In Only We Could Vote Out the Devastating Effects of Bush

As seen in this 15-minute or so PBS NewsHour piece, the effects of Bush and his crew's war in Iraq will not soon diminish (as unfortunately is the case with too many of the problems they put into place while in office--the destructive, unregulated financial industry; inhumane budget priorities; unjust tax policy; etc., etc.). The focus of the piece is on suicide rates among war veterans, and in it James Peake, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs (V.A.), has the gall to claim that the increase in suicide rates may not be due to the effects of war (I sent in a question to the V.A. through an online forum the NewsHour is hosting on the subject, so I'll be interested to see if they respond; answers are supposed to be posted here this Friday the 14th of Nov.).

A veteran who committed suicide, along with his family, are spotlighted in the piece (he's pictured above); the V.A. actually turned him down for the full extent of support he could have received because he could not remember "dates and names" of the casualties in Iraq that were haunting him. His wife says at one point in the piece, something to the effect of how her now-dead husband didn't remember names and dates, he just would just have faces and horrible scenes flash through his mind from his time in Iraq. He had been "fun and caring and giving" beforehand she said, but came home angry--consistently angry to the point that his children became scared of him; this is what war can do to men and women, and woe unto anyone who would so cavalierly send our people into it--and then on top of that, not provide proper benefits afterwards. I could see myself changing in the same ways if I was sent into war, particularly with the multiple deployments that have now become commonplace (the piece notes that those who have gone on three or more deployments have over double the risk of suicide as those who don't). The video of the piece and the transcript are available here.

Live Bloggin' as I Watch the Repubs' Convention, Part III (McCain's Speech)

So, waiting on McCain to roll up to the podium here, and thought I'd try a final live post here as I watch (live video if it available here). It'll be nice for these two conventions to finally be over so I can get some more sleep; it's neat to have been able to watch a bit of both though, since I (unfortunately) didn't pay much attention to the last election.

Okay, now this video of him is starting...so again, his story is more than I could ever imagine, and I completely admire the way he stayed there longer when he had the option to leave. Watch this piece on PBS' NewsHour to hear some other POWs who support McCain, but another who does not (who was with him in Hanoi, Vietnam).

I hate that line in the convention video though of "keeping our money in our pockets" in regard to taxes--it isn't always self-centered to think that way, but I think it completely encourages it. I'll tell you what they can do with that line in the video about "the stars being aligned" for McCain to be president too--that's the fate-based talk that tries to trump reason, and I've got about zero patience for it. There are reasons, many of them, to vote one way or another, and they relate to the everyday needs of people out there, our country, our role in the world, etc.

Alright, he's on now though and is talking about Bush "leading us in these dark days following the worst attack in American history"--I'm not sure I've ever seen Bush "lead" on a damn thing, to be frank. I don't think he has that circumspection; that's not a demeaning comment as much as it is an honest one--leaders don't come around everyday, they develop and are seasoned as they move into the position.

Nice comments there about Cindy McCain, I appreciate that he would lift her up and compliment her.

Now he's addressing "Obama and his supporters," saying they have his "respect and admiration"; I'm not sure that's true given his mocking of their support, calling it support for a mere "celebrity." The crowd here's one that looks more like that which is caught up with a celebrity, chanting "U-S-A" on and off with no seeming ties to what McCain's actually saying. It's not that I don't respect them as people, I just think that loving your country without standards isn't love, and that's what I think many Americans unfortunately fall into (and what this crowd is reminding me of).

He's talking about fighting corruption and pork-barrel spending now--both of which are true to a point, and valid, I just don't think he's taking the country in the right way.

And now into Iraq. He's saying we would all be threatened if we'd pulled out of Iraq sooner; that's not true and the bipartisan Iraq Study Group and others have stood by that. There's no admittance of his vote that got us into Iraq in the first place.

Some nice personal stories of people struggling and a soldier who died in Iraq; those stories are of course needed for any politician to stay connected to real people.

A cut at Obama there about his vote for an energy bill that did a lot for conservation, though there was some compromise that necessitated leaving in some giveaways to oil companies.

He's going into various things now, but mentioned the idea of respecting a "culture of life," getting at abortion issues, though you won't hear him come out saying the death penalty needs to go (though Obama isn't either, not fully at least).

