Jesse's in the Game!

Thanksgiving is upon us, feasting and football are in store for America. I certainly hope yours is a peaceful one, with much for which to give thanks.

Speaking of football, former star running back of the Democratic party (and still a power broker) Jesse Jackson had some shocking revelations about the war in Iraq in a Chicago Sun-Times editorial this week:

Rush To Iraq War Backfiring On U.S.

By Jesse Jackson

On Sunday, two American soldiers were shot in broad daylight in Mosul, once thought to be a center of pro-America sentiment. An enraged mob of teenagers then dragged their bodies out of their vehicle and stoned them with concrete blocks.

These innocent men -- adding to the now nearly 10,000 casualties in Iraq -- are tragic witness to the gulf between President Bush's promise and his policy, between his rhetoric and reality.

Sure, Jesse's twisting the horrific deaths of two brave Americans to his own purposes, but hey, he's just whipping up the crowd. The early part of the sermon.

On his visit to our closest ally, Great Britain, and in the face of massive opposition from the British people, the president offered the British something that he has not offered his own citizens: a broad explanation of his policy and purpose.

Massive opposition? Since four times the number turned out to protest the fox hunting ban one wonders why the rev isn't cashing in on that hot button issue too. And yes, we can only hope that some day Americans will be able to hear speeches from Britain, and those words delivered only to Londoners could be heard all around the world. Perhaps, somehow, someday, using the web...

Now Jesse starts tossing bombshells.

Bush proclaims his support for strong international institutions and his commitment to NATO. Yet he launched the war on Iraq in the face of opposition from the United Nations and the NATO alliance. Our troops bear the burden of occupation virtually alone in Iraq.

Yes, you heard it here first; Shocker #1: the world was against us.

Only now, with U.S. soldiers shouldering an occupation that they were not trained for and with U.S. citizens presented with an $87 billion bill for a mission they were told would pay for itself, does the president sheepishly return to the U.N. and seek support. Sadly, the U.N. and the allies now demonstrate their relevance by leaving the American people to pay in lives and money for the war they opposed.

Shocker #1a and 2 (in one brief paragraph!): The world is still against us! War is expensive! (Could these be related? Jesse doesn't say.)

The president states that he must defend Americans, and this may require the ''violent restraint of violent men.'' He says that free nations must, when the last resort arises, be willing to ''restrain aggression and evil by force.''

But the war on Iraq was not a war of last resort. The administration disdained the pleas of U.N. inspectors and allies for more time. The war on Iraq was not a defense of America against aggression. It was not even part of the war on terror. The president admits that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with Sept. 11, and in fact, Osama bin Laden despised the secular dictator.

#3: There was a "rush to war" - 12 years was just not enough!
#4: Iraq was not a threat to America!
#5: No connection between Saddam and Osama!

I'm starting to think Bush lied! Why? Why?

No, the war on Iraq was, as Bush's own former head of policy planning states, a ''war of choice'' -- waged not to defend Americans from an imminent threat, but to fulfill an imperial fantasy of freeing Iraq, transforming the Middle East and strengthening America's grip on oil.

Bombshell 6! "It's all about the oiiiiiiil!" Why didn't I think of that? I wonder if Cheney's Halliburton cronies are profiting from this.

Bush told the British that ''freedom must be chosen and defended by those who choose it.'' Heralding the progress of democracy in the Middle East, he acknowledged that the progress ''was not imposed from abroad, and neither will the greater progress we hope to see.''

But his policy is to impose democracy on Iraq by the point of a gun, by the boot of an occupying army, by the order of an American proconsul. He vows to ''finish the work of democracy we have begun,'' ending with grandiloquence: ''Democracy will succeed in Iraq because our will is firm, our word is good.'' But it is the Iraqi will that is in question, not ours. They must choose, not us.

Young American men and women are sacrificing their lives and their limbs in the gulf between the president's principles and his practice. They were sent into war without the support of allies or the world community. They were sent into a war not of self-defense -- for Iraq posed no threat to the United States -- but in a ''war of choice.''

They came to Iraq as liberators, but they are despised as occupiers. They came to introduce democracy, but they are viewed as imposing a foreigner's order. They came to build an Iraqi nation, but their presence rouses nationalist opposition. They came to bring peace, and are dying in what is only the beginning of a bitter civil war inside Iraq.

In defense of his policy, the president asks, ''Who will say that Iraq was better off when Saddam Hussein was strutting and killing?'' Surely, we can hope that Iraqis, freed of a brutal dictator, will choose a better way, but that, of course, remains to be seen.

Buried amidst most of this closing hyperbole is this concept, (shocker #7, though only hinted at): The Iraqis aren't capable of having a democratic society. The rev doesn't directly address his causes for concern; one gathers it's somehow because of Bush. They would have replaced Saddam with a democratic paradise, but Bush hosed it up.

But as the mutilation of U.S. soldiers by Iraqis demonstrates, one thing is clear already. This nation and those young men and women who serve it would have been far better off if the president had practiced what he preaches.

Those are Jesse's final words on the subject. (I wish) If you didn't get it, it's another twisted use of the American deaths in Iraq.

Summary of Jesse's points:

1: The world was against us.
1a: The world is still against us.
2: War is expensive.
3: There was a "rush to war" - 12 years was just not enough time. The inspections were working. The sanctions were working.
4: Iraq was not a threat to America.
5: There was no connection between Saddam and Osama.
6: "It's all about the oiiiiiiil!"
7: The Iraqis aren't capable of having a democratic society.

And here's one he missed: Where are the WMDs? Hmmm... perhaps it's inherent in #4.

In light of this new evidence, presented by a man of God, we must now conclude that Bush lied.

< /condescending tongue in cheek attitude. >

Yes, the rev published that screed on the day before Thanksgiving, months after all those arguments were beaten to death by the droolsquad wing of the Democratic party. I'm not sure why he was out of the game when the issues were current.

Jesse is the tired veteran running back of the Democratic Party; once feared by the opposition, still a cause for some concern as he has clout in some corners, but long past his glory. He'll take the ball, he'll run, but just not too far. Touchdowns will be rare, and he didn't score one here.

In fact I have a mental image here of a losing football team's kicker, attempting a meaningless late-game field goal to make the final score 47 - 6. Except Jesse just missed his kick; it went wide left.

Waaay Left.

Yes, Iraqi youth's are reported to have mutilated the corpses of Americans; in times of war and peace one expects such cruelty from certain elements. Recall the Blackhawk Down incident; this is eerily similar, except in that tragedy in Mogadishu we were trying to deliver food. I'm always shocked, always saddened, never surprised at the ruthless behavior of representatives of radical fringe groups like that.

Sadly I'm becoming increasingly less surprised at those like Jackson who cheer them on.