And it will be darned near impossible for anything to beat this - today or any other day:
(highlighting of lines that made me cheer - by Sandy)
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth).
Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Speaker, 4 years ago I was just like most other Americans, trying to evaluate the President's plan to invade Iraq. Unlike most Americans, I was writing a newspaper column and was expected to take a public position on such a national policy. But like most Americans, I was unburdened by the classified and faulty intelligence provided to Members of Congress.
I concluded and wrote that the claims made to justify the American invasion of Iraq were baseless, that there were no weapons of mass destruction, that Iraq posed no immediate threat to the United States, that Saddam Hussein was not in any way connected to the 9/11 attacks, and finally that Iraq was not a safe harbor for al Qaeda.
I also concluded and wrote that we were rushing into Iraq with no idea of what we would do after the Iraqi regime fell, and also that we had no plan for getting out. The point of all of this reminiscing is not to show that I was so smart, nor is it to say that I told you so.
Four years later, as our men and women are still dying in Iraq, the American people know everything there is to know about the situation there. We know as much if not more than the President of the United States. And our ideas about the conflict are just as valid.
That is why this resolution is so important and this debate so significant. Tomorrow we will be voting on what may be only a nonbinding resolution, but it is a resounding and unequivocal expression of the National will. This is not simply a group of Congressmen and women explaining their votes. It is the echo of an overwhelming majority of Americans who are demanding a new direction in Iraq.
It is the sound of scores of people like me who were sent here by citizens to turn the ship of state around. During this momentous debate, we have heard from some on the other side of the aisle that this resolution and the discussion we are having somehow undermine our national interest.
I believe they are selling this institution short. We are displaying for the world what a government of the people, by the people and for the people truly looks like. What we are doing here this week speaks far more clearly and loudly than our bullets and our rockets and even our dollars. When the United States Government so clearly and dramatically reflects the will of its citizens, we may not shock the world, but we make it watch in awe.
James Madison wrote that the role of Congress is to expand and refine the public view. He accurately perceived that on most issues Americans assume that their representatives will consider their opinions and work out the details. In the present situation, I believe the American people are shouting at us that it is time to get our men and women out of harm's way in Iraq.
I will cast my vote not simply to oppose the President's escalation, but as a statement that this Congress will no longer abdicate its responsibility to expand and refine the public view.
Mr. Speaker, today I am as confident about my position as I was 4 years ago. I am confident because I have listened to those who oppose this resolution. I hear only disingenuous rhetoric. The other side accuses us of trying to micromanage the Iraqi conflict, then says we should have our own plan.
They say that we are dishonoring our fallen heroes, but then offer no strategy for honoring them other than to simply send more brave soldiers in their place. They continue to talk about victory and defeat, while virtually everyone agrees that we could never identify or define either.
They say this resolution is an empty political gesture, and then say it is tantamount to surrender. What they do not give us, and more importantly what the President of the United States has not given us, are any reasons to believe that we are succeeding in Iraq, that the current plans increase the odds of our success, that we are any closer to eliminating the threat of terrorism, or finally that the United States is enhancing its image around the world as the beacon of freedom.
We who support this resolution honor and respect our troops. We care deeply about the international reputation of our country. We are unequivocally committed to our Nation's security, and we desperately want America to succeed. By supporting this resolution, we undeniably succeed, because we honor our Nation and its citizens who have entrusted us with the simple, but grave, responsibility to listen to them.
Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri).
(Have I mentioned yet today how much I respect and appreciate John Yarmuth?)
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 44
After years of pre-invasion propaganda about the threat from Iraq as "imminent," "immediate," "urgent," "serious," "real," and "dangerous," the Administration fell into line with the studied message of "grave and gathering." It was not. Crippled by 10 years of sanctions, Iraq had one of the weakest militaries and economies in the region when the U.S. attacked them. Iraq had not planned, threatened, or even been capable of any serious attack on the United States or its allies outside of its own borders. Confirmed post-invasion, this view was also supported by numerous pre-war reports by our government, our allies, and private think tanks, all ignored or down-played by the Administration and its friends in corporate media. Bush created a special propaganda team to invent justifications for invading Iraq (Office of Special Plans), but "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy" of invading Iraq no matter what, according to official documents of our closest ally, the British.
