Coleen Rowley: Is Spineless Better Than Evil?

Is Spineless Better Than Evil?
by Coleen Rowley


This guy’s sign at last week’s peace rally on the St. Paul Capitol steps really connected with a lot of people. But is the answer that clear?


Considering the slick double-talking of Minnesota Politician Norm Coleman, for example, whom we were able to recently capture on videotape (posted here), artfully dodging and deflecting our questions about why he won’t vote to end the occupation of Iraq, how can we even distinguish between what’s evil and what’s just spineless? Coleman says his is not double-talk, it’s “middle ground” and certainly many “fair and balanced” (and lazy) reporters willingly print what he tells them.

But Coleman happens to be one of only a handful of neocon-leaning Senators who co-sponsored the Kyl-Lieberman amendment which passed (once its worst language was removed) and could pave the way for Bush to launch a massive bombing attack on Iran. You know, the bombing that neocon Norman Podhoretz “hopes and prays for”and secretly urged Bush and Rove to begin not long ago. The letter Coleman currently sends out containing his views of “U.S. policy on Iran” is so full of double-talk, that it’s hard to figure out what he’s saying, but it’s probably significant when he inserts “the President may take necessary actions to defend American Security, but Congress must authorize these actions within 60 to 90 days, or the forces must be withdrawn.” Certainly 60 to 90 days is enough time for another promised cakewalk to turn into a new quagmire. Then Congress will get involved? Haven’t they learned that starting wars is a lot easier than ending them? Or do they really not care at all about this country’s national security?

Hardly on “middle ground”, Coleman supported the amendment BEFORE the bill’s backers were forced to take out its most incendiary language, including a provision “to support the prudent and calibrated use of all instruments of United States national power … including diplomatic, economic, intelligence, and military instruments“. Sen. Dodd, on the other hand, correctly pointed out that it takes little to “give this President a green light to act recklessly and endanger US national security. We learned in the run up to the Iraq war that seemingly nonbinding language passed by this Senate can have profound consequences. We need the president to use robust diplomacy to address concerns with Iran, not the language in this amendment that the president can point to if he decides to draw this country into another disastrous war of choice. We shouldn’t repeat our mistakes and enable this President again.”

As an aside, the only consolation in the terrible 76-22 vote on Kyl-Lieberman’s bill which helps pave the way for Bush-Cheney’s plan to bomb Iran was Minnesota Democratic Senator Amy Klobuchar’s “NO” vote along with 19 other Democrats and Republican Senators Hagel and Lugar. A number of us had been writing and calling her to “stand tall” and resist all the pressures, fear-mongering and special interest groups; but instead, to vote her conscience and do what’s right by the Minnesotans who elected her. The small group of 22 Senators “standing tall” yesterday, not giving their go-ahead to “War President” Bush’s third war, could not help but bring a lump in my throat as it rekindled memories of the late Paul Wellstone’s brave vote in October, 2002. Wellstone was the only Democratic incumbent facing a re-election challenge who voted “no” to the Iraq War along with 22 other Senators. The late Minnesota Senator apparently even defied recommendations from his own staff who wanted him to do the easier thing politically and just go along with the vote authorizing war on Iraq. Wellstone was threatened with loss of his re-election only a few weeks away–to none other than slick politician Norm Coleman. So how tough was Wellstone’s decision to vote his conscience under those circumstances?! (And if I may digress on a personal note, seeing Wellstone vote against authorizing a war that I knew to be totally unjustified and based on lies was the epiphany moment that changed me from having reflexively voted for Republicans most of my entire life.)

So the 22 bipartisan votes evidencing spine are proof, on a couple of levels, that this guy’s sign is not entirely correct. But polls do show public approval of Congress is down to 11% and there is that common perception of the Democratic majority in Congress being spineless.

more...

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/09/27/4165/

Spineless is worse. Evil actually believes its good, while spineless knows its evil, but goes along with it.

So the problem is doubled.

I don't know. I have a few months to decide, but as of today, I won't vote for spineless or evil.

Some spineless people can watch as people die and don't do anything.

Keep in mind as well, most evil people are spineless. They are simply adept at swindling, cheating and stealing from others.

Furthermore, the individuals in Washington are not spineless. Not at all.

Pelosi has no problem calling anti-war activists nuts. She just beats up on the already abused.

In my opinion theres a good argument that she is worse than Bush because she pretends to be an ally to American citizens, while she keeps the Administrations agenda thriving quite successfully.

That there really is NO difference between the Republican Party Leadership and the Democratic Party Leadership?

Well, if that's what you mean......I agree 100%.

Not taking action is not always a sign of spinelessness. Evil can be quite courageous. I recall there being some discussion around 911 about how the hijackers were labeled "cowards" and that, evil though their plan was, it might have taken courage to carry out. So it's not something that goes along side by side. One can assume that cowardice is good where is stops evil, and bad only where it stops good, and the courage can be put to bad as well as good ends.