Mike Gravel on Iraq

Iraq in a sectarian "civil war"?

To call what is going on in Iraq a "civil war" is a feeble attempt at absolution through obfuscation, it just isn't true.

A civilian Iraqi resistance defending itself (and it's countrymen) against an unlawful occupation force, a virtually installed criminal puppet occupation government, and very nearly "deputised" "militia" "assassination squads", (etc...) does NOT a "civil war" make. Suddenly, EVERYONE in the west is saying sectarian "civil war" when it is clear that the trappings are occupation psy-op fabrications. It is only brainwashing if you say it enough times. In the context of a political campaign it is reprehensible.

Also, I noticed that Mike completely left out "the resistance" (Iraq's lawful government) as well as the Iraqi tribes and the Iraqi people themselves, out of the list he proposed for diplomatic negotiations. Unfortunately Mike isn't alone; such oversights are how wars are lost. (Badly)

That is a bad label "mistake".

A mistake? It all seemed deliberate enough to me. A third of Americans STILL support our nations "little misadventure". Mistake perhaps in the sense that the country shouldn't have bet so heavily and lost. Oh, woe's us... "mistake"

"We were fooled"?

I wasn't fooled. Many people such as myself weren't either. So, I'm not buying such a lame excuse. I suspect Nemesis ( "Justice" without the blindfold) is NOT very much impressed either.

-------------------------------------------

Think Mike is pretty safe if he sticks to the preservation of soldiers' lives, in what is clearly a losing situation -- argument. It makes a cleaner, smaller, sound bite, and will appeal to greater numbers (with fewer offended persons, such as myself.)

The Iraq War is a very touchy subject with the majority of Americans. Western "intelligence agencies" have clearly violated federal law in the propagandizing (brainwashing) of the people of the USA. Finding good solid truthful information is a daunting task. The people should be very afraid. Many international laws have clearly been violated, and there should be a heavy price to be paid.

There are a few good Democrats that have a clear understanding of the gravity of the situation in Iraq, Cynthia McKinney comes to mind.

Looking around the site here, I see many things with which I agree.

Unfortunately, I also see positions of Mike's that are based on bad (unsound) information. Some of which would fall into the category of Blind "Patriotsm" = "Nationalism". (The "measles of mankind" as per Albert Einstein's observation. )

A very telling blind spot : Where is Mike on the issue of Lt. Ehren Watada ?

Watada's argument does seem to have merit. 

************************************

(Additional comment revised and rescinded, with apologies to the Senator. )

Frankly, (IMO) every soldier that has deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan, is guilty of very serious war crimes. They (the soldiers) had a duty to refuse deployment, and go to the brig, if that is what it took. Anything less is unacceptable.

America was born of militarism, apparently it is destined to die by that very same sword. The military and it's members, should NEVER be a centerpiece elite.

I haven't voted since 1992. I don't currently see any acceptable candidates for 2008. Still looking. That is a long time to sit on ones hands; amazingly, I can still type.

It really wasn't my intention to throw "rotten eggs". I am sincerely disappointed.

Good Luck

The only thing that would make George Bush a pleasant person (alien, thing) to be around is if we took away his arms and legs, sew his mouth shut, stuck a popsicle stick up his butt and dipped him in chocolate...................then fed him to Ethiopians! (hee-hee) YEAH FOR FREE SPEECH IN AMERICA!!! - A Proud Democrat