(2) Iraq had "weapons of mass destruction" programs after the early 1990s
This lie still has legs in Fox News-land, but has suffered a serious blow with the publication of the government's official post-invasion investigation (Kay/Duelfer report). It was also asserted to be false or highly unlikely pre-invasion by a high ranking Iraqi defector, official weapons inspectors, and (again) numerous pre-war investigations from diverse knowledgeable sources, even from the CIA. Bush continued this lie for a while after the invasion nevertheless, falsely asserting on May 29, 2003 that we had "found the weapons of mass destruction." "Niger uranium," "enrichment tubes," "mobile weapons labs," leading to "mushroom clouds over American cities" -- years of lies have now been completely discredited.
Related to this, "Saddam threw out the weapons inspectors" is still bandied about despite the fact that we "withdrew" inspectors (twice) so we could bomb Iraq, even after inspectors reported that Iraq was "fundamentally disarmed." No evidence was ever found of a continuation of the WMD programs (that we had helped Iraq build up in the 1980s) after the 1991 Gulf War and the UN-mandated disarmament program. Nevertheless, some of the weapons that had been secured by inspectors in the early 1990s, and untouched by the Iraqi government since, were left unguarded by "coalition troops" after the invasion and were then stolen by parties unknown -- showing our real concern over this false pretense.
(3) Iraq had "ties to Al Qaeda" and 9/11
Once believed by a majority of Americans -- due to years propaganda, general ignorance, and nationalist war hysteria -- this absurdity ignored Bin Laden's stated disdain ("apostate," "infidel") for Saddam Hussein and the secular Iraqi government and the complete lack of verifiable evidence for any connection. Most associated with Cheney ("over-whelming evidence there was a connection"), this lie was also put in play by Bush, Powell, and others, usually by strong but non-definitive terms for the "sinister nexus," like "harboring," "dealing with," and "aids and protects." In fact, the "terrorist training camps" referred to pre-invasion by Bush and Powell were in U.S.-protected Kurdish areas of northern Iraq where "Saddam" was forbidden to intervene, were led by Abu Musab Al Zarqawi who had fought on the U.S. side in the 1980s against the Soviets in Afghanistan, and were allowed to operate without U.S. harassment for years (the Bush White House even vetoing three different Pentagon plans to take them out) until well past the initial stage of the 2003 U.S. invasion.
(4) Our invasion of Iraq was to support "Security Council resolutions"
Bush claimed that he was invading Iraq to enforce UN Security Council (UNSC) resolutions and that the UN's reluctance to endorse his invasion risked making the institution "irrelevant." Besides the contrary logic of "do what we want or you're irrelevant," the charge that Iraq was then violating resolutions on WMD was dubious, if not completely false. Likewise, the charge that resolutions were violated by Iraq's firing on U.S.-British planes over the "no-fly zones" (aircraft that regularly killed civilians throughout the previous decade) was also false and was rebuffed by the UN's secretary-general and members of the Security Council.
Powell's and Bush's presentations of detailed lies to the UN failed to convince the UNSC that invading Iraq was justified (despite U.S. bribes, arm twisting, and spying on delegations to the UNSC), a lack of approval which made our subsequent invasion explicitly illegal under the UN Charter, under international law as agreed to by the U.S. through treaty (and hence also illegal under U.S. law), and under war crimes conventions that describe such aggressive war as the "supreme crime." Finally, dozens of UNSC resolutions have been and continue to be violated, many by U.S. allies such as Israel and Turkey, but the lawful decision of enforcing them with military attack is not left to individual states, but the UNSC.
