The cowardice of their convictions
This entry was posted on 2/15/2007 1:15 PM and is filed under Politics,Government.
By Matt Miner
I wasn’t going to post today – but I felt morally obligated by an editorial in the Wall Street Journal “Awaiting the Dishonor Roll”.
In the next several days, the U.S. House will vote on this [oft-noted to be] non-binding resolution:
“Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), that (1) Congress and the American people will continue to support and protect the members of the United States Armed Forces who are serving or who have served bravely and honorably in Iraq; and (2) Congress disapproves of the decision of President George W. Bush announced Jan. 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq.”
The Journal notes that the Congress has rarely been distinguished by its moral courage – but here we surely have a disgraceful low-point. Forgive the bombast, but just as Congress likes to tax Americans both coming and going, they are trying, in their resolution, to have it both ways. They claim to “support” the troops, all the while opposing what President Bush and General David Petreaus say is necessary to make progress on Iraqi security.
This doesn’t fool the troops for even a minute. NBC News quoted Specialist Tyler Johnson saying "People are dying here. You know what I'm saying . . . You may [say] 'oh we support the troops.' So you're not supporting what they do. What they's (sic) here to sweat for, what we bleed for and we die for." Added another soldier: "If they don't think we're doing a good job, everything we've done here is all in vain." In other words, says WSJ, “the troops themselves realize that the first part of the resolution is empty posturing, while the second is deeply immoral.”
My original title for this piece was “F***ers”. I decided to tone it down, but I still believe it is the right epithet for those who will vote in favor of this resolution. Here are my final notes: (1) I’m not a lover of this war – I think big mistakes were made in the run-up and the early execution; I am utterly opposed to a doctrine of preemptive warfare. Nevertheless, we find ourselves here today, and so, (2) this resolution is a disgrace – a wicked error and a patent lie. It is strategically foolish. I personally urge every member of the USHR to vote against it. Depending on how easily I can accomplish the data manipulation, I will upload an Excel file with the names and votes of each member to minerbrothers.com once the vote is called (see below).
I’ll close with a quote from “Awaiting the Dishonor Roll”:
“Some Republicans figure they can use this vote to distance themselves from Mr. Bush and the war while not doing any real harm. They should understand that the Democratic willingness to follow the Murtha "slow-bleed" strategy will depend in part on how many Republicans follow them in this vote. The Democrats are themselves divided on how to proceed, and they want a big GOP vote to give them political cover. However "non-binding," this is a vote that Republican partisans will long remember."
"History is likely to remember the roll as well. A newly confirmed commander is about to lead 20,000 American soldiers on a dangerous and difficult mission to secure Baghdad, risking their lives for their country. And the message their elected Representatives will send them off to battle with is a vote declaring their inevitable defeat.”
UPDATE (2/20/07): - House Vote by name on HR CON RES 63
