Monday, December 05, 2011

Elected Democrats were culpable for the Iraq War also

I'm not in the mood for stupid this morning. I can't imagine anything worse than parading your stupidity before the nation unless it's intentionally trying to mislead. David C. Kent is guilty of one of the two. In a very bad letter to the editor he says he wants you to know what the Bush administration did (Bully Boy Bush). "The Supreme Court stopped a legal recount and appointed a president," huffs Kent. Uh, no, that happened during the Clinton administration. Your administration doesn't start until you are sworn in. When you're that ignorant maybe you should stop writing letters and instead sign up for that online degree you've been dreaming of? Or maybe you already have.

But what concerns us the most is this little lie, "The administration illegally invaded a country that posed no threat to the United States at all."

The US government is responsible for the Iraq War. That's the Supreme Court which refused to hear a challenge to the war and that's certainly the Democrats who didn't do a damn thing.

In October 2002, when the Iraq War authorization was voted on in Congress, there were 221 Republicans in the House and 212 Democrats. That's more than enough to bury the vote in the House and obstruct the rush to war. At the same time, the Democrats controlled the Senate -- 50 seats to the Republicans 49 (1 "Independent").

The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 won 297 votes -- 82 of those were Democrats. In the Senate, 29 Democratic senators voted for it (21 against). The Democratic Party spokespeople would claim -- publicly, they didn't try to hide this -- that they had to show support for the war or they'd lose seats in Congress.

Maybe that strikes you as 'good' strategy. I say it makes you guilty as hell.

After that vote, Americans would vote (November 2002) and, in the House, the Democrats would retain 204 seats and the Republicans would hold 229. (2 "Independents" would drop to 1 following the 2002 elections.) The Senate would see Republicans take control of the Senate with 51 seats while the Dems had 48 (1 independent).

Doesn't look like Dems rushing to agree with Republicans -- especially those Dems considered 'serious' and invited on the Sunday network chat & chews -- resulted in much besides the deaths of probably 2 million Iraqis.

Elizabeth Edwards always maintained that John Edwards, then in the Senate, voted as he did because he thought it was 'stalling' the rush to war by forcing the US to get a resolution from the UN (if so, that was stupid, the US never got that second resolution).

In 2004, the Democratic Party's presidential ticket was John Kerry and John Edwards -- two US senators who both voted for the authorization of war on Iraq.

The Democratic Party talking point was that the Iraq War had taken the US 'eye' off the fight in Afghanistan, it was a distraction. Really, a distraction? That's the problem with the Iraq War, it's a distraction? I don't think the country of orphans and widows feels that their lives these 8 years have been a 'distraction.'

Not only did the country go to war but when a serious impeach challenge was being mounted, who showed up to piss on it and insist it would hurt Democrats chances in the 2004 elections? 'Liberal' John Podesta, of the Center for American Progress, was there griping, cursing and screaming March 13, 2003. You can ask John Conyers -- who was leading the effort -- or Francis Boyle or Ramsey Clark or any number of participants. It took place March 13, 2003 in DC and was seriously explored in an attempt to prevent the Iraq War. Whore John Podesta came in arguing that (he wasn't the only whore) and the issue was forever buried. As Francis Boyle has stated publicly about after the war started, "All they had to do was just do nothing and Bush would have run out of money." (He explained that on KPFA's Guns & Butter to Bonnie Faulkner on March 28, 2007, see that day's snapshot.) What's he talking about? The war required money. They didn't have to vote for it. At any point, had they refused to support the continued financing of the war (Barack, Hillary and Joe repeatedly voted for the continued funding of the war), that would have ended it. Mike Gravel would make this point repeatedly in 2007 while seeking the Democratic Party nomination. When this point began to get traction, Gravel began disappearing from the media radar.

In 2006, Nancy Pelosi and other Dems told the American people, "Give us just one house of Congress and we'll end the Iraq War." In the November 2006 elections, they were given control of both houses of Congress. The war did not end. To the San Francisco Chronicle editorial board, in 2008, Nancy put the blame for that on Harry Reid, stating that she had her house in order; however, the Senate Majority Leader didn't have his people in line.

That argument really doesn't play. That's because Nancy Pelosi herself publicly made the "give us one house" proposal. So when she made it, she was saying, "If you give us the House [or the Senate], we can end the war." Meaning she expected that if she became House Speaker (which she did), that she would be at war with a Republican controlled Senate. But she publicly said she'd still be able to end the Iraq War, regardless of what the Senate tried to do.

In the November 2008 elections, Dems continued their control of the House and Senate but also won the White House. Not only did the Iraq War not end in January 2009 when people were sworn in but since Barack declared combat 'over' (August 31, 2010), 68 US service members have died from that war. (At least. That number doesn't count the veterans who may have taken their own lives -- or active service members -- after serving in Iraq but were unable to get the treatment they needed.)

We could go on and on. But at this late date, the Iraq War cannot be pinned solely on the Republicans. The Democrats could have stopped it in 2002, in 2003 (via impeachment), at any point after by refusing to continue to fund the illegal war, in January 2007 when, after being sworn in, they controlled both house of Congres . . . And on and on and on.

I'm still sick. I'm going to try to do another entry this morning. No promises though. (There will be a snapshot -- probably around 9:00 pm EST, 8:00 pm Central, 6:00 pm Pacific.)

On this week's Law and Disorder Radio -- a weekly hour long program that airs Monday mornings at 9:00 a.m. EST on WBAI and around the country throughout the week, hosted by attorneys Heidi Boghosian, Michael S. Smith and Michael Ratner (Center for Constitutional Rights) -- they continue to explore Occupy Wall Street. "Take it up with, Les, he's the one who's frigid." (Name the movie.) And this is from Michael Ratner's "Blame Obama First -- Then Congress for Not Ending Guantanamo and Its Underlying Practices" (Just Left):

Both Bush and Obama have claimed the right to kill and capture alleged terrorists anywhere in the world or hold them in military detention indefinitely—ie Guantanamo.
In their view the world is a battlefield—not just Afghanistan and Iraq.
Their claim is that alleged terrorists –at least those related to al Qaeda, Taliban and associated forces (whatever that means) are at war with the United States and that the US can make war on them which includes capturing them and holding them forever without trial—no matter where they are: Yemen, Somalia, United Kingdom, South America or anywhere.
The determination of whom to capture and/or kill is made by the President without any court.
Bush and Obama have always claimed that US citizens can be so treated as well—so that is why under Obama we saw the killing of an American citizen by a drone in Yemen—al-alwaki.
Both Presidents have also acted as if they can kill and capture alleged terrorists that have no relationship to 9/11—the new law confirms this practice.

The e-mail address for this site is

law and disorder radio
michael s. smith
heidi boghosian
michael ratner