The U.S. House of Representatives voted today on a bill pledging support to the Iraqi people and the U.S. coalition troops in Iraq. While the bill passed 228-195, the seemingly non-partisan issue of supporting the democratic aspirations of Iraq and the bravery of our troops overseas was anything but. Only two Democrats voted for the resolution, which reads in part:
Resolved, That the House of Representatives--(1) affirms that the United States and the world have been made safer with the removal of Saddam Hussein and his regime from power in Iraq;
(2) commends the Iraqi people for their courage in the face of unspeakable oppression and brutality inflicted on them by Saddam Hussein's regime;
(3) commends the Iraqi people on the adoption of Iraq's interim constitution; and
(4) commends the members of the United States Armed Forces and Coalition forces for liberating Iraq and expresses its gratitude for their valiant service.
Leave it to the Democrats to put their spite and hatred of the Bush White House above sending a message of support to the men and women of our armed services, never mind getting behind Iraq's efforts to become the second working democracy in the Middle East.
Disgraceful. Simply disgraceful.
.jpg?t=20120527181101)
Article comments
1 - Hal Pawluk
I'm not a Democrat, but I commend them for this one (except those two - was Baucus one of them?).
Item (1) is the obvious fly in the ointment.
Mind you, I haven't read the entire resolution yet, so may have more comments later.
2 - Dirtgrain
What does "support the troops" mean? My friend Jim was in Desert Storm. He told me that he didn't feel support from the general public, one way or the other. The soldiers had each other, and they had communications from their loved ones--that's it. I don't see any soldiers being grateful for a resolution.
The worst thing of all is people who just say, "I support our troops," without actually doing anything. This is exactly what the dumbass, contrived resolution was to do. If you truly support the troops, then you show it by your actions--not by empty words.
Here is how our government is supporting our troops:
Kerry Says Bush Failing to Fully Equip U.S. Troops:
Do you support this soldier--AWOL Soldier Pledges to Wage No More War?Kerry, giving the Democrats' weekly radio address, said President Bush had misplaced priorities in Iraq, spending billions of dollars on contracts to Halliburton Co. but not providing troops enough body armor and other protective equipment.
The Massachusetts senator said helicopters were flying dangerous missions without top-notch anti-missile systems, National Guard units were getting donated steel from local businesses to put homemade steel armor on their vehicles, and families were buying body armor for their sons and daughters.
Army Sent Mentally Ill Troops to Iraq:The Army appears to have "inappropriately" deployed soldiers to Iraq who already were diagnosed with mental problems, according to documents obtained by United Press International. . . .
The October 2003 report said the Army should consider quickly changing course to prevent deploying more soldiers with mental problems. In a massive troop rotation now under way, more than 100,000 troops are heading to the region.
An Insult to Our Soldiers:Researchers from the General Accounting Office, a nonpartisan investigative arm of Congress, studied the payroll processes of six Army National Guard units that were called up to active duty. What they found wasn't pretty.
There were significant pay problems in all six units. A report released last November said, "Some soldiers did not receive payments for up to six months after mobilization and others still had not received certain payments by the conclusion of our audit work."
The Forgotten Soldiers of Operation "Iraqi Freedom" (this is from a French writer. . . suspect?):Victor is pissed.. He's over patriotism. "My father is a Vietnam Vet. He's really upset. Imagine, my life's ruined and now my brother is going to Iraq." He's disgusted by disability pay. "They'll give me 50% disability. I'm making $30,000 a year, so that means 14 or 15G. How am I supposed to live on that?" Not exactly the Pentagon's poster-boy amputee.
If you really want to support them, don't come with some cheapskate resolution. Bring the boys back home, and take care of them for crying out loud. Give them some compensation.
3 - Shark
WHAT A CROCK.
Get the commie leftist liberal pinko unpatriotic Democrats to sign a meaningless resolution that basically takes the war in Iraq out of the debate in the upcoming election.