Now into stuff against Obama. Bold-faced lies about tax increases--again, Obama's said it will only be those making $250,000 or more who would pay slightly more in taxes. More scare tactics about health care too, saying there will be a "bureaucrat" between some citizens and their health care. But John, what about the dollar bills that are in between some 47 million citizens and their health care now? And the profit-making insurance companies that charge more to all involved by trying to maximize profit?

He's talking on education here now, and there are some fair things being said; but he's pushing the thing of parental choice as the Republican talking point it is--it may be helpful, but it's not where many believe they should focus. And now he's saying Obama would make education answer to unions--how about when he stood up to them and said the controversial thing of providing merit-based pay to teachers? Yeah, too complicated for the masses I guess.

And see, here's one of my issues with McCain and the Repubs: they mention drilling offshore first again and again when talking about energy issues. It's one thing if they were saying here and there it could be helpful to invest a little (though I definitely am suspicious of that too), but they make it the first thing they talk about consistently. It's a ploy the way they're playing it, period.

Now onto foreign policy. Stoke 'em John stoke 'em, stoke those foreign countries, threaten them, just what we need, more bellicose. I just can't get over that he'd joke about bombing Iran...He says he hates war, and I could believe that; but that doesn't mean he sees it as the absolute last resort that it must be (if that), particularly joking about it like he has (and voting for it with Iraq).

Bipartisanship is good, as he's talking about here, but the tasks and goals the president pushes and fights for matter, they simply do; there are problems that have to be worked at with due diligence and a humane perspective, and so it matters what solutions are being offered.

Now he's talking about his time in prison camp again...

"Stand up to fight against our enemies" he ended with as one of his last lines though? Geez, I actually liked the other calls preceding it to serve our country, to seek justice, etc., but I don't like the idea of characterizing some general "enemies" that we need to fight against; sure there are enemies, so to speak, of America, but I'd much rather have leaders calling for us to see how much we have in common with the world, how we can restore healthy friendships with countries, and so forth.

That's it though. I have to say I'm underwhelmed. I liked some things he had to say, particularly his calls to serve causes greater than ourselves, but I didn't hear much in the way of innovative policies to facilitate some of that service through the government. Some may shirk at the idea of innovative government programs, but it's simply the concept, as Congressman Barney Frank apparently said at one time, of people working together to do more than they can separately through an entity we call government. Many have done great things with it over time: social security so our vulnerable elderly are cared for; the Civilian Conservation Corp (CCC) under FDR to give young men work and to build up roads and infrastructure in America; the Peace Corps and the wonderful work that's been done through it; unemployment for those who could be in trouble because of unexpectedly losing a job (I myself have experienced this and completely appreciated being able to receive unemployment for a month or so while looking for a job; of course it can be abused, but there are safeguards put in place to attempt to ensure individuals are looking for jobs, etc.). All of these could be overdone or done badly, but I would argue with any that say they are not needed.

I'm getting into polls here though, they're a handy way to rate perspectives, so here's another related to the four government programs I just mentioned:

poll by twiigs.com

Update: Here's McCain's speech for any who are interested:



Update 2: Okay, I realize I should have asked more explicitly in the poll, if you don't think any of the government programs I mentioned above are needed, I'd challenge you to say which ones and why. I, as I mentioned, disagree, and would be interested in any back and forth discussion about the need for them (and as a reminder for any who would rather drop their comments in anonymously, you're able to do that through the comments link below).

Update 3: A fair word, I thought, from Barack on the Rep. Convention:

Biden Ain't Bad

Obama's now-VP running mate, Senator Joe Biden, is a cool cat--here's a couple short videos on him, which I'll add to as I run across others (you can also watch Biden and Obama live at their first rally together this afternoon at 3pm EST; Obama's site will have a live video feed of it). But I love how frank Biden is, as especially comes across in the two brief videos below. The first is in response to Bush's claims that Democrats (and by implication, Obama) would be appeasing various enemies by meeting with them (Bush actually even compared it to the idea of meeting with Hitler). The second one is from the floor of the U.S. Senate in March 2007, and has Biden speaking with biting honesty about the negligent way the Iraq war has been handled; the video actually starts with Senator McCain finishing speaking, and you'll hear Biden later address him (when he refers to the Senator from Arizona). Here's a key couple lines of Biden's from the second video:

"Our troops don't lose wars, bad policy, bad leadership leaves wars. They [the GOP] should have the courage to stand up and tell the Administration they have had a god-awful policy, they have put our troops in a position that in fact has made it virtually impossible for them to succeed at the outset. They deserve a policy, they deserve a plan--there is no plan! We went to war with too few troops, we went to war unnecessarily, we went to war with these men and women ill-equipped, they're coming home ill-served. It's about time we have the courage to stand up, and say to the President, 'Mr. President, you have not only put us in harm's way, you have harmed us. You have no policy Mr. President.' I'm so tired of hearing on this floor about courage--have the courage to tell the Administration, 'Stop this ridiculous policy you have.' "

Here's the two videos:

Why Isn't War More Painful for the Rest of Us?

