DUers: what should congress do about the war against Iraq?

[mike_c]

Those of us that are utterly opposed to the war against Iraq have been berated as a small minority who "don't understand" the constraints Congress is working under or the parliamentary process. My personal belief is that the war against Iraq is a crime against humanity and that NO political considerations overshadow our responsibility to-- first and foremost-- stop the war crime in progress.

Are we really such a minority here?

[yorgatron]

1. we should be doing what Clinton did in Bosnia.

[mike_c]

2. please vote AND recommend....

I'd like to see the results of this poll visible for the next day at least.

[tbyg52]

4. You got it. nt

[scarletwoman]

3. I support you putting up this poll -- but isn't calling the Iraq Occupation a "war" just furthering

the lies and distortions of bushco?

Hope this doesn't come across nit-picky, I don't mean it to be. It just seems that one the important aspects of the fight to get us out of Iraq is how language and framing has been used from the very beginning to sell this illegal invasion and occupation to the people of the U.S.

Shouldn't we be calling what the U.S. is doing in Iraq by its real name?

sw

[mike_c]

6. truthfull, I prefer the term "crime against humanity..."

...but I do see your point. I'm conflicted by the reality of our presence in Iraq and its objectives. If the objective was simply to change the Iraqi regime then our presence now is nothing more than a garrison occupation at the behest of a puppet gov't. On the other hand, if our real objective is to control access to Iraq's natural resources and to dominate the middle east from a secure military position in Iraq, that objective has not been achieved, so by definition we still "at war" with the people who oppose U.S. hegemony there.

[scarletwoman]

8. Yeah, "Crime Against Humanity" is definitely the most apt.

...if our real objective is to control access to Iraq's natural resources and to dominate the middle east from a secure military position in Iraq, that objective has not been achieved, so by definition we still "at war" with the people who oppose U.S. hegemony there.

Well put. I'll concede your point, even though I guess I see the latter as simply an extension of invasion and occupation.

What the U.S. is really making "war" on, is the freedom of ALL the world's people to live in their own sovereign nations without interference. It's a "war" that's gone on for a very long time now...

sw

[Labors of Hercules]

7. We went in with guns and tanks and rolled all over their country...

It was a horrible, unneccessary and shitty thing to wage unjustified war against a Nation that didn't attack us, but we did wage war. To call it anything less is an insult to the people we killed.

[scarletwoman]

9. "To call it anything less is an insult to the people we killed."

I don't know, is being killed in an "Illegal invasion and occupation" any MORE of an insult than, you know, just the fact that they were KILLED?

But if "war" is the preferred term, then fine. I honestly just wanted to raise a question, not get into an argument. I consider my question answered and am happy to leave it at that.

Peace,
sw

[Labors of Hercules]

18. Sorry, didn't mean to be argumentative,

It's just that I'm grappling with the fact that war is the worst thing we can do to each other, but as long as it's called a "WAR" it's perceived as okay or justified. Almost like the atrocity of what war really means is lost... As soon as Shrub labelled this hooliganism a "War on Terror", so many people (even Democrats) bowed their heads and said, yeah, guess we've got no choice, we're at war.

someone has to choose to make two parties "at war", and the fact that it was us who decided to be at war with Iraq is just horrible to me.

Peace and understanding,

CRW

[baldguy]

5. Ending the war in Iraq is a moral imperative.

Future generations - our children - will judge us our choice to or not, and our success or failure at doing so. Bush's policies not only have no objective of ending the war but expand it; they empower our enemies and drive away our friends. Removing this usurper and his supporters from power is a second moral imperative.

But I'm a realist, which means I'm not an optimist. This Congress will do nothing, the war will continue, Bush will remain in power - and our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren will curse us for allowing this insanity to continue. Because they are the ones who'll have to deal with the consequences of the world we've created.

[cali]

10. Why I won't vote in this poll

It's not an honest device to get DU opinion registered. What's the by any means possible part of the question for? You know damn well the votes aren't there to cut funding. Are you suggesting that Pelosi should threaten or blackmail members of the dem caucus?

[mike_c]

11. that's why the second choice is there....

You are free, of course to vote or not vote as you see fit. I really tried to construct the poll as honestly as possible. My view is that the first choice represents congress doing WHATEVER IT TAKES to end the war, even if it is not popular and even if it is politically risky. I've made no suggestions about specific mechanisms for doing so. The second choice represents putting political prudence first. I've attached no value judgments to either choice.

