Tag: Escalation

Yesterday, I posted a diary asking help in formulating a response to an editorial printed in my local newspaper that slanders those who oppose Bush’s escalation.

I have written a draft of a response (quoted over the flip).  There were many things I wanted to talk about such as the fact the all three Iraq war veterans in Congress voted for the resolution, how the Iraq War took time, effort, troops, materiale, and attention away from the hunt for Osama, and so on.  However, I decided to keep in short (158 words) and focus only on the question of supporting the troops, hoping it will increase the chances of getting printed.

This letter is in response to Monday’s editorial by Cal Thomas, an article full of untruths, faulty logic, and distortion.  What I really want to address is Thomas’ main argument that those who oppose Bush’s plan to escalate the Iraq War by sending 20,000 more troops into Iraq do not support the troops.  In fact, quite the opposite is true.  The greatest test of one’s support for the troops is not how fervently one waves the flag or how quickly one gets behind whatever plan the President has, it’s making sure that troops are asked to risk and give their lives only when absolutely necessary and only when some good will come of it. 

So, those of us who oppose escalation support our troops by demanding that they not be sent into the crossfire of a civil war, knowing that past troop increases have not helped and that the President has no clear definition of what constitutes victory.

I am compiling a list of bills introduced in the 110th Congress dealing with ending, lessening, or keeping at the status quo, American involvement in Iraq. 

H.Con.Res.23: Offered by Dennis Kucinich
Expresses the sense of the Congress that troops not be escalated (note the use of the word “escalated”) in Iraq.  I may be wrong, but this appears to be a non-binding resolution.  Judging from the compartively high number of cosponsors and the fact that Lynch is a cosponsor, it appears this may become a “consensus” piece of legislation, basically hot air but no substance.  It has 21 cosponsors as of 12:28 PM EST on January 11: 

Rep Capuano, Michael E. [MA-8] | Rep Carson, Julia [IN-7] | Rep Clay, Wm. Lacy [MO-1] | Rep Conyers, John, Jr. [MI-14]| Rep Cummings, Elijah E. [MD-7] | Rep Davis, Danny K. [IL-7] | Rep DeFazio, Peter A. [OR-4] | Rep Fattah, Chaka [PA-2] | Rep Grijalva, Raul M. [AZ-7] | Rep Holt, Rush D. [NJ-12] | Rep Jackson, Jesse L., Jr. [IL-2] | Rep Johnson, Henry C. “Hank,” Jr. [GA-4] | Rep Kilpatrick, Carolyn C. [MI-13] | Rep Lee, Barbara [CA-9] | Rep Lynch, Stephen F. [MA-9] | Rep Moore, Gwen [WI-4] | Rep Serrano, Jose E. [NY-16] | Rep Stark, Fortney Pete [CA-13] | Rep Watson, Diane E. [CA-33] | Rep Woolsey, Lynn C. [CA-6] | Rep Wu, David [OR-1]

H.R.353: Offered by Edward Markey
This one prohibits the use of funds for any escalation. Text of it is currently unavailable.  It has nine cosponsors as of 12:36 PM EDT:

Rep Abercrombie, Neil [HI-1] | Rep DeFazio, Peter A. [OR-4] | Rep Delahunt, William D. [MA-10] | Rep DeLauro, Rosa L. [CT-3] | Rep Grijalva, Raul M. [AZ-7] | Rep Hinchey, Maurice D. [NY-22] | Rep McDermott, Jim [WA-7] | Rep McGovern, James P. [MA-3] | Rep Meehan, Martin T. [MA-5]

S.233: Offered by Edward Kennedy
Appears to be very similar to the Markey bill (it’s probable, considering the sponsors are from the same state, that they are intended to be companion bills).  It prohibits funds for any escalation.  Text is currently not available.  It has six cosponsors as of 12:45 PM EST:

Sen Boxer, Barbara [CA] | Sen Harkin, Tom [IA] | Sen Kerry, John F. [MA] | Sen Leahy, Patrick J. [VT] | Sen Menendez, Robert [NJ] | Sen Sanders, Bernard [VT]

S.121: Offered by Russell Feingold
Calls for the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq.  Text is currently not available.  There is one cosponsor as of 12:50 PM EST:

Sen Boxer, Barbara [CA]

Some things jump out.  First, there appears to be no consensus on what to do.  We have three strategies in four bills.  One states disapproval of the escalation, another bars funding, and a fourth says leave.  The first seems to tantamount to huffing and puffing.  The second sounds better but is also a major political liability.  I could just see the ads saying that Democrats want to leave our troops in the cold.  The third is the best strategy, in my opinion, but there are only two Senators currently supporting it.

Second, it appears that most of our prospective presidential candidates are willing to go out on a limb.  Only Kerry is willing to do something.  Obama, Clinton, Dodd, and Biden are conspicuously silent. 

Third, this seems to be a Democratic effort.  Even though some Republicans, for example, Rep. Walter Jones of North Carolina and Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, have come out against the war, they are absent.  It would appear that many in the Republican Party are a) out of touch with reality and the American and still supporting the war or b) are only publicly condemning the war to save their own asses but not won’t do anything about it.

Fourth, it seems many of the “centrists” are spinless and out of touch as ever.