War is hard, I've been reminded with recent news coverage. I've never known this through my own experience, and obviously have a sense, like everyone, that it's painful. Human coverage is what brings it home though, I believe, and that's what did it for me recently; like so many otherwise distant experiences, individual, human stories can communicate so much. So I thought I'd write down some thoughts on this. I'll end the post with links to a handful of the TV and radio pieces that led me to write this, for anyone who wants to check them out; they're pretty tough, though worth checking out for anyone who, like me, feels quite distant from the reality of these wars that our fellow Americans have been asked to fight.

I think that many of us who aren't in the military, or don't have family or close friends in the military, haven't felt the real pains of war. I think this is true in many ways, though I wanted to specifically highlight how many haven't felt the emotional pains of war. However, as a sidenote, I don't think many of us have felt many economic or other pains either (at least not middle to upper-class Americans). Lots of people have noted this by pointing out that Americans haven't been asked to sacrifice at all, through higher taxes or in other ways that were common in past wars. For my part, I undoubtedly believe that we should be asked to give more, especially since we are hemorrhaging money and resources in these wars, and so many lives have been lost; it seems quite distant when one thinks of their country being in debt, but it just isn't small that our country has been spending over $10 billion each month in Iraq.

In terms of the emotional pains of war though, the news coverage I mentioned has made me realize how I haven't hurt or mourned much, at least not in ways that come close to the pain and loss that Americans, Iraqis and Afghans have felt. Is that my fault? I don't know, perhaps in part. But maybe the President and others could do more to bring the painful substance of these wars before the eyes and hearts of the American people (and the world for that matter).

In my last job I wrote some about Congress and budgets and related issues, and so I wrote a piece on what the President had to say in his annual State of the Union address back in early 2008. The hubbub about his State of the Union addresses has naturally died down over the years, in terms of press coverage, however it is still considered a significant event. What if the President had some events to highlight the realities of these wars, where he called for similar news coverage? Some might say this would kill his image politically. One, humanity has precedence in my view; but two, a human side to anyone, politician or otherwise, is good. Imagine, for instance, if he started some nationally-covered TV address saying something like:

"We have young men and women dying, as do the Iraqis and Afghans, and so I want to take some time to talk to the American people about how sacred these losses of human life are--why? Because life is sacred, and we need to tell the stories of what is lost when someone dies in order to remember that; and similarly, we need to tell such stories if we are going to understand the need to resist anything that might put more lives at risk, unless we absolutely have to do otherwise."

Wouldn't something of that nature be truly significant to hear a President say? I think it would, particularly if he followed it up with individual stories of lives lost, as well as respectful, caring discussions with families of those who lost their lives in Iraq or Afghanistan. Something like that could easily be put on some major news channels, or C-SPAN or PBS, as happens with the State of the Union and other major addresses; I'm sure people would ache to hear it once they understood the general idea. I also think that Obama would have the gall and understanding to deal with realities such as this straight on, whether in a similar fashion to what I described above or in other ways.

Taking a step back, the basic concept of war is tough for me to swallow, admittedly, however I can say that if it is ever merited--which I grant may have been the case with Afghanistan--it must be done with the utmost respect for human life; more specifically, I believe it should be done with an attention to detail that weighs our time in war by the hour, not the month or year, resisting even another hour or day of war, with the intention that not one more person's life should be put in danger than is absolutely necessary.

