Antiwar Republicans

Are there any antiwar Republicans? How many of us vote the party line without doing any research and thinking?

From Tribute to Seven Antiwar Republicans by couturma:

To celebrate the sixth year of the never-ending conflict in Mess-o-Potamia, this writer believes that the time has come to take a look back at the original Iraq War Resolution that Congress passed in 2002.

Specifically, I want to focus on seven courageous Republicans who bucked their party and voted “nay” on giving President George W. Bush a blank check to take the country to war against the regime of Saddam Hussein.

The greatest irony is that nearly half of these Republicans were voted out of office in the 2006 midterm elections, in part because of public dissatisfaction with the war they had opposed from the very beginning.

Because of the highly misleading Left/Right debate that rages in the mainstream media and talk radio, many Americans may not even be aware that ANY Republicans were against the Iraq War from the get-go. After all, everyone knows that Democrats are antiwar and Republicans are pro-war.

Although all of the members of Congress who voted “nay” on taking the U.S. into what has turned out to be an unnecessary and tragic conflict deserve kudos – regardless of party – it can be argued that those Republicans who did so paid a heavier price than their Democratic and Independent counterparts. To be a politician of any stripe and vote against the war resolution may not have been popular with many Americans at the time, but to be a Republican and vote against the will of your party – not to mention a president who happens to lead that party – was nothing short of heresy.

Here is the first comment to Tribute to Seven Antiwar Republicans by couturma:

rwahrens on July 29 2008 15:06:12
Besides not joining in on any "celebration" of the sixth year of any war, I also take umbrage on your characterization of the war as "unnecessary". "Tragic" fits any war, as that human activity is tragic by any description.

I am sure that most of the Iraqi population do not see the war as unnecessary, but rather as unmanaged or mismanaged, even as deliberately so. But I would say that most of them are glad to be rid of Saddam and his henchmen, especially that criminally insane son of his.

One can argue that it was badly timed, or that Bush was less than honest in his characterization for the immediacy of the need for it, as well as his excuses for doing it, but I will always assert that sooner or later, Saddam Hussein would have stepped over that line again and made it necessary. He was just that crazy.

I do not celebrate people being against war for the sake of being against it. One can oppose the idea of war itself, yet still realize the fact that it can be not only unavoidable, but at times better than the alternatives. Folks that oppose war, always, unequivocally, and without thinking, are doing so out of idealism, which is blind at best.

Of course, if these Republicans opposed that war out of an honest disagreement with Bush & Co. about the immediate timing of the war, or the need for it, as a mental exercise of opinion and not plain idealism, they do truly deserve kudos, for that is the hardest kind of thing to stick with of all.

I am singling out this comment because it is typical of much that I read and hear that basically leaves me shaking my head in wonder. Obviously the writer is no pacifist and seems to hold some animosity for those that are.

Why is he offended that the Iraq War was characterized as “unnecessary”? Obviously, he believes that it was necessary, but to be offended by someone who thinks the opposite seems like an overreaction and just plain weird. He then seems to imply that we must find the means to justify some wars as necessary, while at the same time acknowledging that all wars are tragic. Does this make sense? What sane person seeks tragedy? When does it become necessary to kill other people? Shouldn’t this be the last thing we consider doing?

The second paragraph is pure speculation without any facts at all to back it up. Yet, he is “sure that most of the Iraqi population do not see the war as unnecessary.” Anyone can win an argument if he is allowed to make up his own facts.

The third paragraph takes this non-use of facts to yet another level. Now he uses “facts” from the future. Saddam Hussein might do something bad in the future so let’s punish him for it now. Is this how justice is supposed to work? My neighbor might shoot me tomorrow so I better have the police arrest him today. The actual facts are that the United States broke international law by being the aggressor and actually invading, not one, but two countries.

As for the fourth paragraph, let’s just change one word.

I do not celebrate people being against murder for the sake of being against it. One can oppose the idea of murder itself, yet still realize the fact that it can be not only unavoidable, but at times better than the alternatives. Folks that oppose murder, always, unequivocally, and without thinking, are doing so out of idealism, which is blind at best.

Does this make any sense to you?

The last paragraph is simply more of the same. If you oppose war unequivocally then I suppose you are some sort of sap, and not worthy of the kudos of an illogical person who likes to make up his own facts, and also likes to justify killing people.

Why am I picking on this comment and the person that wrote it? Because I am tired of people pretending that what they say or write makes sense, when it actually makes no sense at all. If it were only this commenter doing this it would not matter to me very much. It becomes problematic when this kind of thinking is the same “logic” that is used by nearly every journalist, reporter, and politician in the United States. This “logic” (along with a strong dose of fear) was used by the Bush Administration to move the entire United States further away from the side of the righteous and just.

Self-defense is the only acceptable justification for murder. Self-defense is also the only acceptable justification for war.

Some Of Us Have Known This All Along

The Senate is clumsy and slow. They do much investigating after the fact and take no action before and during many situations. Some things are just impossible to fix after the fact. Bartelby.com gives the meaning of “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure” as “A little precaution before a crisis occurs is preferable to a lot of fixing up afterward.” Ironically this is what Bush claimed he was doing by invading Iraq, but he was lying about the reasons for the invasion. Many Americans knew that Bush was lying about Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda all along. Why didn’t the Senate?

The Senate is clumsy and slow. This is a good thing. It is how it was set up to be. The Senate did not do its job when they abdicated their authority to declare war by passing the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002. The time for the Senate to investigate and deliberate about all of this should have been before the invasion. Maybe then it would have never happened and more than 4000 Americans would still be alive. Instead they destroyed one of the main principles of our Republic and handed all authority over to one man.

From Senate report slams Bush over prewar intelligence:

The Bush administration misused intelligence to build a case for the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, the Senate Intelligence Committee said in a report issued Thursday.

The White House exploited its ability to declassify intelligence selectively to bolster its case for war, the committee chairman, Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV, D-West Virginia, said in the report.

Senior officials disclosed and discussed sensitive intelligence reports that supported the administration's policy objectives and kept out of public discourse information that did not, he said.

The report also found that the administration misled the American people about contacts between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda.

Read the rest here.

There is more at talkingpointsmemo.com. They have asked readers to look through the Senate intel committee's report on pre-war intelligence on Iraq and offer comments. My favorite so far is from blogenfreude:

No one could have predicted that an incurious buffoon and a bloodthirsty sociopath would lie to further their War to Resubjugate Brown People and line their friends' pockets.

Impeachment is long overdue. It is one way the Senate could repair some of the damage it has done.

Requiescat In Pace, Checks And Balances

What happens in the United States when the system of checks and balances fails? Apparently, nothing happens.

If both the President and the Congress violate the United States Constitution, shouldn’t something be done about it? Apparently not.

Isn’t the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002, a law passed by the United States Congress in October 2002 unconstitutional? The Constitution states that “Congress shall have power to declare war.” It does not say that the President shall have power to declare war. How is it possible that Congress has written a law that goes against the Constitution? Doesn’t that require an amendment?

Who could have imagined that all three branches of the Federal government would fail us by violating one of the main purposes of our Constitution? This is why the American Revolution was fought. To get us away from the rule of kings. Now look at where we are. All hail King George. All hail King Barack, or King John, or King Hillary. Let’s remember that both John McCain and Hillary Clinton voted against the Constitution and for monarchy when they voted aye in 2002.

It’s too bad that there isn’t a three strikes and you’re out law concerning the Federal Government. All three branches have failed us, and they all should be tossed out of the game. First Congress passes an unconstitutional law, then the President abides by it, and then the Courts uphold it. And the Constitution is flushed down the toilet.

Throw the bums out!