Correction On The Spark’S ‘Hidden War In Iraq’ Story

The recent Senate procedure only muzzled the overwhelming majority of Americans on the subject of an Iraq withdrawal. Correction On The Spark’s ‘Hidden War In Iraq’ StoryBy Cliff Montgomery – Nov. 26th, 2007A Nov. 19th article published by stated that a recent House funding bill for the fruitless nation-building of Iraq, which included a reasonable limit for the U.S. troop presence in that country, “probably has little chance of passing in the more conservative Senate.”In fact, Republican Senate members on Nov. 16th stopped further discussion of the $50 billion funding bill because of its included troop pullout plan. We are sorry for this mistake.But those in the corporate media also were wrong to say that the House bill was “defeated” by the Senate procedure. The vote instead simply ceased further debate on this most important issue.Senate Republicans invoked “Cloture on the Motion to Proceed” with the bill. Cloture is a rather archaic phrase, but it refers to “a parliamentary device to stop debate in a legislative body in order to secure a vote,” according to the Funk & Wagnalls Dictionary.While that had the same effect as killing the measure, it was neither a reasoned vote nor a full debate on the subject of an Iraq withdrawal. It simply muzzled the overwhelming majority of Americans who know that this fruitless-nation building must end.The House legislation would have ensured King George only a fourth of the gargantuan $196 billion he demands both for the real war in Afghanistan and the continued fruitless nation-building of Iraq through fiscal 2008.The bill however also set a reasonable timetable for the end of U.S. troop involvement in Iraq; they would have been withdrawn from that crumbling nation by Dec. 15th, 2008.This simply was too much for the conservative U.S. Senate, where measures need 60 ‘yea’ votes to win Senate approval. Continued consideration of the funding-withdrawal bill received a respectable 53 votes–a decent showing. Even some “maverick” Republicans, such as Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) and Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) voted to continue debate on this pressing matter.But 45 senators voted against further discussion on stopping the fruitless nation-building of Iraq, thus putting the whims of a career politician in the White House ahead of the needs of our troops, and of our nation. All but two of those senators were Republicans.This GOP trick of empty procedure has further tied our country to the unfounded desires of a radical, ideological minority whose extreme right views are far outside those of the average American.Despite eloquent appeals by many Senators, who pointed out that 2007 has been the deadliest 12 months for American troops in Iraq, the neo-conservatives who currently fill Republican ranks stopped all debate on the proposal.”What will it take to end this war? How many lives, how many limbs, how many broken families, how many innocent victims?” asked the Senate’s second most powerful Democrat, Dick Durbin (D-IL).More than 850 American soldiers in Iraq have lost their lives this year, simply because a handful of Republicans do not wish to re-consider their views on this matter.”We know the president will not do this, but it is within our power” to cease U.S. troops’ fruitless nation-building of Iraq, said Sen. Durbin.Republicans crowed in response that now is not the time to change Iraq military strategy, just as violence levels are falling in that country.But this is another in a long line of lies from the neo-conservatives who have all but taken over the Republican Party. As previous articles in make clear, claims of decreased violence in Iraq are based on the same kind of half-truths which first put American troops into Iraq in the first place.And, as the U.S. corporate media did during the lead-up to the Iraq mess, it has openly accepted the empty claims of neo-conservatives without bothering to check the facts for themselves.One of the most damning retorts to these claims was the Government Accountability Office (GAO) audit on Iraq, released in September.”While the Baghdad security plan was intended to reduce sectarian violence, U.S. agencies differ on whether such violence has been reduced,” stated a late draft of the study quoted by The Washington Post in August. Though the GAO agreed there recently has been fewer attacks targeting U.S. troops, it pointed out that attacks on Iraqi civilians were unchanged.The December 2006 report of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group likewise identified a “significant underreporting of violence” by Bush Administration officials, adding that “a murder of an Iraqi is not necessarily counted as an attack. If we cannot determine the sources of a sectarian attack, that assault does not make it into the data base.”The report concluded that “good policy is difficult to make when information is systematically collected in a way that minimizes its discrepancy with policy goals.”Apparently the same goes for stopping a false war waged for no legitimate reason.Like what you’re reading so far? Then why not order a full year (52 issues) of thee-newsletter for only $15? A major article covering an story not being told in the Corporate Press will be delivered to your email every Monday morning for a full year, for less than 30 cents an issue. Order Now!