That said, based on the evidence, I can say that I have unequivocal problems with the idea that we went into war with Iraq, most specifically because there was not what is considered an "imminent threat." As Senator Carl Levin, a respected senior Senator from Michigan, said in a 2002 press release opposing the vote for war with Iraq, "This grant of authority is also unacceptable since it empowers the President to initiate the use of U.S. military force although the threat against which it is used is not imminent. International law has required that there be an imminent threat before one initiates an attack under the rubric of self defense." For more information on that vote, and why I personally have an irreconcilable doubt about those that voted for it--from Hillary Clinton to John McCain--see this first piece on that vote; for a contrast with those who supported the war, take a look at this piece I wrote on Obama's 2002 stance against it, and this piece on Rep. Dennis Kucinich's stance (Kucinich is a member of the House of Representatives who, like over 150 other members of the House and Senate, voted in 2002 against our invasion of Iraq; he also ran in the 2007-2008 Democratic primary for President).

But now for a quick list of the news sources that recently shook me into reality about the tragedy and pain that comes with war (and thus spurred this blog post):

-A radio piece from the show "This American Life," telling the story of John, an Iraqi veteran who was so shaken by his experience that he felt somewhat pushed towards violent acts at times. He also has been haunted by ugly dreams, and was sent to prison for attacking his fiance and others; you can listen to a short promo for the piece here, though the full radio piece should be available shortly it looks like (I'll post it when it is, I think they still have to load it onto the website since it aired today); update: here's the full piece available for listening online, just scroll down to "Life After Death" and click on "full episode";

-Coverage from Bill Moyers Journal of the documentary "Body of War," and the struggles of an Iraq war veteran named Tomas Young who was shot and paralyzed in Iraq; watch (or read the transcript for) the two-part series online here;

-A piece from the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, a daily news show on PBS; the piece highlights conversations with children whose parents have been in Iraq and Afghanistan. It also discusses the fears and stress this places on the children, and highlights a camp which the kids can go to and meet other military children. You can listen to the piece here (though the video version of it should be available as of Monday, July 21st, just search for "camp for military kids" on the NewsHour site).

I'd be interested to hear any thoughts back on this overall issue, as it's obviously such a weighty topic with so many factors involved. As a last note, I have been on a little hiatus from posting because I took two weeks off in between jobs, but also because I was a bit troubled with Obama's stance on not accepting public financing; I wanted to spend some time researching it. I've looked into it a bit, and while I still have a few things I'd like to look into, I feel it was merited on a whole. I hope to have a piece on that before long.

Above photo credit: New America Media.

Update (I also added this same note to the end of this post): As an addendum here, I just watched Obama speaking at a faith forum where he talked about the "solemn obligation that you do everything you can to get that decision right," talking about decisions of war and peace (see the last 30 seconds of this video); that's a solemness I must say I do not see in the disgusting casualness with which McCain approaches issues of war--e.g., in the way he has literally joked about the idea of bombing Iran (video here). I'll hope to write more about the faith forum and McCain's overall views on war later.

Update 2: I just watched a tough TV news piece tonight, 8/21, on the grieving that families go through at the loss of their family members in Iraq and Afghanistan. You can watch the full piece online here; it includes a discussion with a Marine whose job has been to deliver the news to families about the death of their loved ones. You can see the newspaper series the news piece was based on here, where you can also see some of the tough pictures that go along with it.

Pray Tell Hillary, What KIND of Experience?

A resume from floor to ceiling tells a potential employer that the applicant has experience, yes. But what employer worth his salt would stop there? Might there be a second, more important question asked, regarding the quality of that experience?

Hillary indeed has experience, but her strident touting of said experience belies the dirty underbelly of the issue. Case in point (the most important case in point): Of the two Dems left in it, Mrs. Clinton is undoubtedly the one with the most experience--indeed the only experience--of sending us into what has been described as the “worst foreign policy disaster since Vietnam” (those are Richard Holbrooke’s words, former UN Ambassador under Bill Clinton and purportedly a possible Secretary of State under Hillary). Not only did Hillary support this war with her early vote, but as also noted in the above article, she plans to enlist the same crew if she were to make it to the White House: "Clinton has lined up a foreign policy team dominated by those who shared her early support for the war in Iraq, but then, like her, changed their minds."

But more to the point of this post, her "experience" is marred by this vote in my view. Of the myriad issues comprising the arguments in this primary season, we must remember that they are not all created equal. War must be paramount if we are to claim a high view of human life. The hundreds of thousands dead because of it, must be at the forefront of our mind when considering "the issues." Thus her vote is deeply troubling, based on my analysis of it. And, simply speaking, it has told me enough about her experience for me to realize that I do not want her as my president.

