[Peace-discuss] What was that war about?

[Jenifer Cartwright]

Yes, I think voters know that the US is spending too much $$ on the war in Iraq, but no, I don't think they fully realize the connection between war and US/corporate 'intere$t$."
   --Jenifer 

"C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at uiuc.edu> wrote:
  The Democrats (all of them) desperately want the voters to be "more concerned 
about domestic issues like the economy and health care" (about which H. Clinton 
has been disingenuous for 15 years) than about Iraq (about which she's been 
disingenuous for at least as long), because they support US policy in the ME but 
know that Americans oppose it.

It's quite false that Americans "don't see the connection between Iraq and the 
US economy": the new AP-Ipsos poll indicates most Americans believe leaving Iraq 
is the only way to pull the United States out of the economic crisis. --CGE


Jenifer Cartwright wrote:
> Fwiw, Hillary Clinton is the only candidate I've heard mention/describe 
> what's outlined in the Declaration of Principles and voice her strong 
> opposition to them and to Bush's acting w/o congressional approval. 
> Keith Olbermann railed against them when Bush first signed them... and I 
> expected an outcry from Congress (and the media?) but there was pretty 
> much silence all the way 'round (including this list, not counting me).
> 
> Speaking of Chomsky on DN! today -- I think he's right about everything 
> he says, EXCEPT this: the reason those running for prez aren't giving 
> Iraq top priority in stump speeches is that -- in 2008 -- voters are 
> more concerned about domestic issues like the economy and health 
> care than they were in 2004, and -- despite 70% saying otherwise -- they 
> don't see the connection betw Iraq and the US economy top to bottom... 
> plus (right or wrong/right or left) the candidates have all pretty much 
> stated their positions on the subject of Iraq (including horse-changing 
> late in the day). Jmho.
> --Jenifer
> 
> */"C. G. Estabrook" /* wrote:
> 
> [From the conclusion of a recent speech by Noam Chomsky, excerpted on
> Democracy Now! today. --CGE]
> 
> ...let me finally return to the first member of the Axis of Evil: Iraq.
> Washington does have expectations, and they’re explicit. There are
> outlined in a Declaration of Principles that was agreed upon, if you
> can
> call it that, between the United States and the US-backed, US-installed
> Iraqi government, a government under military occupation. The two of
> them issued the Declaration of Principles. It allows US forces to
> remain
> indefinitely in Iraq in order to “deter foreign aggression” -- well,
> the
> only aggression in sight is from the United States, but that’s not
> aggression, by definition -- and also to facilitate and encourage “the
> flow of foreign investments [to] Iraq, especially American
> investments.”
> I’m quoting. That’s an unusually brazen expression of imperial will.
> 
> In fact, it was heightened a few days ago, when George Bush issued
> another one of his signing statements declaring that he will reject
> crucial provisions of congressional legislation that he had just
> signed,
> including the provision that forbids spending taxpayer money—I’m
> quoting—“to establish any military installation or base for the purpose
> of providing for the permanent stationing of [United States} Armed
> Forces in Iraq” or “to exercise [United States] control of the oil
> resources of Iraq." OK? Shortly after, the New York Times reported that
> Washington “insists”—if you own the world, you insist—“insists that the
> Baghdad government give the United States broad authority to conduct
> combat operations,” a demand that “faces a potential buzz saw of
> opposition from Iraq, with its
deep sensitivities about being seen as a
> dependent state.” It’s supposed to be more third world irrationality.
> 
> So, in brief, the United States is now insisting that Iraq must
> agree to
> allow permanent US military installations, grant the United States the
> right to conduct combat operations freely, and to guarantee US control
> over the oil resources of Iraq. OK? It’s all very explicit, on the
> table. It’s kind of interesting that these reports do not elicit any
> reflection on the reasons why the United States invaded Iraq. You’ve
> heard those reasons offered, but they were dismissed with ridicule. Now
> they’re openly conceded to be accurate, but not eliciting any
> retraction
> or even any reflection...
> 
> ###
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try 
> it now. 
> > >
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss


       
---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals?  Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20080226/04462b10/attachment.htm