Let me preface this diary with this: I recently found out that one of my loved ones has been called up to be one of the "non-combat troops" being sent to Iraq/Syria. That said, I think anyone who knows me realizes that, even if I did not have a loved one being deployed, I would be questioning and researching the validity and necessity of US Troops being put in a life or death situation abroad.
Question I ask myself: Why are we, at lightening speed, going to war in Iraq/Syria? Right now! Meanwhile, as our troops are sprinting into hostile territory, our Congress is going on vacation to campaign for each other .... hmmmmm ... something just does not seem right, or urgent, about sending troops into hostile territory.
Rep McGovern (D-MA) "If bombing people is not war, then what the hell is!?
We're at war, no authorization, Congress goes on vacation to campaign (SMFH).
Congress is being nonchalant about this war and are effectively saying
... 'eh, so our Troops are being sent into hostile territory, some may die, be captured, tortured but hey -- I have an election to worry damn it!.'
The US press is so tabloid that it's hard decipher facts through the tripe they spew. Some say Congress is thinking about authorization, some say Congress will not authorize until after the election, ... blah blah ... so it's fluid. Changing minute by minute.
But I want to know, what's really happening now? Is Congress going to put an Authorization Bill on the floor and debate the merits of this new war on the Senate Floor?
So, I called my two Republican Senators and one Democrat Representative. The two GOP Senate offices told me that putting an Authorization Bill on the floor for debate is solely left up to Harry Reid. Then, both Senate offices told me that there is ... is ... an outside chance, not likely, but an outside chance Harry Reid may -- just may -- put an Authorization Bill on the floor. Ok, since both offices told me that, I was encouraged.
Naturally, I called Harry Reid's office to ask his office just how likely that 'outside chance' is. And that's when I got very ... disappointed.
The guy who answered Reid's phone asked me where I was from, I told him, and then said "since you are not from Nevada, I will not answer your question." Then he hung up. {click.}
That's blunt. "I will not answer your question" {click.}
Grant it, that guy had no idea that one of my loved ones is one of the US soldiers President Obama is sending to Iraq/Syria. I also understand that Senators don't want to tie up their phone lines for non-constituents so if someone calls and asks something like 'why did so-and-so vote against naming the Library such-and-such' that someone will be told, "you're not one of the senator's constituents so I will not answer your question." Rude? Yes. But understandable? Yes.
But, this is not a naming of a Library, this is war literally life and death. Harry Reid is the head of the Senate and is in charge of what gets on the Senate floor for debate. And, since this is a question of war and peace, life and death, and this complex situation certainly affects every single American one would think the guy who answered Reid's phone could have clarified whether there is an 'outside chance' Harry Reid will allow a vote on Authorization.
So, I called Reid's office back...
Read More