WASHINGTON D.C.--Thanks Dick, but you don't speak for myself or the rest of us reasonable human beings in Indiana, because we never voted for you and never will. You're in-trouble, big-big trouble. Your GOP peers are beginning to bail on you, and as Iraq continues to sink into an unspeakable chaos of criminal violence and destruction that you allowed--and perversely still support--you're somehow oblivious to the fact that the longer you protract this conflict, the more political-damage it's going to inflict on you. The Democrats and GOP-defectors are going to end this war, and you'll be o-u-t. That margin is a breath-away from a 2/3d's majority that can override you and the president's veto, and it's coming is inevitable. Math is fun. You're hastening your retirement:
Sen. Carl Levin, who chairs the Armed Services Committee, said Democratic senators would probably seek to capitalize on wavering Republicans to limit the "wide-open authorization" Congress gave Bush in 2002. "We will be looking at a modification of that authorization in order to limit the mission of American troops to a support mission instead of a combat mission, and that is very different from cutting off funds," said Levin, D-Mich. Sen. Joe Biden, a 2008 presidential candidate who leads the foreign relations panel, said the 2002 authorization should be repealed to restate the president's authority and clarify the mission of U.S. troops in Iraq.
(AP, 02.18.2007)
The wavering has begun, and the message from the November midterms is ringing loud-and-clear--so what's your problem Senator? Still have that innate contempt for the average man and his interests? And why anyone would think you're a "traditional conservative" is beyond me, but your part of Indiana is festooned with inbreds, morons, and the twisted rich. Why do you want to keep funding a quagmire? I think it's because you and your business buddies have made prok and Iraq one-and-the-same. Senator Lugar: do you believe we should invade or attack Iran from the air? Where's the $9 billion dollars from the US Treasury that was sent to Iraq for the rebuilding? It's still missing, and it disappeared on your watch. Why do you want a war with Iran when we're losing the one in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Senator Lugar, why shouldn't Iran have energy independence, just as it appears North Korea might? Or what about India getting nuclear aid from us with their reactors? Or Israel and their nuclear program? Or how about the United States, the Pandora's box of nuclear proliferation? Look-around, but be careful, you might trip-over some WMDs here. Yes-yes, I know you've actually done something to hasten the dismantling and tightening of security at nuclear silos and facilities in the former Soviet Union. This is something you deserve credit for, but this time you're out-of-line and completely wrong-headed. You must bet on the losing-horses a lot, out of some weird sentimentality, but most Americans assume there's money in all of this for you and your biggest backers, which is an easy-guess in our political system. It's the norm (especially with your party, the GOP). Most Americans--just not 30%--know a bullshitter when they see one.
Senator Lugar, supporting this administration and its war makes you appear senile, which is giving you an out like Reagan had during Iran-Contra, as the war in Iraq is a criminal enterprise just as the "Gipper's" was. That either makes you incredibly stupid, or a fellow traveller with a treasonous conspiracy. That's right. I'm accusing you and those who continue to support this war in the Middle East as traitors. You have one out, and that is dismantling this war, allowing what is going to happen anyway to happen in Iraq (probably a partitioning, and our removal from the region for-generations), prosecuting the corrupt in the Bush administration, and paying-for the reconstruction of Iraq's infrastructure. This is our mess, and we created it. If we don't do this, no nation will ever trust us again, and why should they?
But all this talk about Iraq is only part of the story, Senator Lugar. Iran is the other prize, the main one, for control of their oil-supply (which is dwindling), but also to control access into Central Asia and those coveted oil and natural gas fields in and around the Caucusas mountains. The "mainstream" Democrats won't say it, but they share yours and the rest of the GOP's aforementioned war-aims. This is why many of them won't discuss the permanent military bases we have all over Iraq, just like the ones in Saudi Arabia that emboldened Osama Bin Laden to create Al-Qaida after the Gulf War. And yes, President Clinton continued the existence of those bases in Arabia well-into his second term.
But let's go back to October of 2002, shall we, Senator? You voted for the 2002 authorization of force in Iraq, as did many on both-sides of the aisle. But, for over three-weeks, Democrats (and some of the GOP) have realized that their political futures all hinge on ending this war soon, and honorably (if that's even possible). They have been putting together measures and proposals that will let many of you in the GOP off-the-hook, but you have to allow the original legislation that gave the Bush administration the blank-check on Iraq to be replaced with a revised-version:
Democrats may promote a new revised bill authorizing the use of force in Iraq to replace the 2002 bill that allowed the Bush administration to proceed with the war, a top Democrat said Friday. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer -- No. 2 in the House behind Speaker Nancy Pelosi -- said that is one step Democrats might pursue to change conditions in Iraq. (CNN, 01.26.2007)
For those who don't know the name of the bill that authorized the use of force in Iraq, it's Public law 107-243, 116 Stat. 1497-1502. Frequently, the wires won't include this information, because it would be easier for all of us to search it, learn about it, and then to act on that knowledge. Senator Lugar, it appears you don't "feel fooled", as others in Congress claim. I'll give you this, but why is that? Section 2 is an overlooked part of the authorization, since it says, "[to] strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him [the president] in those efforts[.]" That's odd, since the UN told the Bush administration they couldn't go into Iraq...
yours-in-Christ, Matt Janovic
Public law 107-243, 116 Stat. 1497-1502 (the keys to Poppy's car):
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ243.107
AP: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070218/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq
CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/26/iraq.hoyer/index.html?eref=rss_politics
No need to re-write the original Oct 2002 authorization of the use of force on Iraq. Ever since Saddam was captured in December of '03, that authorization has been exceeded by our unauthorized occupation. Ip so facto, Bush-Cheney's policies have violated the limits of that constitutional authority, and should be award no further funding.
ReplyDeleteI agree, these moves in Congress are based on avoidance of the real confrontation. The confrontation is inevitable, so all these moves such as "non-binding resolutions" merely aid in prolonging the conflict--unsurprising, since many in Congress still suppout the war-aims. The difference is that they know it went wrong early-on, and they want to escape responsibility for it. Right there is my only sense of agreement with the Bush administration: they should go down with him, many of them are equally culpable. They knew what they were doing when they authorized force in Iraq.
ReplyDelete