(5) Our invasion of Iraq was to "promote democracy"
The "supporting democracy" argument achieved primacy after the WMD and Al Qaeda-link lies were exposed, but are belied by post-invasion history. It took blackmail to force us into even planning elections in a somewhat timely manner. Occupation "administrator" Bremer had initially promised only U.S.-appointed councils, and then elections in some indefinite form two-to-five years or so down the road. However, during massive Shiite uprisings and pro-democracy demonstrations in late 2003 and early 2004, Iraq's Ayatollah Ali Sistani insisted on holding elections sooner. Facing full-scale rebellion, Bremer reluctantly agreed. Nevertheless, the U.S. "authority" imposed long-reaching undemocratic edicts allowing foreign ownership over Iraq's assets.
Also ignored, elections held after an illegal invasion under occupation by a hostile foreign military are generally not considered legitimate under international law and convention, and were of questionable value in Iraq due to violence, intimidation, and unrepresented groups of voters in several provinces. Finally, though most Iraqis -- even the newly elected Green Zone government -- and a majority of Americans want the U.S. to leave, the Administration has so far refused.
(6) It is better to "fight them there" than on our streets
This is perhaps the most common lie today -- that somehow the Iraq invasion and occupation (even if illegal and based on lies) is making the U.S. population at home "safer." Bush and friends have repeatedly made this claim, even asking the enemy to "bring it on" over there.
First, there are the assumptions "them" and "there." The 9/11-perpetrating Al Qaeda organization ("them") was not in Iraq when the U.S. invaded (except in small numbers at the aforementioned Bush-protected camps). The few thousand or so Al Qaeda trained operatives who were thought to have remained active members were scattered around the world, but were based in Afghanistan. The U.S.'s response "there" deployed limited numbers of troops in favor of a massive and "long planned" (O'Neill, Clarke, Woodward, etc.) invasion of Iraq, which has now become the new "there."
Second, how well are we now fighting "them" in this new "there?" According to such terrorist sympathizers as the U.S. Army War College, the Iraq invasion was an "unnecessary" "distraction" from the "war on terror." It is worse than that, however. Our internationally condemned Iraq invasion has increased the number of independent groups emulating Al Qaeda and even taking their name, such as Al Qaeda in Iraq, which has gained skills and become ideologically wedded to the idea of fighting the United States in a war without borders or rules. Some of "them" are now no longer even "there." According to a UN report in March "senior fighters have left Iraq to gather existing supporters and these fresh recruits into new cells" around the world.
Third, is fighting "them there" really making the U.S. safer at home? Terrorist attacks against Western targets have risen dramatically every year since the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Attacks specifically linked to the invasion are also occurring with greater frequency outside of Iraq, as seen in major attacks in Jordan, Spain, and Great Britain, among other countries. Though the U.S. has yet to suffer another 9/11-type event, one would have to be willfully blind not to see the confluence of troubles described above -- coupled with continued incompetence, corruption, and overreaching against domestic "peace activists" at home by "Homeland Security" amid rising budgetary deficits -- as making us "safer" in the long term. Taking a discretionary fight to their streets, without "just cause," is an obvious prelude to at least some of them bringing it back to ours.
(7) If the lies were true, then we would have been justified in invading Iraq
This is the premise underlying all discussions in the U.S. about Iraq. However, the only "legal war" between nation-states is one of self-defense against an actual invasion or attack (or, in some cases, a narrowly defined "imminent" attack). The use of ongoing military force (beyond immediate defensive purposes) in order to be lawful needs to be approved by the United Nations Security Council. This system is not arbitrary or whimsical. It is based on the unprecedented horrors of all-out warfare in the 20th century, and was devised as the best possible plan to try to prevent large scale wars from breaking out in the future. It was promoted by the U.S. government and incorporated into U.S. law through treaty after WWII.
WMD, a "gathering" threat, dictatorship -- none of this would make an attack by one country on another legal or moral (see also "just war" theory), and such precepts if universally adopted would result in world conflagration. Even if Iraq had ties to the 9/11 attacks (which they did not), the only lawful use of force by the U.S. in response would have been defensive, to prevent another imminent attack. The legal recourse for the previous attack would have been through the World Court, which could have referred the matter to the UN Security Council for lawful military action. Without such a system, for example, Nicaragua, Panama, Serbia, and scores of other countries could be justified in attacking the U.S. in the future in retribution for U.S. attacks on them in the past.
