I have been very impressed with and proud of the long series of passionate speeches given by Democratic Congresspersons in support of a
non-binding resolution against George Bush’s plans for additional troop build-up for his
war profiteering adventure – otherwise known as the Iraq War. Until recently I had feared that Congress would not accept the responsibilities given to it in our Constitution and in the
War Powers Act of 1973, to take steps to end that immoral war, in accord with the
mandate given to them by the American people in the November 2006 elections. Now I am feeling more optimistic about their likelihood of doing so.
Their speeches have described a multitude of reasons for challenging the Fascist Bush/Cheney regime’s
insistence on its right to continue a war that is contrary to international law, immoral, destructive of American interests, and which the vast majority of the American people do not want. They have been passionate, sincere, hard-hitting and cogent.
Yet, in my personal opinion they have been too cordial, in comparison to what their opposition deserves for their continuous contemptible behavior. In short, they have not been sufficiently critical and insulting enough to their vile colleagues on the other side of the isle. There are things that need to be said about those Republicans that have not been said publicly for way too long. Not that I necessarily blame our Democratic representatives for not saying those things. Perhaps they are right not to do so, as insulting their vile colleagues may put themselves in a bad light and hurt their (and our) chances of putting a break on the war mongering activities of the Bush/Cheney cabal.
But those things need to be said. So I will take the opportunity to say them here, since I am not running for political office:
The Iraq War is NOT “our troops’ mission”One of the big goals of those Republicans is to paint Democrats, or anyone who wishes to end the Iraq War, as “
not supporting our troops”. To make that case, they repeatedly state that it is not possible to support our troops while failing to support “
our troops’ mission”. The obvious implication of that statement is that it is “our troops’ mission” to fight in George Bush’s imperialistic adventure in Iraq, and anyone who argues that point is not supporting our troops, and therefore is
aiding the “enemy” (which also has been explicitly stated numerous times) and may even be guilty of treason.
Well I have some news for those morons. The war profiteering adventure in Iraq is NOT intrinsically our troops’ mission. It is primarily George Bush’s and Dick Cheney’s mission, and it is only
their (our troops) mission insofar as they have been told that it is their mission. If Congress, in accordance with its Constitutional responsibilities and the responsibilities granted it in the War Power Act of 1973, decides that it is NOT their mission, then it is no longer their mission. Period. Quoting from the War Powers Act:
At any time that United States Armed Forces are engaged in hostilities outside the territory of the United States, its possessions and territories without a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization, such forces shall be removed by the President if the Congress so directs by concurrent resolution.
If Congress decides to act upon that law, it would NOT be an act of treason. It would be the American people, acting through their Congressional representatives, to determine what the military mission of
our country is – and what it is not. It would be Congress accepting its Constitutional responsibilities. It would be Congress acting in accordance with the rule of law. It is called
democracy – or more specifically,
Constitutional democracy.
The issue of “political motivations”Repeatedly, the vile Republicans have
imputed “political motives” to the Democrats’ efforts to challenge Bush’s war plans. They claim that this is nothing but a cheap political trick. Yada yada yada, over and over again.
Yet I have not heard the Democrats respond in kind. Instead, they repeatedly attribute the noblest of motives to their vile Republican colleagues, saying such things as “there
isn’t a single person in this Congress who doesn’t support our troops”.
Okay then. I will say here what I believe needs to be said about that: The good majority of Republican Congresspersons do NOT support our troops. They do NOT support them when they
vote against providing them with adequate health benefits. They do NOT support them when they
vote against providing them with the equipment that they need to reduce their risks of being killed. And most of all, they do NOT support them when they insist on sending them off to fight in a senseless war that is destructive of, rather than protective of, the interests of their country.
It is the Republicans, not the Democrats, who are playing politics with this. They are playing politics by continuing to defend a war that is indefensible. And the tragedy of it is that in playing their cynical political games they are thereby sending to their deaths thousands upon thousands of innocent American and Iraqi people.
