http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/18607

In Congress, Opposing the War but Doing Nothing to Stop It

Congressional Remarks by Rep. Ron Paul

This grand debate is welcomed but it could be that this is nothing more than a distraction from the dangerous military confrontation approaching with Iran and supported by many in leadership on both sides of the aisle.

This resolution, unfortunately, does not address the disaster in Iraq. Instead, it seeks to appear opposed to the war while at the same time offering no change of the status quo in Iraq. As such, it is not actually a vote against a troop surge. A real vote against a troop surge is a vote against the coming supplemental appropriation that finances it. I hope all of my colleagues who vote against the surge today will vote against the budgetary surge when it really counts: when we vote on the supplemental.

The biggest red herring in this debate is the constant innuendo that those who don't support expanding the war are somehow opposing the troops. It's nothing more than a canard to claim that those of us who struggled to prevent the bloodshed and now want it stopped are somehow less patriotic and less concerned about the welfare of our military personnel.

Osama bin Laden has expressed sadistic pleasure with our invasion of Iraq and was surprised that we served his interests above and beyond his dreams on how we responded after the 9/11 attacks. His pleasure comes from our policy of folly getting ourselves bogged down in the middle of a religious civil war, 7,000 miles from home that is financially bleeding us to death. Total costs now are reasonably estimated to exceed $2 trillion. His recruitment of Islamic extremists has been greatly enhanced by our occupation of Iraq.

Unfortunately, we continue to concentrate on the obvious mismanagement of a war promoted by false information and ignore debating the real issue which is: Why are we determined to follow a foreign policy of empire building and preemption which is unbecoming of a constitutional republic?

Those on the right should recall that the traditional conservative position of non-intervention was their position for most of the 20th Century – and they benefited politically from the wars carelessly entered into by the political left. Seven years ago the right benefited politically by condemning the illegal intervention in Kosovo and Somalia. At the time conservatives were outraged over the failed policy of nation building.

It's important to recall that the left, in 2003, offered little opposition to the preemptive war in Iraq, and many are now not willing to stop it by defunding it or work to prevent an attack on Iran.

The catch-all phrase, "War on Terrorism," in all honesty, has no more meaning than if one wants to wage a war against criminal gangsterism. It's deliberately vague and nondefinable to justify and permit perpetual war anywhere, and under any circumstances. Don't forget: the Iraqis and Saddam Hussein had absolutely nothing to do with any terrorist attack against us including that on 9/11.

Special interests and the demented philosophy of conquest have driven most wars throughout history. Rarely has the cause of liberty, as it was in our own revolution, been the driving force. In recent decades our policies have been driven by neoconservative empire radicalism, profiteering in the military industrial complex, misplaced do-good internationalism, mercantilistic notions regarding the need to control natural resources, and blind loyalty to various governments in the Middle East.

For all the misinformation given the American people to justify our invasion, such as our need for national security, enforcing UN resolutions, removing a dictator, establishing a democracy, protecting our oil, the argument has been reduced to this: If we leave now Iraq will be left in a mess – implying the implausible that if we stay it won't be a mess.

Since it could go badly when we leave, that blame must be placed on those who took us there, not on those of us who now insist that Americans no longer need be killed or maimed and that Americans no longer need to kill any more Iraqis. We've had enough of both!

Resorting to a medical analogy, a wrong diagnosis was made at the beginning of the war and the wrong treatment was prescribed. Refusing to reassess our mistakes and insist on just more and more of a failed remedy is destined to kill the patient-in this case the casualties will be our liberties and prosperity here at home and peace abroad.

There's no logical reason to reject the restraints placed in the Constitution regarding our engaging in foreign conflicts unrelated to our national security. The advice of the founders and our early presidents was sound then and it's sound today.

We shouldn't wait until our financial system is completely ruined and we are forced to change our ways. We should do it as quickly as possible and stop the carnage and financial bleeding that will bring us to our knees and force us to stop that which we should have never started.

We all know, in time, the war will be de-funded one way or another and the troops will come home. So why not now?

Powerful stuff!

