| By A.L Thompson - Feb 13th, 2007 at 8:40 pm EST |
As the Democrats continue to push for the so called non-binding resolution, I have decided to turn the t.v. off and spare myself from the circus we call checks and balances. The resolution begins with the idea 'we support the troops'. The rhetoric coming from the Democrats is nothing more than double talk. It is impossible to be opposed to the conflict in Iraq and not oppose the soldiers carrying out the effort. By trying to appear politically correct, the democrats are reaching to convince the public they oppose the conflict, but in reality they are unwilling to take the actions necessary to end it. Most of the leadership in the democratic party has said they would not cut funds for the 'war' in any situation, in order to " support the troops". The resolution will have no impact at all on the escalation of the conflict in Iraq and the immanent conflict with Iran. Democratic leadership refuses to pursue impeachment preceedings, or highlight the extent of the crimes of war of aggression, and against humanity as established by the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice.
The Democrats will precede in the months ahead to position themselves for re-election and the presidential election of 2008. In reality to support the troops is to support the conflict any way you look at it. The memory of Vietnam has scared Democrats into a state of paranoia, where any perceived opposition to the soldiers actions in Iraq is seen as Un- American. We can expect that nothing in Iraq or the middle-east will change even under the leadership of a Democratic majority. Nationalism transcends any political differences between the two dominant parties in this country. The Democrats are playing defense, excepting Republicans carefully framed rhetoric about " supporting the troops", "cutting and running", and my personal favorite, "emboldening our enemies". Relative to other groups, there has been few unarmed, innocent American lives lost in Iraq. The majority of the innocent victims in the effort are the unarmed Iraqi men, women and children who are terrorized and bombed on a daily basis in Iraq. Even as we sit watching the rising casualty rates among U.S. soldiers, the reality and pictures of the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's killed has eluded us. We've lost count, or more honestly, we were never really keeping it to begin with.
Who is this 'war' against? Al Queda? The Shiite extremist? The Sunni insurgents? Iran? Syria? There has been no 'war' in Iraq since the toppling of the Sadamm Husein's regime and Bush announced ' mission accomplished'. Since then, U.S. soldiers have been performing the duties of police officers trying to restore order and protect infrastructure, mainly permanent military bases and oil supplies. By using the term " war", it allows the right and the military generals to conjure up a 'heroic' vision about the tasks taking place in the region today and make any opposition to the war appear un-patriotic. Also, by using the term war it implies a link to the war on terror. If the actions being undertaken by U.S. soldier's in Iraq makes them heroes protecting our freedoms, then the ones who sent them, George Bush, Dick Chaney and the other crusaders, are heroes also.
Strong leadership in the Democratic party would stop bending over forwards for the Republicans and the military branch of our government. The new un-binding resolution on the table is the equivalent of bringing a laser pointer to a gun fight. The whole thing reminds me of the acclaimed film the Wizard of Oz. The military tin man with no heart, the republican scarecrow with no brain, the democratic cowardly lion with no courage, and a nation baffled trying to find it's way home. I hope to wake up tomorrow in my bed surrounded by friends and family in Kansas and realize it was only a dream, but instead i'll be in The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer on CNN. Only God can save us now.
!
Comments are closed for this post.
While the scotch is tasty, teh stupid is still hurting my head a little.
Were you actually trying to say that opposing the war means opposing the soldiers themselves? Because that's idiotic on its face, and you should be ashamed of saying such.
If what you meant to say is that it's impossible to really oppose the war while not taking steps to stop the soldiers from receiving orders to continue fighting, then you need to seriously rephrase that passage in your post.
This part, aside from desperately needing editing, is completely asinine. Can you not think of any differences between soldiers who have surrendered their personal autonomy to join a military that is constitutionally subordinate to the civilian leadership and fought and died in a questionable war simply because they were ordered to and they are bound by oath to obey those orders, and the idiots who sent them to the wrong war for the wrong reasons? Do you not see an inherent nobility in how our soldiers, despite whatever personal misgivings they might have about the competence or judgement of our elected leaders, have shown enough fortitude to recognize their positions require they great sacrifices when so ordered by their chain of command? Is the role of an average grunt in the fiasco that is Iraq remotely comparable to the role played by the President and Co-President (I mean Vice-President. Damnit, I always get that mixed up these days!)
As it stands now, your post is incredibly offensive and logically incoherent.
