Walberg Watch: Five Years... How Many More?

Thursday, May 01, 2008

Five Years... How Many More?

Five years ago today, the media and the Bush Administration were in a celebratory mood:

Notice how Peter Jennings describes the event:

... And it is from there tonight where the president is going to make what amounts to an end of the war in Iraq speech.

Peter Jennings and Bob Woodruff mention the speech that Bush would give later in the day. The important excerpt:

Thank you all very much. Admiral Kelly, Captain Card, officers and sailors of the USS Abraham Lincoln, my fellow Americans: Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed. (Applause.) And now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country.

(Emphasis added.)

The speech by President Bush did not include the phrase "Mission Accomplished," but the banner on the USS Abraham Lincoln was clearly visible and former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld told ABC's Bob Woodruff that early drafts of the speech did include the phrase.

Why am I bringing this up now?

Five years ago today, President Bush spoke to the nation to tell us that the war was basically over. On that day, 128 American soldiers had been killed. Since then, another 3,925 American soldiers have died in Iraq despite the fact that "major combat operations in Iraq have ended."

We know that Congressman Walberg has voted against bills which ask President Bush to come up with an exit strategy. Mind you, these aren't "cut and run" or "surrender" bills, despite rhetoric from some on the right, they're simply demanding some sort of strategy besides "stay the course." But Congressman Walberg is apparently satisfied with the way things are going now.

So I have a couple of questions for Congressman Walberg, on this anniversary of the "end" of the war.

Given everything that we know now, was invading Iraq in the best interests of the United States and the world in general?
If you had been in Congress in 2002, would you have voted to authorize the war?
What conditions in Iraq would be enough for you to support the withdrawal or some or all American troops from the country?
When can we expect a month or a year in Iraq without any American casualties?

Congressman Walberg, today, it's not so much that I want you to have the same plan as me. Today, I just want to know that you actually have some sort of plan. Do you?

This year, there have been American soldiers and marines killed in Iraq that were in eighth grade when the war started. A 19 year-old soldier killed by an IED would have been 14 when all of this started, and his biggest concern five years ago would have been starting high school.

Congressman Walberg, will the war be over in another five years? If you were in elementary school when President Bush announced that major combat operations were over, and if you enlist, is there a chance that you could be killed in Iraq?

Congressman Walberg, your granddaughter was born last Friday. When she's graduating from high school, if she or her peers choose to enlist... will they be sent to Iraq? Will their lives be in danger because of a war started by their grandparents' generation?

Tell me, Congressman Walberg, when will this end?

These are the questions that have been on my mind today.

Labels: Iraq, Issues, Tim Walberg

posted by Fitzy # 6:19 PM

Comments:

Thanks for posting that. It's good to remember what we're up against in Iraq and how much we underestimated this enemy.

It's also noteworthy that Bob Woodruff continued to cover the war and it nearly cost him his life. His brain injury at least brought an awareness to the insidiousness of this war and what it's doing to our troops.

Hindsight being 20/20 I wish we took another path to deal with Hussein, but what's done is done. We need to get this conflict over with once and for all. Tim Walberg has a very shallow understanding of the military and only reads the talking points.

# posted by

Anonymous : May 1, 2008 at 9:09 PM

I am going to take a crack at answering these questions for Congressman Walberg, because he never will:

WW: Given everything that we know now, was invading Iraq in the best interests of the United States and the world in general?

TW: Moot point. Hindsight is indeed 20/20. Who really cares?

WW: If you had been in Congress in 2002, would you have voted to authorize the war?

TW: Golly, who didn't? I mean, I'd vote today to send troops into Detroit and Harvey if it was up to me. Those people are real lucky I am not the Commander in Chief.

WW: ?? (blank look of astonishment...)

TW: Any more questions?

WW: What conditions in Iraq would be enough for you to support the withdrawal or some or all American troops from the country?

TW: Back when I ran for this seat, I told everyone that Don Rumsfeld was a genius and that I would never question his judgement. I do not believe he ever has called for withdrawal, so I am not sure how to answer that question, but I will try, using my life experiences as a guide. And that answer is I would never support a pullout because any form of birth control is against the will of God. May he have mercy on the soul of anyone who would advocate pulling out as a solution.