Yet each one of us, if we are to make our decision with the most information possible, must examine the details of that vote to come to a thoughtful determination. I do not want to go into the full reasoning for my decision here, as I have done so in past posts, but I'll provide a few links here before explaining a bit more why I find her vote to be so troubling. As I have described here, there were over 150 members of the U.S. House and Senate that opposed that 2002 vote to authorize use of force against Iraq. In that same post, I lay out some of the reasons those members of Congress voted against the war. I also discuss those reasons here, in a post highlighting parts of a speech given by Congressman Dennis Kucinich (former presidential candidate) a week before the vote.

Furthermore, when Clinton was preparing to vote for this use of force against Iraq, Obama was, as all likely know by now, opposing the war in a 2002 speech, including the now famous line, “I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda” (emphasis added). Both of Obama’s points about the problems of an invasion and the strengthening of Al Qaeda were unfortunately proven true. (More excerpts and a link to the full speech are available in this previous post.)

To draw out my initial analogy though, imagine, if you would, an employer who is considering hiring an accountant. One candidate has years of experience, and has shown to do well in a number of areas. However, at one point she, in conjunction with others, made a decision that caused an accounting disaster, plummeting her organization into debt. Might this be a fair, and even more so, a necessary consideration for the employer? Is it not one of, if not the most important consideration in terms of that accountant's “experience”? And lastly, would it not augment the need to consider this aspect of her experience if many of her coworkers had warned that she and others were making the wrong decision? Certainly the details of the scenario would have to be examined prior to a final decision by the employer, but a nuanced judgment would be needed, wherein the employer would weigh the good and the bad of her experience. Indeed a judgment might be made that yes, the accountant did have some good experience, but in one of the most integral areas of her job, she made the wrong decision—thus, to overstate the obvious, she had some significant bad experience.

Imagine further that the employer had an alternate candidate who had spoken up, albeit from outside the organization, warning against the bad decision that was eventually made. It stands to reason that this aspect of the alternate candidate’s experience, and the judgment it showed, would be a significant factor, particularly given that the area in question was central to the job. If the alternate had less experience, the question might then become, does he have enough experience? And this question is where I will end this post and pick up with my next, "The Rich Experience of an Obama."

Update: An addendum here, from a recent Washington Post article: "[Clinton's] refusal -- her inability -- to simply confess poor judgment says to me that her vote was politically motivated. In that, she was not alone. All of her 2008 Democratic primary colleagues who were in the Senate at the time voted for the war resolution. Many other Senate Democrats voted against it -- on the basis not of different facts but of a different judgment about the same facts." Based on the facts that were available at the time, as I linked to above, and the sentiment around the country that we needed to be "tough on terrorism," it's not beyond possibility in my mind that Clinton voted politically and not ethically. If it was not political however, I find it no less troubling: she either wasn't diligent enough in researching the available facts (which does not seem as likely), or she did not view war as an utter last resort, as I feel compelled to (along with those such as Sen. Carl Levin, as noted here).

Update 2: I should add that while Clinton's 35-year claim to experience is true in part, as noted in this CQ article on it, some aspects of it are worrisome, on top of the Iraq war vote; namely, her attempt at bringing about health care reform during the Clinton Administration excluded even some Democrats, and was of course unsuccessful on a whole.

From the House floor in 2002, Kucinich’s Bold Stand Against a Vote for War

I was certainly moved by Sen. Barack Obama’s pre-war speech, which I recently wrote about here (take a read of what he said, it’s short), but I was really floored when I came across Rep. Dennis Kucinich’s equally prescient words in a 2002 speech from the floor of the House of Representatives. In it, he spoke out against the now infamous Iraq War Resolution, which authorized use of force against Iraq. Eight days after Kucinich spoke, four presidential candidates voted for that very same resolution: Senators Clinton, Edwards, Dodd and Biden (needless to say, Kucinich, and others in the House and Senate, voted against it).

As I also discussed previously, given that these other members of Congress voted against it (23 Senators and 133 Representatives), and that presidential candidates Obama and Kucinich forcefully opposed it, voters will have to answer the grave question of whether they are willing to support a candidate who shooed through the start to what many consider to be such a devastatingly wrong, destabilizing war. In the speech, Rep. Kucinich goes through various sections of the Iraq War Resolution, quoting directly from it, and then follows those quotations with his (concise) rebuttals (the actual resolution is available here, and is just a few pages if you’re interested in reading it; Kucinich’s full speech is available here). As you read some of the below excerpts I pulled from his speech, I would challenge you to ask:

1. Whether his reasons for opposing the war were valid;
2. If so, whether the information he uses appears as though it would have been accessible to all those in Congress; and
3. If so, whether Americans should vote in a president who either did not take the time to find that information, or did not have the backbone and/or foresight to stand up against the step towards war that the Iraq War Resolution truly was.

