I have said my "mea culpas" for giving my approval to the intial Iraq War plans of this war-mongering "decider" who occupies the White House. It's true, nobody sent me a request or called me on the phone to ask my opinion, but I did sit in front ot the TV and watch Tony Blair and Colin Powell make their case, and I did watch the debate in Congress, and then I said, "OK." Without Powell and Blair, I wouldn't have been persuaded.
I'm sorry I gave the Bushies my go-ahead. I've said this before on ARBORETUM. Even if he didn't ask and said he would do what he wanted anyway.
This brings me to the matter currently on my mind: Should Hillary and Kerry and Obama have voted for or against the new cash for the war? From my point of view, what difference does it make? If the Senate does not have the guts to compel an end to the war, then it has a duty to support the troops. Yep, they're our troops and I think they can't be "left hanging" in the desert.
On the other hand, if no one voted against the money, how could the war ever be stopped? Seems to me this makes the second horn of a classic dilemma. Neither choice seems to be either right or wrong.
What we shouldn't put up with is either those anti-war people who voted yes or voted no trying to make capital out of the vote. The only people with a legitimate beef are those like McCaine who support the war. They're entitled to condemn the no voters.
What's needed is an anti-war vote in Congress: straight up. Resolved, that American participation in this war should be ended by _____________(date).
2 comments:
Georgy Ann Geyer, as usual hits the nail directly on the head in her most reacent 2 columns on 5-29 and 5-31. She, like me opposed this war before it began.
Here is the link to her columns---
http://www.uexpress.com/georgieannegeyer/
guess you have to cut and paste that link into your address bar.
Thank you friend. This is a good reference.
Post a Comment