Withdrawal Hoax

For most voters, the mainstream media is the perceptual filter through which they make decisions. Every election, we can depend upon the media to dutifully embellish contrast between the two major parties, in an effort to create a fiction of choice. This feat is accomplished in two ways. The media either sterilizes the debate by reducing politics down to a personality contest, or by failing to equip voters with enough information which can be coalesced and juxtaposed into any meaningful assay.

Just look at the kinds of issues rank-and-file Democrats and Republicans argue over. Did John Kerry throw his medals over the White House fence? Was President Bush AWOL from the Air National Guard? How does Hillary treat the Secret Service? While these factors may have a locus when choosing a candidate, they should be adjunct to a policy-driven debate.

While neocon talking heads are busy lambasting war opponents for being left-wing liberals, prominent Democrats such as Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and Barack Obama are voting for more war funding.(1) There is only one Democratic candidate for president who has antiwar credentials with a track record of voting against war funding - i.e., Congressman Dennis Kucinich.(2) The only other candidate in the race for president with antiwar credentials is Republican Congressman Ron Paul. (3) I have to wonder if we have two conservative parties, or is it two liberal parties? Either way, there is a whole lot of political crossdressing going on. The sellout is bipartisan.

Anti-Bush sounding platitudes and sloganeering are usually enough to fool many Americans. The War Party is counting on people to not conduct even cursory research. Many Americans believe that just because somebody is a Democrat then they must be part of the opposition. This false political paradigm is reinforced by the parlance of both sides.

Consider the case of Congressman Murtha. In November of 2005, he said some wonderful sounding things. In Shakespearean fashion, he was attacked by FOX News, et. al., for wanting to "cut-and-run." Murtha was then amalgamated with House Resolution 571,(4) which called for immediate troop withdrawal from Iraq, but was actually a grossly contorted Republican caricature of Murtha's re-deployment scheme. How many Congressmen actually voted in favor of the troop withdrawal resolution? Three.(5) Murtha was not one of those three.

Prominent Democrats such as Barack Obama even got in front of the camera and "defended" themselves from Republican charges of wanting to "cut-and-run." How dare you accuse us of actually trying to end the war, quipped the Democrats. Because FOX News called Murtha antiwar, many liberals believed it. Without even realizing it, those liberals were allowing the neocons to define their own political paradigm.

That is when I figured out what the grandstanding was all about. As the war drags on, there is a growing consensus that it is horrible policy. People are becoming increasingly upset. Thus, as a steam valve, the War Party needs to create a fiction of debate. "Withdrawal" proposals are discussed, hotly debated, and people are assured that the war will end.....eventually. By the time the "withdrawal" date nears, it is forgotten, the war is still raging, and people are still angry. The people then demand new "withdrawal" proposals. The War Party then buys itself more time with more sliding "withdrawal" dates.

The latest "withdrawal" hoax comes in the form of H.R. 1591,(6) which passed the House on March 23. Although it is a war funding bill that gives the President $20 billion more than he requested, and is enough to fund the war for the duration of his term, it is sinisterly being referred to as a bill to "end" the war. Whatever you do, don't believe it - it's a ruse.  How politicians have been able to disguise a war funding bill as a bill to end the war is beyond me. This gives new meaning to the Orwellian phrase "War is Peace!"

I read the bill, and the "withdrawal" provision has gargantuan exceptions that you could fly a space shuttle through. Saying that this war funding bill will end the war should insult the intelligence of the average inhabitant of this country.

The four exceptions are as follows (with my comments beneath them):

(1) Protecting American diplomatic facilities and American citizens, including members of the U.S. Armed Forces.

My comments: One need not be proficient in calculus to figure this one out. Have a permanent presence of diplomatic facilities, a battalion of Marines to protect each one, and then yet more troops to protect those troops. Also, there is no explicit mention of finite troop level numbers. The administration could say it is necessary for a full-scale occupation force to protect the diplomatic facilities. Protecting American citizens is not explicitly defined. The administration could say that it is necessary to occupy Iraq based upon the loose theory that it is "protecting" American citizens here at home by fighting the "terrorists" over there, rather than over here.

(2) Serving in roles consistent with customary diplomatic positions.

My comments: Although I don't have my copy of Black's Law Dictionary handy, and I am well aware that lawyers could morph the meaning of words into anything, this one sounds benign enough to me to leave it alone.

(3) Engaging in targeted special actions limited in duration and scope to killing or capturing members of al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations with global reach.

 1  |  2  |  3  |  4