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.