Perhaps our Democratic Congresspersons’ maintenance of a defensive rather than an offensive posture on this issue is politically wise. Again, I don’t know. But these things need to be said.
War is not a gameThis point cannot be emphasized too strongly. Over and over again, the Republicans claim that the Democrats have
no plan to “win” the war in Iraq. By pointing this out, they hope to arouse the “patriotic” fervor of those Americans who are so immature that they see war as a game, and so lacking in self-confidence that they are horrified of the idea that their country will “lose” a war. No matter what the purpose of the war is. The only issue of importance to them is whether we “win” or “lose”.
If they would stop for a minute to consider the purpose of this war they might reflect upon the fact that Congress initially voted on a
resolution to allow George Bush the prerogative to invade Iraq, based on the claim that Iraq had developed and harbored weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons, and therefore posed a grave threat to our country. Well, the
weapons were not there. Bush and Cheney
lied to Congress and the American people about those weapons. Even if those weapons were there, Iraq still would not have posed a threat to our country. And even if those weapons were there and did in fact pose a threat to our country, the leadership of the Iraq that we went to war against is no longer there.
Somebody – maybe our next President – needs to explain to the American people and our corporate media, once and for all, that the consequences of war are much too serious for it to be considered a game. Few of our Republican Congresspersons get that point, since few of them have ever served in the military, and most of those who haven’t do not have enough empathy to visualize the effects of war on those – including
hundreds of thousands of civilians – who bear the brunt of it.
No, war is not a game. Rather, it is a
means for achieving crucial foreign policy objectives, and it should be entered into only with grave seriousness, as a last resort, after all reasonable alternatives have been thoroughly considered and tried. When a country does enter into war, like all other national policies, it should be constantly re-evaluated to determine whether or not it is furthering the objectives it was designed to achieve and whether or not it should be continued. And furthermore, a government should always be cognizant of the fact that in deciding to conduct or continue a war it has moral obligations to its own citizens and to the international community to make those decisions in accordance with
internationally recognized standards of decency.
Therefore, when war is recognized as being destructive of our national interests and in opposition to internationally recognized standards of common decency, Congress should act in accordance with its Constitutional responsibilities to end that war. That is not called “losing”. It is called acting like responsible adults. And incidentally, such a position is also very much “pro-life”. Congresspersons who don’t understand that basic principle have no business being Congresspersons or being in any position of leadership where they are responsible for the welfare of other people.
“If we don’t fight them over there we’ll have to fight them over here” This claim illustrates the principle that if something is repeated over and over again, and amplified by a national news media, some people will believe it no matter how stupid it is. The repeated
claim that bringing our troops back home would result in al Qaeda following us back to the United States and perpetrating terror upon the American people is not supported by the slightest bit of evidence, and it defies common sense.
The Republican Congresspersons who repeatedly make this stupid claim know very well that the American presence in Iraq serves the cause of the terrorists by
fueling the continuing recruitment of new terrorists to their anti-American cause. According to the Baker/Hamilton
Iraq Study Group Report, al Qaeda is responsible for only a small proportion of the violence in Iraq, and all foreign fighters combined number only about 1,300. If al Qaeda intends to perpetrate a terrorist attack on the United States, what better time to do it than when the U.S. Army is preoccupied overseas? Enough said about that stupid myth.
A summation of vile Republican speeches about the Democrats’ attempt to stop this immoral warOne thing that is clearly evident about the barrage of vile Republican speeches over the last couple of days is that they have all been trained like dogs to dwell on a series of stupid talking points. Essentially, their marching orders are to
keep on message, regardless of how inane that message is. Consequently, one could listen to hours upon hours of those stupid speeches without hearing anything new or in the least bit intelligent.
For way too long in this country it has been considered good sport to insult Democrats, whereas there appears to be a ban against responding in kind to Republicans. Wouldn’t it be interesting to hear someone – anyone – publicly describe those contemptible wretches as they really are? Maybe it would be bad politics, but I sure would love to see it.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
