Posts
Here is a great article from Air America Radio's Thom Hartmann about the mess in Iraq not a war anymore, but it is an occupation. Here is part of the article.
Every time the media - or a Democrat - uses the phrase "War in Iraq" they are promoting one of Karl Rove's most potent Republican Party frames.
There is no longer a war against Iraq. It ended in May of 2003, when George W. Bush stood below a "Mission Accomplished" sign aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln and correctly declared that we had "victoriously" defeated the Iraqi army and overthrown their government.
Our military machine is tremendously good at fighting wars - blowing up infrastructure, killing opposing armies, and toppling governments. We did that successfully in Iraq, in a matter of a few weeks. We destroyed their army, wiped out their air defenses, devastated their Republican Guard, seized their capitol, arrested their leaders, and took control of their government. We won the war. It's over.
What we have now is an occupation of Iraq.
The occupation began when the war ended, and continues to this day. According to our own Pentagon estimates, at least ninety five percent of those attacking our soldiers are Iraqi civilians who view themselves as anti-occupation fighters. And last week both the Defense Minister and the Vice President of Iraq asked us for a specific date on which the occupation would end.
The distinction between "war" and "occupation" is politically critical for 2006 because wars can be won or lost, but occupations most honorably end by redeployments.
You can hear Thom Hartman on Sunday mornings in the Iowa City area on KXIC and you can listen to him online at the White Rose Society.
8 comments:
Whatever you call it, Democrats/Republicans support it.
All Republicans and the majority of Democrats in Congress support it. There a couple Democrats in the Senate (led by Feingold) and a few more in the House solidly against the occupation.
I agree with your first statement.
However, I disagree with the second, that "There a couple Democrats in the Senate (led by Feingold) and a few more in the House solidly against the occupation."
How did you come to this conclusion? Since you made the claim, the burden of proof is on you. I'll wait for your reply before speaking.
Today's voting shows that the majority of Democrats support the war with only 13 voting to bring the troops home within a year.
Feingold voted against the war from the start and was the first Senator to call for our troops to come home(in August of 05).
As for the House there was a lot Democrats who voted against the war and have stood against it, as well people like Murtha who have joined the opposition.
The problem is that these guys have been voting to fund the war all along.
Stop the money and stop the war.
War funding is a tough political issue. If you vote against the funding then you are against the troops. But I see your point about ending the funding will end the war.
I can see why a lot of people think voting against war funding is "against the troops." But I think people are overlooking some things.
Look at the last funding bill, HR 4939. Before the conference report, the people voting against it were mostly Republicans. No claims of being "against the troops."
Even Bush publically said he would veto a military spending bill because it had a clause banning torture. Again, no "against the troops" accusations. Vote something down and say why, it's simple. Ample precedent.
Was Feingold "against America" when he cast the lone senate vote against the PATRIOT Act in 2001? Nope, and he later won re-election by a wide margin.
And as for being "for" or "against" the troops -- have a look at the homepage of this blog. Several (very nice) images saying support our troops, bring them home.
That's impossible with continued war funding. Does this blog's authors mean to say they are against our troops? Of course not.
I agree with cr, the key element here is war funding. Stop the funding to stop the war.
Earlier this year Feingold said he is getting to the point where he won't be able to vote for additional funding. I admit that I haven't paid enough attention since then to see how he has voted.
Post a Comment