The American Tragedy of Our Troops Held Hostage
President Bush is holding our troops hostage and threatening them with death. Here is what he is saying to Congress:
"Order me out of Iraq, and I will abandon the troops in the field. The blood of your children will be on your hands, not mine."
Every coffin that comes home shows he means business.
This is the ugly truth Congress wrestles with but will not name. Congress has been terrorized, like any family whose children are kidnapped and held hostage.
Vote to stop funding? Vote for an immediate start to withdrawal? American soldiers will die. As they have been dying. Bush knows he can blame Congress and the public's lack of "will" for the continued horror.
"They would not have died," he would say, "had the politicians in Washington not interfered with our commanders in the field."
This is Bush's threat. And everyone knows it, but few will talk about it. It is not easy to speak these truths about an American leader. But no other conclusion is possible.
Bush has so far, however, successfully framed the issue differently. Congress should not "cut and run." He's in charge. As the sad-voiced man in Ari Fleischer's cynical and misleading "Freedom Watch" pro-occupation campaign ad puts it, "It's no time to quit. It's no time for politics."
If there has ever been a time for politics, this is it. Because behind Bush's bluster is a bloody threat, a presidential threat of a sort this nation has never seen.
Congress, of course, could simply do nothing and bring the stand-off to a head. Without new authorization and new funding, Bush might be forced to chart a new course or (again) defy the Constitution. There is plenty of money to effect a safe withdrawal. But Bush is unlikely to either order a safe withdrawal or admit defiance of the Constitution. He will simply let the blood flow. How many will die, like so many terror hostages of the past, before Congress approves more ransom money?
How much blood would head off threats of impeachment?
Congress does not enforce the Constitutional requirement that foreign military initiatives require affirmative Congressional approval every two years because they know they will be blamed for every American death in Iraq from that day forward. And they know in their hearts that Bush will do nothing to prevent those deaths. This is the president who refused to adequately train and supply the troops, who abandoned the injured upon their return to America.
Does anyone expect that this president would actually order a safe and effective withdrawal plan? That he would execute such a plan if he were ordered to do so? No, Bush would not do that.
Congress's mistake was in framing the issue as if they believed he would ever accept their orders could they muster the votes to issue the orders. But Bush won't obey those orders, and they know it, and so they are arguing with themselves and with us about whether or not to pay the ransom.
We have come to the horrible circumstance of an American president holding his own troops hostage in a foreign land.
This is a heartbreakingly true framing of Bush's strategy for continuing his occupation of Iraq.
So what should be done?
As a first step, Congress must reassert its constitutional authority and restore the balance of power with a White House so drunk on power that it has brought our very democracy to the brink.
Congress could do this by immediately passing a resolution that forbids military engagement with Iran without additional prior approval of Congress. Yes, I said Iran. The Iraq War resolution of 2002 cannot, under any circumstance, be used to justify Bush's military intervention in Iran. The balance of power will not be restored by this simple, critical act. But at least some weight will be added to Congress' side of the scale. And, of course, another act of impetuous nation-invading might be stopped.
At the same time, Congress and all of us must call Bush out on his hostage-taking. We must name it for what it is and frame it truthfully. The tragedy of the Iraq occupation continues because the president holds our troops hostage on foreign ground. The deaths are ours to mourn, but Bush's to answer for.
It will be much harder for Bush to follow through on his bloody blackmail if all of America is talking about what he's doing.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Just keep sending him the same spending bill with timelines attached.
Doesn't matter if the Dems have a veto-proof majority or not.
He will eventually cave because KBR and Halliburton will run out of money for his debacle.
Iran is what truly frightens me. Not because Iran might do something to us, but that bush/cheney will most likely do something to them. Bombing or invading Iran would be like throwing gasoline on a brush fire, it would be catastrophic. But this is what bush and the neocons want, they want endless war to keep the "defense" industry pumping out the bullets and bombs. It matter nothing to them that it would most likely spell the end of the United States as we know it.
Congress must pass a resolution forbidding bush from attacking Iran unilaterally, or even better impeach both bush and cheney and put an end to this nightmare.
Earlier this year the Democrats introduced a bill which would have required Bush to seek Congressional approval before initiating an attack against Iran. The Zionist Lobby, AIPAC, worked to remove this provision. It was removed, and Bush is now free to do what he will. Don't be mislead into believing that we are spilling our blood and treasure into that religious cesspool for either oil or arms sales, no, not at all -- we are simply there to serve Israeli interests.
That's an interesting take on the situation. Whether or not Bush actually views his choices this way - it doesn't preclude Congress from offering this interpretation vocally, loudly, and everywhere. In effect that does seem to be Bush's position, so why not accuse Bush of it in the court of public opinion?
Makes one wonder who Bush sees as the bigger enemy... Al Qeada or his own citizens....?
not "ear"..rather, "war".
It is NOT a direct quote. You are right. However, it has been implied, over and over, by our President. My sons can die, your sons can die, but his children and relatives will NEVER be tormented (nor their beautiful minds...direct quote) by this ear.
Then it is a libelous lie! It shouldn't be represented as a quote if it isn't. So those of you who insist on calling the President a liar, are actually the liars.
Can you wrap your minds around that? Let me explain.
To say our President is implying something is simply YOUR OPINION, which you and the writer of the original post, are attempting to pass off as a actual quote. President Bush DID NOT actually say that.
You are attempting to shove YOUR opinion down my throat, hence, interfering with my freedom to think for myself.
Not every one is so willing to march in lockstep with your OPINIONS.
Opinions do not equal truth.
Ah, yes... but opinion does get to the ballot box.
But opinions do cast ballots.
The writer is not claiming Bush actually said it. He is claiming that is what he is DOING.
If you continue reading, you will see that the author is plainly IMAGINING things Bush might say in order to discredit his opponents:
"'They would not have died,' he would say..."
Nothing is passed off as a quote that Bush has actually made. I happen to think this does represent what Bush is doing, but plainly that is my opinion as well.
"A libelous lie?"
AND a redundant redundancy, too.
This is exactly right. He is blackmailing America with the troops.
He is not a legitimate President.
Reid and Pelosi pretend they are not being terrorized, that he is legitimate, that he is not using the troops in this way, or imagine they can wait him out.
So the Democrats will give him what he wants, but what then?
Democrats, what then?
"Order me out of Iraq, and I will abandon the troops in the field. The blood of your children will be on your hands, not mine."
When, where and in what context did President George W. Bush say that? Date and place, please. Since it is within quotation marks, I'll assume it's a direct quote. If I can deduce this is a true statement, than it could change my thinking.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
