Go UC

[quesarah]

Reposted from Salon.com

Students skewer Feith
Perhaps the Washington press corps can learn a thing or two from the student audience that grilled Pentagon official and Iraq war architect Doug Feith at the University of Chicago. The Chicago Tribune reports: "Facing a skeptical and sometimes sharp-tongued audience at the University of Chicago, [Feith] on Wednesday defended the war in Iraq as an essential part of the global struggle against terrorism. Feith ... said the invasion was a necessary response to the Sept. 11 attacks -- even if there is no direct evidence of Iraqi involvement in those attacks or that Saddam Hussein's regime possessed chemical or nuclear weapons."

"Feith's statements drew dissent -- and sometimes lengthy tongue-lashings -- from many students who lined up at a microphone for the chance to question him. ... One student who said he supported the war posed a question that came with a barb. Why not attack other nations that support terrorism, he asked, such as Saudi Arabia and Iran? Feith said different nations called for a different approach."

"Reaction was sharpest when a student asked how many people have died in the war on terrorism. When Feith did not directly answer, someone called out, 'He asked you how many people have died?'"

Comments

[joebanks.livejournal.com]

I'm always glad when someone gets grilled like that, no matter what their position. To bad it probably doesn't make the evening news.

I got a ? for you. IF the Bush II or even the Clinton administration had been honest and said "we are going into Iraq to nation build, create democracy in a region that doesn't have it". IF they had said "it will be bloody for all concerned, but in the end it will hopefully be better off for us and them". What would you have said?

And. IF Bush II wasn't Bush II but a republican, but not a far right republican (AND forgetting that he got us into this mess) would you vote for Kerry on the basis of Iraq? I ask this because if he was smart he would deciede to wait four years because he can't walk out of this mess either. We are stuck and have to see it through.

This is poorly worded. My point is Kerry can change things domestically but he is going to inherit a quagmire; he doesn't really say to much about what he would do. And I'm not assuming that you have Kerry stickers on you bumper either.

[missedith01.livejournal.com]

I got a ? for you.

Can anyone join in? :-)

IF the Bush II or even the Clinton administration had been honest and said "we are going into Iraq to nation build, create democracy in a region that doesn't have it".

If they were honest, wouldn't they have said, "We're going in because we feel the need to deliver a good ass-kicking to someone and we don't much mind who it is"?

IF they had said "it will be bloody for all concerned, but in the end it will hopefully be better off for us and them". What would you have said?

I'd have said, "Nice thought. But however tempting, you can't build a nation for the Iraqi people. Nation-building happens from within, as Americans of all people should know."

anyone can play

[joebanks.livejournal.com]

Oh sure there is a lot of testosterone or a need to act like there is at the white house. On top of that it's pretty clear it did matter who it was.

However it isn't to much of a stretch to say there are some dysfunctional societies in the mideast. We helped Iraq get to where it was in the first place. Saddam was our buddy because he didn't like Iran. The Shah of Iran was our buddy because he didn't like the Soviets. We invested in tyrants and it came back to bite us. We supported the Taliban in Afghanistan against the Russians. We don't deserve terrorist strikes against us. But a lot of people in the world think we do.

Are we paying the price of cleaning up our mess. Those societies are not going to modernize on their own?
Just some thoughts.

[biogeekgrrl.livejournal.com]

1. No. Aside from the fact that I think it was wrong of us to go in there and unilaterally force Saddam from power, I also think it was poor strategy for the US. During his appearance on the Daily Show, William Kristol said that Iraq was a show of force intended to intimidate Middle Eastern countries and change the balance of power. While it may have intimidated the governments of Middle Eastern countries, the folks who are causing trouble for us have become more impassioned in their cause. It was dumb.

In any circumstance, I am against the war in Iraq.

2. Yes Kerry is going to inherit a quagmire and he may not fare any better. But he will most likely not preside over as secretive an administration as Bush II, and I will vote for him not only on the basis of the war, but my civil liberties and concern for economic policy.

Bush wants to change the Constitution to make my marriage illegal everywhere in the US. That's reason enough for me to be vehemently opposed to him.

[joebanks.livejournal.com]

agreed i'm just playing devils advocate here. The war was wrong and has created more instability. Does the US. owe these people anything? any help, should we remove dictators from power? Especially ones that we have set up or supported.

My theory is that political parties occasionally do flip/flops. Right becomes left, left becomes... I think the right is learning how to tax and spend money, nation build and get involved in social issues at home. I think maybe the left is becoming isolationist and hands off on domestic issues (like your marriage).

Or maybe I've walked myself so far out on a plank that I should shut up!
have a GREAT weekend!