In today's CitPat:

Walberg: It's not time for forces to leave Afghanistan war zone
Rep travels with group to 9 countries
Wednesday, December 05, 2007
By Kristin Longley
klongley@citpat.com -- 768-4917
It was a cold, dreary and damp day, Rep. Tim Walberg said, the kind that makes it easy to see Kabul is in the middle of a war zone.

The six-member congressional delegation traveled the streets of Afghanistan's capital last week in armored vehicles, noticing extensive potholes in the roads and depressing, rundown buildings.

``The streets were crowded and the markets were full of people,'' Walberg said. ``Business was happening, but it was clear it was a war zone.''

The visit to Afghanistan was a first for Walberg, a freshman Republican from Tipton. It was one stop during a whirlwind trip that took the bipartisan delegation to nine countries on three continents in fewer than eight days. They logged about 45,000 miles in air travel.

``It was very fast-paced,'' Walberg said. ``The highlights for me mostly were the people.''

The delegation was encouraged to push for more trainers for Afghan police, who have problems with corruption, Walberg said. He said it is not time for coalition forces to leave the country and was struck by how Afghan soldiers view the U.S. troops.

``They know Americans won't leave them high and dry without resources,'' he said. ``That's a credit to our soldier.''

The delegation also met with democratic leadership in several African countries, including Burundi, Ethiopia and Ghana.

Walberg said he was impressed with these Third-World leaders who ``rolled up their sleeves'' within their communities.

The last leg of the trip took them to Poland and the Czech Republic to discuss President Bush's plan to establish missile defense facilities in the countries, which has been unpopular with the public.

Walberg said the entire trip was valuable and eye-opening, from the accomodations to the food. He said he would next like to visit Iraq and the United States' southern borders to examine immigration issues.
 

It sounds like a waste of money. This is the best thing you could think of to hit the Congressman with? Petty.
 

It sounds like a waste of money. This is the best thing you could think of to hit the Congressman with? Petty.

The best I could think of? No, definitely not. But it's a recent vote where Walberg didn't follow the rest of his state, or common sense, really.

Personally, I don't think it's a waste of money, because I think protecting and preserving our history is important and worth the tiny amount that we spend on it. Remember, this bill doesn't even do much of anything, it just authorizes a study to look at things we could do. Pretty harmless.

But Walberg voted against it, and was the only representative from Michigan to do so. Sometimes, when it's just one man voting no, it's out of principle, and I respect that. This time, for this bill, it just seems petty and obstinate.

If Walberg really wanted to strike a blow against wasteful spending, there are a lot of other places he could start. The Defense Appropriations bill, for instance, and funding a war in Iraq.
 

Walberg generally votes NO on the things he doesn't understand, can't comprehend and doesn't care about.

The guy has never had an original thought in his illustrous political career.
 

If you remember from an eariler post, The "Club for Growth" slammed Tim for supporting "Jefferson's Polplar Forest" among other things. He is ok with money for it, but not to study our "natural legacy".
 

fitz or anyone,

My question doesn't fit into this category but because it's the most recent posting of yours, I thought maybe someone might see this and answer it.

I received a letter from Walberg today that was in answer to a question I submitted regarding my dissatisfaction with the war. Anyhow, I need to know if he supported a vote to pass legislation on (quoting Timmy) "the largest funding increase in the history of the VA for veterans' health care, and why I worked with my colleagues to pass legislation that addressed poor conditions at Building 18 at Walter Reed".

I checked all your VOTING RECORD posts, fitz, but didn't see any that addressed this question. And he didn't include an H.R. number that I could research.

Thanks in advance.
 

fitz or anyone,

My question doesn't fit into this category but because it's the most recent posting of yours, I thought maybe someone might see this and answer it.

I received a letter from Walberg today that was in answer to a question I submitted regarding my dissatisfaction with the war. Anyhow, I need to know if he supported a vote to pass legislation on (quoting Timmy) "the largest funding increase in the history of the VA for veterans' health care, and why I worked with my colleagues to pass legislation that addressed poor conditions at Building 18 at Walter Reed".

I checked all your VOTING RECORD posts, fitz, but didn't see any that addressed this question. And he didn't include an H.R. number that I could research.

Thanks in advance.

I've actually wanted to do a post on Walberg and veterans' issues for a while. It's not that he's necessarily bad on the issue, but for as much as he brags about it on his website, I think it'd be worth it to run through the votes and check his rhetoric. Thanks for reminding me... maybe someday I'll have the time to actually write it!

