Democracy. Huh. . .

[catscradle]

Well, it's a sad sad day for democracy and the constitution. The House and Senate gave power to the President to go to war. Why? I don't know. I guess it looks good on paper. I thought giving the war powers to the Congress was a good thing in checks and balances - but I guess they just don't want the responsibility anymore.

From the CNN Article: Senate approves Iraq war resolution

The resolution requires Bush to declare to Congress either before or within 48 hours after beginning military action that diplomatic efforts to enforce the U.N. resolutions have failed.

Bush also must certify that action against Iraq would not hinder efforts to pursue the al Qaeda terrorist network that attacked New York and Washington last year. And it requires the administration to report to Congress on the progress of any war with Iraq every 60 days.

The language here seems to give Bush free reign to do whatever the hell he wants.

I'd like to thank Sen Byrd for at least trying to voice opposition. He was furious on the Senate floor and I think he spoke for a lot of us:

"This is the Tonkin Gulf resolution all over again," Byrd said. "Let us stop, look and listen. Let us not give this president or any president unchecked power. Remember the Constitution."

I'd also like to give my thanks to the six Republican congressmen who voted for their conscience and against their party in the House vote. I saw Ron Paul, (R) Texas, on Chris Matthews last night and I was rather impressed with what he had to say regarding this issue and the legality of the resolution. We may have lost, but at least we had a voice.

There are many saying that if the vote was made private many of the people voting for the resolution would have voted against - if it's true than our represetatives are cowards and they need fired. I know the Colorado senators received calls from the people on the issue - 80 against to every one for. And they STILL voted for Bush's resolution. This information was gathered from the secretary of Senator Allard's office.

Not quite a Government of the people, for the people, by the people anymore, is it?

Comments

$!#@&!*

[wiebke.livejournal.com]

The way I see it, there seems to be something very, very odd going on in this whole situation, this dicotomy or schism of what people think about this versus what the government is doing. On the one hand, the paper here in Atlanta, Atlanta Journal-Constition, reported in their weekly letter talley that they'd received like 160 letters on Iraq and there were like only 20 supporting war / Bush. Granted, this was after the week before, one of their writers did a big anti-war, anti-Bush expose (YAY AJC, who says the South can't be anti-war!?) but I think that speaks volumes*. On the other hand, do I see any of our "representatives" expressing these feelings that come on behalf of their constituents? Hmmm. Of course I just checked the Senate web site and see rather predictable names on that "Nay" sheet (including my beloved Sen. Kennedy):


NAYS --- 23
Akaka, Durbin, Mikulski
Bingaman, Feingold, Murray
Boxer, Graham, Reed
Byrd (there, Steph!), Inouye, Sarbanes
Chafee, Jeffords (duh! Vermont!), Stabenow
Conrad, Kennedy (sorry I moved, Ted), Wellstone
Corzine, Leahy (also VT, duh!), Wyden


$!#@&!*

Wiebke

* Oddly, haven't heard anybody talk openly against the war, only read letters and such and seen stuff online. Of course, I work in an office with people who seem either very apolitical or who are on the liberal conversative side. Um, not to mention (you'll love this Steph) that our organization gets about 80% of its research monies from the DoD (not our dept., we just do IT work) and there are lots of former military types there... Oh, Jeez, no wonder I don't hear any dissent... (muttering darkly)

Re: $!#@&!*

[catscradle.livejournal.com]

There's something very bizzare going on - senators and congressmen around the country got more mail and phone calls against than for - so you'd think they'd be worried about the up coming election. They're not. They're more worried about someone else. I'm thinking the major coperations that own them. As long as they have the money coming in, they'll get re-elected. There's very few people in congress that actually voice the concerns of the people they serve.

I'm lucky to work in the only department at my university that's liberal and opposed to the war. Colorado is extremely conservative, but I found a small haven of people that think for themselves. Most of them are activists, it's very refreshing.

3500 people marched last weekend in Denver - the mainstream media recorded only a few hundred and misrepresented them as fanatics - it was completely peaceful and there were no arrests. It's been the same in all the cities. 20,000 marched in NY, only 10,000 recorded by the media. I think the only news I can watch without cringing anymore is Chris Matthews and Phil Donahue, both on MSNBC every night. Both keep preaching to beware of media bias.

I think we live in a very frightening time, God only knows where it will lead. . . =/

Re: $!#@&!*

[wiebke.livejournal.com]

Now here's a thought I've had. Does it seem to you that in covering this issue (meaning, the fact that Bush is hell bent on war, while most people in the US, not to mention elsewhere in the world, are not so, hmm, keen on it) the media seems to be taking this very hedgey, iffy, cowardly stance of pretty much standing off to the side... letting Bush just jump onto the stage? I get the impression that the media is trying to play things safe by reporting on what Bush says and then adding in some token words of dissent but overall being careful about drawing much attention to that dissent or in any way truly questioning what Bush et al. are on about. They talk about opposition to his plans just like it's the same thing as people opposing a tax cut or something, like it's "politics" when to me it seems like something of a whole different scale -- defiance of U.N., grandstanding on a global scale, being a global f*ckhead, whatever. Anyway, it's like the media won't say anything because, hmmm, they really don't want to mess up the image they got so invested in post-9/11? And yay, speaking of which, I recently heard some people don't like some of Bush et al.'s reactions to 9/11... Had to squint to see that bit of news squeak by but I did catch it.

