I find these comments encouraging and a longshot better than Virgil Goode's limitless support for slaughtering human beings as long as they're Muslims. Perriello has also signed onto a plan with several other congressional challengers that is more of a mixed bag. They call it the "Responsible Plan". You can read the 35-page plan at http://www.responsibleplan.com
The candidates supporting this plan are acknowledging that there is an occupation underway and are talking about it. They are talking about ending it and avoiding such occupations in the future. They are talking about diplomacy. They mention "humanitarian concerns." They mention restoring the Constitution. They propose placing mercenaries under some form of law. They include the media problem as part of the war problem. They speak the words "war profiteers." They oppose U.S. control of Iraqi oil. They want to prosecute those guilty of war crimes, and they say so - although they don't name the guilty parties. These are all steps in the right direction.
But the plan has, I think, many weaknesses. First and foremost, it is being used as a tool to divert pressure on the current Congress to stop funding the occupation now. As the current Congress debates shoveling another $178 billion (give or take) into the occupation, the activist group True Majority is urging Congress to consider this "reasonable plan" to end the occupation at some future unspecified date. The rest of us, in perhaps a truer majority, are urging Congress not to fund another year and a half of slaughter, a move that - among its less significant results - will probably hurt Democrats' election hopes this November.
There is no irresponsible plan to end the occupation of Iraq, and the implication of the "responsible" plan's title can only be slowness. The sooner the occupation is ended the better.
The plan doesn't actually include any plan in terms of committing any would-be members of Congress to doing anything at all, other than supporting a series of bills to recriminalize unconstitutional actions by the president (without holding him accountable). There is no mention of any commitment to ceasing to fund the occupation. A serious plan would simply say:
Congress shall cease to bring up bills to fund the occupation, and we commit to voting no on any such bills and on any rules to bring them up for a vote, and to publicly lobbying the leadership not to bring them up. This will quickly cause the legal funding of the occupation to come to an end. Misappropriation of funds by the president to continue the occupation will constitute yet another impeachable offense to add to the list on which we urge the House to act immediately.
Here's a serious plan: http://www.actblue.com/page/outofiraq
In the "responsible plan," there's no mention of Iraqi deaths and destruction, no mention of restitution or actual reconstruction. There's no mention of withdrawing contractors and mercenaries. And there's no mention of the removal of impeachment from the Constitution and all that follows from that, and all that is hopeless without its reinstatement. In fact, supporters of the plan want to eliminate signing statements by passing a bill (think about that one for a minute). The authors appear to want an even larger military than the current one, which is the largest ever in the history of the world. They couch environmentally sane energy policy in the language of xenophobia. Prominently displayed on the list of endorsers are four military big whigs. Not a single expert in peace or diplomacy or democracy is listed.
Half of every tax dollar goes to military expenses now. Does Perriello favor a larger or smaller military, or does he think it's just the right size?
In the Raising Kaine interview, Perriello was asked about Iran:
"Is it acceptable for Iran to have nuclear weapons, and if not, what would you advocate doing about it?"
"No, it is not acceptable for Iran to have nuclear weapons. The situation we find ourselves in today is a result of abject failure by both Presidents Clinton and Bush to salvage the NPT. President Bush has once again made things worse by choosing strategies of talking tough but negotiating weak. In fact, his tactics have repeatedly strengthened Ahmadinejad's hand."
Again, Perriello hits the important point that Bush has made us less safe and strengthened those he opposes. Again, Perriello goes to the root cause: in this case, our long standing failure to live up to and promote the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. We have more nukes now than at the height of the Cold War. What steps does Perriello favor to stop nuclear proliferation and encourage disarmament?
The fifth and final issue on Perriello's website is Oil Independence:
"Our national security, our climate, and our economic competitiveness demand that we achieve independence from fossil fuels during this generation. Our leaders have lacked the courage to do what is necessary to make our country safe and to encourage the 'dot-com' boom of the next generation—alternative energy and efficiency technologies. Tom will ensure that the farmers, businesses, and consumers of the 5th District have the tools and the incentives to lead America through this challenge."
Again, this sounds worlds superior to Virgil Goode. It gets even better in the Raising Kaine interview, in which Perriello is asked to support cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 and replies that he favors complete independence from fossil fuels in a generation (a time period usually understood to be less than 42 years). But Perriello dodges the question of whether he would tax polluters:
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