[cali]

13. Except that the second choice

is also unclear. I believe that if the dems had put forth Lee's proposed bill, they would have lost hugely and damaged any opportunity to end the war sooner. And political damage is also mirrored by damage to the cause of ending the war. Futile gestures advance nothing.

[mike_c]

14. then it seems to me that the second choice is the appropriate one...

...to match your views, but that is up to you, of course.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

12. Our part is to keep the pressure on the politicians to do something substantial.

Rather than indulging in the "politics as usual" of passing meaningless and hollow bills that accomplish nothing.

[TreasonousBastard]

15. False choices-- Congress can't stop the war by itrself...

at this point.

All it can do is push to find a way to stop it, or reduce its consequences.

[mike_c]

16. I disagree-- congress can stop the war, or at least force Bush to stop it...

...which amounts to the same thing. If congress has no authority to stop the war, then their spending authority amounts to nothing more than a rubber stamp for continuing it. That is nonsensical.

[TreasonousBastard]

21. It may sound nonsensical, but just what...

would be the mechanism for stopping the war?

Pulling the specific funding would just allow Shrub, as Commander-in-Chief, to reallocate the Pentagon budget, causing more trouble all over. Besides, they have to give him tons of money to evacuate everyone, and he could use that to continue the war. Reconstruction money, black bag operations... All sorts of tricks they can pull.

Repealing the original vote to allow him to go to war might possibly work, but there are all sorts of legal and practical hassles there. It would still mean funding the "stopping" of the war, and he could still simply ignore Congress and find a way to stay there.

There's just no easy way out of this mess until a White House wants us out.

Look back to Viet Nam and Korea, even more unpopular than this one, and what it took to get us out.

[mike_c]

23. what it took to get us out of Vietnam...

...was congressional resolve to stop funding the war.

My suggested mechanism for stopping the Iraq war would be to first, appropriate no further money for any reason except to fund specific pentagon withdrawal plans. Second, repeal the IWR. At the very best, that would place authority for continued operations in Iraq onto the War Powers Resolution, which puts a time limit of 60 days on any further operations. That would effectively force Bush to withdraw or precipitate a constitutional crisis.

Yes, there is some risk in the latter course, but it avoids complicity for the sake of political risk management.

[cali]

24. It took years and repeated legislative

efforts to get Congress to the point where they defunded the Vietnam war.

[mike_c]

26. so why should we repeat all those same mistakes this time?

eom

[cali]

30. Mike, if we had a caucus comprised of all progressives

we could get out immediately. But we don't. Anymore than we did then. You're in education, I believe. Surely you know how difficult it is to "get to yes", to build concensus. In the best of all possible worlds, all our legislators would recognize what an evil, destructive and illegal endeavor this war is.

That's not the world we live in.

[mike_c]

17. I'm really quite surprised that no one has voted for choice #2...

...given the vocal arguments that have been made in the last 24 hrs or so about how any course other than the pro-war appropriations bill would have been politically risky.

[cali]

19. It's way over simplified and I suspect

that many people are, like me, not interested in voting in what amounts to a push poll. You'll get the people who agree with you voting; what you won't get, is an accurate measure of DU opinion on this subject.

[mike_c]

20. how would you have phrased the choices instead...?

Please-- I tried to make them as neutral as I could. Would you suggest some alternatives? It's too late to edit the poll now but perhaps we can put up another.

[cali]

22. Sure.

Perhaps if you simply asked: Do you support the Supplemental the dems passed yesterday? with the following choices.

Yes. I think it was a good piece of legislation.

Yes. It's imperfect, but it's a start, and the dems didn't have the votes to pass anything more stringent.

No. It didn't go far enough. Even if they didn't have the votes, they should have introduced legislation that completely defunded the war, and demanded the troops be out of Iraq within 90 days.

No. They should have just ignored the funding request.

Something along those lines.

[mike_c]

25. how about this....

That's actually a different poll than the one I had in mind-- I wasn't addressing just the appropriations bill, but I think your suggestion is a good one for another poll. Of course, you could just put it up as is, and I'd be honored to vote in it, but if I might suggest a that we collaborate, how about some slight changes to the wording:

Do you support the Supplemental war funding the dems passed yesterday?

