-Caveat Lector-
_________________________________________________________________________
[EMAIL PROTECTED] has recommended this article from
The Christian Science Monitor's electronic edition.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- ADVERTISEMENT --
ORVIS: Save up to 70% at Orvis.com.
http://clickserve.cc-dt.com/link/click?lid=41000000000418179
_________________________________________________________________________
Click here to email this story to a friend:
http://www.csmonitor.com/cgi-bin/send-story?2002/1003/p03s01-uspo.txt
Click here to read this story online:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1003/p03s01-uspo.html
Headline: Congress's war dissenters strive to be heard
Byline: Gail Russell Chaddock Staff writer of The Christian Science
Date: 10/03/2002
(MITCHELL, S.D,. AND WASHINGTON)George McGovern may have lost the presidency in 1972
by one of the
widest margins in American history, but it hasn't dented his conviction
in voicing contrarian viewpoints to a nation on war footing.
In 1972 it was Vietnam. Today he says that the United States has no
business getting involved in a war in Iraq.
"What have they done to hurt us? Nothing. No attacks on a person or
property. No evidence that Iraq is involved in the attack on the World
Trade Center and the Pentagon. Is it against the law to build weapons
of mass destruction?... There are nine members of the nuclear club and
we don't go to war with them," says the former senator in a
wide-ranging interview in his home in Mitchell, S.D.
A prairie preacher's son, Mr. McGovern was the most eloquent spokesman
of his generation against the war in Vietnam. He was also a World War
II hero, flying 35 combat missions as a B-24 bomber pilot, including
once landing a disabled plane on one wheel - for which he won the
Distinguished Flying Cross. In a September 1970 speech to overflowing
galleries, he railed against the Congress for allowing the "cruelest,
the most barbaric, and the most stupid war in our national history" to
continue.
"And every senator in this chamber is partly responsible for sending
50,000 young Americans to an early grave," he said. The Sept. 1 vote to
end the war failed, but some scholars call it the beginning of the end
of that war.
Today, he wonders why the antiwar movement in Congress appears so
feeble.
IT'S a question not so much of parallel situations - thousands of
Americans had died in Vietnam by 1970 - as of national memory. When
Congress debated launching the Gulf War in 1991, the perils of that war
were relatively fresh in memory, and many lawmakers opposed war. Today,
America's quick successes from Operation Desert Storm through the
recent campaign in Afghanistan have eclipsed some of Vietnam's trauma.
Still, a small but growing number of current lawmakers, many of whom
came into politics in the McGovern era, are differing with President
Bush.
As Congress moves toward agreement on a resolution to use force in
Iraq, dissenters are struggling to rally some form of opposition. In
the House, some 40 members of the Iraq Working Group are trying to
avert military action altogether. Meanwhile, 73 have signed a petition
asking for the vote to be delayed until after the election.
But they acknowledge that the agreement reached yesterday between Mr.
Bush and House leaders makes even the goal of winning more time for
debate unlikely. They hope that a credible opposition could at least
pressure the White House into more aggressive diplomatic efforts to
build an international consensus on how to proceed. "The biggest
mistake we could make is trying to do this alone," says Rep. Jim
McDermott (D) of Washington, who just returned from a "humanitarian
mission" to Iraq with Reps. David Bonior (D) of Michigan and Mike
Thompson (D) of California. The three Democrats said that the purpose
of their trip was to convince Saddam Hussein to comply with UN
inspectors.
They returned to harsh criticism from GOP leaders, as well as many
political commentators who dubbed the three Democrats everything from
"useful idiots for Saddam" to traitors.
"At a time when America is fighting a war on terror, talk like this
only helps enemies of freedom.... It's one thing to have a civil
discourse on the merits of a preemptive strike or war. It's another to
fly to Iraq and take the word of a tyrant over the American president
and the American people," says Republican Conference Chairman J.C.
Watts (R) of Oklahoma.
But Congressman McDermott - who recently won his primary race in his
liberal district of Seattle with 77 percent of the vote - says the
issue is worth the heat. As a former Navy psychiatrist who treated
Vietnam veterans, he says that "dealing with the casualties of Vietnam"
compels him to look at any future commitment of troops with great care.
His Democratic colleagues also saw service during the Vietnam era. Mr.
Bonior served in the Air Force stateside, while Mike Thompson served in
the Army in Vietnam and earned a purple heart. While McDermott and
Thompson's district are solidly Democratic, Mr. Bonior's stance on the
war put him at risk in a suburban Detroit district that often votes
Republican. He recently lost a primary bid for governor.
In fact, a war record is emerging as one of the key credentials in the
emerging congressional debate. Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel's Vietnam
record has also amplified his voice as a GOP moderate urging a
multilateral approach on Iraq.
"America alone cannot defeat this scourge of mankind. We will require
partners," he said in a speech Monday. It's a view George McGovern
could support.
(c) Copyright 2002 The Christian Science Monitor. All rights reserved.
Click here to email this story to a friend:
http://www.csmonitor.com/cgi-bin/send-story?2002/1003/p03s01-uspo.txt
The Christian Science Monitor-- an independent daily newspaper providing context and
clarity on national and international news, peoples and cultures, and social trends.
Online at http://www.csmonitor.com
Click here to order a free sample copy of the print edition of the Monitor:
http://www.csmonitor.com/aboutus/sample_issue.html
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
<A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
