« Different Strokes for Gary Coleman? | Main | Fab New Fab »

05 September 2006



I'm not sure that it's quite as much of a leap. Did not the Iraqi government discriminate and oppress people based on their ethnicity, gender and faith? How is that very different from American slavery?


just when you think that "dr. rice' can't make herself look any more foolish as a spokeswoman for the racist gop regime and power brokers of that party, she does. please dear Lord, let her go away when he leaves office never to be seen nor heard from again.


The monsters of this adminsitration deserve nothing less than what Marie Antoinette was awarded by the French people.

Alan T

Larry, I disagree. The "Iraqi government" you refer to has been abolished for almost three years. This is an American-backed government in Iraq that is also implicated with death squads and sectarian violence.

There is a huge difference to opposing a drawn-out war overseas and comparing its critics to people who wanted slavery here at home 150 years ago. I don't see any connection, basically because you're talking about people who were imported from one continent to another for slave labor .. versus invading a sovereign nation.

By the way, your rseponse about gender, faith and ethnicity is purely academic. First of all, women had the right to "vote" under Saddam Husssein, even if it was for a single-party candidate. What's the point in having a "democracy" if you the leaders you vote for only govern a small, fortified portion of the country? Meanwhile, you can't even leave your home because hundreds of citizens are being murdered and killed on the streets every week?

patrick s

The bigger issue, which Rod hs alluded to, is the administration's hijacking of moral imperatives to justify a war that has become increasingly bloody, unpopular, and, convoluted.

Why use Nazi and slave analogis to justify the war? It's like you cannot disagree with them or you are condomning slavery or nazis. Thats not debate.


AlanT, the former Iraqi government may no longer exist, but many of its proponents still do and they must be dealt with accordingly to prevent them from reimplementing the policies the American government is trying to do away with. No, I don't think this war and the Civil War are the same. And no I don't agree with everything - or most things - the Bush administration has done regarding this war. Far from it. But both wars were wars against inequality and opression at the hands of a government. That similarity is clear to me.

Bobby Alexander

Gotta give it up to them, it's very sneaky. It's worked before, why not try it again?

But they should've realized it wouldn't work with a black audience. Not this way. Not like that.

Poor Condi. She's gonna ruin herself by playing along with this agenda. You lay down with dogs, you wake up with fleas.


My impression of the Civil War was that it was more about states' rights and the federal governemnts power and much less about oppression and slavery.

Probably why the slaves were only emancipated in the last days of the war.


The Civil War was about lots of things. And regardless of how large the role of economics and state's rights, there were a significant number of decision makers backing the war who thought slavery should end because of its immorality.


"Regardless of how large the role of economics and state's rights..."

Thanks for admitting that that the primary reasons behind the war were economic and political versus the moral.

The bottom line...The American adventure in Iraq may have valid reasons, but it's still ridiculous to compare it to a moral imperative and the American Civil War.

Keep in mind that the reason we entered Iraq was over the non-existent weapons of mass destruction. Arguments about ethnic and sectarian strife came much later ... and are meaningless now, given how much bloodshed is spilled daily.

It's such an American contrivance to assume that "democracy" is the answer to everyone's problems.


Primary or not, my point is it wasnt the sole reason. Morality did play a role. Sooner or later is neither here nor there. The truth is it was a factor. And I agree with everything else you said in your post ... except for that implication that democracy isn't best for everyone.


Since when should the usa be the worlds moral police. Isn't morality relative? So you really think the war is about Saddam Hussein and his dictatorship? If so why not invade North Korea, China Venezuela, Cuba , most of Africa etc etc... I still can't fathom the comparison between slavery in your own country and purported inhumanity in another separate and sovereign country???

Rod Mc

This is what is most glaring about the comparison:

The administration is not using the Nazi and slavery comparison to describe the sectarian violence or human rights situation in Iraq--which is largely an American contrivance, btw. But, for the War on Terror.

So, if you criticize the Iraqi adventure, which is supposedly the biggest front in the War on Terror, it's not unlike saying the Union should have walked away after their loss at the First Battle at Bull Run. And, slavery would have lasted much longer in the states--ie, the slavery of "Al Qaeda" in Iraq will persist. That's the slavery being referred to, not ethnic cleansing or such. That's just BS.

