I've seen few poltico's lay it on the line like this (from April 15th):
"Last week we heard, yet again, from the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Secretary of State. Despite the increasing number of American casualties and their own intelligence analysts who say that anti-Americanism is spreading, they each expressed unwavering confidence in the President’s policy. It is as if they want the public to believe that this is what they had expected all along – they just forgot to tell us.
And yet, they can no longer credibly argue that the detour into Iraq has not diverted our focus from al Queda and our efforts against terrorism.
President Bush, just two nights ago, made clear that he plans to, quote, “stay the course,” without explaining why he continues to believe this course will succeed.
“Staying the course” is not a viable strategy, at least not to me. Simply using more force, or sending more troops, will not solve the problem.
Whether a peaceful, democratic Iraq is a realistic or achievable goal is difficult to say. It is what we and most Iraqis yearn for, despite the forces of history in the Persian Gulf that are weighted against it.
Yet, despite their and our best efforts, Iraq may ultimately become two countries, or three, or a theocracy modeled on Iran.
That would represent a colossal failure of U.S. policy, but it is a growing possibility if we persist in an approach that is perceived by the Iraqi people and by the wider Muslim world as being imposed from outside.
Our experience in Iraq has reinforced lessons we should have learned long ago:
– Credibility is paramount. Military power has its place, but it is no substitute for government officials who mislead in order to justify going to war, and who profess to stand for principles they often contradict by their own actions. A breach of trust at the highest levels of government is never justified, it is difficult to repair, and it affects everything else we do.
– Understanding other cultures. This is SIT’s mission, and it needs to also be the U.S. Government’s mission. Today, for the second time in my lifetime, Americans are dying in a war in a foreign country whose people and traditions neither the American public, nor their leaders, understand. I look forward to the day when the President of the United States, preferably an SIT graduate, is someone who has lived and worked in a developing country and has experienced first hand the world as others know it, and as others see us.
We must mount an effective campaign against terrorism, as we must against AIDS, poverty, and other global threats. The United States is the world’s wealthiest, most powerful nation, and these problems will not be solved without our leadership.
But just as we must recognize that other cultures and societies view these threats differently, our ability to win their support in building the alliances that are necessary to combat them effectively depends on living up to the standards we set for ourselves and for others.
We cannot credibly insist that other nations respect human rights, when we fail to act to stop genocide in Rwanda or Sudan, or when we violate or denigrate international law when it is politically expedient.
We cannot credibly appeal to other nations to stop using landmines, when we, with a military budget that dwarfs theirs, continue to insist on the right to use them ourselves.
We cannot credibly ask poor nations to do more to conserve energy, when we fail to make concerted efforts to develop renewable energy resources, and we refuse to join international treaties to reduce the use of fossil fuels.
We cannot credibly ask other nations to do more to combat poverty, when we, with by far the world’s largest economy, spend only one-half of 1 percent of our budget on this type of foreign aid.
And we cannot credibly ask others to send more of their troops into harm’s way in Iraq. Not when we arrogantly dismissed their warnings about rushing into war without adequate justification, and not until we offer them a meaningful say in developing a strategy that can unite the Iraqi people and ultimately get their troops, and our troops, home safely.
I believe we must do what we can to make it possible for the Iraqi people to choose an alternative to Saddam’s loyalists and the extremists who answer to Iran’s Ayatollah, who would take the country backward. But our task is immeasurably more difficult because the premise that was used to justify our intervention is no longer credible, our reputation has been badly damaged, and we are virtually alone.
We need a broader, multilateral strategy that has the support of a majority of the American people, the Iraqi people, and the international community, including as many Arab and other Muslim nations as possible.
That strategy needs to be unambiguously aimed at restoring sovereignty to the Iraqi people through a process of self determination, at the earliest possible date.
With so many mistakes already, changing course would not be easy. But the longer we wait, the more likely it is that these mistakes will compound themselves. The stakes are far too high to delay any longer."
Senator Patrick Leahy
(full speech here)http://www.leahy.senate.gov/press/200404/041404.html
Now for the 'balanced' part - what would you do if you got this as a wedding present?
http://www-personal.si.umich.edu/~dcooney/RLC/index.html
I have to go now, - my butt's falling asleep.
Have a nice day,
Lee
