Pat McGroartyâs article on the proposed âLynch Commissionâ for transition of authority in Iraq was good journalism, a fair reflection of the positions of two sides to a dispute. The resources of the press donât often permit analysis of stories, to evaluate the factual basis for statements made. So I would like to bring to the paperâs attention the following contradiction between statement and fact.
The July 13 article states, âFor several years, Lynch has said that he voted to authorize the Iraq War based on classified information provided by the State Department that he has since determined to be false.â The article goes on to report that, âAt a public forum held at Curry College in Milton on Feb. 7, he went as far as to call his decision to vote for the war in Iraq a mistake.â Yet, on two occasions, in the early spring of 2005, Lynch made the following statement: âI did support the decision to use military force in Iraq, not because it was a move to democracy, or a hunt for Weapons of Mass Destruction, but to remove Saddam Hussein from power.â So, why was it reallyâ¦classified State Department information, or because he wanted to remove Saddam Hussein from power? And, if his reason (March 2005) was just to remove Saddam Hussein, then how was his decision a mistake (February 2006)? For Lynch, like the Bush Administration, the rationale for continuing to support the placement of U.S. troops in the middle of a religious and ethnic civil war has been a work in progress. If, as he admits, it was wrong then (which it was, which I personally told him in the run up to his vote for the Resolution), then it is wrong now, and he must make clear what is the critical national interest that justifies leaving our troops in harms way, with more casualties every day. and, while admitting it was a mistake to vote for this War, just a few weeks ago, he was the lone Member of the Massachusetts Delegation to vote for the Republican “Stay the Course” Resolution cherade
What is particularly discouraging are the remarks of the Post 65 Vets who are quoted in the article as âpraising Lynch for his commitment to the war on terror,â and that âYou canât cut and run from terrorists.â You would think, by this point, the fiction, spun by Cheney and Rove, that somehow the Iraq War and the War on Terror are equivalent, would have been universally discredited. Three facts are now universally accepted:
1. Originally, the Iraq War had nothing to do with the War on Terror (there was no connection between Saddam and Al Queda, or Saddam and 9/11).
2. The initiation of the Iraq War diverted resources from Afghanistan, the real site of the War on Terror.
3. Contrary to its intended result, the Iraq War has contributed to, rather than detracted from, the numbers of terrorists and resources available to them.
If the Congressman is concerned that his constituents donât make the same mistake in judgment he admits to have made, he should be sure to set the record straight with his supporters who still seem to hold onto these misconceptions.
The final point that needs to be made involves Lynchâs statement, âI donât play politics with the lives of our soldiers. You do what you think is right, and what you think will work best for them.â Well, letâs be very clear. What works best for them, as individuals, is not to remain in a 120° desert, carrying 70lbs of gear, with enemy combatants and civilians who all look the same, not speaking the language, watching some comrades getting blown to bits and wondering when your going to be next, and seeing other comrades being charged with murder, without a clue as to why you are there and what youâre supposed to be doing about stopping one religious group from destroying another or one ethnic group from stealing from another.
Wars never work well for the soldiers who have to fight them. Thatâs why, before brave and dedicated men and women are sent into hell, there must an overwhelming imperative of national security to start a war, or continue it.
The Congressman cannot make a case for continuation of this war based on what works best for the soldiers. If he is to âstay the course,â he must make a compelling case for why their continued sacrifice is crucial to our national security. Otherwise, there is a moral obligation to get them out of the middle of that mess now.
I donât have to question the Congressmanâs motives in all this. But it is certainly fair to question his judgment. When he knows they lied to him going in (as we warned him at the time), and then he makes the statement (as he did in the article), âEvery time you go over (referring to his five trips to Iraq), you get a different answer on the progress thatâs being madeâ¦â the question is, when do you wise up (like Murtha did a year ago) and think first of the soldiers, instead of the reputations of a lot of failed politicians who, someday soon, will be only pathetic footnotes in American history.
lolorb says
Straight talk isn’t funny, but it’s damn nice to hear it for a change.
<
p>
Republicans can’t manage wars any better than they can manage government. They have failed miserably. If a poltician isn’t part of the solution, the politican is part of the problem.
<
p>
Good luck to you.
dunk says
Thanks for the encouragement. Can you hold a sign? I’m just getting into blogging, so I should suspend judgment for awhile, but I wonder if blogging becomes like mental video games. The game is going to be won or lost on the street!
dunk says
I should add to my first reply, that your statement should be expanded to include everybody, not just the politicians. The phrase is, “If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.” You can become part of the solution at [http://www.dunkdem.org/volunteer.php]
<
p>
I don’t know if such “gratuitous” remarks are kosher in the blogs, but promoting this candidacy is part of my job, so, even if I’m not excused, I hope I will at least be forgiven.
lolorb says
You are exactly the kind of candidate I would work for! Unfortunately (or fortunately for me), I am relocating to Asheville, NC in the next few weeks. There’s a very important race in that district to rid Congress of Charles Taylor. I will be jumping into the Shuler campaign. Click here for update.
goldsteingonewild says
<
p>
2. Your website says you support the Murtha amendment to leave Iraq immediately. That was voted down 403 to 3. Would it be fair to say your support puts you outside the Dem mainstream?