Here are the excerpted sections taken directly from his speech, given on October 3, 2002; and again, the sections I labeled “from the resolution” were quoted by Kucinich in his speech, and are followed by his counterpoints in the sections labeled “Kucinich’s response”:

From the Resolution-

``Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated.''

Kucinich's response-

"But the key issue here that the American people need to know is that U.N. inspection teams identified and destroyed nearly all such weapons. A lead inspector, Scott Ritter, said that he believes that nearly all other weapons not found were destroyed in the Gulf War. Furthermore, according to a published report in The Washington Post, the Central Intelligence Agency, yes, the Central Intelligence Agency, has no up-to-date accurate report on Iraq's capabilities of weapons of mass destruction."

From the Resolution-

``Whereas Iraq both possesses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations.''

Kucinich's response-

"The American people deserve to know that the key issue here is that there is no proof that Iraq represents an imminent or immediate threat to the United States of America. I will repeat: there is no proof that Iraq represents an imminent or immediate threat to the United States. A continuing threat does not constitute a sufficient cause for war. The administration has refused to provide the Congress with credible evidence that proves that Iraq is a serious threat to the United States and that it is continuing to possess and develop chemical and biological and nuclear weapons. Furthermore, there is no credible evidence connecting Iraq to al Qaeda and 9-11, and yet there are people who want to bomb Iraq in reprisal for 9-11"

From the Resolution-

``Whereas members of al Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, are known to be in Iraq.''

Kucinich's response-

"Well, the American people need to know there is no credible evidence that connects Iraq to the events of 9-11 or to participation in those events by assisting al Qaeda."

From the Resolution-

``Whereas the attacks on the United States of America of September 11, 2001 underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations.''

Kucinich's response-

"And, again, and I stress, the American people need to know that there is no connection between Iraq and the events of 9-11. However, this resolution attempts to make the connection over and over and over. And just saying that there is a connection does not make it so, because the Central Intelligence Agency has not presented this Congress with any credible information that indicates that there is in fact a tie between Iraq and 9-11, between Iraq and al Qaeda, or Iraq and the anthrax attacks on this Capitol."

From the Resolution-

``Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1), that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region, and that Congress supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688.''

Kucinich's response-

"Well, the counterpoint here is this, and what we are going to be asserting on the floor of this House is that this clause demonstrates the proper chronology of international process in contrast to the current march to war. In 1991, the United Nations Security Council passed the resolution asking for enforcement of its resolution. Member countries authorized their troops to participate in a U.N.-led coalition to enforce the U.N. resolutions. Now the President is asking Congress to authorize a unilateral first strike before the U.N. Security Council has asked its member states to enforce U.N. resolutions."

What's in a Vote (for War)?

*I wrote the below piece back in Dec. of 2007 about Hillary and other Democratic candidates' votes in favor of the 2002 invasion of Iraq; however, the same argument lays at the feet of John McCain now, in my view, as he also voted for the 2002 legislation authorizing the invasion of Iraq. I plan to write a piece targeting McCain's particular bent towards war and imperialism, but in terms of the vote for Iraq, as I said, all the below arguments apply to him as well.

I've got two main qualms with Hillary at this point--one is her vote on Iraq, and the second is what she could do to the prospect of long term gains for progressive candidates and a progressive agenda (due to her divisiveness). I'll just take on the first for the moment, and wrap candidate John Edwards into it as well (along with candidates Biden and Dodd).

I feel our what, four and a half years now in Iraq, have dulled me to the significance of the whole thing. I think any time the candidates opposed to the war mention it, they would do well to remind a too-easily-desensitized electorate of what it is. I mean, what do you think when you hear "Iraq war"? Do you think politics, or war? Or perhaps it has just become a bit like a worn out brand, particularly for the political left, which is mentioning it the most. In realizing this, I did a little research to remind myself and anyone reading of the import of the vote cast back in 2002 by Congress, authorizing the invasion of Iraq (technically known as the "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002").