That such an institution of legal structures designed to prevent world war (even though biased towards dominant powers like the U.S.) is the source of widespread scorn in the U..S, especially among its elite opinion-makers and power-holders, is an astounding admission and frightening to the rest of the world, where opinion polls now show the U.S. (with "pre-emptive war" as official policy) is viewed as the greatest threat to peace on the planet.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
List by Andy Dunn, compiled from sources at www.bushlies.net, www.whodies.com, and www.tvnewslies.org. More sources here.
As you know, I'm more difficult to please than you are. Yarmuth is wasting his breath and wasting our time if he was speak of the fraud of the Democratic Party in not making a real effort to stand up for the Constitution, the Rule of Law, Impeachment of Bush / Cheney, and really stopping the murder of innocents supported by the US Administration.
Bill, there's only so much he could say in this what - five minutes - as a "Freshman". I have followed this man's columns for years and spoken with him not as often as I would have liked but enough to have total faith in his backbone. I do believe he will speak the words we want to hear, when the opportunity and timing are correct to do so.
Thanks to all of you who enjoyed this email message with me. Yes, I do get interesting email. Lots of it.
Now... off to watch Bill's video.
I have to wonder what would happen if we had March's for PEACE instead of anti war protests...what could those who support this occupation and violence possilby say? Maybe we should reverse our approach and march and demand Peace instead of victory or defeat....those words need to be taken out of the equation for this mess.
THAT is the line that says it all!
The Spin Doctors convinced us that we needed to go into Iraq because of 9/11, tying Saddam Hussein into the picture and completely steering America away from the facts.
Osama is/was in Afghanistan.
Afghanistan is an extremely mountainous country, where all battle would have to be hand-to-hand ground combat for the most part...hmm...too hard to find Osama...besides....there's NO OIL in Afghanistan!
Every conversation I got into with my neighbors and co-workers, CONVINCED me that they were being led by the TV, convincing them somehow that the two issues were somehow connected...I could not convince any of them to the contrary...the sheep simply kept following the herd to slaughter...so sad.
Having read "1984" in high school, I learned never to trust anything but my memory for the facts. Paper can be republished, files can be rewritten, and you can only believe 1/3 of what you hear. The book keeps me from following the sheep.
Great post, Sandy!
Yarmuth sounds like the kind of guy I would want taking my opinions to the House.
This is what my group likes for input. (bigbrothrecs.gather.com)
Ludolf - That was the most comprehensive summary of FACT that I have seen in forever!
what's up with the Oscar Wilde look over there Ludolf? You're fading away like the infamous Mochael Jackson
Travis, I can't say this with any certainty, but I doubt that John is concerned with either.
Eric, Aftghanistan doesn't have oil, but we were hoping to run the pipe line under that country - before we attacked them.
Bill, I thought so. And thanks for the link.
Donna, there are a number of great PEACE groups that do march often. March 17 (I think - will check the date and come back if this is incorrect) is the next big date on which they will be meeting in Washington.
Danielle is spot on!
Sandy, this is the most inspiring political article I have read this week. Thank you for sharing it.
Thanks, Bill.
Sandy, you are Gather's premier catalyst.
(sorry, up to my neck in sawdust and tools of mass destruction, no brain cells left for wit)
Then:
In my view, everyone, or most everyone, has missed the point about Iraq and Cheney and Bush's goals for this invasion and occupation.
