« ABQ Civic Plaza Today: Heather = Bush | Main | A Picture's Worth a Thousand Words »

Friday, June 16, 2006

Bingaman Votes Against Amendment to Bring the Troops Home

As reported by The Nation: "On Thursday, the U.S. Senate decided not to call for the withdrawal of combat troops by year's end when it shelved a measure proposing that "only forces that are critical to completing the mission of standing up Iraqi security forces" remain in Iraq in 2007."

Only six Democratic Senators voted to support the amendment (against tabling it). New Mexico's Senator Bingaman wasn't one of them, despite his vote against the original Iraq War resolution. Apparently, only six Democratic Senators had the gumption to vote in accordance with the wishes of our own troops instead of the spin of Karl Rove:

The February Le Moyne College/Zogby International survey of U.S. troops serving in Iraq found that 72 percent of them thought the United States should end its operations in that country by the end of 2006.

Now granted, this was Sen. Kerry's amendment that was, instead, introduced by Republican Sen. Mitch McConnell. Kerry was reportedly displeased with McConnell for doing so, and Kerry claims he will reintroduce the amendment himself next week. We'll see if the votes change. Regardless, I can't say how strongly I believe that every Democrat must take every opportunity to call the Bush-Rummy-Cheney war team to task and push for an end to this in the most expedient way.

I am so tired of reporting the failures of so many Democrats to represent their constituents, but I believe I must, especially in the case of the Iraq War. With more than 2,500 of our troops killed in Iraq, with almost 20,000 of them wounded, often severely, with who knows how many Iraqi civilians maimed and blasted, with more than ten billion dollars pouring into the rabbit hole each month and going who knows where, you'd think most Democrats would do what they could to end this horror -- to stop the march into perrennial war and permanent Iraq bases. You'd be wrong, obviously.

Do these supposed Democratic representatives of the people have any shred of conscience, morality, compassion or courage to confront the realities of this nightmare and make a stand? Only six in the Senate did:

  • Barbara Boxer of California
  • Robert Byrd of West Virginia
  • Russ Feingold of Wisconsin
  • Tom Harkin of Iowa
  • Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts
  • John Kerry of Massachusetts

The rest were again cowed by Rove's framing, pushed into a corner and reduced to supporting a ruse Karl has used many times, to continuing advantage: if you don't support what I propose, you're -- pick one --  unpatriotic, left-wing, extremist, liberal, cowardly, anti-American, a queer lover, or a godless reprobate. Will these Dems ever learn? Rove sets them up like bowling pins and they stand there every time, waiting for the strike to come rumbling down the alley. Crash. It's real human beings who get hurt, who continue to die horrible deaths, or live without equal civil rights, or or get clobbered by corporatist bankruptcy laws, or whose children and grandchildren will be paying for the cowardice of what they do now. Or fail to do.

Sometimes, words can't express how beaten down we feel, out here waiting for our members of Congress to care about more than reelection or campaign contributions or appeasing the right-wing spinners and hate-mongers. We keep waiting for these Democrats to put the nation and the planet and the people first. On this vote, only six Senators did.

To gain the proper perspective on what those refusing to vote to end this horror are allowing to continue, read 'Iraq's War Porn' by David Swanson, who cofounded the AfterDowningStreet.org coalition. The war photos he mentions, particularly those called War Trophy Photos, are very hard to view, horrendously grotesque. But they may well be what more people need to see when they contemplate the continuation of business as usual in the bloody, awful Iraqi Civil War. Including the Dems who voted NOT to start bringing our troops home.

Better Results in the House
Dems did better in the House on Rove's Iraq War dare, with impassioned speechs by such brave souls as John Murtha:

Murtha, a Vietnam veteran, said it was "easy to stay in an air-conditioned office and say, 'I'm going to stay the course."' He added: "That's why I get so upset when they stand here sanctimoniously and say we're fighting this thing. It's the troops that are doing the fighting."

Nancy Pelosi gave an especially powerful speech on the resolution, saying it's time to face the facts and calling, again, for Rumsfeld's resignation. Excerpts:

The war in Iraq has been a mistake – a grotesque mistake. It must be our resolve to end the war as soon as possible and to resolve to not make similar mistakes in the future. We owe it to the American people and we owe it to the young men and women that we send in to fight the fight.

