The US House of Representatives recently voted to endorse Bush and Rumsfeld's
war on Iraq. They did this under the guise of a bill nominally supporting the
troops that, in reality, endorses Bush's decision to invade and occupy Iraq.
Only 11 congresspeople voted against the bill and 22 stood aside. The rest of
the so-called representatives of the people outdid many of their constituencies
in their unabashed support for America's latest imperial war. Indeed, many of
those congressmembers who voted for the this resolution and the war represent
districts where the sentiment continues to be against the current violence in
the Gulf region. Perhaps nowhere was this more apparent than in Vermont, which
is represented by its lone "independent" representative, Bernie Sanders.
Upon receiving notice of Bernie's vote, I immediately called his office
and registered my dismay. Within days, I received a letter from the office
wherein Bernie reminded me that he voted against the October 2002 resolution
granting GW Bush authority to use whatever force it required to take over
Iraq. He wrote that he believes history will prove this to have been the
correct vote. Further to his credit, before Bernie cast a yes vote for the most
recent resolution, he entered a short speech into the Congressional Record
decrying the partisan nature of the resolution. He went on to state further
that he did not support the Bush administration's policies that "led us to
where we are today." After stating his support for the UN inspections regime
and reminding the House of the "phenomenon of blow-back," Bernie attacked the
GOP leadership for cutting veteran's benefits in the same session they voted to
create more veterans. There seems to be some kind of contradiction here. Bernie may have voted agai |