Kendrick Wilson

Newly elected Congressman Raul Grijalva, who represents UA and its surrounding area, cast what could be the most controversial vote of his first term last week. Joined only by 12 other Representatives, he voted against the $78 billion plan to pay for the war in Iraq. While Grijalva's vote is justified by the fact that the president is asking for tax cuts and carte blanche spending power in the Middle East, at the same time, the rest of his argument is even more persuasive.

The bill provides Iraqis universal education, health care, and nutrition.

"The irony in this is," Grijalva told the Arizona Daily Star, "those things aren't available to the American people."

He said Iraqis deserve such benefits, but told the New York Times that his vote "was against, quite frankly, the fact that we are in a situation that we shouldn't be in."

Anyone who understands foreign policy would know the U.S. has no choice but to spend whatever it takes to rebuild Iraq and help the Iraqi people after the war. Grijalva's point is valid that many of the things we plan to address in Iraq have yet to be addressed at home.

What kind of example are we setting for a postwar regime in Iraq when American children still go to bed hungry at night, while the President plans further cuts to social programs? Seniors who have to decide between food and medicine can look forward to little help in next year's budget. It's amazing how the end of the election season can take a comprehensive prescription drug plan for seniors off the table.

Tucson's other Representative in Congress, Republican Jim Kolbe, voted in favor of the $78 billion war financing bill and passionately argued on its behalf. He was quoted in the Star proclaiming, "Congress pledges its unwavering support for our soldiers and reaffirms our nation's resolve to promote liberty and root out terror around the world."

Forget that the administration's overall budget would create a debt our soldiers and their families will be paying off for years to come, that Afghanistan, not Iraq, is where the 9/11 terrorists were sheltered, and that Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, the two countries that stand to gain the most from Saddam Hussein being removed from power, are both under authoritarian regimes.

We are not setting a good example for the parts of the world we hope to liberate when we have monumental issues we cannot seem to tackle on our own soil. We have crumbling schools, a health care system run by bottom-line-driven HMOs, and an aging infrastructure. The money to cure these problems is nowhere to be found.

As our president tells us we are fighting for democracy in Iraq, democracy in other countries is heavily criticized if they disagree with the war. France, Germany, and Mexico all have populations that decisively oppose this war, yet the administration and Republicans in Congress miss no cheap shots at these countries for following the will of their people.

All of the "patriots" who believe support for the troops and opposition to the war in this country are mutually exclusive ironically believe freedom for the Iraqi people is vitally important. Do they plan to condemn Iraqi citizens who exercise their newly gained rights to freedom of speech once the war is over should they choose to oppose American foreign policy?

Supporting democracy overseas is a noble cause, but democracy in America is not the shining example Iraqis must see after this war. Those who would like to squelch every voice in opposition to this war must remember that our nation's truest friends are not afraid of being critics.

Problems on America's own soil abound, and efforts to cure problems in a postwar Iraq only highlight how desperately we must address the issues we face at home.

Iraq must be rebuilt, but so must America. Fear of being labeled unpatriotic has kept many from standing up to a president whose plans for our nation have no positive outcome. If there was ever a time to speak truth to power, this is it.

Thank you Mr. Grijalva, for saying what so many undoubtedly knew, but weren't willing to say.