Walberg might be referring to HR 2642, the "Military Construction and Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2008." That bill passed the House 409 to 2, passed the Senate 92 to 1, and is waiting to get through the conference committee. That vote was mid-June, and from what I can find, it looks like the bill does a lot to increase funding and improve veterans' care. I haven't read the bill, but from the wide margin and the general desire to help veterans, it's probably a good bill.

He did, however, vote against HR 2206, the "U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007," which included $1.79 billion for the VA, but it was probably more about the other stuff in the bill than the veterans' funding. And he voted against HR 1591, which I think was just a previous incarnation of HR 2206. HR 1591 had been vetoed by President Bush, and Walberg voted against overriding the veto.

That's what a quick search found. I hope it helps. And I hope your letter was better than the letter another constituent received over the summer.
 

Walberg came to Battle Creek, visited the Kellogg Airport and the Air National Guard which is moving toward a Joint Reserve Base with Fort Custer and integrating all the Reserve forces in SW Michigan. Walberg said he supported it and was a hawk in defense issues. He then voted AGAINST the transportation bill funding the airport, but is passed solidly anyway. Walberg says one thing to those that want to hear it and then often does the complete opposite. He has little understanding of the VA problems and Walter Reed situation. He has little understanding of defense and veterans issues, he avoided service in the military, many call that draft dodging. Bottom line, he supports the war because Bush says to and yet he won't fund veterans or reservists who pay the price. Basically, this guy should never have been elected to Congress, he's clueless on most defense and veterans issues. He's an embarrassment to us all.
 

Good Lord, fitzy. I just read your suggested link--"A Question of Competency"--and I'm convinced that is the reason the H.R. number wasn't included in his congressional letter to me. Someone called him or his aides and ragged on him about his lack of knowledge of which bill is which.

Thanks to you and to anonymous for responding to my query. With all the confusion about how he does or doesn't vote, I'm not sure whether to thank him or tell him to go pee up a rope.

I don't know who Mr. Motta is (in reference to the guy to whom Tim wrote) but it would seem to me that his writing an LTTE would be a good way to help expose Walberg's incompetency.
 

(serial post)

Me again. Since we're unable to start new topics, I never know where to post info that is different from the topic at hand.

Anyhow, did everyone see who the go-to guy will be for McCain's Michigan campaign? So here we have Nick Smith, whose son ran against Joe Schwarz, who, in turn, supported John McCain. Politics makes strange bedfellows.
 

This was just put up today at MichiganLiberal.com.

http://www.michiganliberal.com/showDiary.do;jsessionid=52ACF375A9861929734F646A5DDC7633?diaryId=10874

CD07: Meet Tim Walberg (+)
by: Eric B.
Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 13:16:49 PM EST

I still remember, with great amusement, the first few months after Nick Smith went to Washington to represent my old hometown of Jackson. He not only gave Spy magazine a long, eloquent discourse on what U.S. policy towards the country of Freedonia should be, but he was also spotted crawling on either the wall or roof of his office building because of a locked bathroom door (the specifics of the story escape me).
 

I still remember, with great amusement, the first few months after Nick Smith went to Washington to represent my old hometown of Jackson. He not only gave Spy magazine a long, eloquent discourse on what U.S. policy towards the country of Freedonia should be, but he was also spotted crawling on either the wall or roof of his office building because of a locked bathroom door (the specifics of the story escape me).

Heh. I knew the Freedonia story, but I've never heard about the locked bathroom door. Sadly, neither Joe Schwarz nor Tim Walberg have given anyone that kind of fodder for humor. Walberg has said some stupid stuff, but it's all of a more tragic nature...

(By the way, for those complaining about not having relevant posts to comment under, would you prefer something like a weekly "open thread" thing like some of the larger blogs do? I've had the occasional open thread before, but they're usually left pretty empty. Still, with my schedule the way it is lately, I don't always have time to write up new content. The open thread is a thought, and I'm curious for feedback.)
 

I love the illustration on MI Liberal with Walberg as a puppet. That's classic!
 

Gosh, fitz, I really wasn't complaining. I was just hesitant to comment on a thread not of the same subject. If it doesn't bother anyone else that I do that, then don't go to the trouble.

OTOH, it's certainly up to you if you want to create an open thread.

(how do you like that for non-directive suggestions?)