Feinstein
ignores constituents
Diane Feinstein, the democratic senator
from California, completed her betrayal
of her party and constituents in October
when she voted for the War Powers Act, an
emergency bill that violates the central
principles established in the Constitution.
The Congress stripped itself of its sole
right and responsibility to commit the people
and resources of America to go to war, and
handed this vote to one man.
In her published apologia, she defends her
actions to her constituency. She begins,
“I serve as the senior senator from California,
representing 35 million people. That is
a formidable task. People have weighed in
by the tens of thousands. If I were just
to cast a representative vote based on those
who have voiced their opinions with my office
— and with no other factors — I would have
to vote against this resolution.”
Her reasoning continues, “But as a member
of the Intelligence Committee, as someone
who has read and discussed and studied the
history of Iraq, the record of obfuscation
and the terror Saddam Hussein has sown,
one comes to the conclusion that he remains
a consequential threat.
“Although the ties between Saddam Hussein
and al-Qaida are tenuous, there should be
no question that his entire government is
forged and held together by terror.”
If “the ties between Hussein and al-Qaida
are tenuous,” as Feinstein claims, then
we have no issue with Iraq.
Nowhere in any part of the Declaration of
Independence or Constitution is the passage
that describes how international interests
supercede national interests. That is, “tens
of thousands” of informed citizens cast
their vote, in the frail manner that they’ve
been instructed; “Write your congressman,
write your senator.” Feinstein betrayed
them.
She goes on, “While the distance between
the United States and Iraq is great, Saddam
Hussein’s ability to use his chemical and
biological weapons against us is not constrained
by geography — it can be accomplished in
a number of different ways — which is what
makes this threat so real and persuasive.”
The “real and persuasive threat” posed to
the United States by Iraq would not have
been measured by Feinstein, or any other
public servant. The Senate Intelligence
Committee, of which Feinstein is a member,
is beholden to the Central Intelligence
Agency for it’s information.
Feinstein claims that her decision was based
on information that she received as part
of the Intelligence Committee. That information
was kept secret until the last day of the
debate, the day in which Feinstein revoked
her promise (her office was telling callers
she’d vote “no”) to vote against granting
total U.S. war power to the president of
this country.
However, the assertion that Hussein poses
a threat to the United States even at great
distance must be taken seriously. The authority
whose information becomes important in this
decision is the CIA.
The CIA report said, “Although Saddam probably
does not yet have nuclear weapons or sufficient
material to make any, he remains intent
on acquiring them...If Baghdad acquires
sufficient weapons-grade fissile material
from abroad, it could make a nuclear weapon
within a year... Without such material from
abroad, Iraq probably would not be able
to make a weapon until the last half of
the decade”
The report goes on to detail weapons Iraq
may be developing, and while I think this
is a cause for concern, it’s important to
note that the United States right now has
nearly 7,000 strategic nuclear missiles,
while Iraq, admittedly, has none.
China, North Korea, Russia, and all major
European allies are in possession of nuclear,
chemical, and biological weapons now. But
we’re attacking Iraq, which would “probably”
be able to develop a nuclear weapon, but
only if allowed to by UN weapons inspectors
presided over by a multi-national force,
which would, no doubt, include the United
States.
I do not doubt that Hussein is a criminal
and a bad man. But it’s not our job to wage
a war in isolation that will probably get
Israel and much of the Middle East destroyed
or rendered uninhabitable.
The benefit of including the United Nations,
and the rest of the world in our concerns,
is that it removes the onus of appearing
to be an arrogant, destructive empire bent
on owning and controlling all parts of the
world.
The vote that Diane Feinstein cast gives
us that appearance and does worse. In the
hands of George Bush, jr., and his oligarchic
cabinet of oil and weapons investors, it
insures that we will breed a defiant nation
of impoverished war victims, whose eyes
will be tattooed with the mocking image
of our flag planted in their soil, waving
proudly as their mothers, wives, husbands
and children die. Consider yourself out
of office, Diane. That is, if you count
my vote.
Liam Scheff is an education major at
Cal State Long Beach.
|