And just to give you a heads up about the realpolitik at play, there is NO WAY ON GOD'S GREEN EARTH that George W. Bush will be impeached, short of undeniable and compelling evidence of clear criminal activity unrelated to Iraq or the War on Terrorism. I'm sorry to have to tell you, but there just aren't enough votes in the Senate to sustain a vote to remove him from office. There just aren't. No amount of wishing it were otherwise will make it so. The best they can do is stretch the issue out, through hearings on military policy and resolutions like this one, until there is enough support to send a binding resolution to the President attached to something he cannot veto. And keep in mind, he might go so far as to reject a federal budget if it includes timeline legislation, at the cost of shutting down the government and waiting to see if congressional Dems or congressional Reps blink first (I'd guess that they'd find a veto-proof majority for the budget before he gets something like that striped out, but judging by some of the quotes from the current debate in the House, you never know...)
I 'support the troops' coming back home safely, I do not 'support the troops' actions in Iraq.
In no war are the soldiers carrying out the actions in that war separated from the events taking place on the ground. Our army is a volunteer force. Soldiers have the ability like Ehrin Watada to refuse the orders they're being given if they object to the war effort. Of course there will be consequences but if you believe the cause is great enough those don't matter. The resistance that led to the eventual collapse of the Vietnam War effort was largely by soldiers refusing to obey orders and draftees refusing to serve in an unjust war. Why was this significant? Because wars can't be fought without the support of the soldiers on the ground. The soldiers in Iraq are following the orders of their superiors. If the orders are unjust then the actions are unjust. It is contradictory to suggest that soldiers are acting somehow autonomously in Iraq.
My uncle is in Iraq now. I support him as a human being and as my uncle, but I can't support his actions in Iraq because I am opposed to the war. I want my uncle home safely and I don't want him to die but that doesn't mean I see him as a freedom fighter.
I don't think the Congress should " oppose the troops". I was simply asserting that you cannot oppose the 'war' effort and not oppose the actions the soldiers are undertaking. After all, that is what the occupation in Iraq is. It's made up of soldiers following orders. I do believe that their superiors are responsible for the occupation and the conflict but we insult the intelligence of the soldiers when we imply they are robots simply performing a duty for their country.
The only way to stop the war in Iraq is for Congress to cut funding for more tanks and guns etc. These hollow patriotic slogans of 'we support the troops', in non-binding resolutions isn't helping bring the soldiers back home. It's exacerbating the occupation. The republicans have one thing right, it is contradictory to say you are against the war and not the actions taking place that comprise it.
And no.. Bush won't be impeached but if Clinton can be brought to hearings for lying about a you know what, surely Bush can be brought to trial for the occupation. It's not about whether or not he will be, he should be, and our elected officials need to pursue it according to the law.
See, either the resolution under debate disapproves of the war plan, or it doesn't. If it does, then it's against the "actions taking place" that comprise the war.
When you wrote
you made a self-contradiction. See, in order for this criticism to be accurate, one must assume the premise that an explicit statement of opposition to the war plan is the same as an implicit statement of support for the war. And the resolution itself is a statement that Congress is against at least one of the actions that comprise the war, the escalating "surge," which is exactly what you said you wanted to see. So either it's exacerbating the occupation or it isn't. It's a statement of opposition to a key action that comprises a large part of the war plan, yet you're claiming in the same breath that it doesn't fit the criterion for non-contradictory behavior by Congressional Democrats. How does this work logically?
I just don't see a legitimate beef here. It's a statement of opposition to the "actions that comprise the war," and the real fireworks are obviously going to come during the budget process. Does the presence of a statement offering support for those US soldiers directly affected by the misguided actions of the administration IN ANY WAY negate the fact that this resolution is not contradictory under the standard set by Republicans that you've accepted for your purposes?
That's what I think so many people are missing in the "nonbinding" debate--it does not matter in the slightest that this debate is nonbinding, because no binding debate solely on Iraq will ever succeed in stopping Bush's war plan! Simply put, it ain't binding unless Bush signs it or unless it passes with a veto-proof majority.
The only way a piece of Iraq legislation will be binding, then, is if it's attached to the one thing Bush cannot refuse to sign: the budget. He needs that cash, and so do the troops. If Congress makes it clear that Iraq funding will no longer be handled as "emergency supplemental" spending, and will instead become part of the larger budget, then any restictions attached to the cash will have to be accepted by the President, because he can't be known as the intractible asshole who let our soldiers run out of funding when Congress did what the people wanted them to do.