Não tenho dúvidas quanto aos potenciais estragos futuros a serem praticados por possíveis democratas (esquerda) contra esta guerra mas por todas as outras, e que deixarão saudades de Bush.
Todas as grandes guerras americanas foram da responsabilidade de democratas (esquerda) que prometeram o não intervencionismo ou a paz e acabaram a fazer precisamente o contrário: Wilson (WWI) , Roosevelt (WWII) , Lyndon Johnson (Vietname).
"On what principle can those who supported intervention in Bosnia and Kosovo oppose Bush on Iraq, or Afghanistan? Or is there a principle at all, save the momentary emotional arguments and imperialist chic?
All of the leading Democratic candidates for "opposing" Bush the Lesser in November supported the Great Balkans Adventure during the 1990s. They are not opposing the current Perpetual War. They might claim they would do it differently, but they would still do it.
Wesley Clark's position needs no explanation. His pompous propaganda claims about "liberating a nation," leaves out the truth of naked aggression, ethnic cleansing and occupation by NATO and its KLA allies. Queried about his war record by a leftist reporter (Jeremy Scahill of Democracy Now!), Clark lied and denied, from claiming that everything NATO did was legitimate and justified by US and international law (!) to blaming everything on the Serbs and Milosevic.
The current front-runner, John Kerry, had spoken in favor of Clinton's Bosnia intervention and supported US deployment in the occupation of that country. His voting record also shows he supported the aggression in Kosovo. He may not flaunt his position like Clark, but he's made it clear enough.
As for Howard Dean, this is the man who in July 1995 urged Clinton to unilaterally intervene in Bosnia, in a letter arguing for a "lift-and-strike" campaign against the Serbs. No one in the Dean camp has repudiated the letter so far."
A Bipartisan Empire, Forged in the Balkans
Uma coisa é certa, quando um democrata (esquerda) ganhar, observaremos as duas peles dos neoconservadores.
PS: Quanto a combater quando é necessário, ainda existe quem ache que Saddam era um perigo militar para os EUA? Não será embaraçoso para a direita ficar refém da doutrina revolucionária do "libertação dos povos"? A esperança que podemos ter em Bush é que em última recurso recupere a prudência conservadora que se exige a um republicano, analise os erros cometidos e não embarque em aventuras ideológicas que ponha em causa a própria estabilidade financeira e militar da sua Nação.
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário