What does it Mean for Iraq?
The fourth popular revolution of the twenty-first century (after the Ukraine, Lebanon and Kyrgyzstan) swept America on Tuesday, as voters engaged in the moral equivalent of storming the Bastille. The United States of America has roundly repudiated the Bush Administration and Republican Party dominance of all three branches of the Federal government and its dominance of many state offices, as well. Corruption and war drove this slap in the face to the Old Regime crafted by Newt Gingrich and Traitor Rove.
The Democrats have control of the House of Representatives as I write early Wednesday morning, with a gain of perhaps as much as 30 seats. They don't appear to have lost any seats. Indeed, Democratic incumbents won in other sorts of contests, as well-- governors, state legislators, etc. The mood of the electorate was not to punish incumbents. It was to throw out the rascals.
I think the Democrats will take the Senate. CNN is calling 2 Senate races too close to call, but Webb announced that he had won in Virginia, and his margin later that night went on up to 11,000. That might be enough to forestall a recount. Montana will determine the outcome.
Bill Bennett opined that the Democrats had actually not done that well, since the party out of power often picks up 35 seats in the second midterm of a two-term president. Bennett, as usual, is being dishonest. In fact, this was not an ordinary election but rather came at the end of 14 years of low blows and dirty tricks. The Republicans had tried very hard to have a permanent majority, using ruses such as state gerrymandering (e.g. Texas) and convincing Republican House members who were thinking of retiring to serve one more term so as not to risk having the open seat go to the Dems. Tom Delay's K-Street Project even envisioned depriving the Democrats forever of big lobbying money. The impeachment of Clinton was a cynical misuse of the Republican majority aimed at permanently wounding the Democrats. The Dems did not impeach Reagan for stealing Pentagon weapons, selling them to Khomeini, and using the black money to fund death squads in Central America! The deployment of a Republican Supreme Court to gain the White House in 2000 was typical of the new end run around popular sovereignty perfected by the party hacks in Washington. Given the giant berms the Republicans had built against any Democratic rebound, and the viciousness with which raptors like Delay, Weldon, Rove and Abramoff went for the soft underbelly of the democratic system, it is an irridescent miracle that the Democrats have taken the House.
In my view the real significance of the Democratic victory is four-fold.
First, it demonstrates once again that the American public simply will not put up with a return to the age of colonialism and does not want to occupy Asian countries militarily. Do you think that Abu Ghraib and American torture-pornography, the daily grind of violence, the stupid mistakes, have passed them by so that they didn't notice? They might swallow all this reluctantly but they want light at the end of the tunnel. There is not any in Iraq, as these pictures strongly suggest. They want it over with. It isn't. [Here's today's Iraq update.]
Second, Bush is not going to be able to put any more Scalia types on the Federal benches or the Supreme Court.
Third, a Bush administration war on Iran now seems highly unlikely. A major initiative of that sort would need funding, and I don't think Congress will grant it. The Democrats don't want an Iran with a nuclear weapon any more than the Republicans do. But they are more likely to recognize that there is no good evidence that Iran even has a nuclear weapons program, and have been chastened by Iraq enough to distrust purely military solutions to such crises.
Fourth, there will now finally be accountability. It is obvious to me that the Bush administration has been engaged in large-scale crimes and corruption, and has gotten away with it because the Republican heads of the relevant committees have refused to investigate these crimes. Democratic committee heads with subpoena power will finally be able to force the Pentagon and other institutions to fork over the smoking gun documents, and then will be in a position to prosecute.
Here is the sort of corruption, exemplified by Curt Weldon, that was going on in the Old Regime:
' Weldon himself was a key promoter of Finmeccanica for the Marine One contract, which has been widely reported as a payoff for Italy's support of Bush's Iraq policy. Italy provided what have now been proved to be forged documents that ostensibly showed Saddam Hussein attempted to acquire uranium ore from Niger -- a claim that President Bush leaned upon in his 2003 State of the Union address preparing for pre-emptive war. Italian defense groups have since become partners with the United States in the sale of American warfare technology to sensitive and controversial countries such as Israel, Libya, Iran and republics of the former Eastern Bloc.
During the months leading up to Finmeccanica's surprising capture of the Marine One contract, consulting money flowed to Cecelia "Cece" Grimes, Weldon's real estate agent who calls herself "a longtime family friend." According to disclosure records, Rep. Weldon's chief of staff made a $14,400 trip to Rome, Bari, Genoa and Milan with his wife. This and an $8,200 Italian trip by another Weldon staffer were covered by Fincantieri, an Italian ship maker fully owned by Finmeccanica. '
Note to John Dingell: Weldon's nexus of the Niger forgeries, Italian military intelligence, a sweet contract for the Italian military-industrial complex, and sinister contacts with shadowy figures from the Iran-contra scandal with a view toward getting up a war on Iran-- this deserves investigation as much as anything Bush and his cabinet have done.
The Democratic victory has enormous implications for US domestic politics. There will likely be an increase in the minimum wage, e.g. And the creeping tyranny of the evangelical far right has been slowed; even a lot of evangelicals seem uncomfortable with where that was going, and a lot of them deserted the Republicans in this election.
What are its implications for Iraq policy? Those are fewer, just because the executive makes foreign policy. Congress can only intervene decisively by cutting off money for foreign military adventures, which the Democrats have already pledged not to do. Moreover, the Iraq morass is a hopeless case and even if the legislature had more to say about policy there, it is not as if there are any good options.
One downside is that some Democrats campaigned on a platform of dividing Iraq into three ethnic provinces under a weak federal government, an idea they got from Senator Joe Biden of Delaware. I don't think they will be in a position to follow through on this (as if the US could dictate Iraq's future!), but one wouldn't want them to implement their rash promises in this regard.
What we can say is that the electoral outcome is a bellwether for the future of American involvement in Iraq. It will now gradually come to an end, barring a dramatic disaster, such as a guerrilla push to deprive our troops of fuel and then to surround and besiege them. More likely, the steady grind of bad news and further senseless death will force Bush's successor, whoever it, is, to get out of that country. One cannot imagine us staying in Afghanistan for the long haul, either. Bush's question in 2003 was, can we go back to the early 20th century and have a sort of Philippines-like colony with a major military investment? The answer is, "no." Iraqis are too politically and socially mobilized to be easily dominated in the way the old empires dominated isolated, illiterate peasants. The outcome of the Israel-Hizbullah war this summer further signalled that the peasants now have sharper staves that even penetrate state of the art tanks. The US can still easily win any wars it needs to win. It cannot any longer win long military occupations. The man who knew this most surely in the Bush administration, Donald Rumsfeld, most egregiously gave in to the occupation route, and will end up the fall guy as the public mood turns increasingly ugly in both countries.


24 Comments:
Dear Professor Cole
Will it change what Mr Bush will say to Mr Olmert next week?
This morning's casualty figures from Gaza are appalling. Tanks and Artillery fire on Women and Children.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6127250.stm
My feeling is : The Iraq has already split up in at least three parts, probably more, but the US government - an incidentally all those pundits - have not caught that yet.
What, no love for Georgia 2003? A rose for everyone, I say!
Whilst this election really ought to be none of my business, its sad but true the US effectively dictates UK foreign policy. So this election, in which I didn't get a vote, has more effect on the behaviour of my government in the field of foreign affairs than the elections I do vote in (and when it comes to the US my country is more independent than many, even most).
Hopefully this then permits me to make a couple of observations.
What is a "popular revolution"? Its seems to me that its a fundamental change to the very system or structure of government, moving control decisively from a one set of interests to another, and driven by the popular will. The election result only clearly fits the last of these three categories (the second only superficially, the first not at all).
As Noam Chomsky says in his recent book "Failed States", polling data shows the Democrats and the Republicans to be a good distance to the right of the US public on major issues like the economy, foreign policy and the environment. As always , there's a serious discrepancy between what the public voted for in this election and what they will actually get. The very point of state-capitalist managed democracy is to prevent popular revolution, or even control, of the decision making process. Irrespective of what US voters want, the operative view remains that those “who own the country ought to govern it”, in the words of John Jay.
There's certainly a measure of visceral enjoyment to be had from watching the contemptible Republicans get what's coming to them. However, in the US as here in Britain, you have two wings of the Business Party fighting for power, and this morning control over one part of US state-corporate-imperialist apparatus has simply passed to a less radical set of managers.
