As MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann quoted President Bush in this on-air commentary, “To get us in a position where the presidential candidates, will be comfortable about sustaining a presence.” In essence he is passing on his mess to the next president of the United States as that quote was lifted directly from Robert Draper’s book “Dead Certain.” Then again, what can you really expect from one of the “laziest of Presidents” opined by Mr. Olbermann.
While I have not read Draper’s book, “Dead Certain”, it is perhaps the most appropriate title to define this administration. It is also the most appropriate in defining this war in Iraq.
There is a certainty of death which has taken the lives of 3,741 of America’s blood and treasures namely our soldiers. There is a certainty of death when it comes to the murder of one million innocent Iraqis when Dr Gideon Polya said: "Using the most comprehensive and authoritative literature and UN demographic data yields an estimate of one million post-invasion excess deaths in Iraq." In a report filed by Alan Jones: Deaths in Iraq Have Reached 1 Million.
How can any presidential candidate no matter what party be comfortable with those figures? How can they be comfortable as Olbermann stated, “And this laziest of Presidents, actually interrupted his precious time off to fly to Iraq to play at a photo opportunity with soldiers, some of whom will — on his orders — be killed before the year, maybe the month, is out.” I am most certain that death will surround our troops and the Iraqi people in Bush’s last days in office and beyond. I have often opined we are not leaving there anytime soon. To say there will be a blood bath if we pull out soon does not make any sense as one looks at the figures above.
I do not know how best to describe what has taken place seeing these figures. Is one million innocent Iraqis dead not a blood bath? Is 3,741 American soldiers killed in a war of lies not a blood bath? What term would Bush and those that support this war use? Most likely they would use both normal and expected. May God have mercy on them should they ever describe an illegal invasion into a country that did nothing to us as being such.
Getting back to the comfortable factor expressed in that book, at the Republican debate that took place in New Hampshire the AP reported, “Republican presidential contenders voiced support for the Iraq war Wednesday night” With the exception of Congressman Ron Paul of Texas who seems to be the only rational Republican candidate.
When Ron Paul stated that they (the Republican Party) risk loosing an election in 2008 as filed by the AP, it was almost surreal when former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee shot back, "Even if we lose elections, we should not lose our honor," and “that is more important than the Republican Party." At this point, I am banging my head on my desk trying to understand what honor Huckabee is alluding to. Is it honorable to follow a president into the darkened abyss as so many people have lost their lives in this quagmire? What in the hell is he thinking? Is a political party more important than the lives lost on both fronts? If you support Huckabee, well shame on you and shame on Huckabee for even declaring that.
Something is so morally wrong with the Republican Party when the AP described Ron Paul as being in the minority. He is the only one who is not comfortable with the senseless killings taking place in Iraq. It sickens me that these Republican candidates as reported by the AP welcomed former Senator Fred Thompson into the race with humor.
The only humor I did find is when Rudy Giuliani expressed, “This is a nomination you have to earn," He then went onto say, “Nobody's going to give it to you. Nobody's going to grant it to you." As one looks at the recent straw polls taken, I do find it humorous and even validating to those that do not support this war that Ron Paul has beaten Giuliani in Iowa, Texas and he even beat Giuliani in the Maryland straw poll and more importantly won it.
As Chris Wallace challenged Ron Paul for his opinion of withdrawing our troops as taking marching orders from al-Qaeda, Paul shot back, "No! We should take our marching orders from our Constitution," He then went onto say, "We should not go to war without a declaration" Ah, the C-word meaning the United States Constitution which has for all intents and purposes been shredded during the past six years. That pesky Constitution seems to get in the way and all I have to add is for those that remember it, bravo.
In a past piece written by me titled, “By the very definition of a resolution, Bush is not a ‘Wartime’ president” I do support Paul’s assertions when I wrote, “In doing some research on exactly what a congressional resolution is, this is how Wikipedia.org defines it “In a house of a legislature, the term resolution refers to measures that do not become laws. This is used to differentiate those measures from a bill, which is also a resolution in the technical sense. The resolution is often used to express the body's approval or disapproval of something which they cannot otherwise vote on, due to the matter being handled by another jurisdiction, or being protected by a constitution. An example would be a resolution of support for a nation's troops in battle, which carries no legal weight, but is adopted for moral support.”
So in essence the Iraq Resolution was not articles of war and did not carry any legal weight. Yet, here we are treating it as such. How can the majority of Republican candidates back an illegal war? How can some on the opposite side of the political aisle?
To further support Ron Paul's assertions, I even wrote, "Now pay close attention to how Jesse Jackson Jr. defined this Iraq War Resolution, "An invasion of Iraq would violate Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution, which states that 'Congress shall have Power . . . to declare War.' The Iraq Resolution passed by Congress on October 3, 2002, did not declare war and unlawfully ceded to the President that decision. Historical records show that the framers of the Constitution sought to ensure that U.S. presidents did not have the power of European monarchs to single-handedly declare and wage war."
Instead of challenging Ron Paul as Wallace did, what he should have done was to brush up on the United States Constitution. Why have the majority in the mainstream media forgotten this document as they regurgitate this president’s beliefs in bringing democracy to Iraq? Any democracy depends upon strict adherence to that country’s constitution and yet, most in the mainstream media have all but forgotten that we have not. Note to Chris Wallace, once this president shredded our Constitution, al-Qaeda did win.
Lastly, I want to add by stating to all of these Republican candidates that are comfortable with our presence in Iraq and back this president; how can anyone even think of voting for you if you are backing an illegal action? By all intents and purposes to further this policy you too will be breaking the law. Any candidate no matter what party that wishes to continue this failed policy in Iraq using our soldiers and causing their deaths as well as innocent Iraqis are knowingly breaking the law as defined by the United States Constitution.
Author’s email address is, firstname.lastname@example.org