Ruth Conniff’s Online Column
House Demagoguery on Iraq
By Ruth Conniff
July 25, 2005
In a shameless swipe at their political opponents, House Republicans passed a resolution on July 21 that denounces those who dare to question the wisdom of an indefinite U.S. military presence in Iraq.
"Calls for an early withdrawal embolden the terrorists," the bill states, adding that the U.S. must stay as long as it takes to achieve a free and secure Iraq.
At this rate that may be a long, long, long time.
When and under what circumstances the U.S. may withdraw is anybody's guess. The House leadership shot down a Democratic amendment calling for the Administration to offer benchmarks for success in the constantly rejustified Iraq war.
Brought to us by: The Progressive
Read Whole Story
http://progressive.org/?q=mag_rcb072505
From CP
Full Version: House Demagoguery on Iraq
CP
I agree with you completely.
I beleive that it is very to question in this case becuse we are asking young men and women to dies for the policy decisions of our leadership. These are our sons and daughters also. Our best and brightest.
The issue of questioning being unpatriotic, this resolution is unpatriotic. It also calls Republicans like Lindsey Graham, who can't be the only one getting an earful of concerns from constiuents and has questioned the policy; Joe Wilson, and Ron Paul unpatriotic. Ron Paul is unlikely to ever support military intervetion because he is a Libertarian. But it stoops to a new level to ever infer the Senator Graham, who is an active reservist, and Congressman who is an Army retiree since 2003 and has three sons in the military including one that recently graduated from the Naval Academy unpatriotic. If these peole are unpatriotic then what is our definition of patriotism? I think thos like Sen Graham and Condressman Wilson are very patriotic.
We need to find out the service records of all those who signed on and post it all over the place. Make them shameful.
Do we even know who sponsored such a shameful resolution?
Judy
I agree with you completely.
I beleive that it is very to question in this case becuse we are asking young men and women to dies for the policy decisions of our leadership. These are our sons and daughters also. Our best and brightest.
The issue of questioning being unpatriotic, this resolution is unpatriotic. It also calls Republicans like Lindsey Graham, who can't be the only one getting an earful of concerns from constiuents and has questioned the policy; Joe Wilson, and Ron Paul unpatriotic. Ron Paul is unlikely to ever support military intervetion because he is a Libertarian. But it stoops to a new level to ever infer the Senator Graham, who is an active reservist, and Congressman who is an Army retiree since 2003 and has three sons in the military including one that recently graduated from the Naval Academy unpatriotic. If these peole are unpatriotic then what is our definition of patriotism? I think thos like Sen Graham and Condressman Wilson are very patriotic.
We need to find out the service records of all those who signed on and post it all over the place. Make them shameful.
Do we even know who sponsored such a shameful resolution?
Judy
QUOTE(judykratochvil @ Jul 27 2005, 10:22 AM)
We need to find out the service records of all those who signed on and post it all over the place. Make them shameful.
Do we even know who sponsored such a shameful resolution?
[right][snapback]81676[/snapback][/right]
Do we even know who sponsored such a shameful resolution?
[right][snapback]81676[/snapback][/right]
Hello Judy,
I agree with your centiment wholeheartedly.
It is very Ironic that the majority of politicians who are warhawks, them and their sons and daughters have never served in the US military and will never serve in the US military.
And many of them like George Bush daddy fixed the probability of him going into combat in Vietnam slim to none.
Why is it that the very hawkish people who create havoc and unease in our society that ultimately result in wars, them nor their sons and daughters never serve to fight the wars that they create?
It should be a law that if a President get's into a war and if that president has children who are eligible to fight in that war, at least one of those children, male or female should serve in the war that that particular President created.
But that will never happen Judy.
They will hide and protect their children from serving in the conflicts that these warhawkish administrators create all over the world. And they also will demand that your son and my son serve as a tool for their own personal and political agenda if that means asking our children to do what they wouldn't ask their children to do, serve in the military or let alone, fight in the combat zone.
I agree with your centiment wholeheartedly Judy and I appreciate your response.
Sincerely,
CP
QUOTE(ConcernedP1964 @ Jul 27 2005, 09:56 PM)
Hello Judy,
I agree with your centiment wholeheartedly.
It is very Ironic that the majority of politicians who are warhawks, them and their sons and daughters have never served in the US military and will never serve in the US military.
And many of them like George Bush daddy fixed the probability of him going into combat in Vietnam slim to none.
Why is it that the very hawkish people who create havoc and unease in our society that ultimately result in wars, them nor their sons and daughters never serve to fight the wars that they create?
It should be a law that if a President get's into a war and if that president has children who are eligible to fight in that war, at least one of those children, male or female should serve in the war that that particular President created.
But that will never happen Judy.
They will hide and protect their children from serving in the conflicts that these warhawkish administrators create all over the world. And they also will demand that your son and my son serve as a tool for their own personal and political agenda if that means asking our children to do what they wouldn't ask their children to do, serve in the military or let alone, fight in the combat zone.
I agree with your centiment wholeheartedly Judy and I appreciate your response.
Sincerely,
CP
[right][snapback]81701[/snapback][/right]
I agree with your centiment wholeheartedly.
