In your speech to the nation, supposedly an update from the White House concerning the invasion and occupation of Iraq, you constantly referred to a desire to bring freedom and democracy to that country (as well as the rest of the world). But this raises several questions that I do not think you adequately answered, or did not address at all.
Do you believe freedom to be a separate issue from democracy? As you pursue democracy for the people of Iraq, why have you participated in kidnapping and ousting from power the popular and democratically elected leader of Haiti? Why do you continue to plot and scheme against the popular and democratically elected leader of Venezuela? It is true that both leaders, Aristide and Chavez, have not been overwhelming supporters of your economic agenda, choosing to turn their attention to their poor rather than give 100% service to foreign economic dictates. Is this a matter of economic policy trumping freedom and democracy?
What if the people of Iraq do not want to turn their economy over to foreign corporations? Will you decide on another regime change? What if they do not want the bases you are building, or the largest embassy in the world being constructed in Baghdad? What if they think this smells of extended occupation and interference in their freedom? Can two concepts of freedom exist at the same time?
Bur the most important question of all: why did you not spend more time considering alternatives to war for the removal of Saddam? As we now know, and most experts thought at the time, the sanctions were working--even as imperfect as they were. Why did you not try to work with others to improve the international pressure being applied? Others suggested doing as much--the French, the Chinese, the Russians. Reports have surfaced that claim you went to war without knowing much if anything about the country--like the differences between the various sects. Is there more to this occupation than you are telling us?
Posted by mikelachenmyer
at 11:27 AM PDT
