Ikke meget bid i Biden

26. august, 2008

Er det denne form for “change”, som Barack Obama har lovet de amerikanske vælgere? Washington Post kigger nærmere på hans nyudpegede vicepræsidentkandidat, Joe Biden, og dennes støtte til Irakkrigen.

Obama has declared time and again that he had the judgment to oppose the invasion of Iraq from the very beginning, despite political winds that gusted toward war. McCain, Obama says, did not. … In the days that led up to the vote on the war resolution, Biden and McCain stood together on the Senate floor, sometimes fighting against each other, sometimes fighting in tandem. They teamed up to shoot down an amendment by Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.) that would have forced Bush to seek further authorization before an actual invasion. … But in Biden’s closing remarks before the war vote in 2002, he also voiced a remarkable degree of trust in Bush. “The president has argued that confronting Iraq would not detract from the unfinished war against terrorism. I believe he is right. We should be able to walk and chew gum at the same time,” he said. “. . . I am absolutely confident the president will not take us to war alone. I am absolutely confident we will enhance his ability to get the world to be with us by us voting for this resolution.” In the end, Biden and McCain both voted for war.

Apropos: “Ekspert: Obama valgte den mindst destruktive partner”, 180Grader.dk.


Bush’s personlige offer

18. maj, 2008

George Bush bekendtgør sit personlige offer i Krigen mod Terror: Han er holdt op med at spille golf.

For the first time, Bush revealed a personal way in which he has tried to acknowledge the sacrifice of soldiers and their families.

“I don’t want some mom whose son may have recently died to see the commander in chief playing golf,” he said. “I feel I owe it to the families to be in solidarity as best as I can with them. And I think playing golf during a war just sends the wrong signal.”

Bush said he made that decision after the August 2003 bombing of the United Nations headquarters in Baghdad, which killed Sergio Vieira de Mello, the top U.N. official in Iraq and the organization’s high commissioner for human rights.

“I remember when de Mello, who was at the U.N., got killed in Baghdad as a result of these murderers taking this good man’s life,” he said. “I was playing golf – I think I was in central Texas – and they pulled me off the golf course and I said, ‘It’s just not worth it anymore to do.'”


En fejlfri vej til et demokratisk Irak

27. april, 2008

Min weekend har jeg tilbragt i Vestergade, hvor jeg siden februar har fulgt CEPOS Universitetet. Under frokosten fik jeg lejlighed til at tale med en tidligere soldat, der havde været udsendt i Irak. I starten havde han støttet op om krigen, men var nu, efter at have oplevet forholdene i landet, blevet desillusioneret med hensyn til demokratiets fremtid i det konflikthærgede land.

Vi sad i en lille gruppe bestående af studerende og undervisere, og diskussionen om irakkrigen, pro et contra, brød hurtigt ud. Krigen kunne sagtens være vundet, sagde nogle, hvis blot tingene var blevet grebet bedre an. Vi skulle have sendt flere soldater i første omgang. Vi skulle have undladt at opløse det irakiske militær, der var det eneste, der holdt orden i landet. Vi skulle have bombet nogle civile landsbyer, lød et forslag endda, så irakerne havde forstået, at slaget var tabt.

Først bagefter slog det mig, hvor nyttig denne indsigt er. Staten kan udføre langt flere opgaver, hvis den blot lader være med at begå en masse fejl. Staten kan sagtens drive et sundhedsvæsen, hvis blot den undgår at lade patienterne dø på ventelister. Staten kunne sagtens have drevet madproduktionen i Sovjetunionen, hvis blot den havde undgået hungersnød og endeløse køer. Og militære styrker kunne sagtens have forvandlet Irak til et blomstrende demokrati, hvis blot de havde undgået fejl så åbenlyse, at selv en flok studerende som os kunne udpege dem.

Hvorfor tænkte jeg ikke på dét noget før?