|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Article
|
|
An Open Letter To Rep. Tim Johnson |
Current rating: 0 |
by Jason B. P. Mierek
Email: jmierek (nospam) msn.com (unverified!) |
22 Oct 2003
|
|
|
An Open Letter To Rep. Timothy Johnson
I recently received a letter from you explaining why you were not going to pursue an independent investigation of President Bush's rationale and lack of evidence for his invasion of Iraq. I wanted to point out to you a few of the errors in your letter and to encourage you to support any motion calling for an independent investigation.
In your letter you mention how bad Saddam Hussein was and how he gassed thousands of his own innocent people. This is true, and, even though we conveniently forget that when he gassed these people he was on "our side," Hussein can only be seen honestly as a cruel despot.
This is not why we entered Iraq, however. President Bush argued to the UN and to the American people that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction posed a clear and present danger to the U.S. people. The danger was so great, he argued, that inspections would be too little, too late. Mushroom clouds were mentioned, hinting at the possible threat of nuclear attack.
All of these claims have been borne out by the EVIDENCE as nothing but hot air. There were no nuclear weapons (as the UN inspectors kept telling us). There were no missiles to launch these nonexistent nuclear weapons at the U.S. There were no weapons of mass destruction. Sorry Tim, but a few planes buried in the sand do not constitute weapons of mass destruction.
Bush and his advocates have thrown up alternate rationales for invading Iraq. "It was to free the Iraqi people from a despot." "It was to bring democracy to Iraq." "It was to end Iraqi support for Islamist terrorism." Regardless of whether or not these rationales are based in fact (none of them are, by the way), the point is that they are ad hoc rationales concocted to justify an invasion after the primary rationale, the presence of immediately threatening weapons of mass destruction, was shown to be baseless. As my Dad used to say to me, "If someone has more than one excuse ready, then you can tell that they are lying."
This leads me, and most thoughtful people, to one of two inescapable conclusions. Either Bush lied to the American people about these weapons of mass destruction in order to go to war or he ignored the information provided to him by U.S. intelligence sources and U.N inspectors in order to go to war. In either case, Bush is guilty of bad leadership. If he actively lied to the American people, he is guilty of much, much more.
It is your job as my representative to call for a thorough independent investigation of this matter. This is a far more serious matter than receiving oral favors in the Oval Office. Lying to the American people is tantamount to treason. That you believe he told the truth is irrelevant---that is up to an independent commission to decide. So do your job. |
See also:
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1021-07.htm
|
|
Too Many Rubber-Stampers In Congress |
by John Nichols
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
22 Oct 2003
Modified: 03:43:48 PM |
A different state, but the same problem we have here...of, cousre, in Tim Johnson's case, it may be done with a paperclip, rather than a rubber stamp.
Too Many Rubber-Stampers in Congress
Before Congress voted on whether to hand George W. Bush another $87 billion for the occupation of Iraq, Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash., went to the floor of the House and declared, "(We) are being asked to suck it up again, give him $87 billion, do not ask him what he did with it, just rubber-stamp it. That is wrong. Just vote no."
McDermott, a physician who served in Vietnam, is not a rubber-stamp member. He opposed the October 2002 congressional resolution that gave Bush a blank check to launch a unilateral, pre-emptive invasion of Iraq. And he opposed the October 2003 congressional resolution that will give Bush a virtual blank check to maintain the occupation that followed upon that invasion.
Unfortunately, McDermott was right when he suggested that a lot of his fellow members would simply get out their rubber stamps and approve the latest blank-check resolution. The Senate voted 87-12 to give Bush just about everything that he asked for. The House voted 303-125 to give the president everything that he asked for. The two, slightly divergent measures will have to be reconciled into one big blank check, but the bottom line is clear: Most members of Congress ceded their constitutional responsibility to place checks and balances on the president and simply served as rubber stamps.
How did Wisconsin's representatives stack up?
Democratic Sens. Herb Kohl and Russ Feingold joined the Senate majority in supporting a tepid and ill-thought-out amendment that might eventually require Iraq to repay a portion of the money allocated for reconstruction of the country. But when the big vote came, they both rubber-stamped the president's request.
In the House, Republicans Paul Ryan of Janesville, Mark Green of Green Bay and James Sensenbrenner of Menomonee Falls were all predictable rubber stamps. La Crosse Democrat Ron Kind was a disappointing rubber stamp. After voting for the October 2002 blank-check-for-war resolution, Kind became a serious skeptic with regard to the administration's rush to war. He asked the right questions and co-authored an important letter encouraging the president to consult with Congress and explore diplomatic solutions before going to war. Last week, however, Kind's skepticism failed him and he was, once more, a rubber-stamp representative.
The thinking members of the Wisconsin delegation were Democratic Reps. Tammy Baldwin of Madison, Gerald Kleczka of Milwaukee and Dave Obey of Wausau, as well as Fond du Lac Republican Tom Petri. Petri was one of only six Republicans to join 118 Democrats and the chamber's sole independent (Vermont's Bernie Sanders) in refusing to rubber-stamp the president's request for the $87 billion.
Some Wisconsinites may be surprised that Petri got this one right while Kohl, Feingold and Kind got it wrong. They shouldn't be. Petri doesn't make headlines very often. But he is a thoughtful moderate who frequently breaks with his party's leadership. He also holds the seat once occupied by the late U.S. Rep. William Steiger, R-Oshkosh. Elected during the Vietnam War, Steiger led the fight to end the draft during that imbroglio and was until his death at age 40 one of the most truly independent members of the House.
Steiger saw beyond the boundaries of party and recognized that, as a member of Congress, he had a responsibility to serve the national interest even when it required him to say no to presidents. Petri followed that same instinct last week.
In a House full of Republican rubber stamps - and more than a few Democratic versions of the same - Tom Petri proved himself to be a worthy successor to Steiger, and to Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and the other founders who believed that Congress should provide checks and balances rather than blank checks.
Copyright 2003 The Capital Times
http://www.madison.com/ |