Re: $!#@&!*

[catscradle.livejournal.com]

I think the term we're looking for here is manufacturing consent. I'm willing to believe that the journalists and news people out there feel they are being fair and accurate - but I think the people that own those newspapers and networks know that they're purposefully manipulating the public opinion.

That stuff that squeaks by - those dessenting views - they get by because on page 17 section C of the paper it doesn't matter. Burried on some obscure link on CNN, it doesn't matter. Most people don't dig that deep - it's insignificant. So they let it in - this way they get to say they're representing all views, when in fact most of the population will never see it.

If you've not seen it yet, I do recomment the video Manufacturing Consent (http://www.zeitgeistfilms.com/catalogue/manufacturingconsent/manuconsent.html) on the work of Noam Chomsky - he's got a book by the same title, but the video is rather effective. And of course, Z Mag (http://www.zmag.org) is a great place for info on this.

I'm a little brain dead at the moment - so my ability to explain my position is rather lacking at the moment - but I do believe there is a definate bias in the media in favor of Bush - all the news stories pushing for an independent investigation into 9-11 just vanished or get pushed back to the back of the news? The fact that they all report the UN violations of Palestine and completely ignore the fact that Israel is the greatest violator - hmm, wonder why that is.

I"m a bit of a cynic.

Re: $!#@&!*

[wiebke.livejournal.com]

I think it's time I go look for a great video I saw about the invasion of Panama, which was pretty much the whole thing as the Gulf War. A book closely related to that (actually from the same college course where I saw the film) called Unreliable Sources, all about media bias. It's kinda old, but I bet FAIR (Fairness adn Accuracy in Reporting) is pitching a fit these days.

I can relate to the brain dead cynic thing, BTW.

[almostnever.livejournal.com]

I'm basically too angry to talk about this, but I agree with everything you said, Steph.

Not In Our Name.

[catscradle.livejournal.com]

I understand. . . these days I'm mostly too pissed off to talk coherently on the matter. Thanks for posting the link!

Byrd's Words

[wiebke.livejournal.com]

[From the New York Times, Oct. 10, 2002]

Congress Must Resist the Rush to War
By Robert C. Byrd

WASHINGTON.--A sudden appetite for war with Iraq seems to have consumed the Bush administration and Congress. The debate that began in the Senate last week is centered not on the fundamental and monumental questions of whether and why the United States should go to war with Iraq, but rather on the mechanics of how best to wordsmith the president's use-of-force resolution in order give him virtually unchecked authority to commit the nation's military to an unprovoked attack on a sovereign nation.

How have we gotten to this low point in the history of Congress? Are we too feeble to resist the demands of a president who is determined to bend the collective will of Congress to his will--a president who is changing the conventional understanding of the term ``self-defense''? And why are we allowing the executive to rush our decision-making right before an election? Congress, under pressure from the executive branch, should not hand away its Constitutional powers. We should not hamstring future Congresses by casting such a shortsighted vote. We owe our country a due deliberation.

I have listened closely to the president, I have questioned the members of his war cabinet. I have searched for that single piece of evidence that would convince me that the president must have in his hands, before the month is out, open-ended Congressional authorization to deliver an unprovoked attack on Iraq. I remain unconvinced. The president's case for an unprovoked attack is circumstantial at best. Saddam Hussein is a threat, but the threat is not so great that we must be stampeded to provide such authority to this president just weeks before an election.

Why are we being hounded into action on a resolution that turns over to President Bush the Congress's Constitutional power to declare war? This resolution would authorize the president to use the military forces of this nation wherever, whenever and however he determines, and for as long as he determines, if he can somehow make a connection to Iraq. It is a blank check for the president to take whatever action he feels ``is necessary and appropriate in order to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posted by Iraq.'' This broad resolution underwrites, promotes and endorses the unprecedented Bush doctrine of preventive war and pre-emptive strikes--detailed in a recent publication, ``National Security Strategy of the United Staets''--against any nation that the president, and the president alone, determines to be a threat.

We are at the gravest of moments. Members of Congress must not simply walk away from their Constitutional responsibilities. We are the directly elected representatives of the American people, and the American people expect us to carry out our duty, not simply hand it off to this or any other president. To do so would be to fail the people we represent and to fall woefully short of our sworn oath to support and defend the Constitution.

We may not always be able to avoid war, particularly if it is thrust upon us, but Congress must not attempt to give away the authority to determine when war is to be declared. We must not allow any president to unleash the dogs of war at his own discretion and for an unlimited period of time.

Yet that is what we are being asked to do. The judgment of history will not be kind to us if we take this step.

Members of Congress should take time out and go home to listen to their constituents. We must not yield to this absurd pressure to act now, 27 days before an election that will determine the entire membership of the House of Representatives and that of a third of the Senate. Congress should take the time to hear form the American people, to answer their remaining questions and to put the frenzy of ballot-box politics behind us before we vote. We should hear them well, because while it is Congress that casts the vote, it is the American people who will pay for a war with the lives of their sons and daughters.

Re: Byrd's Words

[catscradle.livejournal.com]

thank's so much for posting it here - I"ve passed it on to a few that I think will appreciate it as well. =)

Re: Byrd's Words

[vasiliki.livejournal.com]

Btw, cool icon.

:(

[vasiliki.livejournal.com]

I guess it's a good thing that I don't have a TV and radio here, or no studying would take place. How depressing! All power concentrated in the hands of one man, any man. Terrifying.
And power is such a drug. Once you've tasted it, you want more and more.
I don't like any of it.