Of course small differences like this make for big outcomes in the real world when you're talking about an entity as powerful as the US. But amidst the euphoria its also important to recognise the limits of the difference that this will make. In respect of Iraq for example, we can hardly forget that hundreds of thousands of people, around half infants under the age of 5, were effectively murdered by our governments during the last Democratic presidency through sanctions. Will the welfare of Iraqis now become a driving concern in US Congressional politics?
Dems quibble about tactics. Their's is not a moral objection to the trashing of international law and institutions, the waging of a war of aggression, acts of straightforward terrorism like the assault on Falluja or a return to the age of colonialism (whatever the public makes of such things). They have never argued against the real moral issue: a “War on Terror” conceived not as the pursuit of Al Qaeda but as a generalised, aggressive military-based effort to impose Washington’s will on the world and make the unipolar moment permanent, irrespective of the (non-American) human costs. The Dems have simply argued that the policy isn’t being pursued successfully. Wehrmacht generals probably had stand-up blazing rows about the success of Operation Barbarossa, but none about whether German Imperialism was right or wrong. Ask yourself what would have happened if Iraq had been colonised successfully, with a client government, Vatican City–sized US Embassy, control over oil production, permanent military bases and the effective exclusion of Iraqis from the running of their country all secured. Would there have been a peep from the Democrats?
There was a change of management in the US Government after Tet, reflecting a common view that the US should get out of a losing situation. What followed was Vietnamization and carpet bombing (the latter helping to set the stage for the Khmer Rouge). In other words, the change was a tactical one in the interests of power, with the effects on the lesser races as irrelevant as ever.
Ultimately, whatever the US public may have hoped for when they voted, the political effect of this election in terms of the make up of your government constitutes a tactical revolution, little more. Its not insignificant, in fact its important in many of the ways that Juan describes, but its limits are considerable and should not be overlooked.
Juan,
You deserve congratulations for your own efforts in helping to make this day possible.
If it were not for people like you, Josh Marshall, Atrios, Kos, the folks at Alternet, and many, many others, the Bush machine would have kept rolling on for God knows how long...
The mainstream media has played a part, finally, in exposing the corruption and stupidity of this mad regime, but only because the blogs kept the story alive for them.
I live in Australia. Our lives are buffetted by the political winds in Washington. Our leaders will learn a lesson from this defeat just as surely as the GOP criminals who are now looking for a new job.
The world is watching. Finally, we have something to smile about. Thank you.
Now let's impeach the bastards.
Because you wear a tie, have a pleasant grin, and are clear as a bell, you should be much-more listened to and allowed to 'air' views and be seen on prime the News Hour Shows.
You present yourself much-more groomed than most of the so called 'lefty's' and the public must hear you more often.
You do give a gentle 'slap' in the face. You say, "Iraq is a morass, a hopeless case." Also: ...'insurgents can deny our troops fuel and then to'..."surround and besiege them." Sheesh. Thanks. Now, let's insist the troops come home. Listen.
I would not be so sure about Iran with this President. That is, if he feels it necessary to go to war. I believe under the War Powers Resolution the President has 60 days before he needs congressional approval, though he needs to tell Congress what he is up to. He can them submit for approval. I believe he can get upto another 30 days before the removal of troops. As we saw in Lebanon and Iraq, that is enough time to carpet bomb a naton.
Myself, I will not rejoice until Bush is out of office.
I read the midterm results not only as a rebuke of Bush and his Mesopotamian misadventure in particular, but as a first installment on the dismantling of something distinctively un-American, this authoritarian state propped up by bid media using Goeringesque type manipulation tactics. (Call me Harry!) We will finally be able to get to the bottom of how we got stuck in the quagmire in Iraq, how big oil in connected to the White House, and how tax dollars have been diverted to shape American public opinion. This will happen for two reasons. First, the big media will have to cover the investigations and the bread trail is clear to follow and branches off into so many other side stories of abuse and corruption that those enraptured in the matrix will finally get it. Second, Hagel and the Eisenhower Republicans will be running shotgun impressed by the anger of the electorate on the corruption issue. Once the ball gets rolling the information will be so damning that Bush will be heaved by his most ardent supporters.
The repudiation of Bush is an important first step in the longer struggle to save American democracy. It will be interesting to see how this all plays out. McCarthyism faded rather than being formally repudiated. In other words, the voters never admitted their complicity in these misdeeds, but the equation is different now. If we cannot find a way to prevent corporate money from brainwashing the people and if we allow Limbaugh and his ilk to continue with their hate speech, than this election will only represent a blip in which we railed at Bush the sympton rather than addressing the structural causes of the problem.
