left) Shue
Wednesday, November 23, 2005
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Chad .. please don't take this personally, your blogs are relevant, insightful and learning does occur ... maybe it's ME but ....
IF I get another e-mail or blog post … that tells me that so and so of this administration lied about this or that, I think I’m going to burst!
What’s wrong with this picture is that these communications, posts, etc. are being read by people that already ‘believe’. And I suspect that many, many of this administration’s previous and current supporters believe it as well! They may not articulate it or admit it, but they know. And yet the beat goes on … as do the e-mails, blog posts, etc. etc. It’s getting tiresome.
It’s a weak argument that we need more information so we can be forearmed with facts when we do battle with the “non-believers”. What I'm saying is that the return-on-investment in reading such information … has flattened out!
Arguing with Rush or Hannity “wanna bes or parrots" is a waste of time; just as arguing with a fellow ‘true believer’ over some minutia. These folks are no more ‘open minded’ than you are [but of course, you and I know the ‘truth’]. It may become an ‘ego thing'. I've seen it happen and I'm sure you have too. Some times it's better to put those energies where they will do some good; where the ROI is better! Not that ‘ego stroking’ doesn’t have it’s place :-)
Why would you believe/hope that open-minded, ‘non-believers’ who subscribe to your blog will be influenced by what you say? Any more than YOU reading a ‘right wing’ blog would capture YOU into their ‘belief structure’? Not that there’s anything wrong with seeing what the opposition has to say… but I’m speaking REAL ‘belief’ change?
We have to stop talking to OURSELVES ….. and start thinking about how our actions and investment can lead to meaningful change on November '06 and beyond. We don’t necessarily need further affirmation regarding the ‘truth’ of OUR beliefs, we need action ..organized action. And not the kind of action .. that becomes an end in itself [another ego thing]… but the kind that leads ..... to meaningful change.
If every person took the energy they spent reading, writing, discussing issues that they already know and have affirmed, and spent it on getting to those that are not ‘true believers’ then maybe we’ll get closer to implementing the change we feel is necessary.
When all the hubris around this issue or that position … fades … what’s left in terms of fostering change….that’s the measure. When you realize that many important state and national races have been quite close …. I don’t think our goals are that unreachable. We don’t need more rhetoric, more gotchas… more affirmation or ‘talk among ourselves’… but commitment; and commitment around issues that will mobilize … NOT people that already think as I we do … but those that may not even think at all!
It’s not encouraging to go to organizing meeting after meeting … and listen to the quibbling, infighting, ego-puffing and personality battles … .while nothing meaningful gets accomplished. Commitment is a terrible thing to waste. It’s something that we hope to develop in people … and yet often when we get ….it’s squandered away.
As an organizer ..how many times have you gotten someone motivated enough to spend their time and energy on something that both YOU and THEY believe is important … only to see that commitment squandered … due to lack of organization, in-fighting, etc.
As I said ‘commitment’ is a terrible thing to waste.
Like you, friend paragon, I often receive messages containing an unbearable degree of redundancy. I also receive messages (often multiples of the same messages) inviting me to involve myself in issues and/or activities most worthy for which I simply have not the time, energy or mental resouces available.
Unlike you, however, I try never to discourage anyone from spreading whatever message they consider to be important, by whatever means they consider to be effective. As a believer in the butterfly effect, I cling to the hope that well-articulated and well-intended arguments may have a positive effect on some, though certainly not all, who encounter them. A reasoned position, stated with confidence, whether on a blog or in a supermarket checkout line, has the potential to persuade one who may yet persuade another.
As an educator, I am painfully aware that few humans learn anything meaningful in one encounter. Multiple encounters in a variety of media are often required. If I have heard it enough times to get it, others may have only just come in contact with it. I may choose to ignore further iterations while others may be open to further contact. So be it.
Tiresome? Yes. But who can say for certain how necessary it may yet be. The fact is, this administration has lied, and will continue to do so most egregiously. I firmly believe we have an obligation to continue pointing it out. Chad does it as well as most any I know.
As far as your call to action is concerned, you may rest assured Chad is on it. I know him well and he is engaged on multiple levels, within and without the Democratic Party. He is a dedicated activist, committed to bringing about meaningful change.
I am sympathetic to your concern about squandered time and commitment. Meetings are often tedious in the extreme and, as you say, sometimes nothing meaningful is accomplished. I'll tell you how I deal with that. I compare a meeting to panning for gold, which I used to do when I lived in Colorado. Hours of back-breaking effort, with my feet in cold water and my neck burnt by the sun, were sometimes rewarded with a few flakes of pure gold, but always the hope of the big nugget. Likewise, hours of sitting, listening and discussing will sometimes be rewarded with a nugget of new information, a flash of insight, or the new acquaintance who just might turn out to be someone I can work with on a current or future project.
