The charade of "bipartisanship"
The Iraq Study Group has published its report. Regardless of how Bush reacts to it, Helen Thomas has offered a refreshing perspective on the matter. As reported in the SFGate politics blog: "Helen Thomas complains that the report contains nothing critical of President Bush. She says it avoids addressing the fact that the United States invaded Iraq, destroyed the country and killed tens of thousands of people."
I say, thank God for Helen Thomas's refreshingly forthright characterization of the war. A mismanaged war is not the same as an immoral and illegal invasion. Blaming a President for mismanagement is not the same as identifying him as a war criminal who should never have gone to war in the first place.
And given that James Baker, who helped Bush steal the 2000 election, was co-chair of the commission, and centrist Democrat Lee Hamilton was the other co-chair, should any of this come as a surprise? The entire composition of the panel, with its "bipartisan" composition (as if there were only two opinions on any issue, with both opinions naturally coming from the different factions of the corporate ruling class), and chosen for its "centrist" ideology, it was doubtful that the critique would address the kinds of issues that Helen Thomas brings up.
Those kinds of critiques will have to come from outside the Washington establishment--from people like Helen Thomas, Cindy Sheehan, and those on the left who point out that the war was not some well intentioned but mismanaged affair, but rather it was in fact an immoral act of US aggression.
I say, thank God for Helen Thomas's refreshingly forthright characterization of the war. A mismanaged war is not the same as an immoral and illegal invasion. Blaming a President for mismanagement is not the same as identifying him as a war criminal who should never have gone to war in the first place.
And given that James Baker, who helped Bush steal the 2000 election, was co-chair of the commission, and centrist Democrat Lee Hamilton was the other co-chair, should any of this come as a surprise? The entire composition of the panel, with its "bipartisan" composition (as if there were only two opinions on any issue, with both opinions naturally coming from the different factions of the corporate ruling class), and chosen for its "centrist" ideology, it was doubtful that the critique would address the kinds of issues that Helen Thomas brings up.
Those kinds of critiques will have to come from outside the Washington establishment--from people like Helen Thomas, Cindy Sheehan, and those on the left who point out that the war was not some well intentioned but mismanaged affair, but rather it was in fact an immoral act of US aggression.
Post a Comment