... As defense and intelligence expert Anthony Cordesman recently wrote: ‘The U.S. aid process has failed…it has wasted at least half of the some $22 billion in U.S. funds and much of the $34.6 billion in Iraq funds it attempted to use to secure and develop Iraq’s economy.’ This is outrageous. Where is the accountability? In fact, Mr. Cordesman concludes that the U.S.-managed Iraq reconstruction efforts have been as failed as our response to Hurricane Katrina.

In the face of all of the incompetence and cost of this war, the President urges us to stay the course. ‘Stay the course,’ Mr. President, is not a strategy, it’s a slogan. I will vote against this resolution because it is an affirmation of President Bush’s failed policy in Iraq. And in doing so, I am pleased to join Mr. Murtha and Mr. Skelton and I salute them for their patriotism and dedication to our country. They are second to none in this Congress in looking out for the troops and for being concerned and knowledgeable about troop readiness, about the strains on our military that this war is putting upon them, and deterring our ability to respond to other threats. I salute them for their leadership and their courage – because here we have the Republicans putting on the floor a vacuous resolution, a challenge that if you want to say you support the troops you have to vote for this – that day is over.

There's a video of speech on Rep. Pelosi's website right now.

I'm very pleased that NM Rep. Tom Udall voted AGAINST the Republican's Rovian Iraq War resolution in the House. If only Sen. Bingaman had done the same on the Senate side.

June 16, 2006 at 06:00 PM in Iraq War | Permalink

Comments

Someone remind me: WHY do we think it's better to have a Democrat in office than a Republican? I mean, I know *some* Democrats are good: Boxer, Feingold, Kerry, Kennedy, Byrd, and Harkin come to mind. But is there a reason why we would consider voting for those who have demonstrated no character at all? I still remember Bingaman's vote on Alito. This vote simply solidifies my determination not to vote for this faux Democrat, no matter how long he's been in office.

I concur with Thomas Friedman's desire for a third, and relevant, party. The other two are the Terri Schiavos of politics: dead, but not buried. The only question that remains is, how do we unplug their life support so we can bury their remains?

Posted by: John | Jun 16, 2006 11:36:39 PM

A third party is an unachievable dream. What we do need to keep doing is calling attention to votes like these. Keep the pressure on. Challenge them at the primary level like Lamont is doing to Lieberman and get new blood in.

Everyone I know is sick of Democrats playing into Rove's hands every single time. Who is advising these politicians? Read the book Crashing the Gate by Kos and Jerome and you'll have a clear picture.

Posted by: C. C. | Jun 17, 2006 9:09:20 AM

"A third party is an unachievable dream."

If I'd known that such an appealing idea could be so thoroughly and easily refuted, I'd have given up on it long ago. Oh, well. Guess I'll just make myself comfortable with the way things are, since improvement on the status quo is an unachievable dream.

Or maybe I'll watch V for Vendetta, coming soon on video. Guy Fawkes never knew a dream worth giving up on, I guess. Poor sap. Gratifying escapism, but that's all we've got.

Posted by: John | Jun 17, 2006 3:53:41 PM

John, what makes you think a third party is possible? Are you working on one? Why not just hijack the Democratic Party's infrastructure and make it our party? Lots easier. The Greens tried hard for years and what have we got? Just another excuse to do nothing and be critical. More people need to get actively involved. If we don't we let the worst elements rule our party.

Posted by: C. C. | Jun 18, 2006 9:56:29 AM

C.C. Hijacking the Democratic Party of New Mexico is a great Idea...However, Richardson controls the Party and a no vote against Richardson in the General Election by Progressives is one way to take back the Party from the most Corrupt Governor ever Elected by New Mexicans. Eli Chavez, Progressive/Independent

Posted by: Eli Chavez | Jun 18, 2006 3:36:38 PM

My guess is that there are some on this blog who would dispute that taking over the Democratic Party is easier than any task you could name. They've worked tirelessly to turn it to face our direction, if not to take it over, and found the exercise nearly exhausting.

No one, certainly not I, has said that starting a third party is easy. But it's an idea worthy of serious consideration, especially as the Republicans are known to abuse their authority while the Dems are known to abdicate theirs.

If someone was able to hijack the Dems and make them relevant again, I'd be first in line to congratulate and thank them. While both ends - a new party and a new Democratic party - are desireable, I don't see either of them as likely. Still, we don't work for worthy ends because they are likely, but because they are worthy.

Am I working on a third party? No, not unless you count raising it as a feasible option in various contexts working on it.

Posted by: John | Jun 18, 2006 6:35:08 PM

Post a comment