A wise man once called the US Senate "the place where charisma and charm go to die". Sounds good…but what about integrity?
On Monday, the Senate voted to discontinue debate on the three proposed non-binding resolutions opposing the war in Iraq. Let me say that again: they voted to NOT DEBATE any of three prospective resolutions that would express disapproval yet carry no legislative clout. They voted to avoid conversation; they voted to stick their collective heads in the sand and pretend that the conversations happening in homes, schools and workplaces across America isn't happening.
Blaming the entire Senate is not exactly fair, but I refuse to pin the fault exclusively on Republicans…even though 45 of the 49 GOP Senators voted against continued debate (bravo to Minnesota's Norm Coleman and Maine's Susan Collins for adhering to the will of the people despite pressure from party bosses; Florida's Mel Martinez and presidential hopeful John McCain were strategic no-shows). In contrast 47 of the 49 Democrat Senators voted to move forward with debate ( South Dakota's Tim Johnson remains in a hospital after his brain hemorrhage and Louisiana's Mary Landrieu honored a previous commitment in her state after it was clear her vote would not make a difference in the final tally). Vermont's Independent Bernie Sanders voted with the Democrats and – shock of shocks – Connecticut "Independent Democrat" Joe Lieberman voted with the Republicans.
Republicans (and Jo-mos) are to blame for their hypocritical votes, but my problem is the resolutions themselves. None of the three proposals had any legal teeth, and none were hard enough on Dubya's Folly. And here's the thing – Democrats seemed to be OK with that. Their harshest suggested "disapproval" of the Interloper's surge. One plan suggested benchmarks for the Iraqi government (even though that resolution's author, the absent McCain, admitted that there were no real consequences to not meeting those benchmarks). All agreed that the government would not cut off funding for troops already deployed, even if it withheld funds for a surge.
George W. Bush dug us a hole that we can't easily crawl out of, especially not with a measly non-binding Senate resolution. But that would still be a start. Don't we owe it to the 3,000+ American soldiers who have lost their lives in this unnecessary conflict? What about the hundreds of thousand of non-insurgent Iraqis who have been injured/displaced/killed due to our instigating this war?
Can't we all agree that what's happened should not have? How can we sit back and let the Interloper to compound his many mistakes by adding fuel ( i.e. American lives) to the fire? And where, Senate douchebags, do you get off voting to stop the debate?
4 comments:
At least you're standing up, unlike the weasels we have elected. Why aren't people taking to the streets to protest this illegal, made up war?
UM
Protesting is so *your* generation. My generation would rather bitch and moan, and hope someone else gets around to doing the inconvenient stuff we'd like to see done.
I personally think the resolutions were a terrible idea. The Republicans voted to close debate because the Democrats were only going to allow a vote on one resolution and not any others. The Republicans said if we can’t debate all of them, we won’t debate any of them.
You and I are on opposite ends of the political spectrum. I think we both agree that the Senate (Democrats, Republicans, and Independents) has forgotten how to do its job. Most Senators now are only worried about running for President, or how to appear to be doing something.
Andy - glad to have you here. Hopefully, this begins a new era of bipartisanship in PatRoW's comment space (if not on its posts).
I agree that most senators seem primarily concerned with their political futures, however, I have to disagree with your basic point. The vote in question was not on one of the three proposed resolutions; it was on whether or not to continue debate at all. Maybe the fact that no one (not me, presumably not you) liked the Warner-Levin resolution is evidence that it was a fair one; how then do you explain John Warner's vote against continuing to debate its merits on the Senate floor? His own fucking resolution...it makes no practical sense, but it was Senate business as usual.
Post a Comment