Yes. I think it was a good piece of legislation.

Yes. It's imperfect, but it's a start, and attempting anything more stringent would have been too risky.

No. They should have attached more conditions to the funding appropriation to limit how the money is spent.

No. It didn't go far enough. They should have introduced legislation that provided funds only for the most rapid withdrawal possible.

No. They should have just ignored the funding request.

I've highlighted my suggested changes. I think the language is more neutral in most cases, and I added #3 because I think an intermediate position between #2 and #4 is needed. What do you think?

[cali]

28. I think it's pretty good except

for number 2. You could change it or you could give folks another option, like:

Yes, it's imperfect, but attempting anything more stringent would have failed and actually damaged attempts to rein in bush.

as for 3, you could just as easily have written: Yes, but they should have attached more conditions to the funding appropriation to limit how the money was spent, and they should have substantially shortened the timeline for withdrawal.

I actually think that the more choice you give people, the more accurate the results will be.

[mike_c]

29. sounds good...

I'll post the poll with a short note that you and I collaborated on it.

[cali]

32. Thanks, Mike.

I enjoyed working on this with you.

[Jcrowley]

27. A couple caveats

The first is that the ending of "The War" must be a part of a larger project to end US Militarism and slash the Military budget. If that does not occur there will only more and more "Wars" no matter which letter is in control of Congress. That isn't difficult to corroborate as we examine the last 60+ years.

Secondly I must reiterate:
As relates to the US "involvement" in Iraq there is a serious error in the language being used in Congress and faithfully parroted in the US media and following from that a grave misunderstanding about what went down today, what exactly was voted on and more importantly what was entirely omitted.

As was first put forth by the Bush adminstration and drummed into Americans heads via the corporate media the term that folks came to use to describe the pending invasion into the energy rich region of the Middle East "War on Iraq" and it is the same term used erroneously as the occupation grinds on. There is little questioning of this framework within the accepted political dialogue in Congress or amongst the pundits.

There is a small problem with that term that leads to a great deal of confusion. It is quite simply a lie. There is no "War on Iraq" nor has there ever been one.

There was an illegal invasion.

There is an illegal occupation.

There is a concentrated mass slaughter the likes of which the planet has not seen in decades.

There are massive amounts of militaristic corporate embezzlement.

And, lastly, there is a long list of war crimes.

Now what was voted on today when presented in these terms, which more accurately reflects the recent history and the everyday reality of the Iraqi people and more accurately represents the way the rest of the world sees the US invasion and occupation, may bring us to a very different set of conclusions about the validity of Pelosi's Plan. It certainly begs the question, "Why is it that the true nature of the United States ongoing atrocities in Iraq is not given the open debate it deserves?"

In the numerous speeches and discussions regarding this bill where was/is the term "War Crime?"

So tell me again how is this $124 billion bill going to stop the violence being visited upon the Iraqi people?

This is a bill that merely gives Bush over $100 billion to continue "The War", with no real strings attached. It gives him a free hand to attack Iran. There are scores of loopholes in it which would allow troops to remain in Iraq past Sept 2008; all Bush needs to do is claim the troops are there not for "combat" but rather for other purposes (such as fighting Al Qaeda, or training Iraqi troops, or guarding US installations, & or other task descriptions which are just word games to avoid calling it "combat").

The only thing in it that is a "step" towards ending "The War" is vague toothless language aiming at a pullout of combat troops by Aug 31, 2008.

This bill is not a step towards ending "The War." It's just a way that allows for some posturing as critics of "The War" until the 2008 elections, even while their actual votes support & fund "The War." It imposes no real restrictions on Bush, and is in practice no different than what he himself would most like.

And of course K&R

[cali]

31. Spoken with the zeal of

the very young. I'm not knocking youth, but what you're demanding is simply impossible given the diverse makeup of the dem caucus and the resolute opposition of the repubs.

[Jcrowley]

33. Thanks for the compliment

though I suspect you didn't mean it that way.

I wish I still got carded but I'm afraid I've sprouted a few gray hairs. I guess that makes me wise. Though I've never equated age with wisdom it has become a convenient lie as I get on in years. ;)

Maybe I should run for office. :rofl:

[Jcrowley]

34. kicking