A CONFUSED CONGRESSWOMAN
Tuesday, February 20, 2007 at 07:12AM By Ed Mosca
In her remarks during the recent U.S. House debate on a non-binding resolution against President Bush’s plan to send reinforcements to Iraq, Congresswoman Carol Shea-Porter drew a sharp contrast between Afghanistan and Iraq: “Our nation was attacked by evil people who trained in Afghanistan. We have a right to go into Afghanistan to remove the terrorist training camps. As a matter of fact, we should be working even harder there to make sure our Afghanistan mission does not fail. We must not allow the Taliban and other terrorist groups to control Afghanistan again.”
I am glad that Shea-Porter believes that we must prevent terrorists from using Afghanistan as a base to attack America. It is troubling that the Congresswoman doesn’t seem to understand that the terrorists are also in Iraq and that it is even more vital to prevent terrorists from using Iraq as a base.
Iraq is located in the strategically vital Middle East, a region much more important to our national interests, and Iraq is rich with oil that could be used to finance terrorism against America. If it is in our national interest to have a terrorist-free Afghanistan, as Shea-Porter contends, then it is at least as much in our national interest to have a terrorist-free Iraq. The Congresswoman, however, doesn’t seem to even be aware that Al Qaeda is in Iraq. Her remarks lay the blame for all of the death, destruction and violence that have occurred in Iraq on America.
The most famous aspect of Shea Porter’s remarks has been her reference to Davy Crockett: “What is this talk I have heard tonight about freedom and liberty? This talk of glory that I heard on the floor. This romanticized language, this talk about Davy Crockett. There is no Davy Crockett in Iraq. Our troops need clear-eyed leaders, not this romantic rabble that we have been hearing.”
I’m all for clear-eyed leadership, but a non-binding resolution is hardly that. Congress’ constitutional role is not to provide commentary on the President’s effectuation of the war. If Shea-Porter and her Democrat Party believe their own words, then they are obligated to end the funding.
And as for Davy Crockett, I get the sneaking suspicion that Shea-Porter’s sympathies would have been with Santa-Anna.
Reader Comments (29)
The terrorists are not just in Afghanistan. They are in Iraq, and other places as well. Pretending that Afghanistan is the only place that the terrorists are based may score short term political points against George Bush, but it will make America much more vulnerable to terrorist attack.
The premise that tying up terrorists in Iraq will prevent them from attacking here is moronic. Good grief--22 people brought down the World Trade Towers.
If preventing another attack here is the strategic intent of continuing this folly then defend it.
What is to prevent a small force from attacking here? Actually by tying up all of our resources in Iraq we've left the homeland more vulnerable--not less.
For one thing we've left our ports insecure. Carol Shea Porter has been an advocate of screening all shipping containers to prevent a "dirty bomb" from entering our country.
The Bush administration has left us vulnerable--I don't think Davy Crocket would have liked that.
No response necessary because the comment attributes a position that was not taken --"The premise that tying up terrorists in Iraq will prevent them from attacking here is moronic."
It was Shea Porter's contention that we should commit military force to make Afghanistan terrorist-free. The relevant question, then, is why, if it is a proper use of American military force to attempt to make Afghanistan terrorist-free, it is not a proper use of American military force to make Iraq terrorist-free. Shea-Porter avoids the question by denying the presence of terrorists in Iraq and/or suggesting the terrorists would leave if America leaved.
Otherwise, Saddam was as much of a target of Al Qaeda as we were.
Whether or not the presence of terrorists in America is "America's fault," or not, the fact of the matter is that they are there. Comment #3 is a sound-bite not a defense of Shea-Porter's muddled reasoning.
The question remains why, if as Shea-Porter contends, it is in America's national interest to use American military force to attempt to make Afghanistan terrorist-free, is it not a proper use of American military force to attempt to make Iraq terrorist-free.
You make a thoughtful argument here. I am very impressed with your critique here and am grateful that it is based on ideas as opposed to twisting someone's words against them. That puts you head and shoulders above some of the mindless criticisms that I have seen.
I agree with you on every point except the one about Shea-Porter siding with Santa Ana. I think her intentions are good as well as those commenting on this blog. But they are all wrong.
The difference between our argument and theirs is that we realize that terrorism is state sponsored and that Iraq is a conquest that would greatly increase the funding and activity of terrorist groups. They still think terrorism is about 22 nutcases blowing up buildings.
Someday they will learn, but it appears that day is not today.
They mean well though, and that does mean something. But personally I would prefer that they just saw reality.
