|
Edited on Sun Nov-30-03 01:16 AM by jab105
Dear Mr. Friedman,
I'm sure, if Osama Bin Laden was the invited guest of the Prime Minister of Great Britian, there would indeed be protests in the streets of London. Not supporting Bush doesn't mean that you support the terrorists, in the same way, saying that something isn't black doesn't make it white, saying something isn't a square doesn't make it round, and saying something isn't good doesn't make it evil. I would assume that this would be obvious, however, unfortunately, it doesn't seem to be.
There is way more to the left than "anti-Bushism", and there is way more to the opposition to the Iraq invasion than an opposition to Bush. Being so close to those crazy lefties on so many issues, I'm surprised that you didn't realize this. You can't just model a plan after the Marshall Plan six-months after an invasion and expect it to work in the same way. There was so much more to the Marshall Plan, and there is so much less to this invasion. The opposition is about not having a plan other than to invade Iraq, "shock and awe".
As George Soros himself said, Iraq is no a place that one should pick as a trial run model for democracy because the atmospere in the coutry, the warring factions, the fear by the west of fundamentalism, and the 30 years under a dictatorship that was perceived to be supported by the US for so many years is not one that will give way to democracy. We are seeing that now.
The left has a plan, the left has always had a plan in Iraq. The problem has been that the Bush administration has isolated so much of the world and has been so removed from the peace and security in Iraq itself, that we are becoming more and more limited in the plans that we can pursue in Iraq. This is a problem of the Bush administration, and the Republicans who are in control of every branch of the federal government, not the left.
thanks!
BLAH!
|