Reply #31: Why did the Bush Junta need a Senate resolution to investigate a matter

[Peace Patriot]

(Iranian presence/attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq) that is clearly within the purview of the Executive Branch with Bush as (gulp...) Commander in Chief?

Why?

That is, if you stretch law and precedent ve-e-e-e-ery thin, and grant ANY legitimacy to U.S. military presence in Iraq.

But, for the sake of argument, we're there. Can't be denied. And, for the sake of argument, let's grant that Bush is responsible for the safety of U.S. troops.

Ah, God.

This is so hard. This is a fascist coup, friends. This is it. Our democracy is over.

Bush and the U.S. military, in this circumstance--however it came about, and however illegal it is, and however many lies they have told about it--have an obligation to know what the fuck is going on in Iraq, and what kinds of dangers their corporate cannon fodder are facing. Why do they need a Senate resolution for this?

I think this is why: It's the best Lieberman could do, to get some kind of legitimacy behind Cheney's plan to attack Iran--if you consider the U.S. Senate legitimate, 98% of whom voted for the "Help America Vote for Bush Act" of 2002 (in the same month as the IWR). The "Help America Vote for Bush Act" permitted the fast-tracking of electronic voting systems all over the country, with machines run on 'TRADE SECRET,' PROPRIETARY programming code, owned and controlled by rightwing Bushite corporations.

70+% of the American people now oppose the Iraq War and want it ended, up from a significant majority--56%--in Feb. '03, just before the invasion. But I remember a poll posted here at DU last summer that had a figure of 84% (!) of the American people opposed to any U.S. participation in a widened Mideast war.

The numbers against the Mideast war could not be more compelling. They are overwhelming--whether from the point of view of the Iraq War, or a widened war. And to see this toady resolution--blatant, obvious prep for war on Iran--endorsed by 97 Senators also blatantly, obviously mirrors the state of our democracy, which is upside down and backwards. The people want one thing, overwhelmingly, and the Senate unanimously has chosen the opposite--not exactly a declaration of war on Iran, but good enough to cover their asses (at least in their own ass-backwards view), WHEN Cheney gives the order.

American democracy is over. And its death was not the IWR, no. Nor this resolution. Its death was non-transparent vote counting, the means used for shoving unjust war down the throats of the American people.

I take that back. American democracy is not over as long as it lives in the hearts of the American people. They can disenfranchise us. They can drag us into unjust war. They can rob us blind. They can shred our Constitution. They can play this farcical game on the world stage, that this stinking heap of corruption in Washington DC is our legitimate government. But they cannot deprive us of our sovereignty, no matter how hard they try. It is always true. It is always reality that we, the people, have the right and duty to rule this country. That we are severely disempowered, and disenfranchised, does not change that reality. And we will get our power back some day--I am convinced of that--though it will likely take a long hard battle at the state/local level over transparent vote counting.

Anyway, ask yourself this: Why was this resolution needed?