These pigs are beyond despicable.
How about the Dems toss out a resolution 'resolved: "that all Americans should have the right to exercise their pursuit of happiness in a legal, binding civil marriage."
Let's see how many Republicans vote AGAINST a resolution that AFFIRMS BASIC CONSTITUTIONAL EQUALITY FOR ALL AMERICANS.
4 - Mark Saleski
Democrats also eat their young and are know to practice witchcraft.
i will not tell you how i know this....
5 - Shark
Yeah, can't you just see the Republicans sitting around talking about this:
"Just think of the headlines! Think of the titles our bloggers can come up with! 'DEMOCRATS WON'T SUPPORT THE TROOPS!' That ought to give the liberals angina! Mwah-hahahaha!"
Fuckers.
I'm currently working on a similar tactic; I'll be pulling out their quotes about sticking to 'biblical' standards, write an essay for BC, and post it here in a few days.
Look for a headline like "REPUBLICANS THREATEN *DEATH FOR ANYONE CAUGHT WORKING ON THE SABBATH!"
-- or sumthin' like that.
*Exodus 35:2
6 - Shark
Dirtgrain, excellent post, btw.
7 - JEANMARRY
PEACE of jeanmarry with John Kerry for peace in the world PEACE
8 - David Flanagan
Dirtgrain,
Ironic that Kerry critisizes Bush for not appropriately equipping soldiers in Iraq with the best body armor when he voted for the very appropriation that was created to solve that problem. Kerry knew it too, he just made a cynical decision to vote against the $87 billion because, at the time, Dean was way ahead in the polls.
Kerry is the flip-floppiest politician I've seen in all my days. The guy is positively schizophrenic.
BTW - Under Bush, military spending has gone up an average of 8% a year, as opposed to about .5% under Clinton. That includes raises for military personnel.
As for the "forgotten soldiers of Iraqi Freedom," I'm not sure what you are talking about. I know several who have been deployed, and one of my employees is due to be called up in June, though he will likely be assigned stateside in support of overseas efforts.
The company I work for guarantees him a job when he returns and will continue to pay him the yearly bonuses that go to all other full-time employees. Despite that, when I heard of his impending activation, I asked if this was going to be a financial burden to him and his family (he is married with two kids). He let me know that, actually, his pay would go up because of other pay that comes along with his active duty role, such as extra pay for housing.
No doubt there are people who struggle, but I live in a military town and most of in the national guard and the reserves know that their status makes it likely they'll be called up. For that likelihood, they get extra pay, full medical benefits, access to loans and other forms of credit well below what you and I can get, and a huge host of other benefits, such as commisaries and advanced training.
My best friend just retired after 22 years in the military. He was not an officer, but with his extra duties, and benefits, his takehome pay was much larger than mine, and I do very well. Even before he made his official decision to retire, he was offered at least three jobs with area defense contractors for even more money, yet he will still retire with monthly pay from the military, medical benefits, and lots of other benefits.
The moral of the story, don't assume its all good or its all bad. The military has lots of benefits that you probably don't know about, and what Kerry is proposing is just political talk.
Thanks.
David
9 - David Flanagan
Sorry, meant to say that Kerry voted AGAINST the appropriation which included funds for the latest body armor. Soldiers had body armor, but it was the older type which protects soldiers from shrapnel and low-powered rounds, but not from high-powered rounds.
David
10 - Dirtgrain
I don't care about Kerry. I only care if his claims are true--and in the quote above, they are. If Bush made the same claims, they would be just as true. Why do you avoid the issue and talk about flip flopping? The point was that soldiers are not sufficiently supported. $87 billion? They don't even have enough sunscreen. But I'm sure Halliburton executives are doing fine.
As for how maimed soldiers are treated when they return, see the transcript of the 11/07/03 episode of Now: With Bill Moyers:
U.S. soldiers wounded in Afghanistan and Iraq dealt a second blow when they get home: delays in getting medical care and financial support. And for some, the shocking advice: seek handouts.