It is a futile, total, absolute waste of time and effort to criticize the various "justifications" offered by the Administration for the invasion. They have ALL, EVERY ONE OF THEM, been red herrings, straw men, smokescreens, fall-back positions, moving goal-posts, sucker topics, mere words for the press and critics to chew over while they totally miss what is BEING DONE ON THE GROUND. (That truism "Watch what they do, not what they say," is a truism for good reason--it's true. And the phrase, "By their deeds shall ye know them," ditto.*
Shrub and Darth & friends HAVE won in Iraq. They have, thus far, achieved most of their objectives (which I maintain were finalized in the weeks after Jan. 20, 2001 by Cheney's "Energy Control Task Force." (see Judicial Watch website, "Iraq Maps" on the topic)).
So, what has been, what IS/ARE the Cheney/Bush objective(s)in Iraq? They number two and are:
Remember that he who laughs last, laughs best. Cheney and Bush are laughing. Only impeachment, a trial, conviction, removal from office, and then criminal prosecutions, conviction and prison will wipe those grins off their faces--only in my opinion of course. I could be wrong.
See if you can find a copy, in translation, of the Iraq Hydrocarbon Law(s). Last one I saw was from last Feb., and it guaranteed "foreign" entities 87.5% of the oil revenues, the Iraqis 12.5%, and, in a loooong series of 2- and 3-year mini-"extensions," up to 37-year contracts.
As I've said before about the one law I got access to (and there were four (4) secret "Annexes" not included), any red-blooded, sane Iraqi would rather venture out of the Green Zone than vote away their national natural resources. When I noted these facts to a panelist on an OnPoint NPR segment, he said "Well, they're 'rethinking' those terms, which is one of the reasons for the delay in passing the laws. But they drew the law up themselves." And that last bit is apparently not true, a I've found mention of one damp, oleaginous Tejas lawyer, indeed steeped in Tejas Crude, who did help draft the law(s).
But the news mediums do not report on the details of just about ANYTHING these days (except for maybe Britney's shaved and pantyless privates), and certainly not the details of things that have caused the death of 4,000 GIs, the trauma/injury of another 30,000, and probably the long-lasting PTSD effects for virtually every GI who has served more than one "tour of duty" in Iraq or Afghanistan (look up the official definition of PTSD in DSM IV §309.81), the death of maybe one million or more Iraqis, the trauma (i.e., physical trauma--wounds, burns) and illness (malnutrition, all the lethal diarrheic illnesses caused by unsanitary water, rotting food because of no refrigeration because of no or only sporadic, unreliable electricity), the destruction of a "sovereign nation" that was among the most advanced in the Middle East, the dislocation of some 4 million Iraqis, 2 million who got out of the country, another 2 million who didn't/haven't made it that far. Yet.
And don't forget George HW Bush's "shock and awe #1" of 1992 that took out virtually all of Iraq's (certainly Baghdad's) civilian infrastructure (water purification, sewage treatment, electricity, roads, bridges, the airport, communication, hospitals) in violation of the Geneva, Hague and Nuremberg conventions--and, oh yeah, the UN Charter, an 11-year blockade ("sanctions") of all Iraq commerce, which prevented the repair of almost all of the destroyed infrastructure. I believe that UNHCR--UN High Commission on Refugees--WHO, the world health organization, and Medecines sans Frontieres estimated that during the 11-year blockade, some 500,000 children below 5 years of age died BECAUSE of the blockade. Eight years of the blockade were supported by the Clinton Administration. Remember that lady who claims to have been an actor on the world stage during the Clinton Administration? The one who wrote "It Takes A Village"? The one who's ready to lead the nation "On day 1."? And don't forget Brooch Lady, Madeleine Albright, who told Leslie Stahl on 60 minutes back in 1998 maybe? (Check it out on YouTube) that, while the estimated 500,000 dead children was a high price, "It was worth it."
I guess that's what passes for Female (and Jewish) Compassion these days. So anyone who has any concerns that Hillary (and women generally) can't be as ruthless (that's "without pity"), cruel and dangerous as a man (George II, William Jefferson I) or men, should put that concern aside.
