H. RES. 861

A Stitch in time.

And just it time it is...the Republicans are pulling out all the stops in the run up to the November election by introducing H. RES 861. They have taken advantage of the US public with such frequency that they have come to rely upon the gullibility fears of the voters and a belief that the poll numbers on Iraq will eventually fall in their direction.

Let's review this blatant political ploy, titled H. RES. 861 - DECLARING THAT THE UNITED STATES WILL PREVAIL IN THE GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR, THE STRUGGLE TO PROTECT FREEDOM FROM THE TERRORIST ADVERSARY that rests before the House. Let us review the rules of debate shall we.
1. Closed rule.

2.Provides 10 hours of debate in the House equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on International Relations, the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Armed Services, the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary, and the chairman and ranking minority member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

3. Waives all points of order against consideration of the resolution.

4. Provides one motion to recommit which may not contain instructions.

5. Provides that, notwithstanding the operation of the previous question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the resolution to a time designated by the Speaker.

I have to admit that rules 1, 3 and 4 do put a damper on any serious debate on the issue. This is election year politics at its finest. The resolution lacks any substantive measures. It is election year mastubation. It is a partisan devise hoping to capitalize upon the fears of the US populace. Actually, it is designed to play upon the fears of those members of the Republican party that the leadership feels knows it can exploit this November.

OK, let us dispense with the meaningless "Where as" this and "Where as" that... and get to the Resolved, That the House of Representatives-- (Please note how a resolution of the "war for on terrorism" fails to include any mention of Osama bin Laden.)
(1) honors all those Americans who have taken an active part in the Global War on Terror, whether as first responders protecting the homeland, as servicemembers overseas, as diplomats and intelligence officers, or in other roles;

(2) honors the sacrifices of the United States Armed Forces and of partners in the Coalition, and of the Iraqis and Afghans who fight alongside them, especially those who have fallen or been wounded in the struggle, and honors as well the sacrifices of their families and of others who risk their lives to help defend freedom;

(3) declares that it is not in the national security interest of the United States to set an arbitrary date for the withdrawal or redeployment of United States Armed Forces from Iraq;

(4) declares that the United States is committed to the completion of the mission to create a sovereign, free, secure, and united Iraq;

(5) congratulates Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki and the Iraqi people on the courage they have shown by participating, in increasing millions, in the elections of 2005 and on the formation of the first government under Iraq's new constitution;

(6) calls upon the nations of the world to promote global peace and security by standing with the United States and other Coalition partners to support the efforts of the Iraqi and Afghan people to live in freedom; and

(7) declares that the United States will prevail in the Global War on Terror, the noble struggle to protect freedom from the terrorist adversary.

Gee, reminds me of the original Resolution where congress abdicated its constitutional role to declare war or serve as a check to the Bush administrations unabashed power grab. That resolution too has many "Where as" this and that, that preceded the Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives.

Isn't it ironic that only a couple of weeks days ago Republicans referred to the "war in Iraq" when discussing Iraq. But the closer that November gets, the "war in Iraq" is being described as the war for on terrorism." Like then and now, Iraq had no connected to what occured on 9/11.

, , , , ,


Blogger Sarah Elaine said...

It's a sad statement on humanity when we have to focus on war and killing each other, rather than making our world (heck, even our own backyards!) better for those who live in it... Canada is also spending huge dollars on military and anti-terror activities, especially given our news as of late... As a human race, we might just end up exterminating yourselves yet.

6/17/2006 8:15 AM  
Blogger historymike said...

We'll have to see if the American public will fall for this strategy, Mac.

The post-Zarqawi Iraq looks pretty much the same as when he was our #1 target. The Republicans seem to overlook the fact that terrorism in Iraq is a direct result of the American invasion.

Sadamm, though perhaps a ruthless thug, had no significant problem with domestic terrorism.

American troops are now the best recruiting tool that Iraqi terrorists could have.

6/19/2006 7:17 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home