Read it if you care about supporting our troops. We never have adequately supported our wounded troops on their return from war. Ask a veteran about VA hospitals. $87 billion?11 - Debbie
How can you logically argue that Kerry's nay vote on the 87 billion doesn't affect the support of the troops? How can the troops be supported if the funding is voted down?
12 - simon b
Um... maybe the democrats had problems voting for the whole thing because bits of it aren't true. It's like if I came up to you and said "Hey, do you agree both that George Bush is smart AND that electricity is a type of magic" and gave you merely a Yes/No option, the fact you reject the whole proposition because the second half is flawed doesn't mean that you believe George Bush is stupid, does it?
And clearly, the claim that the world is a safer place post Iraq is bollocks - ask the Spanish, or people from Istanbul, for example, or explain to me why London is currently full of people shitting themselves if someone leaves a Burger King bag behind on the Underground.
And if the US if a safer place, could you let me know how many points the terror alert has been dropped by since last February?
The Democrats who voted against this presumably did so because it was factually wrong.
13 - Scott Pepper
the claim that the world is a safer place post Iraq is bollocks
Saddam Hussein, during his reign of terror over Iraq: (1) gassed his own people, (2) invaded a neighboring country without provocation, (3) ordered the assassination a sitting U.S. president, (4) supported Palestinian terror attacks by paying off the families of suicide bombers, and (5) committed thousands of other atrocities to numerous to mention.
The claim that the world was safer with this madman in charge of a country is ludicrous.
14 - Mark Saleski
electricity isn't a type of magic?
crap.
15 - Eric Olsen
Clearly this resolution has a political element. 2-4 are not controversial, 1 is open to debate. Scott and David's points are well-taken, though. In general, the world is a safer place without Saddam having the financial and military resources of a nation at his disposal. Please recall also that Saddam was implicated in the first WTC bombing.
This whole argument and others like it comes down to your view of the best way to deal with terror: i believe you must tackle it head on with all necessary force and do everything you can to disrupt and destroy the networks and the terrorists themselves without regard to the possible consequences of these actions. "Oh no, Spain sending troops to Iraq has pissed of the terrorists, whatever shall we do?" Find them and kill them before they strike again. The other option? Try to appease the terrorists, which is not only impossible but ludicrous. The world must act collectively to root and destroy these people, that is the only possible positive course of action.
16 - Hal Pawluk
Eric "[a] i believe you must tackle [terror] head on with all necessary force and do everything you can to disrupt and destroy the networks and the terrorists themselves [b] without regard to the possible consequences of these actions."
In part [a] you should probably change "force" to "resources" (force is neither the best nor the only choice in all cases), and even then isn't necessarily the best strategy. In any case, the administration got it entirely wrong by invading and occupying Iraq instead of "tackling terrorism head on."
Part [b] is simply wrong.
Lashing out unthinkingly, with no regard to the consequences is part of the reason the world has more terrorists than before the invasion and occupation of Iraq.
17 - simon b
Scott, I take your point that rmeoving Saddam has taken out one of the nastier of the world leaders.
It hasn't made the world a jot safer - he'd been declawed as soon as the West had swapped from supporting him to opposing him. You could argue that it's made Iraq a bit safer, perhaps. The calaculation there is tricky to do: lot more random violence against a lot less directed political terror, let's be generous and say, yes, Iraq is safer.
But the rest of the world? How has the removal of Saddam - a man who posed no threat to me at all - made my life any safer? How has it made *your* life safer, unless I'm mistaken and you actually are a member of the (former) Iraqi opposition?
It's made saddam less of a threat but he wasn't much a threat in 2003.
18 - gry java
Hmmmmm interesting !!!
19 - RJ Elliott
"[T]he world has more terrorists than before the invasion and occupation of Iraq."
Back that up.