Pandering the Amnesty Issue

[endarkenment]

The political road to peace in Iraq requires the withdrawal of US forces and a general amnesty for the insurgent forces in Iraq. There is no other road to peace. Our Democratic leaders in Washington have been advised by the usual beltway idiots to attack the ruling party over the issue of amnesty.

The recent proposal by Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki for a peaceful resolution of the Iraqi crisis contains, at least partially, the two key ingredients mentioned above: the withdrawal of US forces from Iraq and a general amnesty for the insurgent forces. While lacking specifics on either a withdrawal of US forces or exactly what conditions would accompany the general amnesty, this proposal should be given at least conditional support from our leaders and from the antiwar movement.

Instead of conditional support the Democratic Leadership has seized the opportunity to attack the amnesty proposal as essentially treason. In a propaganda barrage worthy of an RNC talking points memo, Democrat after Democrat has lined up to denounce amnesty as unthinkable.

"the idea that they should even consider talking about amnesty for people who have killed people who liberated their country is unconscionable." - Sen Carl Levin (D-MI), sums up the idiocy and emptiness of beltway thinking on this issue. Before accepting what the senator has to say, consider the assumptions behind that statement. Let's start with the phrase "people who liberated their country". Well to accept that as true one has to agree that our invasion and occupation of Iraq was a 'liberation'. I do not accept the truth of that statement, do you? Clearly there are many Iraqis, for example the insurgent forces and their supporters, who do not accept Senator Levin's opinion about the nature of our forces in Iraq.

Now consider the disingenuous use of language in the phrase "people who have killed people". Are we to consider that all of the "people who have killed people" in Iraq are criminal murderers who should always be prosecuted for the crimes they have committed? Or are we to consider only Iraqi people who have killed people for such treatment? The situation in Iraq is a hostile military occupation. Insurgent forces and our own forces are fighting each other in a war. Soldiers are fighting and killing other soldiers, and it is generally accepted that such actions, within the context of a military engagement, are not crimes of murder. The Senator is lying to the American people and should be ashamed of himself.

Democrats are pandering the amnesty issue and progressive Americans should not support this maneuver and should not make common cause with those who would prolong the conflict for political gain, no matter what party they claim to belong to.

[RethugAssKicker]

1. The Dem Senators logic is the same as the Rethugs....

Maybe, we really do have a one-party system here !

I'm totally disgusted.

[endarkenment]

2. Me too. (Obviously)

Add to that the report this morning that the vote on flag idiocy will get 66 votes - meaning that quite a few 'D's are pandering this issue as well, and this week is getting off to a real bad start.

[RufusEarl]

3. Amnesty

I'm going to give this a shot, and see if i'm thinking clearly this morning. Here's how i see it! I think Sen. Levin is holding this amnesty debate over the repugs heads, it's alway been this admin stance to never negotiate with terrorist.

This admin has never called the "soldiers" in Iraq soldiers, until now, this admin considered them insurgents/terrorist.(Big Difference) This admin has tossed the Geneva Convention out the window, but now that it will serve their needs they want to talk about the GC.

My understanding is 19 repug senators voted to give amnesty just last week, but i never heard much about on TEE Wee. I feel it was a trail balloon, to see how the public would take it.

I believe Sen. Levin is using this amnesty question just to show how hypocritical the republicans really are, and i also believe Sen. Levis would support amnesty if it would bring an end to the war in Iraq.

[endarkenment]

4. That would be the 'pandering' part.

As in holding a false position for short term political gain.

[RufusEarl]

5. Political gain

Perhaps a political gain, it could be seen that way. If this proposal was holding up the end of the war in Iraq, then i would be outraged. But it's not doing that imho, it is however shining a light on very hypocritical republicans.


And imho we should shin a light on hypocritical republicans whenever we get the chance, never i said never when peoples life are in danger. It's the republicans that have been playing politics with this war, and the dem's should let the american people know this.

[mrgorth]

7. Agreed

I like shining a light on the hypocrisy.

[AndyTiedye]

6. The Democrats In Congress Are Running Scared As Usual

They are all terrified of what Karl Rove could do to them if they defy the regime.
They have every reason to be scared of Rove. He has all of the NSA info at his disposal,
and the media will do whatever he wants.

[endarkenment]

8. Ok - I'll accept that.

But that does not excuse them from going after this issue. They could have, for example, not commented at all on the amnesty proposal and let the Republicans eat their own over this one.

[RufusEarl]

9. Eating their own

Before the repugs will start eating their own this information needs to get out to the public, i believe thats what Sen. Levin is doing. Before one can shine light on hypocrites, it must be realized first.