Christopher, Rohrabacher has issued a clarification in which he lets us know that he meant exactly what he said: “Furthermore, I will not apologize for suggesting once Iraq becomes prosperous, it should consider repaying the United States for the hundreds of billions of dollars spent to liberate them from a tyrannical dictator and helping to establish a democratic government. There’s nothing wrong with suggesting that the people who have benefited from our benevolence should consider repaying us for what we have given them.”
This particular position of his is to be treasured for its insight into the mentality of Washington (or large portions of it) and not to be made to sound reasonable by attributing a sarcastic wit to it that is absent. Its presumptions are so outrageous and so fantastic that they are delusional.
What claims are hidden in this statement? That the U.S. has a right unilaterally to liberate peoples whose political frameworks it disapproves of. That attacking such nations is a right and good means of effecting such liberations. That such attacks and the resulting destruction of the nation and its politics actually constitute liberation. That the U.S. actions in Iraq have achieved success and that Iraq will have a future prosperity that depends on this liberation and success. That Iraq would otherwise not have achieved this degree of suspected future well-being. That Iraq owes the U.S. for the unasked for invasion. That there now is such a thing as “the people” in Iraq who have benefited, and not what we observe daily, which is continued strife, bombings, and killings as well as attacks on U.S. personnel in Iraq. That the Iraqis should be grateful to the U.S. That the U.S., despite its unilateral attack, didn’t act charitably, because it now wants to be paid back. That what is “given” as a gift should be paid back. That a democratic government, such as it is in Iraq, is a boon to the peoples of Iraq.
Possibly Rohrabacher resents the “megadollars” that have been spent and actually begrudges this “gift,” and perhaps he resents it because the liberation didn’t turn out as he and others like him had wished. It sounds like it to me.
This is a cold-hearted statement from a man who evidently is blind to the immense suffering, still ongoing, that the U.S. let loose in Iraq when it attacked the country.
6:15 am on June 14, 2011
