The silencing of debate should never be tolerated, especially when the American people demand change on a specific policy.

Last week, the United States Senate was denied the chance to deliberate on a resolution condemning President George W. Bush“s proposed surge of 20,000 troops to Iraq.

In order for the deliberations to commence, 60 members of the Senate must vote to kick off the debate within the chamber. Only 56 votes were cast to do that, 49 from Democrats and seven from Republicans.

This was the second attempt by Democrats to pass the resolution. Earlier in the week, the House of Representatives voted on a similar resolution. It passed, 246-182.

Many may ask: What good is a non-binding resolution anyway? To be honest, not much.

But this specific resolution would have sent a bold message to the president: That the war in Iraq under his direction is going against the wishes of Congress, who granted him the power to use whatever force was necessary to stop Saddam from developing or using weapons of mass destruction in 2002.

The war is becoming increasingly unpopular with many Americans across the country “ just ask many of the Republican lawmakers who lost their jobs in the 2006-midterm elections.

While the Iraq War wasn“t the only reason for their ousting, resulting in the emergence of a Democratic-controlled Congress, it surely was reason enough for the remarkably high voter turnout during a midterm election that was seen on Nov. 7.

Why is this vote important? It is clear that a message needs to be sent to the president. The people are fed up with his policy. Begin bringing our troops home.

Several prominent Republicans, including Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, are also beginning to question the president“s tactical moves within the region. Hagel himself has called the move “the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam, if it's carried out.”

The addition of troops to Iraq will not end the war. Violence will continue to erupt within the streets of Baghdad. We shouldn“t concern ourselves with what our duty is over there; we know that it is to stop the violence. But that is also the duty of the Iraqis themselves.

However, our very presence is hindering any hopes of Iraqis stepping up to defend their land.

By adding troops, we add to the dependence that a struggling Iraqi army already faces. What is the best way to help the Iraqis “stand up” to the challenge? Force them to. By slowly phasing our troops out of the region, the Iraqis will be forced to take over their own security challenges, to own up to them and to conquer them.

If the challenge becomes overwhelming, then place our troop numbers back to where it was at an earlier phase. Then repeat the process, by training the Iraqis as well as removing our presence from the region.

This debate will never occur, however, if Republican lawmakers have their way. Rather than vote to move forward on a non-binding measure, they choose to discourage open debate.

Though they don“t say it anymore, their policy remains to “stay the course” and not question the president. Anyone who chooses to question him is a traitor in their eyes.

Since when has open debate been unpatriotic? The silencing of debate should never be tolerated, especially when the American people demand change on a specific policy.

The American people do not approve of the handling of the Iraq war by this president. So why do the Republicans in the Senate continue to support him? And why do the Republicans refuse to allow debate on the matter?

The Republicans have seized upon a stipulation within the Senate that allows them to disallow debate within the chambers, effectively tabling the measure indefinitely.

This use of the filibuster has confused me. Why would the Republican Party, the self-described defenders of our nation and its freedoms, disallow one of the most fundamental freedoms “ that of speech “ to occur within the U.S. Senate chamber?

The very idea screams un-American to me, something that many conservatives have called me while I have openly used the free speech granted to me.

It“s funny how sad irony can be.

> Comments