Posted on 02/14/2007 8:49:45 PM PST by familyop
Representative Howard Coble of North Carolina . . . Representative Steven C. LaTourette of Ohio . . . Representative John J. Duncan Jr. of Tennessee . . . Representative Walter B. Jones of North Carolina . . . Representative Ric Keller, a Florida Republican . . . Representative Heather Wilson, a New Mexico Republican . . . Republican Senators Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Olympia J. Snowe of Maine . . .
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
"We helped put him in power perhaps?" No we did nothing of the sort. You really should do a LITTLE investigation before embarassing yourself. "To handle another enemy perhaps?" No when Saddam seized power Iran was an ally. "Iran perhaps? We supported Iraq perhaps?" Our support of Saddam during the Iran/Iraq war consisted of intelligence and was entirely consistent with our National Interest. Remember this was during REAGAN'S term of office.
"When Conservative congress critters have serious questions and reservations perhaps it is wise to ask what they are and why?" I know of no substantial questions by Non-Loons and don't care what the Ron Pauls of the world ask or say. Neither does anyone else.
"Try spinning my comments harder come on you can do it. I know you can LOL." It would take great effort to "spin" your comments so that they make even LESS sense. It just isn't worth it given their internal illogic and errors are so obvious.
By our Constitution it requires a formal Congressional Declaration of War voted on and approved by congress. A Resolution of authorization of force is not the same thing. I have read both WW2 Declarations and the resolution for Iraq. The GOP should be taken to the woodshed for writing such nonsense as that.
A formal Declaration of war unlike a resolution of authorization commits the Congress and POTUS. Again Ron Paul has called for such a resolution to be made. So how can he be cat and run or anti-war? I highly suspect this is Duncan's concerns as well. Many people pointed out when that resolution was proposed and pushed it was a bad idea. Of course some of us actually bothered to read it rather than simply taking the party's and Bush's word on the matter. This is my last reply. I'm not spending my time wading through your formatting.
You can say what you wish but Bush abandoned himself and his own beliefs when we went to war in Iraq. He ran saying our military was overextended and in need of help and rebuilding. Yep and it still is too. It seems anyone who has any whatsoever disagreement with our POTUS is labeled anti-war or kooks. Then again some will follow the man blindly into hell and if he takes the nation there with mistakes they'll tell you how nice and comfy the temperatures are so why should you complain.
I'm going to prove my point with Bush's own words. Note what he says about war and nation building. Note what he says about needed equipment and over extensions as well. WHERE IS THE HELP? Conservatives the few who will are right to question his polices. Our congress in both parties as well as the White House lack the resolve to make the needed committment to bring the war in Iraq to a swift and precise military victory and conclusion. In the mean time our troops grow more tired and our other enemies in other places become stronger.
CAMPAIGN 2000: VICE PRESIDENT GORE AND GOVERNOR BUSH PARTICIPATE IN DEBATE, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS OCTOBER 3, 2000
How would you go about, as president, deciding when it was in the national interest to use U.S. force? Generally.
BUSH: Well, if it's in our vital national interests. And that means whether or not our territory -- our territory is threatened, our people could be harmed, whether or not our alliances -- our defense alliances are threatened, whether or not our friends in the Middle East are threatened. That would be a time to seriously consider the use of force.
Secondly, whether or not the mission was clear, whether or not it was a clear understanding as to what the mission would be.
Thirdly, whether or not we were prepared and trained to win, whether or not our forces were of high morale and high standing and well-equipped.
And finally, whether or not there was an exit strategy. I would take the use of force very seriously. I would be guarded in my approach. I don't think we can be all things to all people in the world. I think we've got to be very careful when we commit our troops.
The vice president and I have a disagreement about the use of troops. He believes in nation-building. I would be very careful about using our troops as nation builders.
BUSH: I believe the role of the military is to fight and win war and, therefore, prevent war from happening in the first place.
And so I take my responsibility seriously. And it starts with making sure we rebuild our military power.
Morale in today's military is too low. We're having trouble meeting recruiting goals. We met the goals this year, but in the previous years, we have not met recruiting goals. Some of our troops are not well-equipped. I believe we're overextended in too many places. And, therefore, I want to rebuild the military power. It starts with a billion dollar pay raise for the men and women who wear the uniform, a billion dollars more than the president recently signed into law, to make sure our troops are well-housed and well-equipped; bonus plans to keep some of our high-skilled folks in the services; and a commander in chief who clearly sets the mission, and the mission is to fight and win war, and, therefore, prevent war from happening in the first place.
