South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham’s Indecent
January 25, 2007 – In
the January 19, 2007 edition of Charleston, South Carolina’s daily newspaper The Post and Courier, appeared a
headline story titled Sen. Lindsey Graham talks in depth on Iraq. The
piece was written as a question and answer (Q&A) style article with Post & Courier reporter Robert Behre asking the
Before considering the comments Senator
Graham offered to the Post & Courier, it is important to bear in mind that the South Carolina Republican Party primary
is known as the First in the South, and approximately one year away. Although
a firm date has not been selected, it has been suggested that this upcoming primary election could be held as early as January
Graham has already made known
his support for Senator John McCain. Republican state lawmakers such as State
Speaker of the House Representative Bobby Harrell have also announced their support of McCain as the Republican candidate
for President of the United States. Vice President Dick Cheney and Karl Rove
have been to South Carolina in recent months and have taken part in private meetings held in private residences in which no
press coverage was provided. It is suspected that Cheney and Rove will support
John McCain’s bid for the Whitehouse.
It is clear that key powerbrokers
in the failing neo-conservative movement have already decided to back Senator John McCain and want to ensure a early primary
victory for the Arizona Senator in South Carolina. Therefore political maneuvering
and paving the way for McCain in South Carolina is already underway. Consequently,
it should come as no surprise that Senator Lindsey Graham granted this early interview with the Post & Courier so that
he could sing the McCain song on Iraq to South Carolina voters. Its politics
plain and simple; a factor that should be considered when evaluated the positions Graham expressed regarding Iraq during his
interview with the Post & Courier.
Of course this emerging support
for McCain in the Palmetto State is an insult to South Carolina voters because through the Christian Coalition, these same
politicians that are now supporting McCain, worked overtime in 2000 to warn religious conservatives and the rest of
South Carolina about Senator John McCain who was running against then Texas Governor George W. Bush. They even went so far
as to question McCain’s mental stability by suggesting that his years as a prisoner of war in Vietnam might have made
him mentally unstable. Now, eight years later, we’re going to be
asked to vote for him. Lindsey Graham needs to look long and hard at the hypocrisy
in all of this. One thing is for certain; South Carolina voters are not as easily
manipulated as Graham thinks!
The aforementioned background is important
when considering Graham’s remarks to the Post & Courier.
When asked about President Bush’s
new strategy of sending more troops into Iraq and whether the United States was ‘about to make its biggest decision
in Iraq since the war began, Graham said, I think this is probably the most important decision we’ve made not only
since the Iraq war began but since 9/11. It’s now the central battlefront
in the war on terror. Not only is it an important decision due to past mistakes,
but failure will make the next decisions increasingly hard.
It is utterly amazing that Senator
Lindsey Graham and the majority of the U.S. Congress continue to reference 9/11 as if the majority of the U.S. population
believes what the government has told them about the tragic events of that fateful day.
The American people simply do not. Poll after poll after poll indicates
that at least half of the U.S. population believes that the government has not been honest about how or why 9/11 happened. Consequently, when Graham talks about sending more troops into Iraq while invoking
9/11, his comments are dismissed immediately by half the population.
If in the court of public opinion
the jury is still out on 9/11, which it is, then support for the ‘global war on terror’, the invasion or
Afghanistan, and Iraq, is impossible. If you believe that the government has
lied about 9/11, it simply is impossible to believe in the war on terror. This
is the state of the union, but Graham continues to speak of 9/11 as if the U.S. government had no articulable prior knowledge
of the impending attacks when there remains a plethora of prosecutable evidence that substantiates the complete opposite;
that many key players within the federal government had all the actionable intelligence required to thwart the attacks, but
failed to take action. At minimum, those people within the Bush Administration
that had prior knowledge of the events and failed to sound the alarms are guilty of felony criminally negligent homicide.
Graham also continues to use
the dangerously ambiguous tag line, “central battlefront in the war on terror”.
Of all the mistakes the American people made after the government failed to prevent, or actually let 9/11 happen, allowing
the Bush Administration to declare war on an emotion; terror, was the biggest! The
war on terror can never be won. There will never be a day when we wake up to
the headlines, War on Terror Won! No more Terror!
