More on Bacevich’s son: The utter worthlessness of our “leaders”
By Thoreau
Jim blogged some of Andrew Bacevich’s comments on the death of his son in Iraq. There are a few other things worth noting in the article that he wrote, immediately prior to the part quoted by Jim:
After my son’s death, my state’s senators, Edward M. Kennedy and John F. Kerry, telephoned to express their condolences. Stephen F. Lynch, our congressman, attended my son’s wake. Kerry was present for the funeral Mass. My family and I greatly appreciated such gestures. But when I suggested to each of them the necessity of ending the war, I got the brushoff. More accurately, after ever so briefly pretending to listen, each treated me to a convoluted explanation that said in essence: Don’t blame me.
Think of it: There they are, at the funeral, right in front of the casket and a family that is paying the price for the errors of this Congress, and all these guys can say is “Don’t blame me.” They can’t be bothered to confront the enormity of the nightmare that they have unleashed, they can’t be bothered to pledge to fix it. Instead, they say “Don’t blame me” and then fly back to Washington and let this funding bill go through.
Stopping this war should be the first and only priority of Congress. Instead, when they realize that it will be hard, that it will require them to use every parliamentary maneuver at their disposal to suspend all other government business and force a showdown, perhaps running out the clock on funding so that the President is backed into a corner, they opt for political expediency. Even if it means standing in front of more coffins at funerals in the coming months and years.
Worthless sons of bitches. May they all burn in hell.
Comment by From my favorite Pedia, The Wikipedia —
May 27, 2007 @ 12:18 pm
“Opinion in the U.S. Congress leading up to the Iraq War generally favored a diplomatic solution, while supporting military intervention should diplomacy fail. The October 11, 2002 resolution that authorized President Bush to use force in Iraq passed the Senate by a vote of 77 to 23, and the House by 296 to 133. [6][7] Leading opponents of the resolution included Senators Russ Feingold and Edward Kennedy.”
“Kerry also gave a January 23, 2003 speech to Georgetown University saying “Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator; leading an oppressive regime he presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real.” Kerry did, however, warn that the administration should exhaust its diplomatic avenues before launching war: “Mr. President, do not rush to war, take the time to build the coalition, because it’s not winning the war that’s hard, it’s winning the peace that’s hard.” [37]“
Comment by sglover —
May 27, 2007 @ 2:45 pm
Yes, but many of my fellow card-carrying Dems point out to me that our Congressional heroes, in an act of brilliant ju-jitsu, wrangled a higher minimum wage out of The Warlord. The fact that many states already have higher minimum wages than the federal one, or that the labor market in many areas makes the federal standard a quaint anachronism, is not considered especially germane.
Ah well, not to worry. Lots of self-proclaimed political strategists assure me that the Dems have the GOP right where they want it. In September, I’m told, things are gonna be different. You watch.
As with the original war authorization, and bankruptcy “reform” later on, I can’t decide which is more mind-boggling — the moral emptiness, or the sheer political stupidity. Once again, the Dems have blurred any distinction between themselves and their nominal opposition, and this time they did so from a position of clear political advantage. Bacevich is entirely correct — the Dems just re-affirmed co-ownership of this botched, loathed war.
Comment by turkey turkey turkey —
May 27, 2007 @ 3:59 pm
At risk of sounding like a broken record, the Dems are never going to sanction a complete pullout because they recognize the imperial advantages of permanent occupation just as much as the GOP does.
Both parties believe in imperialism. Their only dispute is over methods and effectiveness.
Two sides, one coin.
Comment by Nell —
May 27, 2007 @ 4:17 pm
Eager to address other issues, such as soaring energy prices, and to complete unfinished business on homeland security and ethics bills, House leaders hope to give Iraq a rest. link
Huh. Shades of the 2002 Democratic leadership decision to ‘get Iraq out of the way’ and the “antiwar” front group Americans Against Escalation in Iraq’s announced goal to ‘get Iraq out of the way’.
Comment by BruceB —
May 27, 2007 @ 5:17 pm
I honestly don’t think there are a lot of genuine imperialists in the Democratic Party. The Republican Party, yes, it’s been driving out non-imperialists for a while now. The Democratic problem (I think) is a different one: in the absence of any real ideology at all, many of its members are the playthings of the consultant apparatus, and many of the rest are insufficiently secure in whatever views they have or sufficiently lodged in an obsolete vision of comity that they can’t bring themselves to speak up. Both sorts are residents of what Bunyan would have described as the city of Business-As-Usual, which is slowly sliding into the Vale of Perdition. If the party that has an idea had another idea, they’d follow it just the same way.
To this cowardice, of course, the right response is still the one Thoreau gave.
Trackback by Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator —
May 27, 2007 @ 8:05 pm
President signs war funding bill…
President Bush signed a bill Friday to pay for military operations in Iraq after a bitter struggle w…
Comment by David T —
May 27, 2007 @ 8:47 pm
In all fairness, they just may not have the votes. After all, in the Senate, their “majority” depends on Joe Lieberman.
That is not an excuse for not trying, though.
Comment by Nell —
May 27, 2007 @ 10:25 pm
That is not an excuse for not trying, though.
Got that right. Glenn Greenwald today puts his finger on where they went wrong (at the beginning of the ‘fight’).
Comment by Jon Koppenhoefer —
May 29, 2007 @ 3:37 pm
This war has revealed some really disgusting things about elements off American political ‘thought’: tribalism; a belief in the legitimacy of the use of force to settle disputes, so long as ‘we’ prevail; and worst of all, a quickness to turn viciously on our own countrymen for the sin of disagreement.
Too many Americans have no use for democracy; they want to dominate others no matter what it costs those who lose the conflict.
Bush, Cheney, and countless others are amoral cowards who would sell most of us out for the right price.