Whereas on September 11, 2001, while Americans were attending to their daily routines, terrorists hijacked four civilian aircraft, crashing two of them into the towers of the World Trade Center in New York City, and a third into the Pentagon outside Washington, D.C., and a fourth was prevented from also being used as a weapon against America by brave passengers who placed their country above their own lives ...
Whereas since the United States was attacked, it has led an international military coalition in the destruction of two terrorist regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq while using diplomacy and sanctions in cooperation with Great Britain and the international community to lead a third terrorist regime in Libya away from its weapons of mass destruction;
-- beginning of H757: Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives on the anniversary of the terrorist attacks launched against the United States on September 11, 2001
Sixteen members voted against it. For instance, Rep. Hinchey (NY) was upset at the connection between Iraq and 9/11 as well as what he felt was a way too positive account ["a campaign document" ... "a fantasy"] of what the Bush Administration did to fight the war on terror. Some readers of this blog might be interested to know that Rep. Schakowsky (IL) was one of the dissenters. Two replies to such criticism:
The sponsor of the resolution, International Relations Committee Chairman Henry Hyde, R-Ill., responded to the critics, saying "there is a direct connection between the war in Iraq and the bombing of Sept. 11."
U.S. troops in Baghdad, added House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, are "fighting the same evil and upholding the same virtues" as the passengers aboard Flight 93 who battled the hijackers or the police and firefighters who lost their lives at the World Trade Center. "It is one and the same conflict," he said.
Well, talking about "upholding the same virtues," which would seem to include our basic liberties, how about this:
Officially, the Secret Service does not concern itself with unarmed, peaceful demonstrators who pose no danger to the commander in chief. But that policy was inoperative here Thursday when seven AIDS activists who heckled President Bush during a campaign appearance were shoved and pulled from the room -- some by their hair, one by her bra straps -- and then arrested for disorderly conduct and detained for an hour.
Sometimes it is useful to underline the sorts of people we are dealing with and the mentality that guides all too many of their actions. A mentality which makes it so hard to take all the nice sounding things that they say seriously. The connection to this resolution is that the words alone cannot be read without understanding the context in which they are expressed. Iraq was in some sense a "terrorist regime," but its listing with Afghanistan implies a lot more than that, even without the emphasis from Messrs Hyde and DeLay.
The body of the resolution itself is really a campaign document for the Bush Administration, given its listing of all that was done to fight the "Global War on Terrorism" since 9/11. It is interesting how non-military actions, including the support of the international community was used to handle Libya. In fact, much of the list (open to debate, but useful in that it shows that some real progress has been made) is non-military in nature. Re-organization of our national institutions, improving airline and cockpit security, capture of terrorists worldwide, and so forth. You know, the things that President Kerry would do along with military force when necessary.
The resolution ends with some nice words regarding 9/11 itself, including for the victims, those who did their best to help them, and those current fighting the global war on terrorism. Though there is some value to the middle portion (the dead did not die in vain, things are done to response to the threat), this is the best part of the resolution.
Why complicate matters by directly speaking about Iraq in a way known to be controversial? Why lard it with so much backpatting so that allegations that it is a "campaign document" are not totally unfounded? Also, the fact that the House "discourages, in the strongest possible terms, any effort to confuse the Global War on Terrorism with a war on any people or any faith" is nice, but it's not totally true, is it?
All the same, the final line "reaffirms that the American people will never forget the sacrifices made on September 11, 2001, and will never bow to terrorist demands." Indeed. I sadly find, however, that some of the things we did plays into their hands. The fear [listen to Laura Flanders rejecting fear], excessive reduction of civil liberties, an unnecessary war, and so on. Pardon me if it sounds petty, but it also pisses me off sometimes that the attack assisted a President (or rather, a way of looking at the world) that I find quite dangerous to the well being of our republic.
The protection of said well being, however best this might be done, is the best way "for us the living" to honor that tragic day.