Everyone needs to step back, take a deep breath, and realize what the Democrats in Congress can and cannot do. They are being blamed for not ending the war immediately. While I wish to god they could, that is not realistic. Please notice that the Republicans are blocking even any debate on the non-binding resolution in the Senate. Given that atmosphere, how in the hell are they supposed to perform the miracle of ending the war in the short term.

The non-binding resolution is a first baby step toward sanity. This will get the chickenhawk Republicans on record, so their constituents can put pressure on them to do the will of the people.

It's not the first time a majority government has resorted to this tactic to end a war, against the wishes of an insane tyrant.

Link: On Iraq, learn from history

As Congress struggles over what to say about the Iraq war and how to say it, it might take inspiration from an unlikely source. Two hundred and twenty-five years ago this month, the British House of Commons conducted a strikingly similar debate over another war in a distant land. That debate came to a dramatic culmination the night of Feb. 27, 1782, when the House of Commons adopted a resolution condemning "the further prosecution of offensive warfare" in North America.

The vote took place at 2 a.m. Though the hour was late, it was still "a very full House," Edmund Burke wrote his old friend, Benjamin Franklin, the American minister in France. The vote was 234-215. But what was "the declaration" of the majority, Burke added, was also "the opinion of the whole." One of the points discussed, in fact, was whether members were voicing the same sentiments in the Commons that they were heard to utter in London coffeehouses.

The resolution, like those now circulating in Congress, was itself a statement of opinion, rather than a legislative attempt to cut off the funds required for the war. Its leading proponent, Gen. Henry Seymour Conway, was a John Murtha-like character who had combined active military duty with four decades of service in Parliament. Seymour was utterly convinced that continuing the unpopular struggle in America was a distraction from the war Britain was also waging against France and Spain and a barrier to reconciliation with the king's former subjects.

King George III bitterly opposed the resolution, and for a few weeks he resisted its effects and even considered abdicating. Though our last king was hardly the tyrant we label him--he was, after all, a constitutional monarch--he had been the strongest advocate of a military solution in America. His prime minister, Lord Frederick North, was weak-kneed by comparison, and George regularly had to buck up his courage. But North, like Burke, immediately understood what their sovereign struggled to grasp. The vote in the Commons was the end of the policy that had lost the confidence of both the political elite and the people "out-of-doors."

It would be easy to draw facile comparisons between the actors of 1782 and our own cast of characters: George Bush the Faith-based Decider for George the Grossly Bad Rex, perhaps an agonizing Colin Powell for Lord North, and Donald Rumsfeld for Lord George Germain, the aggressive minister for American affairs whose head had to roll after the British surrender at Yorktown proved the futility of his strategy.

You are correct, Shoeless, and we are going to give them time. But they need to keep the ball moving forward and push this Administration all the way back into the corner it so deserves to be in. We expect a lot from the Democrats. We see them moving forward, slowly, and being resisted by the Republican Administration minions in Congress. I realize it is probably a tough battle to fight, but as long as we see them trying, we should all support the Democrats in Congress. I just don't want to see any political games being played with this by people running for President or others supporting various candidates. End the fucking war first and think about playing politics second. I don't think most of the American people will have a lot of patience with political game-playing on this issue if they see it.

Actually, all things considered, the Democrats are doing amazingly well.
Considering the usual speed of the political process, it's also moving quite rapidly.
Though it won't be fast enough for those who will die today, this can't be argued with.

I expect that this is building into a consititutional confronation between this Democratic Congress and one of the most arrogant, fascist, imperialistic Administrations in U.S. History. I think Democrats are a intimidated to fully confront Bush, but they are going to find that that is the ONLY thing that will control him. Otherwise he will just continue to ignore and disrespect them, as if they are not an independent branch of the government and have no say so over the war. I guarantee you that Dick Cheny has the utmost contempt for this Congress, and he plays a huge role in what this Administration does. Bush listens to "Uncle Dick" for direction, so it is really Democrats vs Cheney. Who will win? Stay tuned to find out in this continueing saga.

Boiling point by summer, if not much sooner.