The Short-Sighted Dems

Oy:

WASHINGTON, June 20 — The Senate's debate over the war in Iraq turned highly emotional this afternoon, as the lawmakers reacted to reports of the killing of two American soldiers by adopting two measures opposing amnesty for any Iraqis who attack United States troops.

By a vote of 79 to 19, the Senate voted to declare that it objects to any such amnesty. By 64 to 34, the lawmakers voted to commend the new Iraqi government for not granting amnesty.

I'm with Mickey on this, who called it "a cheap oppotunity to score some patriotism points so they come out against some that has to happen if we're going to have a chance of peace in Iraq."

Comments

[!]

Well, yeah. The timing is chintzy and distastful. But, hey, they* are* politicians. What do you expect?

But it was just last week that the amnesty proposal was intro'd. Oh, that's right, few paid attention because it was an Awesome Week! Forget about the erratta and the minutia; it was Just Awesome!

See:
http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/06/so-republicans-are-for-amnesty-for.htmlI
Wish I had a better link, but, that does give you a date and quotes for researching it. The Congressional Record and Lexis-Nexis should have something.

Now, don't get me wrong. I do understand how the Iraq Gov't offerring amnesty might seem like a good, fat juicy carrot as it strives for stability and order, but, our Congress making a stand for for that carrot? Seems unseemly.
Amnesty being offerred in April '03...maybe...for the Army....but, now when people really don't even have a clue as to who exactly is the enemy over there...too easy, and, wrong-headed and politically stupid.

[!]

One more thing...
I am not looking at last week's proposal from a strict, tactical policy choice angle. But, I'm sure the sponsors and supporters of the proposal were ( I guess they were the 19 Senators who voted Nay on this one).
While I realize that, just from a political standpoint, it (for or agin amnesty for combatants) doesn't seem like the kind of debate that is needed now. If the war was over and we, as a country, were asking what's next?, where's the spoils?, then the debate might be needed. But, it isn't over yet, is it?

[Zathras]

I hope no one is looking at the amnesty question without recognizing what an extraordinarily complicated one it is from the Iraqi point of view.

[!]

"I hope no one is looking at the amnesty question without recognizing what an extraordinarily complicated one it is from the Iraqi point of view."

It is hard to not realize that such a choice is very complicated from the Iraqi Gov't's POV. Certainly, there is historical precendent for even suggesting amnesty. But, as I noted above, the conflict in Iraq isn't over yet. It is not just that our soldiers and Iraqi citizens are dying and being wounded, but, that there is large scale dis-order in many parts of that country.

It isn't just Bahgdad or the Sunni Triangle--both of which we always hear about-- but the South which the British are overseeing/policing(?) is unstable, too. And, goodness knows what is going on in the North. I haven't seen a single article on the Kurds since there was an article on how the Kurds were using our forces to enact revenge killings against people.

It still seems like:
A) Like, it was in the Summer of '03, noone in charge seems to truly know who the enemy is over there. Is it insurgents, foreign fighters, "dead ender" Baathists, sectarian violence formenters, thugs, Sunnis, who? It is likely all of the above, no? So, giving amnesty seems solid....IF...giving amnesty suddenly manifests an allegience to the Iraqi Gov't. Does that really seem likely with that partial list of enemies shown above? Are they just waiting for olive branches over there? Is that why the violence continues?

Here's a letter from a soldier on the whole debate of amnesty. Until proven otherwise, I'd have to say it is probably authentic.

http://alternet.org/blogs/peek/37855/

BTW, What Kaus wrote:
"a cheap oppotunity to score some patriotism points so they come out against* some[thing] that has to happen* if we're going to have a chance of peace in Iraq."(edit+emp., mine)

THAT is cynical. What makes it even worse, as I try to point out in what I've written in these comments, it is putting the cart before the horse. Amnesty proposals only happen when the enemy has been defeated. Period.