Those echoes that Americans are hearing in the noisy-and-getting-noisier debate about Iran are from 2002 and 2003, when members of the current administration were busy spinning the fantasy that the United States needed to attack Iraq.
George "Uranium From Africa" Bush sure sounds like he wants to attack Iran. Just last week, the president said, "I've told people that if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them (Iran) from (obtaining) the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon."
Dick "Greeted As Liberators" Cheney sure sounds like he wants to attack Iran. This week, the vice president declared: "Our country, and the entire international community, cannot stand by as a terror-supporting state fulfills its grandest ambitions."
Secretary of State Condoleezza "Mushroom Clouds" Rice sure sounds like she wants to attack Iran. "Unfortunately the Iranian government continues to spurn our offer of open negotiations, instead threatening peace and security by pursuing nuclear technologies that can lead to a nuclear weapon..." Rice said on Thursday, as she announced drastic new sanctions against the country that serious analysts say poses little threat to its neighbors and no real threat to the U.S.
Astutely pointing out the similarities to the pre-war spin on Iraq, to his credit, Nichols has the integrity to go further and point us towards the one and only Democratic candidate possessing both credibility and leadership on Iraq and Iran:
And, as in 2002 and early 2003, the most rational response is coming from Congressman Dennis Kucinich, the Ohio Democrat who says, "After the lies and deception used to lead us to war in Iraq, the belligerent Bush Administration cannot be given leeway with statements that suggest a preemptive attack on Iran is necessary," says Kucinich, a candidate for the Democratic presidential nod who deserves a much better hearing that he has been afforded so far by the media and Democratic power brokers. "We are systematically destroying every available route to restoring peace and security in the Middle East," he adds.
As Kucinich is the only candidate to oppose the invasion from the beginning and consistently oppose the occupation in its entirety, and further been willing to lead on Iran throughout his campaign, Nichols assesment is dead on.
"He's right", Nichols states, only to follow with sad lamentation and ominous warning:
But being right is not always enough in tenuous times.
Being heard is what matters.
And so, to his credit, Nichols is doing his part in enabling Kucinich's voice of clarity to be heard. Will we listen?
If the prospect of a further aggressive action without legitimacy isn't enough, consider Nichols' fundamental argument in the closing of his short essay:
The point here is not a political one... This is about the most fundamental question in a democracy: At a time when talk of war is growing louder, will we hear a real debate or merely the exaggerated echoes of those who have never gotten anything right?
The answer could well be measured by the extent to which Dennis Kucinich and those who stood with him in 2002 and 2003 are afforded the forums that their record of having been able to cut through the spin of the past should afford them in the present.
Nichols is not soliciting votes, supporting Kucinich's Campaign or endorsing him for our highest office, however, he has managed to isolate the essential basis for all three. Kucinich's candidacy is nothing less than our opportunity to reclaim our Country and its Democratic Principles in total. Will we accept?
No comments:
Post a Comment