Posted on 03/21/2004 12:46:50 AM PST by MarvntheMartian
Several days ago I was watching the House debate concerning the approval of a resolution which expressed commendation for the United States Armed Forces and Coalition forces for liberating Iraq and expressed its gratitude for their valiant service, called H. Res. 557.
The more I think about this debate, the more I fume. I was struck by how utterly audacious it was of Democrats to spew forth rhetoric, suggesting Republicans were being divisive and partisan...and, alleging Republicans were using our brave soldiers for their own political gain.
When I was watching the debate over this issue on C-SPAN, I was not paying the most intent attention to the debate, other than attuning to the several key rhetorical statements by the Democrats, as I had other things to do...but, after referring to the transcripts of the Congressional Record, it appears the Democrats penned ANOTHER resolution that covers many of the issues they claimed they wanted to address during THIS debate...but, they didn't, for some reason, present it to the House of Representatives for a vote.
Instead, they wasted approximately 4 hours arguing over what's really a simple resolution that commended our soldiers in Iraq, rather than immediately approving this resolution...then, moving on, to present their own separate resolution for a vote.
As the original resolution is written, it states as follows:
Resolved, That the House of Representatives --
(1) affirms that the United States and the world have been made safer with the removal of Saddam Hussein and his regime from power in Iraq;
(2) commends the Iraqi people for their courage in the face of unspeakable oppression and brutality inflicted on them by Saddam Hussein's regime;
(3) commends the Iraqi people on the adoption of Iraq's interim constitution; and
(4) commends the members of the United States Armed Forces and Coalition forces for liberating Iraq and expresses its gratitude for their valiant service.
Now, with this, a Democratic Representative named Mr. Lantos, from California, goes on to say: "[T]he resolution we are considering today is deeply flawed. ...Success in time of war requires 'cohesion and unity.' We do not need a 'divisive, partisan resolution.'...
...[T]he conflict in Iraq 'should not be a partisan issue.' The soldiers who are fighting in Iraq are Democrats and Republicans and Independents. The soldiers who are wounded and killed in Iraq are Democrats and Republicans and Independents. The families who grieve for their sons and daughters who dies in Iraq are Democrats and Republicans and Independents. The citizens of this country who are paying for this war are Democrats and Republicans and Independents. ...
...[T]here are other serious omissions in this resolution. 'We should spend our time today debating substantive legislation to fix these problems.'"
Then, Mr. Lantos, and his colleagues, go on to waste approximately 4 hours of government time and taxpayer dollars to complain how THIS resolution wasn't written the way THEY wanted it to be written.
Well, here's a novel idea Mr. Lantos, instead of having wasted 4 hours of government time and taxpayer dollars arguing over THIS resolution, you should have approved THIS resolution commending our troops post haste, presented the SEPARATE resolution you and your colleagues penned addressing the issues YOU wanted to address...and, MOVE ON WITH IT!
If you had to tie commending our soldiers to several other issues that YOU wanted to address...such as, criticizing the President for alleged flawed intelligence, compensation to Iraqi families for alleged civilian lives lost due to America's actions, etc., - YOU AND YOUR COLLEAGUES HAD THE AUDACITY TO ATTEMPT TO CLAIM IT WAS "REPUBLICANS" WHO WERE BEING PARTISAN, DIVISIVE...AND, USING OUR TROOPS FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES?!
If you found it THAT incredibly difficult to commend our brave soldiers...then, move on to the next order of business, by presenting your OWN resolution addressing the issues YOU wanted to address, without tying commendation of our soldiers in to a bunch of other issues that adhere to YOUR political agenda, something is wrong.
It was, and is, hypocritical of you to claim YOU and your colleagues wanted to "spend our time today debating substantive legislation"...then, turn right around and virtually waste 4 hours of floor debate arguing over what's really a simple and straightforward resolution commending our soldiers, that COULD have been used to work towards approving the resolution YOU wanted to have approved, that addressed the "substantive" legislation you allege you wanted to debate.
We can get in to the semantics of "safe" and "safer" until we're blue in the face and folks are going to have their own ideas as to whether or not we truly ARE safer. I simply don't think anyone can deny that the world isn't "safer" with Saddam Hussein having been removed from a leadership position in Iraq. I can't never necessarily definitively conclude that I'm going to be "safe" if I wear a seat belt while I'm driving...but, according to experts, I'm "safer" if I wear a seat belt while driving. And, although no one is EVER going to definitively be able to declare the world is "safe" without Saddam Hussein in power in Iraq, to say the world isn't "safer," is ignorant.
Finally, Mr. Lantos, while you're speaking of being partisan and divisive, I noticed you purposely placed emphasis on mentioning Republicans, Democrats and Independents...HOWEVER, you conveniently forgot to mention the Green Party, the Libertarian Party, the Reform Party, the Constitutional Party, the Natural Law Party, the Socialist Party, the Socialist Workers' Party, the Workers' World Party...and, many, many OTHER political parties who are contributing to serving this country in Iraq, who are dying in Iraq, who've been wounded in Iraq, who are paying for this war...and, are families who've sacrificed and grieved over loved ones lost in Iraq. But, you know these three parties that you referred to are the major parties...and, you felt it was important to ENSURE that you referred to THESE particular parties, especially the Independent party...which would more than likely be disregarded and dismissed just as easily as the other parties mentioned above, if it wasn't for the candidacy of Ralph Nader...in an attempt to reach out to them for YOUR parties' political gain. But, what you don't realize is, you've more than likely, inadvertently distanced your party from the other groups mentioned above, by making them feel somehow LESS important, by placing so much emphasis on Democrats, Republicans, and Independents, than they really are. Job well done Mr. Lantos...and, you have the gawl and audacity to accuse Republicans of being divisive and partisan?
It's impossible to underestimate the STUPIDITY of the US voting public.
Socialists know that the sheep will follow the last and loudest voice they hear. Sound bites are measured precisely to what the sheep's attention span can handle during episodes of "Friends".
Sheep need someone to tell them what to think. And with most of the major mass media under Socialist control, it's easy to get Truth 2.0 to them. And the truth they get is this:
- The War in Iraq was wrong;
- Bush lied (doesn't matter about what, he just did);
- Bush knew about 9-11/WMD's/Enron;
-Kerry's a real decorated war hero; and
- The majority of US citizens are protesting the War on Terror (note that it's the ENTIRE war, not just Iraq), troops are dying in droves, and Bush stole the 2000 Election.
Because that's all the sheep hear. And the sheep believe.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.