If it isn't obvious by the many posts here on Condi Rice, Bill and Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, etc, I'm much more of a centrist than many within the blogosphere. However, even though I don't agree with a total withdrawal from Iraq, it's totally specious to even compare Iraq to WWII or the Civil War--if for no other reasons, the goals and imperatives were clear in those fights.

And also we're going into year four of Iraq. The Civil War and WWII were fought and won in that time. It's much more akin to Vietnam and likely to last as long.


"Lizzy" strikes again. . .woow. Just note that many historians consider the Civil War and WWII justified as wars against tyranny and ethno-nationalism, whatever there economic, geo-strategic, and moral imperatives were. The Iraq war was UNJUSTIFIED and ILLEGAL. When Saddam was killing Kurds in the 1980's, we were his regime's biggest supporter.


once again ""iraq delerium" disease attacks.
"Her message in a nutshell: "Unless you like slavery, vote Republican."
well, if you cant use her actual comment to make your case, you just make one up. her comment does not say anything like that!
say the word "iraq" and the left goes nuts, all thinking goes out the window.
lets go back to school. She did not compare the iraq war to slavery! thats not what she did. she made an analogy regarding how people said the civil war was not worth it, while we were fighting it. and how people feel Iraq is not worth it. the obvious point she is making, is that she feels innthe end it will be seen as the right thing. Just like the civil war is now seen by most.
can we please say "iraq" and actually use our brains?


wow, talk about misinformed. exactly what law was broken with the iraq war? what law? none, nada, not one. Fact is ONLY one war ever had UN approval, the Gulf War 1. Not even Bosnia. but hey why stop empty rhetoric?
saddam did not stop killing the kurds after the 80's! He kept killing them, and he didnt only kill the Kurds. He also killed hundreds of thousands of shia. He also invaded a neighboring country TWICE! (but of course he wouldnt do it again? lol.) He still threatened to attack his neighbors.
nope nothing like the world war 2 enemies. if you ignore history and facts.
HISTORIANS consider the civil war and ww2 as justified. but the opinion at the time was not that clear. exactly what did we fight for in WW2? Germany didnt attack the US. germany didnt kill a single american before we entered the war.
hey, why bother with facts, the word "iraq" causes mental rhetoric syndrome.
i just wish, just once people could actually discuss Iraq without a million talking points and false info.


rod mc
the goal was clear? really?
the goal was to defeat germany and japan. thats about as clear as it got.
its like vietnam because its longer then the civil war and ww2? wow. how many people died in vietnam during the first 4 years? tens of thousands of american soldiers alone. Iraq? less than 3,000.
is there a time limit on war?


I think most here have missed the point Condi was trying to make. The point is that during the civil war (mainly 1864) northern democrats wanted to appease the south because they thought that the Union was losing the war. Sound familiar? They wanted things to go back to the way they used to be. In 1864 they vigorously attacked Lincoln and the administration, accusing them of being stupid, insolent warmongers. Sound even more familiar? At least Bush isn't burning down leftist newspapers offices and jailing their edoitors for treason which Lincoln had no problem doing. The point is that everything that has been earned by Americans has been fought for with an unvavering resolve. If we ever want real peace, we have to fight for it.

Erich H


I think the point that Rice, Bush, Rumsfeld et. attempt to make is that anyone who disagrees with their strategy is essentially giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

Also, Liquidblack, what "leftists" are you referring to? It's amazing how quickly some people resort to name-calling whenever you disagree with the administration. The bottom line is, in our political framework it should be possible to disagree over methods and tactics without being demonized. Unfortunately, the administration and many of its supporters insist upon otherwise.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Rod 2.0 Premium

Rod 2.0 Recommends

  • PrideDating.com, a Relationship-Oriented Gay Dating Site

    The largest gay roommate finder in America

    Rolex Watches


Your email address:

Powered by FeedBlitz

Twitter Updates

    follow me on Twitter

    Search Rod2.0




    Blog powered by Typepad