Can democracy be forced at gunpoint?
My remark regarding Santa Anna was based on Shea-Porter's view that all the death, destruction and violence that have occurred in Iraq is America's fault. It would be instructive to hear from Shea-Porter on this.
I hope nobody dies, but we can't leave Iraq to a civil war.
Nice logic though.
Maybe I should ask you, how many hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives lost in a full scale civil war would make it worth it to you to stay.
If you knew ten million Iraqi civilians would die in the civil war once you pulled out would you still do it?
How many millions of Iraqis are you willing to have on your concience?
I don't want anyone to die. But we promised the Iraqi people security and we are bound to them to provide it.
Dave: we can't NOT leave Iraq to a civil war, and the sooner folks like you realize that, the better. American firepower can't solve these problems unless you're willing to obliterate the entire Islamic population... gee, then we could be safe, I guess.
MAD MAX
Note the trend. Not one single comment thus far can defend Shea-Porter's muddled thinking. Instead, all that is offered is diversion and sound-bites -- "Bush lied; people died," etc., etc. etc..
Let's pose the question yet again, and see if any of Shea-Porter's supporters can answer it:
Why, if it is a proper use of American military force to attempt to make Afghanistan terrorist-free, as Shea-Porter claims, is it not also a proper use of American military force to make Iraq terrorist-free?
And there is also the "Davy Crockett" "clear-eyed" leadership question none of Shea-Porter's supporters will address:
If what is needed is, to use Shea-Porter's words, "clear-eyed" leadership, then why did she and her Party waste time and money on a self-indulgent gab-fest rather than using Congress' power-of-the-purse to end funding for military operations in Iraq?
How about this reason for why it is a proper use of American military force in Afghanistan and not Iraq.
In Afghanistan, we have a clear deliniation about who is on our side and who isn't. We genuinely want the Karzai government to prevail and keep the Taliban out. If and when we leave with the Karzai government in control, it will have been a success.
In Iraq, on the other hand, the side we appear to be supporting- the Al Maliki government, is closely aligned to Iran and to Shia death squads. To the extent that they prevail, it increases Iran's influence over Iraq and its oil. There doesn't appear to be a side whose victory will be good for the US. The choice appears to be Iranian-influenced terrorists or Al Qaeda-influenced terrorists. These are not options which are worth spending American blood and treasure on.
As for why the Dem's chose to spend time on a non-binding resolution, I would say that the purpose is to send a signal to anyone in the administration and US military that the days of the Congressional blank check are over, and the emphasis must be in getting out, not getting further in. This probably won't work with Bush and Cheney, given their personalities, but there are many in the Pentagon who know that Bush is a lame duck, and are making their calculations accordingly. This resolution is aimed at them, with the intent that the policy options they present to Bush are going to change as a result of the vote.
We promised the Iraqis security? When did Bush do that? I thought he promised America to rid Iraq of Saddam and his WMDs. That's the reason why I recall we went into that country.
If the goal had been to make Iraq secure, the force allocated was never adequate, and it isn't today even after the current escalation.
The Iraqis are responsible for their own security. If they choose civil war over negotiation, that is their decision. We should not be killing Iraqis to stop them from killing each other.
Your words are a breath of fresh air.
A follow up:
Do we have a stake in the Afghan civil war or are we done? Are we fighting terrorism in general or just striking back at Bin laden? If its just to get back at the backers, aren't we done?
Isn't Shea-porter a bneo-con on Afghanistan?
"There doesn't appear to be a side whose victory will be good for the US. The choice appears to be Iranian-influenced terrorists or Al Qaeda-influenced terrorists. These are not options which are worth spending American blood and treasure on."
You've framed the question in such a way as to suggest the answer you want. The question, however, is not what alternative is good, but what alternative will be better for the United States. The choice to support the Soviet Union during World War II was not because it would be good to have the Soviet Union as the dominant power in Europe, but rather that the Soviet Union was viewed as the lesser of two evils.
Further, I don't agree that the alternatives are or should be limited to a government that supports Sunni terrorism versus a government that supports Shia terrorism.
As for the non-binding resolution being aimed at certain unnamed folks in the Pentagon, I don't believe it. But if this was the purpose, why didn't the Democrats say so and name the names, instead of misleading the American people about their purpose? Don't the American people have a right to know the true purpose of the non-binding resolution and the identities of these nefarious military folks? Do you know the names?
"Confused" Congresswoman?
I don't think Carol Shea-Porter-Swett is "confused".
I think she knows EXACTLY what she wants.
She just doesn't KNOW anything else.