This MyDD
blog entry and this Politico
article describe this PDF
showing the results of a poll of all 100 U.S. Senators. It asks how
they voted on the war in 2002, whether they regret that vote, whether
they support escalating the war, and whether they support ending the
war by a certain date. This fairly well cuts through the courageous
debate over whether to have a debate over whether to meaninglessly
dissent from Bush's escalation plans for a war that most Americans
want ended.
The first thing that stands out is that Senators Byrd and Cardin,
rather than saying that Yes they support ending the occupation by
a certain date, both wrote in the word "Immediate." That's
2 Senators for ending the thing. 98 to go.
If you look at Democrats who voted Yes on the war, 11 of them regret
having done so. Cantwell wrote in "No Comment," apparently
unable to determine whether or not she regrets slaughtering 655,000
people on the basis of lies. Dorgan also had no comment, and also
had no comment on whether he ever wants to end the war. Reid - the
guy who's supposedly "leading" - had the same responses
as Dorgan. Lincoln had no comment on anything except having voted
for the war.
Hillary Clinton's response is worse, however. She voted for the war,
does not regret it, and does not support ending it by a certain date.
She does oppose the escalation, which fairly well displays the worthlessness
of opposition to the escalation. Lieberman had the same responses
as Clinton, except that he supports the escalation. Both Nelsons also
do not regret having supported the war and have no interest in ending
it. Schumer does not regret backing the war and has no comment on
ending it. Quite an opposition party, eh?
But there is a bright side: 11 Dems and 3 Republicans said they regretted
having voted for this war, and 22 Dems and 1 Independent said they
support setting a certain date to end the ongoing genocide or - in
the case of 2 Dems - ending it immediately. Another 11 Senators did
not say No to setting a date, but rather replied with "undecided"
or "no comment."
The responses on the escalation, or "surge", are interesting
as well. 48 Dems, 1 Independent, and 10 Republicans oppose the escalation,
while a bunch more indicated "conditionally" or "no
comment," etc. That's a MAJORITY of Senators on record as opposing
something that our monarch has already done without asking their approval,
but something that they can't seem to even get straight on debating
whether to debate.
We owe a debt to the Politico. Maybe we should let that publication
run the Senate. Maybe the usefulness of this sort of survey will inspire
the Senate to pass the bill, allowing card-check organizing and the
labor movement will be reborn out of the ashes of incompetence and
militarism.
One can hope.
Here are two things you can do to stop a war on Iran:
1. Sign on to this letter, which will have the backing of
a surprisingly broad range of political organizations:
Below is a sign on letter to try and stop the Iran War. If
your organization is interested in signing please send an email with
your name, title and organization to [email protected]
The undersigned organizations have joined together because we believe
that military action against Iran would not be in the national interest
of the United States nor its allies in the region nor Europe and
Asia. Our organizations represent a broad spectrum of political
perspectives in the U.S. that are united in our belief that military
action would be clearly detrimental to the national interests of
the United States and its allies in the region. We urge you to call
immediate congressional hearings on administration plans to attack
Iran and support diplomacy between the United States and Iran without
preconditions.
Among the reasons we oppose apparent Bush Administration plan to
widen the war by attacking Iran are:
- It could provoke Iran to retaliate by halting or threatening
the flow of oil through the Persian Gulf. This would have a devastating
effect on the world economy. If Iran was even partly successful, it
could raise gasoline prices to $5 per gallon for Americans, according
to many economists. A prolonged shortage of oil would very much constrict
the entire world economy and put an end to our great era of economic
growth. Such an event would cause commodity prices to collapse and
a big drop in Chinese purchase of U.S. bonds, with a resultant severe
rise in domestic interest rates.
- It will put U.S. soldiers and American interests in the region at
far greater risk, not just in Iraq but in surrounding countries. At
the very least we could expect many more attacks upon our supply lines
between Kuwait and Baghdad, with many more American casualties.
- It will further overextend U.S. forces, already under a great deal
of stress, and greatly restrict the ability of the U.S. to respond
to other threats which may arise.
- Another lawless attack by America would further undermine legitimate
efforts to prevent acts of terror directed against the U.S. by accelerating
a cycle of violence and by creating even more terrorists targeting
the U.S.and U.S. interests abroad for many years to come.
- Eighty-five percent of Iranians in America oppose our bombing their
homeland, even though they oppose the government there. Attacking
Iran would reinforce the current dictatorship and unite all Iranians
against America.
- It will threaten U.S. allies in the region, particularly Saudi Arabia,
and Kuwait, with retaliation. Iran has already warned the small Gulf
States they their oil facilities would be at risk in retaliation for
any U.S. attack on Iran. Their and the Saudi oil facilities are totally
open to aerial missile attack. Just rising insurance rates could result
in the suspension of oil shipments. We don't know for sure that the
U.S. can protect such targets from every missile or ground threat
which would exist.
- Even a temporary shutting down of the Straits of Hormuz would further
weaken Europe via-a-viz Russian oil power and make it even more dependent
upon Russian energy supplies.
- Another unilateral American attack on another Muslim nation would
make us every more isolated in the world, with even more enemies.
- It will create a devastating and unnecessary humanitarian disaster
that is sure to turn the international community against the U.S.
Thousands of innocent Iranians would be killed.
- As was the case with Iraq, military action against Iran is being
justified on false premises and without conclusive intelligence that
Iran poses an imminent threat to the United States. There is no credible
intelligence confirming that Iran is developing a nuclear weapon.
U.S. and other intelligence agencies estimate that Iran is still up
to ten years away from developing a nuclear weapon if it indeed has
such a program. This provides America with ample time to resolve this
diplomatically and the Iranian people with a chance to advance reforms
that will put an end to the theocracy in Iran. Time may be running
out for George Bush, but it is not running out for America.
- Claims that Iran is directly assisting insurgents in Iraq remain
unsubstantiated and implausible since the majority of identified insurgents
are Sunnis as is al-Qaeda, while the Iranians are Shi'ites linked
to parties within the current Iraqi government.
- Given 26 years of US refusal to start a dialogue with Iran and recent
setbacks in the United Nations Security Council, mounting pressure
and preconditions are not sufficient to prevent Iran from advancing
its nuclear program. Per the recommendations of the bi-partisan Iraq
Study Group, a US-Iran diplomatic strategy can help stabilize Iraqi
sectarian violence and provide a foundation for broadening discussions
to include the nuclear program and other grievances.
In the absence of talks, President Bush's escalation of inflammatory
rhetoric against Iran, his administration's refusal to rule out
military action, the recent deployment of military assets, changes
in the rules of engagement in Iraq regarding Iranians, all indicate
that a military attack is likely.
We see a disturbing pattern emerging in comments by President Bush
and other administration officials, provocative deployments of U.S.
military assets, changes in rules of engagement vis-à-vis
Iranians in Iraq, and press reports that seem to indicate preparations
for U.S. military action against Iran are underway.
For these reasons, we urge you to use all the power of the Congress
to prevent another disaster for America by ruling out the use of
any appropriations for the purpose of funding covert action in Iran
or for the use of military force against Iran. We also urge you
to scrutinize all intelligence presented on Iran, call for a serious
diplomatic strategy, and use Congressional authority under the Constitution
to require authorization before any use of force against Iran. Only
the Congress can declare war and President Bush should be warned
that he will be impeached if he violates the Constitution in this
matter.
|