Graham has to know this.
South Carolina voters should
reject the usage of this propaganda-style tag line and demand that Graham speak in specific terms such as ‘military
operations against al-Qaeda’ rather than unspecified targets such as ‘terror’. South Carolina voters now understand clearly that by allowing the federal government to run amuck under
the endless umbrella of ‘fighting the war on terror’ we have co-signed the blank check that has cost us dearly
in liberty, privacy, tax dollars, and blood. Graham needs to wake up to the fact
that in the November 2006 elections, that blank check finally bounced. We the
people, even in red South Carolina, just are not buying the right-wing rhetoric as readily any longer.
When asked how his thinking
has evolved regarding Iraq, Graham said, the one thing that’s been consistent in my thinking is that the outcome
in Iraq is part of a global struggle. Success is Iraq is not confined to Iraq. If we could pull off a functioning, stable government where ethnic and religious differences
were tolerated and accepted, then it would clearly empower moderate movements all over the Middle East.
As much as I’m certain
that Lindsey Graham truly believes that his vision for the Middle East is noble, it defies reality while ignoring the foreign
policy vision of our founding fathers. See our founding fathers held the belief
that America should not intervene in the internal affairs of other nations. They
also warned against the United States involving itself in foreign conflicts. Graham
will argue that the ‘war on terror’ trumps what the founding fathers meant by their vision of U.S. foreign policy,
but does it apply in Iraq? I’ve searched every newspaper archive I could
find and have yet to discover anything that remotely suggests that Islamic extremists were blowing up car bombs and innocent
Iraqi civilians in Iraq prior to the U.S. invasion of Iraq.
To the contrary, those radicals
were held in check by the rule of Saddem Hussein. If Iraq has been a central
battlefront for anything these last three years eight months, it is only because the United States invaded. In comparison to the current situation in U.S. occupied Iraq, under the rule of a dictator Iraq was a more
peaceful nation then it is today. Of course this was prior to Lindsey Graham
voting for an unconstitutional pre-emptive invasion justified by knowingly fabricated and cherry-picked intelligence.
As far as a functioning,
stable government where ethnic and religious differences were tolerated and accepted in Iraq, pay no attention to that
man behind the curtain while I park my purple flying pig for a moment so that I can pull this rabbit out of my ass. How can Graham say such a thing with a straight face? As long
as Americans are on Iraqi soil, this will never, ever materialize. Graham has
to know this. He also knows that the Shiite-Sunni divisions are beyond American
understanding as well as the Israeli-Palestinian crisis. What would be refreshing
is if Lindsey Graham and the U.S. Congress would break the Israel Lobby yoke that binds them to continue pursuing Israeli
objectives in the Middle East that are actually detrimental to the United States and accept that these types of ancient wounds
simply are not America’s to heal.
Last night during his State
of the Union Address President Bush warned that failing in Iraq would be a catastrophe for the United States because the region
would erupt in war. This assertion, which Lindsey Graham also professes, has
no merit whatsoever. Clearly there would be an unfettered civil war and certain
Iranian interference within Iraq if and when the U.S. completely withdraws its troops from Iraq. However, that doesn’t
mean that it would be a catastrophe for the United States unless the U.S. is protecting assets in the region, which
The truth is that from 1980
until 1988 the United States had no problem with the Iran - Iraq War. In fact,
we provided material support to Iraq to fight the Iranians. During the war, Iran
experienced 500,000 killed or wounded, Iraq suffered 375,000 killed or wounded. Not
one politician suggested during the Iran – Iraq War that U.S. troops should join the battle. Americans pretty much went about their business oblivious of this war some 7000 miles away so the notion
that if both of these nations became battlefields the U.S. would somehow become less safe is pure speculation.
So what’s at stake for
the U.S. in Iraq? Oil, big oil companies securing those highly sought after Production
Service Agreements, maintaining U.S. dollar hegemony, and protecting Israel at the expense of the entire Middle East, the
U.S. taxpayer, the working poor, and the American men and women in uniform.
And Lindsey Graham knows it.