The resolution submitted by the Rev. Robert A. Jones opened with the declaration that “the present war in Iraq is NOT an act of defense against our borders” and ended with a call for the Moore County Democratic Party not to support any candidate whose campaign does not emphasize “a speedy end to the American war in Iraq.”
However, a couple of issues were raised about the language of the resolution and about the fact that it was not submitted by the resolutions committee, also known as the political action committee.
Brian Deaton, who chairs the Political Action Committee, presented a similar resolution but one lacking some of the controversial language of Jones’ offering.
This resolution calls on the Moore County Democratic Party to support a resolution asking “the national Democratic Party to adopt a policy that rejects the principle of pre-emptive strikes against other countries in the absence of tangible, incontrovertible evidence of imminent threat to our citizens.”
As was the case with Jones’ resolution, Deaton’s resolution was an individual one and was not a product of the committee that he chairs.
“I like both of ’em,” said Rory Blake, Democratic candidate for the 6th Congressional District, when someone asked the opinion of “our future congressman.”
Although there were strong murmurs of approval for both resolutions, convention delegates voted overwhelmingly to withhold action and refer both resolutions to the Political Action Committee, in keeping with party protocol. The vote was by show of hands.
Mary Alice Wicker’s motion to refer the matter to committee came after two questions were raised about the Jones resolution.
Christine McDermott questioned the wisdom of a phrase in which Jones said “we purport to at least follow the tenets of the Christian religion which admonishes us to seek peace and pursue it.”
He cited Psalm 34.
Although the principles are Christian, McDermott said, it would be inappropriate to pass a resolution restricting party ranks to Christians, a party noted for its inclusiveness, rather than exclusion of people with differing backgrounds, interests and views.
Ann McNeill questioned the line of authority and wanted to know if the resolution should not be submitted by the committee responsible for resolutions.
‘Fiery Hole of Death’
In his resolution, Jones said that “inasmuch as we support our brave men and women now serving in Iraq by bringing them safely home from a fiery hole of death and destruction which the present administration forces upon them” and “inasmuch as there were no weapons of mass destruction or biological weapons that this administration used as a pretext for war,” then the county party should express opposition to the war in Iraq.
The resolution further notes that more than 2,000 American military personnel have died and more than 20,000 others wounded and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have died or been injured. It also says that “our military presence is unable to control attacks against military and civilian targets, thereby only exacerbating the violence.”
The Jones resolution further calls on the local party to take a stand in opposition to the war and to call on the government to stop the war now. He says that “this proud and courageous body stands for peace and justice, and sees itself as a party of, by and for the people, and not for the benefit of the industrial/military complex that now determines our nation’s policies.” He next describes the war as “immoral, illegal and un-American.”
‘Inadequate Evidence’
Deaton said that his resolution reaffirms the resolutions approved in October when the party took a strong position calling for American forces to be withdrawn from Iraq and focusing on a position opposing pre-emptive strikes.
The Deaton resolution is shorter and opens by calling “the current war in Iraq” … “a drastic action against another country that was undertaken on inadequate evidence and justification. This resolution says the action in Iraq “represents a preemptive strike policy that is unprecedented in the history of the country and threatens to undermine the principles on which the country has operated, and been esteemed in the world, for more than 200 years.”
This proposed resolution says “the rationale for undertaking and the approach to conducting the war have been based on unrealistic assumptions regarding resources needed and the amount of international support that would be forthcoming, and, therefore, have put both U.S. soldiers and Iraqi citizens at greater risk, resulting in an unnecessary level of deaths and injuries.” He adds that the administration has not advanced a meaningful plan to achieve its objectives.
“The administration and Congress are taking a dishonest, off-budget approach to financing the cost of the war, creating an indeterminable debt for future generations,” the proposal continues, then “reaffirms the policy of the state party that every man and woman serving in Iraq should be brought home as soon as possible.”
Deaton does not call for an immediate withdrawal but instead says the process should be carried out “through a timed, milestone-based plan for disengaging from Iraq that ensures the safety of U.S. troops and civilians in Iraq and, to the extent feasible, the citizens of Iraq, and, therefore, the development and pursuit of such a plan should be a priority for the Democratic National Party and all national Democratic elected officials.”
In a brief interview after the meeting, George Wilson, chairman of the county party, said that the decision to turn both resolutions over to the committee was a wise one. He said that the Political Action Committee was recently appointed and is just getting organized. He said that resolutions adopted by the county party should be generated from that committee and also be compatible with similar resolutions adopted by the state and national parties.
Florence Gilkeson can be reached at 947-4962 or by e-mail at florence@thepilot.com.
