Ted Kennedy, not to mention many other Democrats, thinks that the biggest problem in Iraq is the US: WE have to go! Democracy doesn't matter much, only the fact that the US isn't wanted. Since when did Democrats become so anti-democratic? On January 30th, 1649, Charles I lost his head for tyranny and treason. The subsequent debate unleashed brought about the modern political world that leading Democrats take so lightly; today, Iraq's liberated from their prison may now select their oen government. "[The post-regicide debate] included the idea that human beings have a "natural right" to liberty; that a free commonwealth requires a free and open public square for debate and deliberation, a affirmation of free speech which John Milton passionately defended in his Aeropagitica; and that politics is about human needs and issues, not divine dictates and ordinances. Although participants on both sides freely quoted the Bible to support their positions, they also recognized that if freedom was to reign, political authority must be detached from religious authority. This was the original formulation of our doctrine of the separation of Church and State: 366 years ago, Englishmen had come to realize that the mullah must yield to the magistrate, and that both must ultimately yield to the people." (Historian Arthur Herman, www.nronline.com) The fact that these are new and radical concepts in the Middle East seems to have escaped the "wise heads" in the "D" part of congress. Why have former "progressives" become so anti-progressive? -Orson
Excellent post, Orson. If one were to look at the history of the Democratic Party, one would indeed see a party that supported liberation and freedom for the oppressed. The Democratic Party of Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Humphrey, Jackson, Mondale, Magnuson, Brewster, Tydings, Pell, Stevenson, Kefauver, Russell, and others no longer exists. Wait, it does exist! But only when a Democrat is in the White House. Remember, the Dems supported Clinton's going into Bosnia. It's said liberation and freedom are partisan, isn't it?
BOY are you pointing out something that will matter HUGELY in the next few years... If the Iraq election is fair and free, it is entirely possible that the resulting government COULD establish a religious state hostile to the U.S. What do we do then? I saw in the papers today that we're building numerous military bases throughout the country; it would appear that we intend to stay awhile. This is not particularly sinister; we're still IN Japan and Germany and only left the Phillippines some twenty years ago. But those countries for whatever reasons seem to want us to remain. Do we believe in democracy OR do we believe in democracy so long as it meets our own policy goals?
Good post and good question. This may shock some of my GOP friends, but if the new Iraqui government wants us to leave, I would support getting out.
Jimmy I agree with you, I think we have done all we can do at this point in time in Iraq. I know they probably won't, but lets hope and pray that the rest of the Middle East gets the hint and we can avoid any more armed conflicts! Rich Hartel A.A. in Theological Studies, Trinity College of the Bible (present)
What "hint" do you mean? If you mean tolerating or even financially supporting terrorism, Saudi Arabia might well be next on the list...
In my humble opinion, Saudi Arabia is the big kahuna of targets if we are serious about putting a significant dent in Islamic terrorism once and for all.... Too bad the ruling monarchy and oligarchy are all friends of the Bush family, is it not?
And isn't that an interesting point! One would thnk that the LAST thing President Bush would do to his Saudi friends is develop a genuine Arab State democracy in the Middle East. Yet here he is, doing exactly that.
