A few minutes ago, I received an email from “CREDO Action.” Here are the important parts:
President Bush wants an endless war, but the majority of Americans want to bring our troops home. Now there is a real plan, endorsed by military leaders, over 50 congressional challengers, and 50,000 citizen co-sponsors like you.
. . .
The Responsible Plan will:
End U.S. military action in Iraq
Use U.S. diplomatic power
Address humanitarian concerns
Restore our Constitution
Restore our military
Restore independence to the media
Create a new, U.S.-centered energy policy
And then there is a link to a page where I can help deliver this “Responsible Plan” to a Congressional representative’s office and another link to a page where I can sign a petition endorsing the “Responsible Plan.” Uh-huh. Right. Like I’m gonna do that on the basis of seven hugely vague phrases that are utterly without details. Sure, maybe I want to “Restore our Constitution,” but maybe what I think about that is not exactly what the people at “CREDO Action” think about that, or what the authors of this “Responsible Plan” think about it.
Why is it that for many people, they think that certain political ideas should go together by default? If one is pro-life, they must be for the Iraq war. If one is against the death penalty, they must be for (so-called) homosexual marriage. If one is pro-environment, they must be pro-choice. If someone is conservative politically, they are grouped with the conservative platform, and vice-versa. Shouldn’t we all know that this is not true?
Along the same lines recently, as far as I have noticed, Republicans (at least) have been toting the “united we stand” position. In other words, a Republican must be pro Iraq war, against any spending on health insurance, pro death penalty, pro-life, against environmental initiatives, for big business (especially the pharmaceuticals, big media, and auto manufactures), and against (so-called) homosexual marriage.
This is what is wrong with the American political party situation: one has to concede his or her personal position in order to meld into their respective party. I am not a cafeteria Catholic, but politics is too complex to blindly be led by all the fallible parties.
Obama is often touted as the true Democratic candidate for change in contrast to Clinton and the Neocon Republicans. One such change would then be ending the war in Iraq and maybe trimming down our overseas empire–this would be a pleasant change, right?
“These are great days we’re living, bros. We are jolly green giants, walking
the Earth with guns. These people we wasted here today are the finest human beings
we will ever know. After we rotate back to the world, we’re gonna miss not having
anyone around that’s worth shooting.” – Crazy Earl, Full
“I enjoy killing Iraqis. I just feel rage, hate when I’m out there. I feel
like I carry it all the time. We talk about it. We all feel the same way.”
– Staff Sgt. William Deaton, 30
Najaf – Tucked behind a gleaming machine gun, Sgt. Joseph Hall grins at his two companions in the Humvee. “I want to know if I killed that guy yesterday,” Hall says. “I saw blood spurt from his leg, but I want to be sure I killed him.” The vehicle goes silent as the driver, Spc. Joshua Dubois, swerves around asphalt previously uprooted by a blast. “I’m confused about how I should feel about killing,” says Dubois, who has a toddler back home. “The first time I shot someone, it was the most exhilarating thing I’d ever felt.” Dubois turns back to the road. “We talk about killing all the time,” he says. “I never used to talk this way. I’m not proud of it, but it’s like I can’t stop. I’m worried what I will be like when I get home.” The men aren’t Special Forces soldiers. They’re just ordinary troops with the Army’s 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment serving their 14th month in Iraq, much of it in daily battles. In 20 minutes, they will come under attack.