Ellen Tauscher - The New Neocon

[Michael]

I wrote to Representative Ellen Tauscher some time ago asking her to encourage The Regime to bring our troops home from Iraq as quickly as possible. I received her response today, September 11, 2005. To say that I was disappointed with her response would be an understatement. It was John “I can kill in a more organized fashion” Kerry all over again.

Tauscher spoke about “winning the peace”. How long does she think it will take to coerce every rival group in Iraq to forget about hundreds of years of infighting and hatred? How long does Tauscher think it will actually take to “win the peace”?

She lauded the Iraqis for risking their lives to vote in the election. She doesn’t say much about what exactly motivated the Iraqis to vote. She doesn’t say that at least part of the reason that so many of them turned out to vote was to speed up their “democratization” dog and pony show so that the US would leave as soon as possible.

She never says that the population wasn’t even familiar with the candidates who would draw up the Iraqi “constitution”.

She never says that the “constitution” would not be satisfactory to one or more of the factions. She doesn’t even admit that’s what’s going on now.

She claims that “it would be unconscionable to now leave (the Iraqis) with inadequate security just as they begin to transition to an independent democracy”.

An independent democracy? She doesn’t seem to realize that a good portion of the Iraqi population doesn’t seem to want “an independent democracy”. Even those that are attempting to draw up a “constitution” seem to be leaning toward an Islamic theocracy. She doesn’t seem to realize that this is what 2,000 Americans have died for – an Islamic theocracy. Where there once was a tyrannical dictator heading up a secular government there will now be Islamic extremists. This is what our sons, fathers, daughters and mothers have died for? This is what Tauscher believes more of them should die for? This is what’s unconscionable! Proposing that one more American life should be lost for no good reason, to help establish an Islamic theocracy where there was none, is unconscionable.

She is shifting the blame from the US to the UN, saying that “the United Nations has failed so far to live up to its tradition of assisting countries emerging from conflict. The Secretary General made unfortunate comments about the offensive against Fallujah and the UN has refused to help Iraqis establish a war crimes tribunal.”

Well she’s got one point right. Every move the US military makes in Iraq is offensive as this country was never threatened by Iraq. How could any military move made by the US in Iraq ever be considered defensive?

Has Tauscher forgotten that there is already a war crimes international court? Has she forgotten that it is our government who refuses to recognize that court? Doesn’t she understand that The Regime in Washington has committed the war crimes, has broken Geneva Convention agreements that the US signed on to? These agreements speak very specifically about one nation preemptively attacking another.

Has she forgotten that the UN Security Council didn’t approve the preemptive strike? Has she forgotten how passionately French Foreign Minister Dominique De Villepin spoke out against the invasion of Iraq? Why is she blaming the UN for not doing enough when the UN didn’t approve of the invasion? She’s one of those “it was wrong to go there, but since we’re there, we may as well ‘finish the job’” people. There is no finishing this job. The people who she calls “insurgents” live there. We only have 130,000 people who have no vested interest in Iraq trying to maintain an occupation of that nation.

She questions Rumsfeld’s stop-loss policy. She doesn’t suggest conscription, but how else are we to cover the occupation? It’s bad enough that there are military personnel who can’t tell what their mission is or how they’re supposed to accomplish it. I guess she’d be for a draft, the forcing of those who absolutely don’t want to go to Iraq, who don’t even want to serve in the military to do so. Increasing the heartbreak, spreading it among even more American families would be the only way to get more bodies on the ground. It would be a good way to get more bodies into the ground as well. I didn’t think Tauscher was too young to remember Vietnam, but apparently she’s forgotten that lesson.

She’s trying to convince me that what was an absolutely immoral action to begin with is worthy of perpetuation until the “job is done”.

Other than complaining that we’re not training the Iraqi military or police quickly enough, she hasn’t mentioned how we are to defeat the people of the Middle East. Maybe the ultimate weapon will hone the population enough to where we can actually wipe out those that are left. I have no idea of what the hell this letter means. It means nothing, nothing at all.

It means that Ellen Tauscher should be thrown out of office as quickly as possible. She should join The Regime in resigning. After all, she’s obviously joined them in making excuses to continue the death and destruction that the US initiated without rhyme or reason. She’s obviously either as delusional as The Regime, she sure uses those delusional talking points, or she’s lost it altogether.

Either way, those of us who will be going to the polls in her district in 2006 need to bombard her with letters promising the termination of her service in Congress. Others of you need to write to her as well, telling her she’s taking the “loyal” in loyal opposition much, much too far.

To friendship,
Michael

“I say the army is an excuse for suicide.” – Monet Ketchum

The Mind Of Michael
Speak Your Mind And Read Mine

[Dave The Dov]

It was John “I can kill in a more organized fashion” Kerry all over again. What was meant be that????
_________________
Home insurance Forum

[mnaz]

Is your Kerry reference related to his campaign comments about the Iraq war?

If so, keep in mind that he had to "play the hand he was dealt", in some respects. He didn't start the war, but he had to articulate to the electorate how he would handle the war, if elected.

He didn't start the war, I don't think he would have started such a war. Despite anyone's original vote on the Iraq Resolution, the Iraq war is solely and squarely on the Bush Administration. They grossly misled everyone on Iraq's threat, other politicians included.

In those uncertain times of '02, coupled with Bushko's deception, the Congress authorized military force as a last resort, after all other options had been exhausted. Bushko took this 'inch' and immediately ran a mile with it, never intending to pursue other options beside war.

I respect Kerry. He had the moral fortitude to stand up in front of Congress and testify about military atrocities committed by the United States in Vietnam. And for this, he was crucified in this past election.

[Michael]

Kerry, indeed, exhibited great courage to testify about the atrocities in Vietnam.

The Regime was dead wrong to play down his service in Vietnam. It must have been frightening to merely go to Vietnam, no matter how long one was there or how serious one’s wounds were or were not.

Kerry is on of three Vietnam vets that The Regime slimed. Cleland and, of course, McCain, are the other two. There may be more. All this slime coming from chicken hawks.

I even understand why Congress would give The Regime so much power after 9/11. As the overwhelming evidence that The Regime orchestrated 9/11 has never been presented to the public by the mainstream media, people think that we were attacked by 19 Middle Eastern men. To vote against giving the president the power to respond to that attack where ever he found response appropriate would look awfully unpatriotic. This is also true with The Patriot Act. What kind of member of Congress could vote against a bill which has “patriot” in its name?

At the time, no member of Congress wanted to appear unpatriotic. It would have been political suicide.

Yes, Kerry had courage in the 70s, but I, as so many others, ask where his courage was during the 2004 election.

Like Tauscher, Kerry spoke about “winning the peace”. How long did he think it will take to coerce every rival group in Iraq to forget about hundreds of years of infighting and hatred? How long did Kerry think it will actually take to “win the peace”?

Someone told me that my analysis of Tauscher’s letter was inflexible and compared me to a “Bushite”.

After taking a couple of days to think about it, this is what I wrote to him:

I was really moved when you responded to my outrage at Tauscher’s taking the “finish the job” approach to Iraq. You said I that I expressed “it’s my way or the highway”. You said that I was being like a “Bushite”.

I’ve been thinking about those words and you’re absolutely right. When it comes to Iraq, it’s my way or the wrong way.

If we were speaking of Social Security, there may be some room for debate.

If we were talking about the response to Katrina, I would tell you that the reaction is nothing but partisan bullshit, on both sides. No matter who, by protocol, was the first responder responsible to prevent the disaster, when one party saw nothing being done by the other, it should have had the initiative to do something. Blaming the local authorities and the federal government for failing in that case is precisely right. Both sides said they waited for the other side to do something and that makes both sides wrong.

If we were talking about corporate welfare, I could work with that, with the help of CEOs.

But I’m talking about Iraq and you know what? I can defeat anyone who chooses to debate me. Anyone, undeniably. I am right and anyone who disagrees with me is wrong.

We were told by The Regime that, as much as we asked Saddam Hussein to disarm, he wasn’t doing it. As much as Bush wanted to avoid war, he had to send soldiers into harm’s way because Hussein wouldn’t get rid of his weapons of mass destruction.

I believe that The Regime knew that Saddam didn’t have WMD. I believe that The Regime orchestrated 9/11 to justify the invasion of Iraq. 9/11 stirred up hate toward any reference to Islam and as far as stupid Americans were concerned, Iraq was a Muslim nation because Muslims live there. They didn’t want to hear that Iraq was a secular state and that its UN ambassador, Teriq Aziz, is a Christian. Iraq=Middle East=Arab=terrorist. It was an easy segue.

The debate, however, is short and sweet.

We invaded Iraq because they possessed stockpiles of WMD…period!

There was no connection between Iraq and 9/11. Bush said so himself. Even if there was, that wasn’t the reason we were given. We said we gave Hussein ample time to disarm and he wouldn’t. We invaded Iraq because it refused to give up its WMD.

The Regime talks about the election, the progress toward democracy, the success of drawing up a constitution. We didn’t invade Iraq to help them with that. We invaded Iraq because Hussein had WMD that could be used against his neighbors and even the US…period!

Even Democrats say that it was a mistake to invade Iraq but since we’re there we can’t just up and leave. Why not? We didn’t invade Iraq to protect them against radical Muslims. We invaded Iraq to disarm Iraq, to destroy the WMD that were a danger to the rest of the world. That’s the only reason we were given.

Yes, we invaded Iraq and fucked up the country. Now we want to gamble on how long it will take for Iraq to “stabilize” from our mistake. We need to stay there until it does.

No we don’t. We caused it, but I would gamble that we’ll never be able to “defeat” people who, if they aren’t defending their nation, are defending their part of the world against invaders and occupiers. We didn’t invade Iraq to be the offender against whom Middle Easterners have to defend. We invaded Iraq because it had weapons of mass destruction that they refused to get rid of… period!

In a debate, I will continue to say that we invaded Iraq to destroy the WMD that Hussein didn’t have. When we found he didn’t have them, we should have returned Hussein to power because he didn’t have the materials for which we invaded Iraq. We should have reimbursed him for the destruction and death we caused.

If he tortured his people before the invasion and he began torturing them after we retreated, that’s Hussein’s business. We didn’t invade Iraq to stop Hussein from torturing his people. We invaded Iraq to disarm Hussein…period!

I can say that if we’re going to be in the business of invading countries whose leaders torture its citizens, we’d have a lot of invading to do. Was Hussein the worse? It doesn’t matter because that’s not the reason we invaded Iraq. We invaded Iraq because Hussein had WMD and to defend our nation against a possible attack by Iraq using those WMD. He didn’t have them and, when we found that out, we should have withdrawn and reimbursed Iraq, with Hussein as the leader and with interest.

The debate goes like this. We invaded Iraq because Iraq had WMD.

Anyone who says anything that keeps us in Iraq any longer than one more second has veered away from the debate. The only answer that might contain any logic whatsoever is that he did have WMD and we haven’t found them yet. But he had them and he could use them against us, so we needed to invade Iraq and we will find the weapons.

We’ve searched long enough, if we’ve searched at all, and we were wrong.

That is, we as a nation who believed the BS were wrong. The Regime was right. They knew he had no such weapons. They wanted to invade Iraq to control its natural resources and keep them away from such nations as China and India.

There’s some sick religious reason that The Regime wants to control Jesus’ country as well, but that’s a whole different subject.

But, it’s my way or the wrong way.

Iraq never had WMD and, consequently, the reason no longer exists and we should leave. There’s no compromise. There’s no basis for compromise. When it comes to the reason why we invaded Iraq, WMD, what compromise is there?

We need to leave. There’s no other action that we can justify.

I guess when it comes to the continuing deaths of Americans, I’m unmovable.

It’s my way or the wrong way. The wrong way will get more Americans killed and that’s what makes that way wrong.

Anyone who doesn’t agree with my way, and Cindy Sheehan’s way and the way of many, many other people, agrees with the wrong way. Any way that keeps us there any longer is the wrong way.

A Bushite is indeed as adamant as I am. Bushites are so adamant about staying in Iraq and getting more Americans killed that they keep coming up with new reasons which have absolutely nothing to do with the threat of WMD. Now that’s persistency, very deadly persistency indeed.

I’ve thought long and hard about what you said and finally organized my thoughts and this is the epistle that evolved from that thought process.

It was pointed out to me that my statement "Iraq never had WMD" is wrong and, indeed, it is. I know that they possessed biological and chemical weapons.

I know that they used those weapons on the Kurds and on the Iranian military.

I also know that they received many of those weapons or the technology to produce those weapons from the gool ole USofA and it was The Regime who did the dealing!

Does “I can defeat anyone who chooses to debate me. Anyone, undeniably. I am right and anyone who disagrees with me is wrong” sound arrogant? Yes, it sounds arrogant, but I’m no brain surgeon and it doesn’t take one to see the logic of my argument and the complete vacancy of logic in the arguments that keep morphing, including Tauscher’s politalk.

She’s up for reelection and, like all of our professional politicians, she’s trying to “please” everyone. I have no idea what she really believes. I don’t know what most of our professional politicians believe. I don’t think that they give their beliefs much thought.

American politics is a game played by the wealthy and, as long as the spectators of that game continue to take it seriously, like people take WWF seriously, the game will continue to be played.

To friendship,
Michael

“For what can war, but endless war, still breed?” – John Milton

The Mind Of Michael
Speak Your Mind And Read Mine

[mnaz]

Well Michael, as a few here can attest to, I've wrestled with the question of 'stay or go' in Iraq over the last couple months, and I think I've come around to your viewpoint.

While it's true that Saddam's purported WMD was the primary reason given for the war, and fueled its majority support-- textbook politics of (manufactured) fear, to propel a bloodthirsty, costly, self-interested agenda-- I suppose that some diehards might persist in arguing that the war was also about "Iraqi Freedom", same as the invasion's euphemistic tag line.

The Bush Admin. certainly is trying to milk this "freedom", or "democracy", excuse for all it's worth, with diminishing success. The buzz-word drugs may finally be wearing off.

My rationale for getting our troops out of Iraq turns out to be a rather simple one as well. How could they ever restore stability if they are the very cause of instability? Bushko goes on about 'fighting the terrorists' in Iraq. Two problems here. (1): Even if one allows that the insurgents are 'terrorists', they were drawn into the fight in response to US aggression, and (2):It's an open question as to whether insurgents should be labeled 'terrorists'. Where does 'terrorism' end and 'freedom fighting' against foreign occupation begin?

On the subject of Katrina: All levels of goverment screwed up in major fashion, but I still lay the blame squarely on Bushko. We've paid billions into Homeland Security. Bushko won the last election largely due to their incessant pitch that they would keep the nation secure. H.S. correctly assessed a Cat.-4+ hurricane strike on New Orleans as the 3rd most likely potential disaster to hit the U.S. The H.S. National Response Plan clearly spells out how federal response must be proactive in a national catastrophe.
Yet, the feds essentially sat on their hands for five-plus days before they acted.

Anyway... thanks Michael.... thought-provoking, as always.

[Michael]

I suppose that some diehards might persist in arguing that the war was also about "Iraqi Freedom", same as the invasion's euphemistic tag line.

Yes, I know that people say that.

There are yet people writing letters to the editor which laud Bush’s “bravery” for taking the “bold step” to go into Iraq and “strike terrorism at its heart”, “defeat them there before they attack us here.” Bush didn’t go anywhere. It’s very easy to be “brave” with other peoples’ families.

Not only are all of those arguments ridiculous, to say the very least, but they don’t speak to disarming Saddam and that is the only reason The Regime gave for invading Iraq. I can’t understand why those “diehards” don’t remember the reason we were given for invading Iraq.

The excuses are not only ridiculous because they don’t speak to the reason we were given for invading Iraq, they’re ridiculous for other reasons as well.

There are better targets if we really want to be in the spreading democracy and freedom business.

Why start with a nation of only 29 million people? Why not invade China first and bring freedom and democracy to 3 billion people?

There are better targets if we really want to be in the dethroning governments who torture their people business

Was Saddam torturing his people more than the leaders of Sudan? And aren’t the Sudanese torturers Islamic? Why start with Saddam who merely tortured those who disagreed with him? Why not start with the Sudanese government which not only allows its people to be tortured, but allows them to starve and live in squalor while they’re being tortured?

I wonder if Kim Jong Il tortures any of his citizens? I know, I know, we’ve threatened him.

Let’s get back to the Chinese? Merely allowing Chinese citizens to work under “unconscionable” conditions as slave labor in sweat shops for American multinational corporations should pass as torture.

What a conundrum. Invading China because it allows its citizens to be tortured by the very same people at the top of the American government, The Corporacracy. I guess that wouldn’t look good, would it? It sure wouldn’t help those CEO salaries.

None of the reasons given for either going into Iraq or staying there holds water aside from the fact that Iraq’s a threat to the US because it has WMD pointed in our direction. They don’t and they didn’t in the run up to this murderous “war”.

The invasion couldn’t have been in response to 9/11. Even Bush, the village idiot that The Regime chose to front it, admitted that none of the terrorists supposedly responsible for 9/11 were from Iraq and that Iraq was, in no way, responsible for 9/11.

For sure, there are better targets if we were really responding to 9/11.

Of course the best target for that is Washington, D. C. Unfortunately, the evidence clearly pointing to The Regime’s complicity in that tragedy is more in your face logic and those who still support The Regime close their eyes, put their fingers in their ears and shout, “Blah, blah blah blah. I can’t hear you. I can’t hear what you’re saying!” just like little kids.

They won’t read the material because they claim it’s ridiculous to think that way. How do they know if they don’t look at the evidence?

Unfuckingbelievable!

How could they ever restore stability if they are the very cause of instability? Bushko goes on about 'fighting the terrorists' in Iraq, but if in fact the insurgents are 'terrorists', then they were drawn into the fight in response to US aggression.

This is another sad irony. What you say is so true, so blatantly obvious and it’s been repeated by US military personnel. Yet, again, The Regime’s supporters behave like those little children I describe above when you try to point that out to them.

We’re almost at the point where we can’t blame The Regime’s “slight of hand”, and I think it’s always been a poor, thinly veiled one, for people’s “misunderstanding the truth”. It’s almost gotten to a point where the only supporters of The Regime that are left won’t understand because they won’t even look.

To friendship,
Michael

I’d rather run toward victory
than away from defeat.

The Mind Of Michael
Speak Your Mind And Read Mine