GELERNTER: It's interesting you should bring up Lincoln. It seems to me that very much the process America went through during the Civil War, we have gone through during Iraq, we began with moralist pragmatic concrete goals. As the war developed, we lost men, we paid, and we bled.
It seemed to us that something more important had better be at stake and the civil war, we turned it in for a fight for the -- for the fundamental alteration of the country.
In Iraq, we decided we weren't just there to clear up a present danger and to serve our interests in the Middle East, we actually wanted to build a real functioning democracy and we were willing to pay American lives to do that.
I think it's extraordinary, an extraordinary piece of work. We've done something similar in Afghanistan. And where is there another country that has a record of doing that consistently?
We didn't invade Iraq and Afghanistan because we wanted to promote Democracy and to assert otherwise is a despicable lie. The American people also don't agree that building a democracy in Iraq is worth the price.
Posts
1 comment:
Good post and just in time for me to take another shot at that "Iraq is won" prevaricator, AJ Strata of stratasphere.com.
Your choice, Strata: trash the repetitious lying or shove it.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/world/story/53605.html
The new NIE, which reflects the consensus of all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies, has significant implications for Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama, whose differences over the Iraq war are a major issue in the presidential campaign.
The findings seem to cast doubts on McCain's frequent assertions that the United States is "on a path to victory" in Iraq by underscoring the deep uncertainties of the situation despite the 30,000-strong U.S. troop surge for which he was the leading congressional advocate.
Post a Comment