Regarding my planned 2006, 2007, 2008 contributions:
Please be advised I will not be contributing one, single, solitary red cent to ANY Republican organization.
Not one.
Not until the 12 Republican Representatives who have chosen to break ranks with the party on the Iraq war are either returned to the fold or shown the error of their ways. I know the leadership has the means at their disposal to make this clear to them.
I am only taking this drastic action because of the imperative need for Victory in Iraq.
I thank you for your time-
Phew - I'm glad I got that off my chest!
Cheers - Dinah
No Blank Check for the Pentagon
February 6, 2007
U.S. House or Representatives
Mr. Speaker,
In an interview published yesterday by the McClatchy Newspaper Chain, Dick Armey, our former Republican Majority Leader, said he felt really bad about voting to go to war in Iraq.
Mr. Armey said “Had I been more true to myself and the principles I believed in at the time, I would have openly opposed the whole adventure vocally and aggressively.”
Chris Matthews on MSNBC on election night said “the decision to go to war in Iraq was not a conservative decision historically” and said the President asked Republicans “to behave like a different people than they intrinsically are.”
In 2004, William F. Buckley, Jr., often called the godfather of conservatism, wrote that if he knew in 2002 what he knew by 2004, he would have opposed going to war in Iraq.
Today, the Oversight and Government Reform Committee held a hearing on the subject of waste, fraud and abuse in Iraq. A couple of years ago, the same committee then under Republican leadership, held a similar hearing.
David Walker, now head of the GAO, but then Inspector General of the Defense Department, testified then that $35 billion had been lost in Iraq due to waste, fraud and abuse, and another nine billion had just been lost and could not be accounted for at all.
I heard a talk by Charlie Cook, the very respected political analyst, who said people really could not comprehend anything over one billion.
But $44 billion is an awful lot of money in anybody’s book.
A Foreign Service officer told me last year, a few months after he had left Iraq, that he sometimes saw SUV’s filled with cash with barely enough room for the driver.
Conservatives have traditionally been the strongest opponents and biggest critics of federal waste, fraud and abuse. Conservatives have traditionally been the strongest opponents and biggest critics of wasteful, lavish and ridiculous federal contracts.
Conservatives – especially fiscal conservatives – should not feel any obligation to defend wasteful spending or lavish federal contracts just because they are taking place in Iraq.
Ivan Eland, in the January 15 issue of the American Conservative Magazine wrote this:
“Many conservatives who regularly gripe about the Federal Government’s ineffective and inefficient use of taxpayer dollars, give the Pentagon a free ride on the profligate spending habits.”
Conservatives admire, respect and appreciate the people in the military as much or more than anyone.
Conservatives believe national defense is one of the few legitimate functions of the federal government and one of its most important.
However, this does not mean we should just routinely give the Pentagon everything it wants or turn a blind eye to waste in the Defense Department.
The Defense Department is a gigantic bureaucracy, in fact the biggest bureaucracy in the world.
It has the same problems and inefficiencies of any giant bureaucracy, and conservatives – especially fiscal conservatives – should not give a “free ride” to waste, fraud and abuse just because it is done by the Defense Department.
Counting our regular Defense appropriations bill, plus emergency and supplemental appropriations bills, plus the military construction appropriations bills, plus the end-of-the-year omnibus appropriations bills, we spend more on defense then all the other nations of the world combined.
Yet the military, like all other bureaucracies, always wants more money.
Well, at some point we are going to have to decide do we want national defense for our people, or are we going to be the policeman of the world and provide international defense for all countries that claim to be our allies.
With a national debt of almost nine trillion dollars, and unfunded future pension liabilities of many trillions more, I believe it is both unaffordable and unconstitutional for us to try to be the policeman of the world.
We will soon not be able to pay social security, and veterans pensions, and all the other things the federal government is doing if we try to maintain an empire around the world.
Conservatives have traditionally been the biggest critics of interventionist foreign policies because they create so much resentment for us around the world.
Conservatives have traditionally been the biggest critics of nation building, as President Bush was when he ran for the White House in 2000.
We need the more humble foreign policy he advocated then, or we need to tell the people to forget about their Social Security because we are giving a blank check to the Pentagon.
End of speech he gave
Here is another speech on the matter he made. Again I will leave it in regular font format fore readability.
January 17, 2007
United States House of Representatives
Mr. Speaker, I voted against going to war in Iraq when Congress voted on this in October of 2002, and I am opposed to sending more troops there now.
