[lbo-talk] The very worst custodians of empire

Doug Henwood dhenwood at panix.com
Sun Jun 25 12:59:55 PDT 2006


On Jun 25, 2006, at 3:39 PM, Colin Brace wrote:


> On 6/25/06, Carrol Cox <cbcox at ilstu.edu> wrote:
>
>> Placing the emphasis on Bush is simply another way of pimping for the
>> Democratic Party and delaying the emergence of any real left in
>> the u.s.
>
> I have no interest in "pimping" for the Dems, but, sorry, I don't buy
> this argument. If Gore had prevailed in 2000, would he have invaded
> Iraq? I don't think so.

Carrol can't even make his anti-Dem argument very well. The Dem policy was sanctions, which marginalized Iraq and killed 500,000-1,000,000 people. That, and the relentless little airstrikes - a perfect low-intensity war, which was very effective, and attracted little international attention. The Bushies, impatient men of action, decided to invade, and ruined everything. Now everyone notices, the production of jihadists has gone into high gear, and the empire is at its lowest reputational ebb since at least Vietnam. Worse, US multinationals are suffering sales declines in Europe and elsewhere. Had Gore won, the sanctions would have continued and the empire would be a lot more secure.

Doug



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list