Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

So, Do we intend to stay in Iraq forever? (TPM)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
kpete Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 08:20 AM
Original message
So, Do we intend to stay in Iraq forever? (TPM)
Do we intend to stay in Iraq forever?
By Reed Hundt | bio
From: Politics
Iraq's National Security Adviser said that the overwhelming majority of American troops would be out in two years, and that by the end of this year the number would be below 100,000. So he effectively set a date for withdrawal (from his advance copy of the SOTU). That was, we had been told, a recipe for endangering our troops. We were told that we have to keep them in Iraq indefinitely in order to make them safer. This circular logic rolled through the mainstream media, was echoed faithfully in a Senate that doesn't have time for extended debate on anything (certainly not on the appointment of a radical to the Supreme Court). But, by contrast, in Iraq the reality of the American presence is being openly discussed. Here's the catch, however: this Administration presumably intends that the American presence in Iraq will never be reduced to zero. They wish to have one or more military bases in Iraq, holding the line against Iran, until all the oil is out of the Middle East and into the atmosphere (somewhere between 2050 to 2070, when the Gulf Stream will no longer run, and the Blue States will be uninhabitable, but I digress). Why can't this point -- our long-run presence in Iraq -- be discussed? The answer, in part, is that there is almost no institution in the United States now capable of conducting open and meaningful civil discourse. Every forum traditionally meant for extended discussion is guarded, hamstrung, eavesdropped, angered, frightened, mercenary, ill-informed, ill-attended, trivialized. Certainly the SOTU will give evidence to this assertion. My conclusion: Conversation in the blogworld is not a fringe activity; it is our best chance for preserving the original vision of reasoned debate that inspired our Founders to invent the United States.

Jan 31, 2006 -- 07:44:39 AM EST

http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2006/1/31/74439/9483
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
soothsayer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-31-06 09:37 AM
Response to Original message
1. We've built our biggest bases there. We ain't going anywhere.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue May 07th 2024, 05:32 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC