![]() |
By Ron Jacobs (about the author) Page 2 of 5 page(s)
Zach: We occupied his office because his "support" for our position seems to be completely ceremonial. He pays lip service to being opposed to the war, but yet he continues to fund a war. For me, that's the biggest reason: if you're supporting the war, be honest; if you're opposed to the war, let your voting record show that you're opposed to the war. It's all well and good for him to "support our position" - now show us that you're willing to vote with us. Todd: He has no idea what our position is and his "support" of our position is not the support that we need to see to have it proven that he truly does stand with us. He continues to vote for the occupation and recently voted for the funding and "timetable" to continue the occupation for an indefinite amount of time. In further showing his lack of standing with us he failed to address our six demands. This showed he was not with us but with his own train of thought. Since we had no public meeting we were not willing to meet with Kohl. We requested this and it was ignored by him and his staff. Bernadette: In Kohl’s patronizing response email, he let us know that he was happy we came to show our discontent and he agrees with us but that he couldn’t really do anything about the war in Iraq, as it lies in George W’s hands. We occupied his office to make a statement. A statement telling Kohl that we refuse to be continually misrepresented in Washington, as he says he’s against the war, yet continues to support funding for the war. Chris: Kohl wrote that he stands with us in our opposition to Bush's failed war policy. But we were not in his office because of anything that Bush did. We were there because Senator Herb Kohl cuts the checks or Bush's wars and military occupations. Had Kohl read our demands, then, perhaps he would have responded to the content. These were our demands,
1.) Immediate withdrawal of all US forces from Iraq
2.) Iraq for Iraqis
3.) Fully fund veterans' benefits and health care, including mental health care
4.) Reparations to the Iraqi people, no strings attached
5.) Ban the use of depleted uranium munitions in Iraq
6.) Money for Jobs & Education, not for War and Occupation
Kohl's attempts to lessen our expectations of him (specifically, opposition to war should mean not funding it) are emblematic of the new Congress' game plan, more generally. Raised expectations can either be met or diminished. Ever since November's election raised the country's expectations for the war to end, Kohl and his colleagues have set out to diminish our expectations (we want peace and they give us timetables for withdrawal). Heaven knows they won't actually meet our expectations and let the Iraqis run their own affairs. That's for us - and the Iraqis - to push him to do.
Josh: (The way I see it is) Kohl says he is antiwar. But his voting record contradicts it. The senator also has never held a public meeting in the state of Wisconsin which he represents. To us this is inexcusable. Our modest request was that our elected representative meet with his constituency publicly
Ron:What do you think he meant when he said that as a senator he had no power to end the war?
Josh: I really couldn't tell you. Not only is he a US senator, he is the wealthiest US senator in Congress. Does he mean to say he is incapable of using any of that influence to help end the war?
Zach: That was such a laughable statement. Of course he as one individual senator, acting all by himself, could not end the war. But what I at least view his duty to us, his constituents, as being is that he should be willing to fight for us with his colleagues. We, the antiwar network, cajole and try to educate our friends and family every day as to why this war is wrong and needs to be stopped, NOW rather than later - I want to know that Kohl is out there, speaking with his colleagues, using educated, well-rounded responses that aren't canned statements and doing all that he can to end this massacre.
Bernadette: I think Kohl meant that as a senator who became senator by buying the popular vote, he lacks the principle dignifying qualities it takes to speak out on behalf of the common people, like supporting an end to the war. I think Kohl means that his incentives of releasing himself of the power to end the war are far too great to give up. I think he means that he lacks the sympathy for the common citizens of Wisconsin, as well as solidarity for the American troops and the Iraqi citizens, needed to end the war.
http://stillhomeron.blogspot.com/
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
Contact Author |
Contact Editor |
View Authors' Articles |
| No comments |
Want to post your own comment on this Article?
|
||||
Tell a Friend:
|
Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews |