The war in Iraq is about oil.
As you have all noticed, our use of oil damages the environment.
Enough said.
Tom
=========================================
Subj: An Open Letter to Howard Dean
Date: 5/4/2005 6:07:09 PM Central Daylight Time
From: [log in to unmask] (Dennis Kucinich)
Reply-to: <A HREF="mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]</A>
To: [log in to unmask] (Thomas Mathews)
<IMG SRC="http://www.kucinich.us/images_for_emails/banner7.gif" WIDTH="378" HEIGHT="70" BORDER="0" DATASIZE="2420">
An Open Letter to Howard Dean
Speaking before an ACLU crowd last week in Minnesota, the home state of Paul
Wellstone, you were quoted as saying, "Now that we're there [in Iraq], we're
there and we can't get out.... I hope the President is incredibly successful
with his policy now." Did these words really come from the same man who claimed
to represent the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party, and who had recently
campaigned on the antiwar theme? What's changed?
Perhaps you now believe that an electoral victory for Democrats in 2006 and
beyond requires sweeping this war under the rug. If so, you are only the latest
in a long line of recent Democratic leaders who chose a strategy of letting
"no light show" between Democrats and the President on the war. Emphasize the
economy, instead, they advised, in 2002 and again in 2004.
Following this advice has kept us in the minority. During the 2002 election
cycle, when Democrats felt they had historical precedent on their side (the
President's party always loses seats in the midterm election), the Democratic
leadership in Congress cut a deal with the President to bring the war resolution
to a vote, and appeared with him in a Rose Garden ceremony. The "no light"
strategy yielded a historic result: For the first time since Franklin Roosevelt,
a President increased his majorities in both houses of Congress during a
recession.
The President went into the 2004 election with tremendous vulnerability on
the war, which the Democratic Party again sacrificed: by avoiding the issue of
withdrawal from Iraq in the party platform, omitting it from campaign speeches
and deleting it from the national convention.
Why does failure surely follow from sweeping the war and occupation under the
rug? Because the war is one of the most potent political scandals of all
time, and it has energized grassroots activity like few others.
President Bush led the country into war based on false information, falsified
threats and a fictitious estimate of the consequences. His war and the
continuing occupation transformed Iraq into a training ground for jihadists who want
to hunt Americans, and a cause célèbre for stoking resentment in the Muslim
world. His war and occupation squandered the abundant good will felt by the
world for America after our losses of September 11. He enriched his cronies at
Halliburton and other private interests through the occupation. And he diverted
our attention and abilities away from apprehending the masterminds of the
September 11 attack; instead, we are mired in occupation. The President's war and
occupation in Iraq has already cost $125 billion, nearly 1,600 American lives,
more than 11,000 American casualties and the lives of tens of thousands of
Iraqis. The occupation has been more costly in this regard than the war.
There is no end in sight for the occupation of Iraq. The President says we
will stay until we're finished. A recent report by the Congressional Research
Service concluded that the United States is probably building permanent military
bases in Iraq. The President refuses to consider an exit strategy. The
Republican Congress gives the President whatever he asks for.
We can draw no clearer distinction with the President than over this war. He
cannot right a wrong (unjustified war) by perpetuating a military occupation.
Military victory there is not possible. General Tommy Franks concedes that.
The war will end when we say it's over. The Democratic leadership should be
pressing for quick withdrawal of all troops from Iraq.
That's what most Democrats want, too. Your performance in the early stages of
the primary, and your recent chairmanship of the party, were made possible by
many, many progressive and liberal Democrats. It was their hope and
expectation that you would prevent the party from repeating its past drift to the
Republican-lite center. They hoped that this time the party would not abandon them
or its core beliefs again.
Yet you say that you hope the President succeeds. With no pressure exerted
from the leadership of the Democratic Party, the past threatens to repeat itself
in 2006. We may not leave Iraq or our minority status in Washington for a
long time to come.
Dennis J. Kucinich
<A HREF="http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050516&s=kucinich">Link to this letter as published in The Nation</A>
Insight and Action on Iraq: <A HREF="http://www.kucinich.us/insight/iraq/">http://www.kucinich.us/insight/iraq</A>
- - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To get off the IOWA-TOPICS list, send any message to:
[log in to unmask]