None of us can do it all, but I believe we have an obligation to do what we can and to encourage others to do the same. So organize, energize, evangelize or proselytize. Door-bell, phone-bank, run for office or contribute money and time to someone else who will. Do what you can.
And what the heck - if you really think it is important to discourage someone from repeating a message that you believe has been over-stated already, then do that too. You may be just the butterfly someone needs to hear from.
For myself, I hope Chad keeps doing what he's doing. I think he is having a good effect on a lot of people.
Peace!
Jackie
It's interesting that you posit two metaphors ... the "butterfly effect" and "panning for gold". What IS the 'butterfly effect'? and as for gold panning ... isn't that a solitary activity? Panning success only serves the nugget finder. And your faith that in doing 'something' rather than 'nothing' a greater purpose is served .... may be appropriate in a more humanistic or religious context, but in terms of focusing the energies of many towards a defined common goal ... it leaves something to be desired.
If you take a typical group loosely brought under a tent and ask them each with their respective skills and abilities in hand, to go out and 'DO WHAT YOU CAN' what purpose do you believe that serves?
It may make some folks feel good; that they're doing something ... but its a stretch to call it progress towards a defined set of goals, etc. Motivating and harnessing resources to a common goal .. is how progress is made, feeling good about yourself, your efforts.. can be a adjunct, but not an end in itself. Motivation and resource development can come in a variety of colors, but at some point they have to come together.... to make things happen and get things done.
If actions that are limited to motivation or resource development, they often become an end in themselves; all such endeavors become just that ... AN END IN THEMSELVES. The picnic or conference committee that develops an event for whcih only THEY show up. The organizer ... that's ego driven and only has eyes for their own agenda... and really doesn't understand or practice the art of compromise for a common good or purpose. Or the speaker that loves to be heard ... or the blogger that believes their perspective, their 'truth' is what's most important.
Take Cindy Sheehan ... she speaks from the heart I presume and believes that her perspective, her 'truth' about the war is correct. And just that one voice, echoed and echoed and echoed had a motivating force upon many people. But what do we DO with that motivation? It has to be directed..and integrated into a broader goal. A number of groups tried to build on the energy ...setting up rallies, marches, etc. etc. etc. Has it done any good in the context of a broader goal? Maybe. Do we want to dismiss the Cindy Sheehans as not being 'worthwhile' or 'effective' or 'self serving'? Certainly not ... maybe that's where your butterfly metaphor comes in.
But tell me Jackie ... on balance, don't you believe that it would have been more 'effective' and 'worthwhile' ... to have defeated GWB in 2000 and most certainly in 04 .....to preclude the travesties that lead to the Cindy Sheehans of our time?
As I said .. I appreciate Chad's efforts as well as you do. And I DO realize and appreciate his commitment to progressive causes. I've just seen too many people ... burn themselves out believing that they're doing "something" and I personally know that Chad has seen this in people around him. Every organization and movement has its casulties.
So maybe when I hear or read and reread the same talking point or facts or observations for the umteenth time and begin to view it as a waste of time ... I'M just running from the notion of becoming a casulty myself. 'Commitment', true commitment is a terrible thing to waste.
Take care ... and I bet you're a good educator :-)
Democrats tear down Republicans. It's how we build up momentum to win. And, of course, Republicans tear down Democrats. They may even do it better, because they're such nasty SOBs.
The most notable result of all this tearing down is a pile of rubble in government. Most Americans are convinced that all politicians, regardless of party, are ruthless and worthless. So they either don't vote or they vote for the party that promises less government.
I suppose one effective strategy would be to build a public image of Democrats determined to tear down the corporatocracy and dismantle the military industrial complex. I'd work harder for the party if that was what it stood for.
I prefer, however, to replace the two party system that causes this messy situation. Let's build a multi-party democracy in the USA, starting right here, right now. Please contact your Charter Review Commission and encourage them to set up a multi-party system using Proportional Representation.
Stig
What makes you believe … that having MORE than two parties would reduce the rhetoric and nastiness? Does a family with MORE siblings have fewer squabbles than a family with only two? I had an occasion to be in Italy during one of their elections …. In one part of town …. I counted NINE different party campaign headquarters with their respective candidates plastered on reader boards in front of each. And I doubt that the expressed congeniality between candidates was in direct proportion to the number of party involved. And I’m certainly NOT in favor of coalition governments … are you?
I DO agree with you that the mud slinging DOES get tiresome … AND it IS a turnoff… when trying to attract more moderate supporters and good candidates for that matter. Who wants to be exposed to the gauntlet of attacks that one can expect in even small electoral races!
Some of it has to do with journalists and other media outlets falling down on the job. Political discourse should be more than crossing swords with talking points ….and regrettably becoming a form of entertainment and humor.
When voters begin to limit their political news and knowledge to the Daily Show and O’Riley, etc…. you’ve already lost the battle. And I agree with you that up to know that battlefield appears to be been shaped and controlled by the Right.
Having more parties isn’t going to solve that problem.
Post a Comment