President Bush has said that he is going to listen mainly to his commanders. I wish he would listen to Specialist Don Roberts, 22, of Paonia, Colorado, now on his second tour in Iraq, who told the Associated Press, ``What could more guys do? We can't pick sides. It's almost like we have to watch them kill each other and then ask questions.''
Sergeant Josh Keim of Canton, Ohio, also on his second tour said, ``Nothing is going to help. It is a religious war and we are caught in the middle of it.''
Saddam Hussein was an evil man, but he had a total military budget a little over two-tenths of 1 percent of ours, most of which he spent protecting himself and his family and building castles. He was no threat to us at all. But even before the war started, Fortune Magazine had an article saying that an American occupation would be ``prolonged and expensive'' and would make U.S. soldiers sitting ducks for Islamic terrorists.
Now we have had more than 3,000 young Americans killed, many thousands more wounded horribly, and have spent $400 billion and the Pentagon wants $170 billion more. Most of what we have spent has been purely foreign aid in nature: Rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure, giving free medical care, training police, giving jobs to several hundred thousand Iraqis, and on and on.
Our Constitution does not give us the authority to run another country as we have in reality been doing in Iraq. With a national debt of almost $9 trillion, we cannot afford it. To me, our misadventure in Iraq is both unconstitutional and unaffordable.
Some have said it was a mistake to start this war, but now that we are there we have to ``finish the job'' and we cannot ``cut and run.'' Well, if you find out you are going down the wrong way down the interstate, you get off at the next exit.
Very few pushed as hard for us to go to war in Iraq as did syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer. Last week, he wrote that the Maliki government we have installed there cares only about making sure that the Shiites dominate the Sunnis. And he wrote, ``We should not be surging American troops in defense of such a government,'' Krauthammer wrote. ``Maliki should be made to know that if he insists on having this sectarian war he can well have it without us.''
There is no way we can keep all of our promises to our own people on Social Security, veterans benefits, and many other things in the years ahead if we keep trying to run the whole word.
As another columnist, Georgie Anne Geyer, wrote more than 3 years ago, ``Americans will inevitably come to a point where they will see they have to have a government that provides services at home or one that seeks empire across the globe.''
We should help other countries during humanitarian crises, and we should have trade and tourism and cultural and educational exchanges, but conservatives have traditionally been the strongest opponents to interventionist foreign policies that create so much resentment around the world. We need to return to the more humble foreign policy President Bush advocated when he campaigned in 2000.
We need to tell all these defense contractors that the time for this Iraqi gravy train with its obscene profits is over. It is time to bring our troops home, Mr. Speaker.
I wrote that in a column that ran last Friday in Tennessee's highest circulation newspaper, the Nashville Tennessean, but let me just add this: William F. Buckley, who has often been called the Godfather of Conservativism, wrote about 1 1/2 years ago, ``A point is reached when tenacity conveys not steadfastness of purpose but misapplication of pride.''
Mr. Speaker, we cannot win a civil war between the Shiites and the Sunnis. There can be no victory for us in such a war.
Mr. Speaker, as a teenager I sent my first paycheck as a bag boy at the A&P grocery store as a contribution to the Barry Goldwater campaign. I have been a staunch conservative since high school. This war in Iraq went against every conservative position I have ever known. We need to return Iraq back to Iraqis and start putting our own people first once again. End of Speech....... It is every Americans right to agree or disagree with our elected. But I think Duncan's case he made deserved a read. On many points he is right in this. Note as well he is not condemning going after terrorist. Nor does he seem to have an opposition to being in Afghanistan. another speech can be found here. http://www.house.gov/duncan/fs061606.htm
There is no problem in my understanding war. There is a BIG problem in your understanding of THIS one. War does not require the total destruction of a society particularly when that society has been made war upon by the regime we are attacking. We have not used too little force or been excessively concerned about collateral damage. That is just a myth.
We seized more weapons from Saddam than anyone had ever seen. There were weapons EVERYWHERE, weapons he didn't even need, weapons he couldn't even use.
There is NO Constitutional form for a declaration of war. NO specific words to be used, NO format, nothing. I have heard Ron Paul's comments with my own ears and he has NEVER supported this war. He never believed in its necessity.
Had we NOT invaded. Saddam would have had another four years with Libya running his nuclear weapons research. You do remember, I hope, that this entire program was turned over to the US after the invasion when Libya got cold feet and surrendered it. We were completely UNAWARE of the existence of this program and the Treason Media has made sure that the People are STILL unaware of it. THAT was sufficient justification for the entire war effort.