<
p>
3. Just curious: what’s the domestic issue that voters most want to talk to you about…i.e., what comes up “organically”?
<
p>
4. Bonus if you feel like it: your website ID’s your differences from Lynch on abortion. I’m with you (pro-choice). Murtha’s with Lynch (pro-life).
<
p>
He wants to run for Majority Leader if (when?) D’s win back the House in November. You obviously support him on Iraq, but he has 0% NARAL rating. Would you back him for ML?
dunk says
Thanks for your comment.
<
p>
2. I’m not sure what vote you’re referencing, but what I am supporting is Murtha Redeployment Bill which has not been voted on and now includes 105 co-sponsors (Lynch’s “Transition Commission” has 0 co-sponsors), so I would say I’m actually a bit closer to the Dem mainstream than my opponent.
<
p>
3. As for the top “domestic” issue voters “want to talk to me about,” it is constituent service and attitude. Actually this surprised me a great deal. Constituents combine these two “issues” into statememtns which are all similar to this: “We all worked hard for Lynch when he first ran, but now we can’t even get a phone call back. The guy’s forgotten where he came from.”
<
p>
Where my political background is as a City Councilor, I see responsiveness to constituents as job one. I worked with two predecessors to U.S. Rep. John Tierney (Harrington and Mavroules MA 6th District), so I know that the majority of the resources and energy of a Congressional Office should be devoted to constituent and District service.
<
p>
Lynch’s experience has been in the State Legislature, which is a different pastime. But, he still comes out of a political “tradition” that I would have thought would focus on constituent service. So it surprised me.
<
p>
4. I don’t know who else is running for the ML at this point. Murtha favors a school prayer amendment as well, so I guess I’d have a number of differences with him on policy. But, as I understand it, the effective fuinction of that office depends on “leadership” ability and doesn’t have much significanace as to expressing the policy of the Party. The Title itself indicates that it would be his job to promote the agenda of the Party’s Majority.
<
p>
I think he’s a straight talker, so I like the guy. That makes him an effective speaker, because the majority of people to whom I talk are fed up most with Politician Language, say nothing, do nothing politicians. He obviously has “leadership” ability from his successful career in the Marines. I guess I’d want to have a conversation with him, to make sure that we agreed that it would be inappropriate to use that office to promote his personal agenda. While he was certainly entitled to advocate for his views as a Rep, “in the Well,” we would have to agree that he would perform for the majority of the Majority when acting in his capacity as ML.
<
p>
The direct answer would be, I would look things over some more before committing (not there yet), but any differences we might have as to his position on various issues of policy would not deter me from voting for him for ML.
janalfi says
is so important. Our congressmen are the closest thing we have to a voice in Washington. If they won’t listen or respond to us in an intelligent way, who will?
<
p>
I think local town forums like Rep. Gerry Studds used to hold everytime he was home for Washington saved him when he had all that trouble with the homophobes. I did some polling calls after the infamous “affair with page” story came out and was amazed at the number of people who said stuff like, “Well, I don’t like this homosexual stuff, but he helped me with . . . and I’m gonna vote for him.” Tip O’Neill was right.
<
p>
Stephen Lynch spends more time in Iraq than he does in Brockton.
<
p>
goldsteingonewild says
I think I’m open to persuasion on Iraq. I followed your link to the new Murtha bill (the 403 to 3 I mentioned was the day after he made his first “leave now” remarks, and there were all sorts of political stunts involved).
<
p>
What I don’t find persuasive – yet – is the idea that Iraqi violence will escalate even over its current high levels. I understand Murtha’s case – many Iraqis don’t want us there, our presence feeds the insurgency, we can still try diplomacy – but I don’t buy it.
<
p>
Are you saying that you think a rapid pullout/redeployment would still mainstain roughly status quo (or even less) amount of bloodshed?
<
p>
Or are you more saying you think even if Iraqi death toll increases preciptiously after a rapid pullout – with nighttime death squads roaming more frequently and pulling young guys out of their homes and capping them – at least it’s not our blood?
sco says
If I recall correctly, the first “Murtha Bill” you’re referencing — the one that lost 403 to 3 — did not even have the support of John Murtha. The Republicans called it the Murtha Bill to distort his position. That may be part of the “political stunts” you’re talking about.
linda-h says
I trust Murtha’s judgement on the Iraq.
<
p>
Take a look at his interview on Hardball.