"The US can still easily win any wars it needs to win. It cannot any longer win long military occupations. The man who knew this most surely in the Bush administration, Donald Rumsfeld, most egregiously gave in to the occupation route, and will end up the fall guy as the public mood turns increasingly ugly in both countries."
Allow me to bet Prof. Cole a quarter that he is not going to fall at all, or rather, that his boss is never going to throw Rummy off the Party sled to the wolves no matter how ugly the public mood turns.
America grievously disappointed the Invasion Party yesterday, and their response will be to circle the same old wagons even more closely together. They devoutly believe that the Executive Branch has every right to be as unilateral and preëmptive and unaccountable inside the USA as the USA ought, in their opinion, to be in the world. Defending that position against all comers -- Supreme Court, Congress, media, "public mood," the opinion of mankind -- is where the invasionites will dig in and try to hold the line, come what may. Developments in Iraq, bad or worse (or even good), will have hardly any bearing on the question at all. Iraq is no more than a single instance of the general principle that the Crawfordite faction are resolved to vindicate. In the very last ditch, they'll explicitly defend their right to screw everything up totally in foreign and aggression policy rather than make any concessions to any of the parties mentioned, to anybody else whatsoever.
Therefore Rumsfeld stays and I risk my quarter.
But God knows best. Happy days.
Juan,
Not to be a complete cynic (for Democratic control of the House is indeed important), but to put all this in context hardly 10% of our congress seats were actually competitive (owing to inter alia gerrymandering). Does not qualify as a highly democratic election, does it?
Writing from Italy, I'd like to note that interpreting the awarding of the Marine One contract to Italy in terms of payoff for Nigercake forgeries ignores the alternative, far more down-to-earth explanation that this move was part of a two-way deal, i.e. "due compensation" to Italy - and in particular, to the Finmeccanica group - for the loss of Italian jobs and contracts entailed by Berlusconi's "Atlanticist" shift in Italian military procurement policy, and specifically the decision to place orders for Lockheed F-35 "joint strike fighters" from the US, thus cutting back on Italy's share of the Eurofighter programme, in which the Finmeccanica company Alenia is an active partner.
You write that "the American public simply will not put up with a return to the age of colonialism and does not want to occupy Asian countries militarily." Perhaps the public would consent to an occupation that worked and assured cheap oil, but not if it entails only death, expense, and continued high gas prices. By mid 2007, even the most martial minded Americans might agree to withdraw abruptly and let the ungrateful sects and factions stew in their own sovereign juice. Might this now be the most popular and least risky option for the D-controlled House to pursue? A prolonged disengagement will be plagued by sectarian intransigence, and the refusal of Kurds to abide by central rule. It will defy any solutions and make the Democrats look just as unreal and incompetent as Bush. Once Saddam is dangling from the gallows, few other tangible benchmarks look achievable by the US. Significantly Ambassador Khalilzad is ready to call it quits. If the Democrats gamble on good intentions, there is a strong chance they will fail and win public disdain. By 2008, it would be as much their war as W's. Iraqis at large will revile the US less if it quits soon, and lets feuds settle on local terms, rather than impose a formula. Meanwhile, Iraq is in fact a failed state which continues to unravel despite our presence. No new face at Dod or new House committee chairs will alter this. Iraqi history books, as written by Iraqis, will portray any US counterinsurgency action as genocide, or any civic action as imperialism, but will glorify the heroic violence that forges the state (or states) which emerge after our departure. If the Democrats try to fix the fool's errand, they will get all the flack for the failure, and McCain (repeating Eisenhower's pledge to solve the Korea problem) will get the White House in 2008;
Professor Cole, you really hit all the nails into the coffin of President Bush's foreign policy debacle in Iraq and Afghanistan in your commentary about the political implications of the midterm elections.
I was a medical corpsman in Vietnam during the Tet Offensive of 1968 and opposed the invasion of Iraq. I just didn't want the men and women of the volunteer armed forces have to go through what I saw: the blood and treasure of a nation squandered so shamelessly amid the slaughter of so many innocent civilians. And I would like to spent my golden, retirement years not living in some American version of the Third Reich. Although I have been a confirmed agonistic since my return from the war, I am experiencing something akin to divine rapture. Maybe, just maybe, we can save democracy in America. Keep up your insightful analysis. I'm learning a great deal from your expertise.
