Comparing Democratic and Republican Blood
By David Swanson
This coming March 19th we'll have two occasions to mark. One will be the start of the ninth year of occupying Iraq. And, if my math is correct, within a few days of that anniversary we'll reach the point at which the Democratic House of Representatives and Senate have funded more days of occupying Iraq than those chambers did when they had a Republican majority. In funding days of occupying Afghanistan, the Democrats already have a big lead in the Senate but trail far behind in the House.
It's true that the Republicans started these wars. Or rather, it would be true if it weren't false. The Democrats had a majority in the Senate for both of those catastrophic decisions, while the Republicans had a majority in the House. But it is true that the vast bulk of the blood spilled has been Iraqi blood spilled while the Republicans had majorities in both houses. However, there is an ongoing crisis for millions of Iraqi refugees that cannot be solved while the occupation continues, and the Democrats have just funded an escalation in Afghanistan.
When it comes to the kind of blood that congress members and the U.S. corporate media care about, namely American blood, the Democrats have already overseen 70 percent of the official U.S. fatalities in Afghanistan and a third of those in Iraq . . . and rising.
Of the 115 House members who voted against funding the Afghanistan escalation on July 27th, 103 were Democrats (I'm including 1 who was unable to vote but led the push for No votes). I'm in complete agreement with anyone who says we should keep those people around and elect more like them.
But what about the 317 who voted for more war? Do we have to keep the ones who are Democrats? And if we do, will they listen to our demands going forward?
But you have to make a better argument for it than "Hey, look at those Teabaggers!"