So What Was Voted On Today? $124 Billion For What?

Jcrowley

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Mar-23-07 07:01 PM
Original message

So What Was Voted On Today? $124 Billion For What?

Edited on Fri Mar-23-07 07:18 PM by Jcrowley

As relates to the US "involvement" in Iraq there is a serious error in the language being used in Congress and faithfully parroted in the US media and following from that a grave misunderstanding about what went down today, what exactly was voted on and more importantly what was entirely omitted.

As was first put forth by the Bush adminstration and drummed into Americans heads via the corporate media the term that folks came to use to describe the pending invasion into the energy rich region of the Middle East "War on Iraq" and it is the same term used erroneously as the occupation grinds on. There is little questioning of this framework within the accepted political dialogue in Congress or amongst the pundits.

There is a small problem with that term that leads to a great deal of confusion. It is quite simply a lie. There is no "War on Iraq" nor has there ever been one.

There was an illegal invasion.

There is an illegal occupation.

There is a concentrated mass slaughter the likes of which the planet has not seen in decades.

There are massive amounts of militaristic corporate embezzlement.

And, lastly, there is a long list of war crimes.

Now what was voted on today when presented in these terms, which more accurately reflects the recent history and the everyday reality of the Iraqi people and more accurately represents the way the rest of the world sees the US invasion and occupation, may bring us to a very different set of conclusions about the validity of Pelosi's Plan. It certainly begs the question, "Why is it that the true nature of the United States ongoing atrocities in Iraq is not given the open debate it deserves?"

In the numerous speeches and discussions regarding this bill where was/is the term "War Crime?"

So tell me again how is this $124 billion bill going to stop the violence being visited upon the Iraqi people?

This is a bill that merely gives Bush over $100 billion to continue "The War", with no real strings attached. It gives him a free hand to attack Iran. There are scores of loopholes in it which would allow troops to remain in Iraq past Sept 2008; all Bush needs to do is claim the troops are there not for "combat" but rather for other purposes (such as fighting Al Qaeda, or training Iraqi troops, or guarding US installations, & or other task descriptions which are just word games to avoid calling it "combat").

The only thing in it that is a "step" towards ending "The War" is vague toothless language aiming at a pullout of combat troops by Aug 31, 2008.

This bill is not a step towards ending "The War." It's just a way that allows for some posturing as critics of "The War" until the 2008 elections, even while their actual votes support & fund "The War." It imposes no real restrictions on Bush, and is in practice no different than what he himself would most like.