"The Dems did not impeach Reagan for stealing Pentagon weapons, selling them to Khomeini, and using the black money to fund death squads in Central America!"
They seriously failed their duties as moral human beings who were lawmakers by not doing so. Evil should never be overlooked or excused. It only grows when that happens, which is exactly what happened in the USA.
from the link to the pictures from Iraq link that you posted:
"PFI requests that people keep in mind that John Kerry and practically every other politician in the Democratic Party always have and still do support the war on and occupation of Iraq."
you said:
"It will now gradually come to an end"
well, if gradually means year and years, I guess you have that right. The Democrats will allow the killing to go on.
Stock options for military industries have doubled since the invasion of Iraq. Do you think those psychopaths will give up their profits?
I don't.
“May God Forgive Me, I Voted Democratic”
Desperate voters, fearful that homosexuals might enjoy the sanctity of marriage knowingly elect an incompetent President.
(2004 Election Summary - cognitorex)
Desperate voters, despite their fears that homosexuals might enjoy the sanctity of marriage knowingly elect oversight for an incompetent President.
(2006 Election Summary - cognitorex)
I predict that "they" will keep this war going as long as they can - to maximize profit.
"they" are the corporations that are running this country, buying our politicians, and pathologically pursuing any and all profits that they can, no matter the cost to other humans.... I don't think they even care about American deaths, unless someone makes a stink about it.
If Bush, Cheney, etc believed in this war, actually believed that it was to make us safe, then they would publicly be encouraging their children to go fight it.
this war is just all about profits and controlling the area and the resources.
For the New Democratic Majority: An Exit Plan for Iraq
Madam Speaker has offered a 100 hour plan. Here's a protocol for beginning to disengage from Iraq. This protocol is creative and forward-looking, and it takes responsibility for the chaos America under Bush has created. It cannot possibly be called "cut-and-run" or "defeatist."
Now that they've taken control of the House and perhaps the Congress, Speaker Pelosi and a united Democratic party should promote convocation of a Middle East Peace Conference with every country and faction invited, including Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah, Israel, Syria, et al. All offensive or retaliatory operations by all participants are to cease for the duration of the Conference. The goal of the Conference will be to arrange a stable peace in Iraq so the U.S. can withdraw its forces and close its bases. The U.S. will commit to withdraw all of its forces when the peace plan is in place and will give a gesture of good faith by immediately withdrawing 10,000 troops. All parties must agree to the peace plan and must commit to the conference process until the plan is completed.
The battle against far right extremism (fascism, really) has just begun. One reason these racist war-mongers have come so far is because the legitimate conservatives and liberals who have had power in the USA throughout the 20th century have been unwilling to punish them for their anti-democratic, authoritarian, racist views and imperial use of power. That position has not changed at all. The corporate liberals and corporate conservatives in the USA are not willing to punish the corporate extremists. This was true of Italy and Germany before the self-averred fascists came to power. Why is and why was this case? The reason is that the authoritarian and racist forces were and are very well established in society, especially in the chambers of corporate power. If the more moderate corporatists confront the far right corporatists, they take the chance of causing a backlash in which an angry corporate elite will swing even greater support to the far right.The corporate elite does not like to have its anti-democratic allegiances exposed. Remember, today corporate power controls the media and its dominance increases with mergers and acquisitions,what used to be called cartels. So, the moderates will,so to speak, let the half-asleep dog lay. Unfortunately that dog continues to grow and when it wakes up again, which could be any time, it will be even more ferocious.We are still on the precipice.
I wish I shared your optimism. There will be changes made, but they really are what are in the interest of a better administration of empire. I am pinning my hopes on Obama at this point. The 2008 election is going to be rough, down, and dirty.
JHM:
Check my blog - Rumsfeld has resigned.
Montana is in the bag and Virginia might follow - 51 seats in the Senate, along with House majority, means constant pressure on Bush/Cheney.
As Prof. cole predicted, Rummy has been offered to the Dems to curb their appetite for the top cheese.
