Saturday, August 18, 2007

Why Walberg's No Good

I'm resposting this past Sunday's post at To Play the King to remind us all of who we're up against.

Tim Walberg stands side by side with President Bush on almost every issue and couldn't be more proud to do so. This rubber stamping is never more evident than when it comes to the War in Iraq.

To trust Tim Walberg to exercise good judgment on the Iraq war is folly. While he claims to supports the war, he clearly does not support the troops fighting in this conflict.

Case in point: U.S. military leadership has been unambiguously clear about the danger of the armed forces reaching a critical breaking point. Troops are stretched dangerously thin and many are serving their third tour in the combat zone. Furthermore, we are finding more and more veterans affected by PTSD when they come home and are not receiving adequate treatment in the short time before being redeployed.

H.R. 3159, as passed by the House on August 2, would allow our troops a longer break between tours of duty. The legislation would "mandate minimum periods of rest and recuperation for units and members of the regular and reserve components of the Armed Forces between deployments for Operation Iraqi Freedom or Operation Enduring Freedom."

Walberg voted NO on this legislation. It is safe to assume that while the 7th District's congressman is in favor of The War, he is opposed to giving our troops the time they need to mentally and physically recover from the rigors of combat. He is opposed to legislation that would guarantee that our troops have time with their families to reconnect and make sure their family lives are in order. He is opposed to legislation that would give children and spouses time to reconnect with a parent who serves this fine country overseas.

This cavalier attitude toward national security is a disgusting and unforgivable betrayal of our men and women in uniform. He ought to ask what kind of family values deny troops a guaranteed amount of time with their loved ones before packing up their Kevlar and heading back into the combat zone. I would challenge Walberg to ask any veteran or active service member if they would object to a break before returning to war. Ask any of them if it would be of benefit to them personally – and to our military -- to have this time? Ask them if this break would make them more effective in the field upon their return? I doubt there would be any NO votes on that question.

Tim, it's a break, pal. You weren't ending their service in the military or heaven forbid ending the war. The bill was just giving the troops a little breather. But then again, I guess someone who has never been shot at and only poses with guns wouldn't understand why someone in combat might need a designated break before heading back in.

Below is a brief summary of the bill passed in the House despite Republican Tim Walberg's opposition.

Roll Call Vote 796. H R 3159 RECORDED VOTE 2-Aug-2007 1:53 PM



















Explanation (from Library of Congress):

Prohibits units and members of the regular Armed Forces from being deployed for Operations Iraqi Freedom or Enduring Freedom (including participation in the NATO International Security Assistance Force ( Afghanistan)) unless the period between deployments is equal to or longer than the period of the previous deployment. Expresses the sense of Congress that the optimal minimum period between such deployments should be equal to or longer than twice the period of the previous deployment.

Prohibits units and members of the reserves from being deployed for such Operations (including such NATO participation) if the unit or member has been deployed within three preceding years. Expresses the sense of Congress that units and members of the reserves should not be mobilized continuously for more than one year, and that the optimal minimum period between such deployments should be five years.

Authorizes the: (1) President to waive such limitations after certifying to Congress that the deployment is necessary to meet an operational emergency posing a threat to vital national security interests; or (2) chief of staff of the military department concerned (including the Coast Guard) to waive such limitations with respect to a member who has voluntarily requested mobilization.

Labels: , , , ,

I thank Frances Pepper for his diligent and reliable reporting replete with sustantiating facts on Walberg's latest detestable vote. I certainly hope that the newspapers in Walberg's district put him under prolonged fire without any R & R from their blasts upon his NO vote on HR 3159. His failure to support the psychological and physical health of our troops is diabolical. It is further evidence that the man has a hyprocritcal heart and/or a only the slightest bit of brain. I truly hope that this stance may become known to all in his district. Viet Nam required troops to stay 12 months and if they got home alive, they weren't required to return. These troops have their tours of duty repeatedly extended and are caused to return for repeated tours, and Walberg doesn't want to allow them a breather.....his is perverted view of reality.....may God help us all if there are many more like him in Washington.....
Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home


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