Furthermore, as many a women's-libber has noted, in order to succeed "in a mans' world", women have to be TWICE as good (smart, capable, ruthless, dangerous, evil, destructive, racist, devious, Machiavellian, etc.) as any man. I think of Hillary (and Madeleine--and don't forget Janet Reno with her Waco and Ruby Ridge to commend her) as having a highly tuned ability to exceed any man--except for George II, Cheney I and Hitler, perhaps--in committing disgusting, evil, criminal and definitely immoral behavior.
But I digress to excess on excess. Meanwhile, Back In Iraq:
Then, even what HAD been repaired in Iraq over the 11-yearf blockade was taken out again by Shock and Awe #2, in March, 2003, under King George II, and the destruction ("Stuff Happens," saith the Rummy) continues to this very day (March 27, 2008).
Remember that great line from Vietnam: "It became necessary to destroy the village in order to save it."?
Iraq has (because of rhetorical/factual inflation, I guess) it's own line: "It became necessary to destroy the country in order to save it--for the US oil interests."
That's left to al Jazeera and maybe al Arabia, both of which networks have been denied ready access to US audiences by chickenhawk supporters of the US Administration. And they're actually PROUD (see PBS on the topic, or the al Jazeera documentary/DVD "Control Room") of blocking, by threats, the broad- or cable-casting of al Jazeera. This by supposed "conservatives" or "neo-cons" in America, land of the free, home of the First Amendment. Would it be fair to sing, "Neo-con's just another word for fascists in disguise"? (tune: Me & Bobby McGee, chorus: "Freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose."
Speaking of Neo-Cons (think the disgusting, sleazy Richard Perle (but he's a really nice guy, right?), Paul Wolfowitz, Wm. Kristol, Irving "Scooter" Libby, Hank Kissinger, L. Paul Incompetent, unhh, Bremer--is there a pattern here? And who else?), just to toss out the name of another bully in the Middle East, Israel, who is there in American government who will stand on a raised platform in that country and yell, "Mr. Ehud Olmert, tear down these walls!" As I recall, Ronnie Reagan did that in Berlin; but he also launched his presidential campaign in Philadelphia, Mississippi (The City of Brotherly Hatred & Murder--nice place to die, but I wouldn't want to visit there) and laid a wreath at the Bitburg, West Germany, cemetery, in which were buried 49 members of Hitler's Schutzstaffel (SS), aged 18-20. Can't please everybody, I guess.
Take a peek at a copy of "The Incredible Shrinking Palestine" map on my blog at http://www.inkywretch.com ("Nasty Walls Eliminate Neighbors"). Again, when you step out of the line of fire of flying bullshit and understand the real objectives of Israel, it's all about driving out the Palestinians and capturing all of their land. Looking at the progressive maps, any sighted person (that is, everyone who is not blind) would note that Israel is accomplishing its goal, just with "interim solutions," year after year. They haven't been forced to resort to "the final solution" of exterminating the Palestinians. The Israelis know that such a "final solution" just wouldn't look good, however justified they'd feel in implementing it (after all, of the 11 million men, women and children Hitler executed in the Holocaust, 6 million of them were Jewish, with the stated goal of exterminating all of them in German-occupied territory, and now the Palestinians keep lobbing rockets into Israeli-occupied territories and sending suicide bombers against the Israeli occupying forces). The solution? Israelstine or Palistrael, maybe. Some way should be found to make the boundaries of Israel and Palestine congruent; otherwise, Israel will keep on with the squeeze play and eventually drive the Palestinians from their land completely. "Two nations" is a solution which assures the disappearance of the Palestinians, probably.
———————————————— footnote(s)——————————————
King James version: From Matthew, Chapter 7 [a lot of familiar apothegms here, it seems]:
12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets. [This is the "Do unto others," line methinks]
13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. [Keep to the straight and narrow?]
15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. [By their deeds shall ye know them.] [Emphasis added, of course.]
By the gods (Zeus, Jupiter, Odin, Yahweh, Muhammad, Buddha, Zarathustra, Ameterasu, etc.), how I love the Internet!!!
Only impeachment, a trial, conviction, removal from office, and then criminal prosecutions, conviction and prison will wipe those grins off their faces--only in my opinion of course.