It is very Ironic that the majority of politicians who are warhawks, them and their sons and daughters have never served in the US military and will never serve in the US military.
And many of them like George Bush daddy fixed the probability of him going into combat in Vietnam slim to none.
Why is it that the very hawkish people who create havoc and unease in our society that ultimately result in wars, them nor their sons and daughters never serve to fight the wars that they create?
It should be a law that if a President get's into a war and if that president has children who are eligible to fight in that war, at least one of those children, male or female should serve in the war that that particular President created.
But that will never happen Judy.
They will hide and protect their children from serving in the conflicts that these warhawkish administrators create all over the world. And they also will demand that your son and my son serve as a tool for their own personal and political agenda if that means asking our children to do what they wouldn't ask their children to do, serve in the military or let alone, fight in the combat zone.
I agree with your centiment wholeheartedly Judy and I appreciate your response.
Sincerely,
CP
[right][snapback]81701[/snapback][/right]
CP
Thanks for your response.
There are actually a number of those in the House who did, however ou are correct about the children. For example the only woman in the US House to have served in the miliatry is Heather Wilson (NM) who also graduated from the Air Force Academy. I also know that Duncan Hunter (CA) has a son that has served in Iraq. John Shimkus (IL) and Henry Hyde (IL) are veterans. Mark Kirk (IL) and Steve Buyer (IN) are active reservists.
You are so right about George Bush, Dick Cheney, Karl Rove (a.k.a. turd blossom) and that crew. They never served and never will.
Why is it that those who do not serve nor send their children tend to start wars? because they do not understand. I do not listen to those who have not served themselves or have not sent their children. Their opinion means nothing to me. It is dangerous for those who do not understand to place our people in harms way. However, I do not understand Donald Rumsfeld who should have known better because he did serve in the Navy.
I agree about the president's children being forced into war just like anybody else and let's not exexempt congressmen who are young enough (Patrick McHenry) or those who have children. Senators and their children should also not be exempt. In the case of reservists if their skill set is needed than a congressman or senator who has the correct skill set should be mobilized like his unit.
For Example, as a JAG and active reservist then-Congressman Graham was mobilized during the Gulf War to prepare troops to deploy to the war zone and Congressman Kirk served in Operations Iraqi Freedom and Norther Watch. Kirk is a Naval Intelligence Officer.
I agree with you as weel and appreciate your response.
Judy
QUOTE
What terrorists? The Administration has stated that there was no link between the Al Qaeda attacks of 9/11 and Iraq.
And what good is the U.S. presence in Iraq doing, as far as freedom and democracy go? According to the New York Times on Friday, the new Iraqi government is busy installing Islamic fundamentalist law, and is considering repealing women's rights and women's representation as envisioned by the U.S. provisional authority.
That's just the theoretical stuff, though. Basic services like clean water and garbage collection and electricity are still pathetically absent in Iraqi cities, and the whole country is seething with violence that shows no sign of letting up.
Meanwhile, we have lost more than 1,700 U.S. soldiers so far. Yet the House would forbid the question how many more lives should Americans sacrifice to this ill-defined mission.
And what good is the U.S. presence in Iraq doing, as far as freedom and democracy go? According to the New York Times on Friday, the new Iraqi government is busy installing Islamic fundamentalist law, and is considering repealing women's rights and women's representation as envisioned by the U.S. provisional authority.
That's just the theoretical stuff, though. Basic services like clean water and garbage collection and electricity are still pathetically absent in Iraqi cities, and the whole country is seething with violence that shows no sign of letting up.
Meanwhile, we have lost more than 1,700 U.S. soldiers so far. Yet the House would forbid the question how many more lives should Americans sacrifice to this ill-defined mission.
There was an article in the Times, Sunday I believe, by a soldier. He said nobody was at war in America, except them. They don't see anybody in America sacrificing, except the soldiers. It's like the war only exists for the people who have partner's and children fighting. We don't even talk about it much on TV, the media doesn't show the bodies coming home. There are over 40,000 wounded and maimed soldiers. And they say things are improving, they are not. The only answer, IMHO is just to bring them home. NATO told us they would send troops, take the Iraqi's out of Iraq to train them on foreign soil. We will not comply, guess there is still too much money to be made. Meanwhile, innocent people are dying every day. Oh, look over there - Michael Jackson is on TV.
QUOTE(ncMindy @ Jul 28 2005, 01:56 AM)
There was an article in the Times, Sunday I believe, by a soldier. He said nobody was at war in America, except them. They don't see anybody in America sacrificing, except the soldiers. It's like the war only exists for the people who have partner's and children fighting. We don't even talk about it much on TV, the media doesn't show the bodies coming home. There are over 40,000 wounded and maimed soldiers. And they say things are improving, they are not. The only answer, IMHO is just to bring them home. NATO told us they would send troops, take the Iraqi's out of Iraq to train them on foreign soil. We will not comply, guess there is still too much money to be made. Meanwhile, innocent people are dying every day. Oh, look over there - Michael Jackson is on TV.
[right][snapback]81729[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]81729[/snapback][/right]
Too much money to be made, ahem, wasted and lost, maybe.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.