Saturday, November 19, 2005

Democracy pandemic in Congress

On Friday night-- after two and a half long and devastating years-- an implosion of the warmongering United States Congress began. Angry Democrats, galvanized by Thursday's stunning Iraq withdrawal proposal by ex-Marine and ex-hawk John Murtha (D-PA,) stood in almost united, oratory defiance of the illegal, immoral, falsely-advertised, mishandled, and now seemingly uncharted war in Iraq, just as the embattled Republican House leadership surrendered almost complete strategic control of its caucus.

Representative Jean Schmidt (R-PA,) the most junior member of the Congress, infuriated the Democrats by telling of a phone call she'd just received from a serviceman in her district, with the message, "Send Congressman Murtha a message: that cowards cut and run, Marines never do." Democrats protested loudly, and Rep. Harold Ford of Tennessee had to be restrained from charging across the chamber's center aisle.

Shortly thereafter, Republicans definitively overplayed their hand- executing a vote on a symbolic alternative to Murtha's resolution, one that re-worded the Congressman's call for military withdrawal, distorting his intent (i.e.- a thoughtful, six month withdrawal,) attempting to force Democrats into an unappealing political position before ultimately failing.

Damage done.

The Republicans can't help themselves. As they did with Super-activist Cindy Sheehan earlier this year, attempts at demonization only led to lionization. They took a forthright and respect-worthy American, in both cases, and, inadvertently, vaulted him or her into a position of high-profile public opposition to the war. Progressives couldn't handpick better spokespersons for this cause than Sheehan and Murtha. One is a passionate Gold Star parent, the other, a decorated war hero tight with the Pentagon.

The Republicans' alternate resolution arrived at a recorded vote just after eleven o'clock, Washington time. It was preceeded by a couple hours of debate on the merits of the resolution, then an additional hour on the resolution itself-- an hour in which Murtha defended his original proposal, and neither side put forward either a minority or a female speaker-- or for that matter, I think, even a speaker who had failed to serve in the military. (Didn't the Founding Fathers specify armed services led by a civilian? But I digress.)

By intention, the measure failed overwhelmingly, although three courageous lawmakers-- Jose Serrano (NY,) Robert Wexler (FL,) and Cynthia McKinney (GA)-- voted for withdrawal, while another six voted 'present,' presumably to deprive Republicans some satisfaction from their grandstanding stunt.

The hawks are beginning to feel the heat of a developing groundswell. The death toll in Iraq- Americans alone- stands at over 2,000; the cost tops $200 billion; and each and every member of the House stands for re-election within 12 months.

Congressional Democrats need to continue pushing for accountability on the part of the executive branch, and they need to continue to put forth their own time tables for military withdrawal. We need them to publicly condemn the cowards in their ranks, such as Rahm Emmanuel of Virginia, who said Thursday that Rep. Murtha "went out and spoke for John Murtha," then added, "At the right time, (Democrats) will have a position" on withdrawal.

All Congressional representatives need to be reminded of the catalytic role that the activists, bloggers, marchers, and angry military families played in propelling this nation towards its call for peace, and the level of power that that loose coalition still wields. We've been winning the debate for withdrawal throughout America, and now that it seems that they're determined to have that same debate in Congress, we can win it there, too.

2 Comments:

At 7:39 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Do we need to get out of Iraq? Yes. Is it Congress who should be making the decision of when? Or the President? Or the voters? NO!!

As soon as we put a time-table on our withdrawal, the insurgents know all they have to do is wait until that time, then band together, attack and destroy whatever Iraqi gov't is in place.

It is the new Iraq leaders that should determine when and how quickly they want America out of their country. If they felt our presence there was doing more harm than good, they would have already told us to leave. But they know they need a larger and better-trained security/police force.

I'm not thrilled with Americans dying, but I also don't want to say to Iraw - we created this mess, now we're gonna leave and hope you can clean it up.

 
At 9:11 PM, Blogger CM said...

But isn't our presence just providing high-profile and easy targets for the jihad?

Better there than here, maybe, but I doubt that's the choice we're making, in all actuality.

And not for $6 billion a month.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home