Friday, February 16, 2007

Walberg Votes to Support Escalation



Today, the United States House of Representatives sent a clear message to President George W. Bush, expressing their disapproval of his plan to escalate the war in Iraq. Voting 246-182, the House passed H. Con. Res. 63. It will now proceed to the Senate.

As was expected, Tim Walberg voted No on the resolution.

H. Con. Res. 63 reads as follows:

Disapproving of the decision of the President announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq.

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That--
      (1) Congress and the American people will continue to support and protect the members of the United States Armed Forces who are serving or who have served bravely and honorably in Iraq; and
      (2) Congress disapproves of the decision of President George W. Bush announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq.
    Although non-binding, it serves as the first step toward action in preventing an increase in troop levels in Iraq and preventing further loss of life in Iraq. Two Democrats voted against the resolution, while 17 Republicans crossed the aisle and supported an effort to change the course in Iraq and avoid a disastrous escalation. Among them was Michigan Republican Fred Upton (MI-06).

    Representatives were allowed five minutes each to state their position on the resolution and advocate a position. These five-minute speeches varied from well-reasoned thoughts on the war to ridiculous statements and assertions-- notably, Congressman Don Young (AK-At large), who called for all those supporting the resolution to be "arrested, exiled, or hanged." (Young claimed to be quoting President Abraham Lincoln; however, Lincoln never said anything like that.)

    While not as ridiculous, Congressman Walberg's speech on the subject was equally insulting to those of us that wish to honestly, openly debate President Bush's escalation. Rather than argue about the merits of the plan, this is the best Walberg could offer:
    “I rise today to honor America’s brave men and women currently serving in the name of freedom and oppose this resolution of retreat.
    (Emphasis added.)

    The resolution does nothing to advocate retreat-- indeed, it states support for "America's brave men and women" and only disapproves of President Bush. To misrepresent it is foolish.

    Congressman Walberg has demonstrated today that good government is not his goal, and that he does not believe oversight should be exercised over the executive branch and its failed policies. Instead, he embraces the insulting politics of deception, simply assuming his constituents are too simple-minded to read the resolution for themselves.

    Walberg owes his constituents and the men and women in uniform an apology for misrepresenting the issue for political purposes.

    Labels: , , , ,


    Comments:
    I think you owe the American troops an apology for your partisan, vitriolic attitude. I'd take Walberg over people like you anyday, and I didn't even vote for the guy. You are making him look good by comparison.
     
    The American troops are owed an apology, in my meek opinion, from Congressman Walberg to senselessly extend their tours of duty and take them away from their families (and putting them at further risk of them and their families paying the ultimate sacrifice).

    Anonymous, if I am to believe that you're sincerely an independent voter whose vote is swayed Walberg's way by the comments on this blog, then I've got an International Speedway in Brooklyn to sell you.

    -- Michael McGuinness.
     
    2/19
    Michael,

    Tim's response to the escalation resolution only belies the fact that his knowledge of this issue is not even skin-deep. He said as much during his debate. His agenda involves pro-life, anti-gay issues and little else. Why study the propositions at hand when, first of all, you don't need to know anything about them--just parrot what the administration is saying, and second, he really doesn't care about them because he's just a pro-life, anti-gay kinda' guy.
     
    Post a Comment

    Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]





    << Home

    Archives

    August 2006   September 2006   October 2006   November 2006   December 2006   January 2007   February 2007   March 2007   April 2007   May 2007   June 2007   July 2007   August 2007   September 2007   October 2007   November 2007   December 2007   January 2008   February 2008   March 2008   April 2008   May 2008   June 2008   July 2008   August 2008   September 2008   October 2008   November 2008