Iraq or Congress: Who has more Democracy?
By Rep Earl Blumenauer, Fri Jun 16, 2006
At a time when 2500 American soldiers have given their lives for the cause of bringing democracy to Iraq, it is sad and frustrating to watch the Republican establishment disgrace the exercise of democracy in our own House of Representatives.
Congress has scheduled a long promised, day-long debate about Iraq that has morphed into a caricature of the democratic legislative process. The people's House, part of what we proudly refer to as the greatest democracy in the world, will spend the entire day dealing with a meaningless resolution.
The resolution in question does not require any action on the part of Congress or the federal government. Instead, it has morphed into a document worded to elicit a vote that would affirm the administration's policies without dealing with disastrous aspects or recommending corrective action.
What is particularly intriguing is the contrast between how the Republicans have chosen to treat this war and how the same issues were treated during the Gulf War.
Before going to war in Iraq in 1991, every single member of the House of Representatives had the opportunity to share their views with their constituents and the American public for a minimum of five minutes. Three major pieces of policy established the basis for war; alternatives offered by both the Democratic Majority Leader and the Republican Minority Leader were fairly and fully debated. A resolution offered by the Republican Minority Leader Bob Michael was ultimately adopted.
Today, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Jack Murtha, and Ike Skelton- the three Democrats who have been most deeply involved with military policy for the longest period of time -- have all been denied the opportunity to present any alternative.
Last year, after exhaustive research, extensive consultation with Oregonians and Americans from all around the country, and much thought, I offered my plan for Iraq. (see www.earlblumenauer.com). Nine months later, after more disturbing developments in Iraq and around the world, more debate, research, and conversations with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in the House and the Senate, I continue to believe my approach to be not only reasonable, but the best option for recovering from this horrendously mismanaged situation. Unfortunately, neither I nor any other Member of the House from either party is permitted to offer specific alternatives.
This shortsighted and manipulative approach, which creates the illusion of debate and action but prohibits any meaningful action, is what got us into the fix we are in today.
In Congress' headlong rush to support reckless action in Iraq by the administration
- It has failed to insist on adequate troop levels or even basic equipment to keep them safe.
- It had totally abandoned the critical mission that once enjoyed bipartisan support to root out Al Qaeda and stabilize Afghanistan, has led directly to the resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan and is now a country on the brink of slipping away from us.
- It has failed to provide even basic oversight for our reconstruction efforts in Iraq has enabled outright fraud and corruption and wasted billions of dollars.
There will be a day of reckoning! Regardless of the amount of Republican manipulation, any attempt to fix fundamental problems without building bipartisan support and restoring the confidence of the American public is doomed to failure.
We won the war, but we are losing the occupation and reconstruction of Iraq. It is past time for a new approach, one that relies on accountability, responsibility, and phasing down the scope of our military commitment.
As some of my colleagues line up for their one or two minutes to proffer slogans on the House floor, I've chosen instead to reaffirm my plan for Iraq and to voice my opposition to the Republicans' tactics. I do so confidently, secure in the knowledge that change is in fact coming.
One clear signal is the growing consensus among retired generals about our mistakes and their solutions. Another is the fact that we have stretched our military equipment and resources to the breaking point. We can no longer afford the war in Iraq. Our financial costs have already passed a third of a trillion dollars; the lifetime costs for this war, in both human and economic terms, will be borne by Americans for generations to come.
Finally, the majority of both Iraqis and Americans want us to begin leaving Iraq. Politically, the American public's support for this war is coming to an end. The elections this fall will be a referendum on the success of the Bush/Republican policies and no amount of stage managing or campaigning is going to minimize the growing pressure for change.
In almost four decades of public service, Earl Blumenauer's innovative accomplishments in transportation, planning, environmental programs and public participation have helped Portland, Oregon earn an international reputation as one of America's most livable cities.