The reality of the decision quickly begins to sink in as you consider aspects of it you may not have thought much about, like the simple fact that some number of people (in Congress) decided five years ago that they thought it merited to send troops, force Hussein out of power, and, frankly, attack another country. I myself do not feel I am informed enough to say I am wholesale against any use of force against another country, but I certainly think it is a gravely serious decision that should be overrun with doubt and questioning, double checking, verifying, and a humane sense of meticulous caution. While it may come across as cliche, I think what really knocks the reality of it home is to take a second to consider the number of people who have died in Iraq; according to recent estimates for Iraqi civilians, the range goes anywhere from 34,000 to 793,000--quite a wide range, to be sure. For American serviceman, the most recent count, verified by the Dept. of Defense, is 3895. This does not count those fighting against us, who would not be considered civilians. However, excluding that very significant number of the "opposition" who have been killed, the baseline casualties here, according to these numbers, is 37, 895 (a number I think really must be viewed as extremely conservative). Given that at least that number have died, and the reality that the much touted "weapons of mass destruction," which formed a major basis for our invasion, proved not to exist, it leads to a basic question of whether those who voted for the war should have known better, and should now be trusted with the running of our country (I should say here, I am quite convinced that we had ill-founded reasons for invading Iraq, but would recommend a great PBS piece by Bill Moyers, available online, for those who want a good overview on some of the common reasons for this stance).

In terms of my question though, on whether those who authorized the war should have judged more carefully, I find it significant that in the Senate, 23 voted against authorizing the war; of course some such as Sen. Clinton, Sen. Edwards, Sen. Biden, Sen. Dodd, Sen. McCain (all now running for president), and Sen. John Kerry, voted for it (here's a full list and a quick article on this; a list of the 133 members of the House who voted against it is available here). One excerpt from a 2002 NY Times article said "several Democrats joined Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia in protesting what they said was a heedless rush toward war." And of course, as I wrote about before, Sen. Obama, prior to his election to the Senate, spoke out against the war (also, in terms of the presidential candidates, Rep. Kucinich voted against it, and former Sen. Mike Gravel spoke out as well, with details here and here, respectively). My personal judgment is that these individuals, including highly respected Senators such as Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Carl Levin (D-Mich.), exhibited necessary caution and circumspection, doing the research necessary to make the right decision.

Sen. Levin has a press release available on his site concerning that Oct.2002 vote, which includes a number of points about why he voted against the resolution. One such point states the following: "This grant of authority is also unacceptable since it empowers the President to initiate the use of U.S. military force although the threat against which it is used is not imminent. International law has required that there be an imminent threat before one initiates an attack under the rubric of self defense." He goes on to say that the Administration based their argument on the idea of a "continuing threat," not an "imminent" threat, stating that this could lead to an "increase in violence and aggression throughout the world"--I have to agree, and so am really worried by those who, at the time, did not agree (even though almost all who voted for it then, regret it now). A quick survey question in light of all this:

more at twiigs.com...

Update: Here's a link to a great discussion about this that is currently going on at Daily Kos (a great site by the way), where I reposted this piece on Obama's early stance against the war.

Update 2: Check out my more recent piece that discusses the speech given by presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich one week before the above-mentioned vote for war in '02. In it, I use about five to six direct quotes from his speech that specifically address the logic used in the Iraq War Resolution used to authorize force against Iraq.

Update 3: In the two posts I mention above, on Obama and Kucinich's stands against the war, both candidates analyzed a lot of key issues in this discussion, and thus are worth taking a minute to read over in my view. However, I wanted to include a quick quote from each here, both of which speak to Sen. Levin's above-mentioned contention about there not being an "imminent threat":

Kucinich, 2002 (prior to the vote for war): "The American people deserve to know that the key issue here is that there is no proof that Iraq represents an imminent or immediate threat to the United States of America. I will repeat: there is no proof that Iraq represents an imminent or immediate threat to the United States. A continuing threat does not constitute a sufficient cause for war. The administration has refused to provide the Congress with credible evidence that proves that Iraq is a serious threat to the United States and that it is continuing to possess and develop chemical and biological and nuclear weapons. Furthermore, there is no credible evidence connecting Iraq to al Qaeda and 9-11, and yet there are people who want to bomb Iraq in reprisal for 9-11."

Obama, 2002 (prior to the vote for war): "But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history."

