Site Presented By
Friday, Jul 10, 2009
Readers respond to recent articles about missing WMD, toppling Bush in '04, and Andrew Sullivan on how the liberal media stole Iraqi looting.
Jun 13, 2003 | [Read "The Real Reason We Went to War."]
Gary Kamiya's pieces on Iraq have been the most nuanced and intelligent I have read anywhere in the media. But I believe that going after Bush about the missing WMD would be disastrous for Democrats.
America eliminated a monstrous dictator; the American people feel that we fought a just war, even if it was for all the wrong reasons. From the start, progressives and liberals against the war have refused to deal squarely with the sadism of Saddam Hussein's regime. Progressives and liberals end up looking like a bunch of pacifist sissies and America-haters willing to let innocent people get tortured and murdered because they don't want to get their hands dirty.
I think a Democratic campaign that speaks truth about America's role in creating misery and anti-Americanism around the world, and that calls America to the task of waging peace as aggressively as we wage war, would resonate with Americans. But not a battle about the correctness of the war with Iraq.
-- Larry Letich
It's the same charade over and over again. Bush says "A," and Ari Fleischer later clarifies that Bush really meant "an alpha-numeric symbol that could be interpreted as being a letter close to the beginning of the alphabet, which is what the president has been saying all along."
Using Bush's spoon-fed, hyperambiguous terminology, practically anything could be construed as being "two mobile biological weapons facilities capable of producing biological agents." In fact, I have two of those in my home. They're called blenders. Mix up a fruit shake and some spoiled milk. Put it in a hot dog cart, take it to a public park, serve hundreds, and voilà, a WMD.
Is not all this backtracking and recharacterization of what Bush really meant when he said "WMD" reminiscent of Clinton's line, "That depends on what your definition of 'is' is"? But the Bush administration is different from the Clinton administration; when it lies, it lies about matters affecting the life and death of millions of people, as opposed to a disgruntled hotel employee and an intern.
Kamiya has it right: Which lie should be the impeachable offense?
-- Coulter Richardson
Your articles on the political ramifications for Bush if he lied to the American public about WMD in Iraq are extremely interesting, but I have a feeling they are far too hopeful, and I'm afraid they're preaching to the choir here on Salon. The idea that this could be a worse scandal than Watergate should be true, but I doubt it will be. I do not have enough faith in our Republican Congress to impeach Bush over this.
I'm 18, and I'm going to be voting for whoever the Democrats put up. I'd classify myself as further left toward the Green Party, but I would vote for a trained dolphin if it would get Bush out of office.
-- Mark Prokop
Good essay, as I have come to expect from Gary Kamiya. I have one important quibble, however. There is at least one Democratic candidate who is standing up and saying the "unpopular" truth about this administration and who has voted against U.S. involvement in Iraq from the beginning: Dennis Kucinich. Why isn't the press covering his strong, clear speeches denouncing this misguided administration?
It doesn't help to have sympathetic journalists like Kamiya mouth the usual put-downs of ineffectual Democrats as though they comprise one homogenous herd. More useful at this critical time would be to name and credit those Democrats (however few) who are in strong opposition to this administration and are saying so, loudly and clearly.
-- Pat Hayes
Hurray for Gary Kamiya for giving voice to the frustration so many of us feel over the appalling policies and actions of the Bush administration and the simultaneous demise of the Democratic Party.
I can only hope this article will be read in every Democratic congressional office, as well as in the offices of the DNC and the DLC -- and that it will be understood and heeded.
-- Monica Mori
[Read "Can Bush Be Toppled?"]
I want to commend you for your article "Can Bush Be Toppled?" As an unapologetic liberal/progressive, I was especially heartened by the comments made by Pat Caddell. Interesting to note that the two candidates who currently most closely reflect Pat Caddell's criteria are Kucinich and Dean, the same two candidates who lack credibility according to Wall Street Journal columnist John Fund (at least on the oh-so-important issue of national security).
It seems obvious to me that if a WSJ opinion-maker is against someone, that is exactly the person who needs to be running. Is the Democratic leadership listening?
-- Daniel Majoros
The illustration comparing Bush to Saddam was over the line. I don't mean to say it was obscene or unacceptable speech -- I mean it was way outside the boundaries of rational dialogue.
I'm a liberal and I don't like the current administration. But I was offended, because you're embarrassing me in front of the conservatives. The last thing we need in the upcoming election is to look like a bunch of irrational psychos.
Bush isn't Saddam -- he's done some good. Just not nearly enough. He's also our leader as a result of our democratic process. He's done nothing illegal, or even particularly immoral. He's just on the opposite end of the political spectrum.
Unless we recognize the good things Bush has done for the country, and acknowledge that he's in office legitimately, we can't convince voters that a Democratic candidate could do just as well, and with the same legitimacy.
This type of irrational name-calling and lack of faith in the democratic process was at the root of the Clinton smear campaign. And this illustration was no better.
-- Aaron Butler
What difference does it make if the majority of the population votes for a candidate other than Bush if the electoral process is tainted? Remember the last presidential election, anyone? Medea? Sherman? Donna?! How can a discussion about the prospects for defeating Bush take place without this issue even being mentioned once?
If the Democrats want to win, their votes have to be counted, right?
-- Alexandria Mueller