WW: When can we expect a month or a year in Iraq without any American casualties?

TW: If those people would just accept Christ into their lives, we wouldn't have to beat it into them. Once they realize the hollow path of false idols is wrong and accept my savior as the only true path, all will be well again. And not one day sooner.

WW: Congressman Walberg, today, it's not so much that I want you to have the same plan as me. Today, I just want to know that you actually have some sort of plan. Do you?

TW: I stand by Don Rumsfeld and God. That should be good enough for you.

WW: Congressman Walberg, will the war be over in another five years?

TW: I will not disclose the plans which have been revealed to me by my creator. In due time it will be revealed to you if you accept Christ.

WW: If you were in elementary school when President Bush announced that major combat operations were over, and if you enlist, is there a chance that you could be killed in Iraq?

TW: Hah. False premise. The Tim Walberg's of the world don't enlist. Check my record. I had a chance to enlist during a time of war and skipped the opportunity. Why would anyone like me enlist? So, there is no chance I would ever be killed in a war.

WW: Congressman Walberg, your granddaughter was born last Friday. When she's graduating from high school, if she or her peers choose to enlist... will they be sent to Iraq? Will their lives be in danger because of a war started by their grandparents' generation?

TW: People should be free to live their lives as they see fit. If her peers are silly enough to enlist, that is there problem, but no decendent of mine is going to make that mistake.

WW: Tell me, Congressman Walberg, when will this end?

TW: In due time, it will be revealed unto you. With that, I must get going. I have a very important town hall meeting in Rives Junction with 3 people waiting to complain about Mexicans and hoping to end women's suffrage. Thank you for taking the time to listen to me.

# posted by

Anonymous : May 1, 2008 at 10:14 PM

Tim Walberg voted today to pass "technical corrections" to the highway bill which contained the Bridge to Nowhere. Does that mean he "technically" voted for the Bridge to Nowhere?

# posted by

Anonymous : May 1, 2008 at 10:44 PM

When will he vote on the funds to widen I-94? If it takes an earmark to do it, so be it.

# posted by

Anonymous : May 2, 2008 at 9:21 AM

Walberg won by attacking Joe Schwarz on earmarks, the highway bill, the farm bill, bloated spending, etc. That is how he secured nearly all of his finanical backing.

Now he votes for the same bills. What a jerk. I hope he gets a challenge from the right on fiscal issues because he has fallen off the wagon and is drunk on DC money.

# posted by

Anonymous : May 2, 2008 at 9:46 AM

Actually Walberg won by alienating voters, creating apathy and driving them from the polls. His "win" was purely mathematical, not enough people voted in the primary and he won by default. Less than 8 percent of the GOP voted for him in August 06. Schwarz supporters failed him miserably and we're stuck with this baffoon.

# posted by

Anonymous : May 2, 2008 at 11:17 AM

Here is a letter from Walberg praising the Battle Creek ANG's interim mission and awarding of the C-21 Cargo aircraft in today's Battle Creek paper.

Yes, this is the airport he voted NO on in the recent Transporation bill for runway upgrades and was chided at a Jackson Veterans event.

At least he gives credit to people who have also worked on this project tirelessly.

***

Community effort aided base's mission

This week the Battle Creek Air National Guard Base received word from the Air Force that in coming months C-21 cargo aircraft will replace the A-10s currently stationed in Battle Creek. This transitional mission is critical to the future of the Battle Creek base and will provide support to the Air Force, Army and National Guard.

Requesting and receiving this transitional mission has been a communitywide effort - from local, state and federal officials to concerned citizens and committed local residents. Jim Hettinger, Jan Burland and Battle Creek Unlimited deserve special recognition for their hard work and efforts in making this transitional mission a reality.

The entire Battle Creek community should take pride in and celebrate the future arrival of the C-21s and Joint Cargo Aircraft. Receiving these flying missions is a testament to the work ethic and dedication of the men and women in uniform who serve our country at the Battle Creek Air National Guard Base. I look forward to working with military officials and Michigan's congressional delegation to ensure both missions arrive in the promised time frame.

U.S. Rep. Tim Walberg

7th Congressional District

# posted by

Anonymous : May 3, 2008 at 10:16 AM

Five Years... How Many More?

Archives