Monday, March 27, 2006

There Is No War

Republicans criticise the Democrats for not supporting the President during wartime. Assuming we ignore the fact that it's not the Democrat's job to let the President break the law during wartime, there's still a problem with Republican claims. There is no war going on.

The so-called War on Terror is not a war. Only Congress can declare war, and there's no nation upon which to declare it. Terrorism is a serious crime. You can only declare war on terrorism figuratively speaking (like the "War on Drugs").

As for the war in Iraq, that was over in 2003. Our current presence in Iraq is at best a peace-keeping force, and at worst an occupation that's going badly.

Referring to these conflicts as wars doesn't serve America. It serves those who want to undermine the American ideals of liberty and justice. The wars have been used as an excuse to revoke American civil liberties, lock up suspects without due process, and appeal to Americans who let fear get the better of them.

George W. Bush invented perpetual war as a perpetual excuse to escape accountability. Don't let him get away with it.

4 comments:

Ken Brown said...

I know this is rare for us, but on issue this I have to agree. It is one thing for Republicans to point out that the loud condemnation of our occupation of Iraq poses a direct threat to the troops on the ground. It is something else entirely to claim that the fact of such an occupation somehow makes the current president immune from criticism. And it is absolutely ridiculous that this fact is being used as an excuse to impose on our civil liberties.

I voted for Bush, and given what I knew at the time, I can't second guess that decision (compared to Kerry, Bush seemed the lesser of two evils), but I'm living to regret it. Frankly I'm disgusted with the two party system that can so easily lead us to these kind of "damned if you do, damned if you don't" choices.

Doctor Logic said...

Ken,

This administration does make one appreciate the value of true leadership. Most people don't even think about the issues, and just get dragged along by sound bites.

Just imagine what we could achieve given thoughtful, competent and moderate leadership.

I am curious, what were your impressions of Kerry?

Kerry was not my favored candidate in the primaries. My sense is that he is a man who cares a lot about the decisions he makes. Someone who will think over decisions from every angle, perhaps to the point of appearing indecisive. And yet, Kerry is a moderate who understands the issues and can speak knowledgably about them. A stark contrast to Bush in almost every respect.

Richard said...

Bush has gotten away with it. He's
a man without conscience who has
combined the foreign policy of
Lyndon Johnson with the domestic
policy of Herbert Hoover. In three
years he will retire to his ranch
having done serious damage to the country.
I agree with Ken on the "two"
party system. We desperately need
a third party--and perhaps more.
They would probably lose, but atleast real issues might be intelligently discussed.

Ken Brown said...

I haven't followed Kerry since the election, so I have no opinion on how he might have turned out. But my impression of him at the time was someone who would say anything to get elected, and who I had absolutely no way of knowing how he would actually act if that happened. At least Bush was a known entity with a clear (I thought) stand on issues I cared about.

I was afraid Kerry would let the Democratic party further enshrine abortion for all, while simultaneously dismantling U.S. defense. I may have been wrong on both points, I don't know, but I know I was wrong about Bush taking a clear stand on the issues I care about; he has done nothing of the sort, and caused much harm along the way.