Fareed Zakaria writes in the November 6, 2006 issue of Newsweek (“Rethinking Iraq: The Way Forward”) : “ In point of fact – and it is a sad fact nonetheless – America is not winning in Iraq, which means that it is losing.” Proposals for the war in Iraq can come from any point of the political compass, but if there is not a committed "unified national will" behind the plan, how can it succeed? General Maxwell Taylor’s (Chairman, JCS, 1962–1964; Ambassador, South Vietnam, 1964–1965) writes in his book “Swords and Ploughshares” (p.421):
“One thing is sure: the international challenge tends to merge more and more with the domestic challenge until the two become virtually indistinguishable. The threats from both sources are directed to the same sources of national power which provide strength both for our national security and our domestic welfare. It is clear, I believe, that we cannot overcome abroad and fail at home, or succeed at home and succumb abroad. To progress toward the goals of our security and welfare we must advance concurrently on both foreign and domestic fronts by means of integrated national power responsive to a unified national will.”
We have been down this road before. In his Introduction to “On Strategy: A Critical Analysis of the Vietnam War,” Harry G. Summers describes a telling vignette regarding our Vietnam War experience:
"'You know you never defeated us on the battlefield,’ said the American colonel. The North Vietnamese colonel pondered this remark a moment. ’That may be so,’ he replied, ’but it is also irrelevant.'"
Superior military and economic strength was not able to empower a unified national will that was robust enough to prevail in Vietnam. It is the same with our Iraq war involvement. Unless there is a mobilization of the American people that produces a unified national will, America will fail in Iraq. In “On Strategy” Summers quotes Gen Fred C. Weyand (Chief of Staff, July 1974-76):
“The American Army really is a people’s Army in the sense that it belongs to the American people who take a jealous and proprietary interest in its involvement. When the Army is committed the American people are committed, when the American people lose their commitment it is futile to try to keep the Army committed. In the final analysis, the American Army is not so much an arm of the Executive Branch as it is an arm of the American people. The Army, therefore, cannot be committed lightly.”
The war in Iraq does not have the commitment of the American People. Fully 64% of the American people are opposed to the war (CNN Poll Oct. 13-15, 2006). We are a divided nation and the grim arithmetic of war keeps adding up it’s horrific toll of suffering. With divisive national politics, it seems as if our political system has broken down. Bruce Catton (“America Goes To War; An Introduction to the Civil War and It’s meaning to Americans Today;” p. 32) describes a similar situation at the beginning of the Civil War. In 1861 there existed the “…possibility that the two political parties (Republicans and Democrats) in the North would eventually line up, as a war party and a peace party. If the war was to be won, the administration had to win and hold the support of a great many people besides those who had voted for it in 1860… Mr. Lincoln met the problem at the very beginning, and met it in the traditional American way – the way of ward and courthouse politics. That is, he gave to various important people, including the leaders of the political opposition a piece of the job.”
Lincoln understood the importance of a unified national will and he invoked it through the appointment of generals and civilian leaders (including the Vice President), in whom the constituencies of a highly divergent America believed in. Any plan for the war in Iraq that is not supported by a unified national will is a plan for failure. Can this administration and can our system of Government do what Lincoln was able to do? Is this nation doomed to be hijacked by the majority party’s loyalty to it’s minority base? Our government should take a page from Lincoln and mobilize a unified national will by appointing officials to the Department of Defense, Department of Justice, National Security Council and Homeland Security that represent The People of this nation. These appointments should include members from the opposing party. As Catton wrote (“America Goes to War;” p. 47):
“Often enough, the political system by which our democracy works brings out, or seems to bring out, the worst in people; the saving grace is that in times of crises it also brings out the best, and the best is pretty good.”
Now is the time for a unified national will.
A shakeup is good. But still have to remember that the Israeli Lobby that controls Congressional Mid-East Policy is rooted in both parties. Some of the Israeli press is already commenting that Lincoln Chaffee lost because he blocked Bolton's UN nomination and opposed Israeli West Bank policy causing the Lobby to heavily back opponent Whitehouse.
But still, a good sign is that the new Sec'y of Defense designee, an old Iran hand, is a member of James Baker III's Iraq Study Group.
Best Wishes Will
You know I wondered how long after an election like this the people who say "both parties are the same" would start coming out of the woodwork again.
It seems to me that such a sweeping judgement short-circuits a large amount of useful debate in favor of conspiracy theories and fear-mongering.
Post a Comment
<< Home