Update 4: Apologies, this is just entirely too weighty of an issue to exclude any relevant issues that come up, so here's two more resources. The most recent is a study done by the Center for Public Integrity and another organization that points to 935 false statements by Administration officials in the two years after 9/11. Here's the intro to the Washington Post article:

"A study by two nonprofit journalism organizations found that President Bush and top administration officials issued hundreds of false statements about the national security threat from Iraq in the two years following the 2001 terrorist attacks. The study concluded that the statements 'were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses.' "

The second resource here is a brief, page and a half Washington Post article from late 2005, written by former Senator Bob Graham, a Democrat from FL who was chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence during Sept. 11th and the run-up to the Iraq war. He talks about why he voted against the 2002 bill, noting that while the President was misleading, he felt there was enough evidence in the other direction, namely that: 1. Hussein would not use whatever weapons he might have unless first attacked, as noted in a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) from 2002 (NIEs are documents produced by the entire intelligence community on a given topic); 2. there were "vigorous dissents" in the NIE from the Depts. of State and Energy particularly about various key parts of the "evidence"; and 3. the "informants" regarding the purported intelligence were mostly third countries or Iraqi exiles that "had an interest in the United States removing Hussein."

What did Obama actually say when he spoke against the war before it began?

Picture of Obama during his 2002 speech opposing the Iraq war.

It's ridiculous how much a symbol like Obama's name and logo can so quickly become kitsch and tacky with overexposure, however it may just be that I've been spending enough time looking at things that it appears that way to me. Nevertheless, I had never read or heard what exactly Obama said in his oft-mentioned opposition to the Iraq war PRIOR to it being declared--take 3 minutes and read his short speech, it is a remarkably accurate prediction of what has happened, I can't believe it. He gave it during his campaign for U.S. Senate--not a time when it is very safe to oppose a war that was framed (wrongly I believe) as part of our "payback" for 9-11 (as an important sidenote, the whole concept of paypack or revenge is not helpful in my view; dealing with the root problems to make sure they don't arise again seems a more worthwhile, humane approach). Here's the little bit of it that was caught on tape too (with a bunch of people after filling in some pieces of what he said that was not caught on tape): http://www.barackobama.com/tv/iraq.php (check out the written speech to hear it all though, it really is short). You can also look at his overview page on Iraq here.

Update: In reading over Obama's speech another time, I thought I would pull a few quotes to place right in this post, although I would once again encourage anyone interested to read the whole thing, as it is literally just a page long. Here's a few excerpts:

-“What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.”

-“That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear - I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.”

-"I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda.”

-“You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.”

-“You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn't simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil. Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair. The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable.”

-“We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not -- we will not -- travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.”

Update 2: Here's a great seven-and-a-half minute video clip of Obama talking about: the thought process he went through prior to deciding to oppose the war early on; his overall take on where the war has gone wrong, including interesting notes about such things as the need to punish high-ranking officers in cases like Abu Ghraib; and finally, on the need to launch "the greatest diplomatic effort in recent history" in order to move the Iraq region to a positive position. Here's the video:



Update 3: Here's a link I'll write more about later, to an unbelievable speech before the war by Presidential candidate Rep. Dennis Kucinich on the floor of the House of Representatives. It is incredibly prescient, taking portions of the 2002 Iraq War Resolution, which authorized use of force in Iraq, prior to its passage, piece by piece, and dismantling the justifications behind it. This is the type of judgment that was not shown by those who voted for it--Clinton, Edwards, Biden and Dodd--that is based on very accessible information, as you'll see with the Kucinich speech. That is why I wrote this piece, "What's in a Vote (for War)," about how I think we should be able to expect better proven judgment and sober-minded caution from those who are seeking to run our nation.

Update 4: I did write about the above piece by Kucinich, and it's damning, in my view, for any who voted for the war. Read the piece I wrote on this with specific excerpts from his House floor speech here.

Update 5 (I also added this same note to the end of this post): There's just so many issues related to our decision to go into Iraq, and therefore a number of updates I've had here. As an addendum here, I just watched Obama speaking at a faith forum where he talked about the "solemn obligation that you do everything you can to get that decision right," talking about decisions of war and peace (see the last 30 seconds of this video, where he also talks about how he "agonized" over the entire decision of whether to go into Iraq); that's a solemness I must say I do not see in the disgusting casualness with which McCain approaches issues of war--e.g., in the way he has literally joked about the idea of bombing Iran (video here). I'll hope to write more about the faith forum and McCain's overall views on war later.