more on speech by Rep Stark. D Calif

[Dave Farber <dave () farber net>]

------ Forwarded Message
From: Hiawatha Bray <watha () monitortan com>
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 11:21:54 -0400
To: dave () farber net, ip <ip () v2 listbox com>
Subject: RE: <[IP]> speech by Rep Stark. D Calif



The only thing that's stunningly clear from this speech is that Rep. Stark
is a fool.  This crude, insulting, ill-argued pile of claptrap would be a
lifelong embarassment to the man, if he had the sense to understand his own
folly.

Among Stark's more glaring idiocies:

"Make no mistake, we are voting on a resolution that grants total authority
to the president, who wants to invade a sovereign nation without any
specific act of provocation."

I guess Iraq's daily efforts to kill American servicemembers patrolling the
no-fly zone doesn't count.  And never mind all those UN resolutions
demanding disarmament.  Certainly mustn't be bothered to enforce those.

    Stark wants "careful and cautious diplomacy," but what does he want the
US
and the world to do when diplomacy has failed?  What would he have done back
in 1936, when the Hitler regime began its policy of systematically flouting
the treaty that settled WWI?  Obviously, he'd have done exactly what the
European powers did do--nothing.  And we all know how that one turned out.

I won't even waste time quoting the "upper-class white boy" jibe.  Speaking
as a (formerly) lower-class black man, I think Stark's even raising the
issue in a foreign policy debate gives us ample insight into his stupidity
and crudity of mind.  What on earth does Bush's race or class have to do
with...anything?

And there's the crack about foreign territory and Kashmir.  Does anybody
even think this is funny?  But even if you do, what on earth is it doing
here, in the midst of a profoundly serious debate on war and peace?  Is
Stark so impoverished in intellect and argument that all he can manage are
playground jibes?

I could go on; there's no limit to the nonsense to be found here.  But life
is too short.  Suffice it to say that this speech is the work of a moron.
And the fact that the editors of the moribund Webzine Salon regard this as
one of the great orations of the age tells you a lot about why Salon is on
the brink of bankruptcy.

Hiawatha Bray
Technology Reporter
Boston Globe
P.O. Box 2378
135 Morrissey Blvd.
Boston, MA  02107 USA
617-929-3119 voice
617-929-3183 fax
617-233-9419 cell
bray () globe com
watha () monitortan com




-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ip () v2 listbox com <[mailto:owner-ip () v2 listbox com]>On Behalf
Of Dave Farber
Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 10:41 AM
To: ip
Subject: <[IP]> speech by Rep Stark. D Calif


http://www.salon.com/politics/feature/2002/10/10/stark/index.html


"The bottom line is I don't trust this president and his advisors"
Not every Democrat has caved to Bush's martial fervor. Rep. Pete Stark makes
it stunningly clear why he voted against the Iraq war resolution.

Editor's note: Below is the fiery statement delivered on the floor of the
House Wednesday by veteran California Democrat Rep. Pete Stark.

- - - - - - - - - - - -




Oct. 10, 2002  |  "Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution
(authorizing military force against Iraq). I am deeply troubled that lives
may be lost without a meaningful attempt to bring Iraq into compliance with
U.N. resolutions through careful and cautious diplomacy.

"The bottom line is I don't trust this president and his advisors.

"Make no mistake, we are voting on a resolution that grants total authority
to the president, who wants to invade a sovereign nation without any
specific act of provocation. This would authorize the United States to act
as the aggressor for the first time in our history. It sets a precedent for
our nation -- or any nation -- to exercise brute force anywhere in the world
without regard to international law or international consensus.

"Congress must not walk in lockstep behind a president who has been so
callous to proceed without reservation, as if war was of no real
consequence.

"You know, three years ago in December, Molly Ivins, an observer of Texas
politics, wrote: 'For an upper-class white boy, Bush comes on way too hard.
At a guess, to make up for being an upper-class white boy.'

"'Somebody,' she said, 'should be worrying about how all this could affect
his handling of future encounters with some Saddam Hussein.' How prophetic,
Ms. Ivins.

"Let us not forget that our president -- our commander in chief -- has no
experience with, or knowledge of, war. In fact, he admits that he was at
best ambivalent about the Vietnam War. He skirted his own military service
and then failed to serve out his time in the National Guard. And, he
reported years later that at the height of that conflict in 1968 he didn't
notice 'any heavy stuff going on.'"

"So we have a president who thinks foreign territory is the opponent's
dugout and Kashmir is a sweater.

"What is most unconscionable is that there is not a shred of evidence to
justify the certain loss of life. Do the generalized threats and half-truths
of this administration give any one of us in Congress the confidence to tell
a mother or father or family that the loss of their child or loved one was
in the name of a just cause?

"Is the president's need for revenge for the threat once posed to his father
enough to justify the death of any American?

"I submit the answer to these questions is no.

"Aside from the wisdom of going to war as Bush wants, I am troubled by who
pays for his capricious adventure into world domination. The administration
admits to a cost of around $200 billion!

"Now, wealthy individuals won't pay. They've got big tax cuts already.
Corporations won't pay. They'll cook the books and move overseas and then
send their contributions to the Republicans. Rich kids won't pay. Their
daddies will get them deferments as Big George did for George W.

"Well then, who will pay?

"School kids will pay. There'll be no money to keep them from being left
behind -- way behind. Seniors will pay. They'll pay big time as the
Republicans privatize Social Security and rob the Trust Fund to pay for the
capricious war. Medicare will be curtailed and drugs will be more
unaffordable. And there won't be any money for a drug benefit because Bush
will spend it all on the war.

"Working folks will pay through loss of job security and bargaining rights.
Our grandchildren will pay through the degradation of our air and water
quality. And the entire nation will pay as Bush continues to destroy civil
rights, women's rights and religious freedom in a rush to phony patriotism
and to courting the messianic Pharisees of the religious right.

"The questions before the members of this House and to all Americans are
immense, but there are clear answers. America is not currently confronted by
a genuine, proven, imminent threat from Iraq. The call for war is wrong.

"And what greatly saddens me at this point in our history is my fear that
this entire spectacle has not been planned for the well-being of the world,
but for the short-term political interest of our president.

"Now, I am also greatly disturbed that many Democratic leaders have also put
political calculation ahead of the president's accountability to truth and
reason by supporting this resolution. But, I conclude that the only answer
is to vote no on the resolution before us."



- - - - - - - - - - - -
About the writer
Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif., represents the Fremont, Calif., congressional
district.

-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as watha () monitortan com
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/


------ End of Forwarded Message

-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as interesting-people () lists elistx com
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/