Crowley's Resolution Exposes Lack of Spine
Crowley's resolution specifically makes two points:
(1) Council supports the soldiers and recognizes their sacrifices;
(2) Council opposes the troop surge as a military strategy because it comes at the expense of needs that need to be met locally.
In other words, Crowley's resolution is not a simple antiwar sentiment. If it were only that, then Bortz, Berding, and Ghiz might have a point. But the resolution specifically addresses the LOCAL costs of the war that come as a result of the troop surge. Therefore, it IS germane to local fiscal matters and reasonably within the purview of council. The resolution states this plainly:
...this decrease in federal grant money severely lessens the ability of the City of Cincinnati to rebuild its urban core, promote homeownership opportunities in Cincinnati, and provide critical housing services for the poor, the disabled, and for people with HIV-AIDS...
So either Bortz, Berding, and Ghiz didn't bother to read the resolution or they're making excuses for putting their personal political ambitions above the needs of Cincinnatians. All three share the same circumstance of having their political futures depend heavily on support from Republicans.
This isn't rocket science... it's obvious all three have ongoing political ambitions and it's obvious that they want to ensure their viability as candidates in the future. They're not the first to put their personal ambitions above the needs of their constituents and they won't be the last.
Ghiz warrants special mention for adding absurdity on top of spinelessness. Her attempt to paint the issue as support for police vs. an irrelevant foray into foreign policy was ridiculous. But I suppose that's the kind of political gamesmanship we should expect from someone whose political idol is Karl Rove. Let's not forget that Cecil Thomas, a former cop, voted FOR the resolution.
In the end, Bortz, Berding, and Ghiz may turn out to be the real winners. By demonstrating their willingness to lie down and roll over for local political kingmakers, they've probably shored up a good deal of future support. They should thank Crowley for the opportunity.
Related items:
Candidate John Eby equates Crowley with Osama bin Laden.
Chris Bortz expounds on his excuses.
Leslie Ghiz is willing to consider non-local matters when it's politically helpful.
4 comments:
You might have exposed the true intention as to why the dissenters voted the way they did [future political ambition], but personally, as someone who is neither a Bush supporter nor for escalating the troop surge, I think it was a misguided motion.
Everyone has opinions on the Iraq War and is entitled the freedom to express them, as did many when they marched in Washington. But why do local municipalities have to come out against the troop escalation?
Mr Crowley believes [or assumes] that the war has cost our city HUD funds, so we have to object to the escalation because it's costing Cincinnati money. But couldn't the President's pre-9/11 tax cuts also be to blame? Or what about the extra money it costs to fund the Department of Homeland Security? This too, could affect the decline of HUD funds.
Isolating blame to the troop escalation is taking advantage of an easy target that might not be accurate. Why should council members be expected to support a resolution based upon assumptions?
If this is the responsibility of Council, to monitor the spending of higher branches of governement, then they should pass resolutions against improper spending habits across the board. If it could possibly affect our town, vote on it. Make sure everyone knows how we feel ability.
And what about the true motives of Crowley and this resolution's supporters? I'm confident they're thinking of more than Cincinnati's economic impact.
Much ado about nothing from a do-nothing Council.
But couldn't the President's pre-9/11 tax cuts also be to blame? Or what about the extra money it costs to fund the Department of Homeland Security? This too, could affect the decline of HUD funds.
That's true, but none of those things are currently on the table as policy proposals.
If this is the responsibility of Council, to monitor the spending of higher branches of governement, then they should pass resolutions against improper spending habits across the board.
The big difference is that the troop surge represents the continuation of policy that has been grossly counterproductive. The only beneficiaries have been terrorists and the defense sector. At least other government expenditures can be shown to benefit some Americans.
I also notice on your blog that you believe people now oppose the war because it's trendy. Are you also willing to concede that pro-war people also jumped on the "bandwagon" for no good reason other than it was cool?
I should first reiterate that I'm bothered with City Council passing the resolution, not with Americans who are protesting the war or the suggested escalation. If this is the course that Council wants to take, then I fully expect them to vote on a litany of national policies not limited to Iraq. If they don't, then I'd say this reasoning behind this resolution were a farse.
As far as the "trendiness" of the anti-war sentiment, I do believe there are many people coming late to the party. I don't recall many [or any] marches/protests before we entered Iraq. This was due to the public's wanting retribution for 9/11. America's motivation was vengence, not caring who the target was.
I believe there were many people like myself who questioned entering the war but chose to remain silence. So it's hypocritical if people who didn't originally object now choose to criticize the war. If there were this many people objecting originally, we wouldn't have gone to Iraq. But we went. That part's over.
All Americans now want out, it's just a matter of how/when. Yet there are still people who want to go and criticize the decision to enter in the first place. There were about 150 congressmen and women who voted against the Joint Resolution declaring war. These people raised their voices before hand. These consistent voices are the ones I respect.
Your 1st paragraph repeats the same point as your 1st comment, which I thought I addressed in my response comment.
As far as the rest, I have to wonder what planet you were on...
I don't recall many [or any] marches/protests before we entered Iraq... If there were this many people objecting originally, we wouldn't have gone to Iraq.
It was estimated that 250 million people around the world protested Bush's fomenting plan, the largest protest in the history of humanity. One of them was right here at Union Terminal and it made international news.
And I have no idea where you get the notion that Bush would have been responsive to ideas incongruent with his own, anyway.
I believe there were many people like myself who questioned entering the war but chose to remain silence.
Don't be too hard on yourself. I'm sure you would have spoken up if it was something important, like a city council resolution.
So it's hypocritical [of] people who didn't originally object now choose to criticize the war.
I'd say it's hypocritical for someone who didn't have the guts to speak up then to criticize people for not speaking up then.
Post a Comment