The Deadly Silence on Iraq- in 2006 Elections (James Zogby)

[chill_wind]

Elections 2006: The Deadly Silence
10.12.2006

In not a single House or Senate race being contested this year will the candidates engage in a serious debate about the failed US policy in the Middle East. There are a number of races where the Iraq war is an issue, but in these instances the debate has more to do with how we got into the war, the mistakes we've made and how we should leave.

There are, to be sure, supporters of the President's vision (or fantasy) of the Iraq war; i.e., that we are producing a democracy that will transform the region. But in no case is there a serious discussion about Iraq, itself, or the consequences of our broader Middle East policy.
How can this be, especially given the reality of the horrible impact our polices have yielded for the people of the region in just the past few years?

We have created a mess. Iraq is a cauldron of explosive violence, with most of that country's neighbors living in fear of its implosion. Iran, now emboldened by our failure in Iraq, has coupled inflammatory extremist rhetoric with a defiant nuclear challenge. Lebanon, still reeling after this summer's devastating assault, is deeply divided with civil conflict looming on the horizon. The Palestinians have suffered from US neglect of the peace process and the continued brutality of the occupation, both of which have contributed to a growth of extremism and the internal dissolution of their society. Meanwhile, Israel, the supposed ally, has fared no better, with war and occupation resulting in renewed isolation and insecurity.

All of this points to a remarkable story of failure, and yet not a single campaign has challenged the polices that have brought us to this point.Instead of debate, there is silence-- as if the horrors of this past summer in Lebanon, Palestine, and Iraq didn't happen and our policies in no way contributed to the mess, we and the peoples of the Middle East, are in. There is, it appears, a bipartisan consensus in support of failure, with a resulting deadly silence.

(...)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-zogby/elections-2006-the-dead_b_31554.html

[rodeodance]

1. 'a bipartisan consensus in support of failure,"---if we continue to fund a

nd send troops, then yes, I suspose he is right.

[katty]

2. and deadlier every hour we ignore the obvious-the "Un-War"

rages more out of control than ever.

[paulk]

3. The Bush admin. failure in Iraq is providing the subtext

to this entire election...

Zogby is being disingenuous, at best. I suppose he has to churn out nonsense like this every once in a while to keep his AAI creds up.

[chill_wind]

4. Subtext doesn't cut it. We need confrontation of the driving agendas

and the policies of the powers that have put us there. It is not just about Iraq but our whole Neocon driven ME foreign policy that deserves debate and exposure. Along with the campaign enrichments by the most powerful pro-war lobby groups that are determined to keep us in this shell-game for years.

"I am often told that the reason is fear of offending powerful special interests (the "religious right" and hard-line pro-Israel Jewish groups). But polling shows that while many Americans do indeed support Israel, they want the Administration to pursue policies that are balanced and support a just peace settlement (this is also true of polling within the American Jewish community). Most Americans know that they do not understand the Middle East, see our polices as one-sided and failed, and want change. But, it appears they won't get any change this year."

[paulk]

5. in regards to the 2006 elections, which is what Mr. Zogby

has based his article around....


sez who?


Mr. Zogby?


The way things are looking, the Democrats will take both the House and the Senate, along with a majority of governorships. So, I don't understand what Mr. Zogby's point is.


Poll after poll has shown that Iraq and the Bush admin.'s failure there is the number one topic people on people's minds when it comes to this election. So, once again, I don't understand what Mr. Zogby's point is.

It seems like Mr. Zogby is upset because the discussion isn't centered around his narrow range of issues.

Boo hoo, Mr. Zogby.