Elections: Think before being critical
July 3, 2008 · Updated 9:34 PM
Before critics begin flogging Rep. Rick Larsen for voting against the House Resolution on Iraq , it would be sagacious for all of us to pay close attention to what dissenters are saying or not saying.
For example, Larsen, a member of the House Armed Services
Committee said the following:
1) An immediate war with Iraq would do little to to win the war on terrorism, and we need the worlds help with the war on terrorism.
(2) Larsen did not rule out the eventual use of force. He said, I believe the evidence shows other options exist before the use of force.
(3) Larsen believes that the resolution the President wants would give unprecedented authority to use force without the evidence necessary to warrant such authority. Therefore, I must vote against it.
The president wants Congress to authorize him to use all means that he determines to be appropriate, including force to defend the United States. If approved, this would take the power to declare war out of the hands of Congress, where the Constitution placed it.
Larsen speaks for many of us who believe that our larger war is still on terrorism and should not be obliterated by a prolonged war with Iraq, and that we must not make a rash decision that will have horrible, lasting consequences for generations to come.
Disagreement is an essential element of democracy. Total agreement is totalitarianism or fascism. Lets analyze controversial opinions based on logic, reason and common sense rather than on tired cliches and emotional dogmatism.
In spite of outrageous criticism, our founding fathers pledged their lives, fortunes and sacred honor in support of the most radical of ideas.... the establishment of the United States of American. They were the first to show us what is meant by Profiles in Courage.