Our military is doing fine in Iraq and is gaining valuable experience. It is not becoming weaker, not having problems recruiting, has no problems with supply. But it is also NOT involved in a major war just police actions.
Bush's comments about nation building were in the context of silly actions being taken by the Clinton administration such as Haiti. THAT is what he was urging caution about not about undertaking actions critical to the National Security such as Iraq.
As to overextension this is something that will be addressed and is being addressed. Troops will be moved closer to the Middle East and away from Europe. But there will be a large presence in the area of Iraq for decades. The attrition of professional soldiers which was epidemic under Clinton has been stopped as has the decline in military strength. AT THIS POINT our forces are of sufficient strength. Should there be any action wrt Iran they would need supplementing.
Morale in our military has been restored by this President who is BELOVED by the troops. So that reference certainly does not reflect badly upon the President.
The only thing you proved with the President's own words is that you don't understand them or are willing to use them duplicitously. None of them have been contradicted by his actions and many of the problems mentioned have been addressed.
Walter Beaman Jones Jr., born in Farmville, North Carolina, February 10, 1943, is an American politician. He currently represents North Carolina's 3rd Congressional District in the United States House of Representatives. His father was Walter B. Jones, Sr., a Democratic Party congressman from the neighboring 1st District.
Howard Coble, born in Greensboro, North Carolina, March 18, 1931 is a Republican Congressman representing the 6th district of North Carolina. After high school, he initially joined the United States Coast Guard, serving for over 5 years and staying on as a reservist for an additional 18 years. Upon discharging from military service, he attended Guilford College, from which he received a history degree. Coble then moved on to the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill and earned a degree in law.
Our support of Saddam during the Iran/Iraq war consisted of intelligence and was entirely consistent with our National Interest. Remember this was during REAGAN'S term of office
Just one more reply. I won't let what you posted go unchallenged. We did in fact arm Iraq with weapons sales and no it wasn't simply intelligence. I have a source that is noted for accuracy.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/report/gao/nsi94098.htm This unclassified version of a classified 1992 GAO report discusses U.S. policy and practices on sales of U.S. military equipment to Iraq during the 1980s. Since 1980, U.S. policy has been to deny export licenses for commercial sales of defense items to Iraq, and the Pentagon has not made any foreign military sales to Iraq since 1967. In contrast, U.S. policy on sales to Iraq of dual-use items--items with both civilian and military uses--has not been constrained by security controls. As a result, the Commerce Department approved licenses for exporting $1.5 billion worth of dual-use items between 1985 and 1990. The licensed items included computers and other high-tech equipment, civilian helicopters, and machine tools. In addition, several countries shipped U.S. military equipment to Iraq without U.S. approval, including ammunition and howitzer spare parts. In five cases, countries proposed that they serve as transshipment points for military equipment for Iraq, proposals that the State Department rejected.
Now as for Saddam rising to power? We labeled him a terrorist threat after the 1967 Israeli war but he was no serious threat at the time nor considered a major leader. Now theres a nation who didn't mess around in war and that's Israel. No asking Mommy U.N. for permission and resolutions, just do it, get it done, and get out. In six days they kicked their neighbors tails. BTW they later also kicked Saddam's. A favor few remember.
Yes we helped armed Saddam sometime knowingly and sometime wink wink not knowingly. A good case for not selling our weapons to other nations can be made right here. Especially not selling to M.E. nations. We for a decade kept this man in power and did business with him including the famed handshake with a certain U.S. official. As for Iran and Iraq ever being true allies? Forget it. They unite to fight a third party and after that it's business as usual as it has been for thousands of years. Back to tribal warfare.
Our foreign policy especially as written by one Gerald R Ford made the benign to the rest of the civilized world Saddam, Momar, Yasir, Idi, and the others threats to the free world because when Jerry signed the E.O. stopping covert assissanations of foreign leaders terrorist attacks and state sponsored terrorism grew like wildfire. What did these guys have to fear from the U.S.? Nothing. Death was taken away as an option. It really isn't a challange in disproving you. You believe every single thing Party leaders say without verification. I don't :>} I also bothered to actually read Duncan and Paul's reasons. I pretty much agree. The U.S. State Department who seems to be a major source of dis-information in this whole mess? No I don't believe or trust them.
A representative walks a fine line...their job is not merely to reflect the majority views of their constituents on every issue...that in effect would make us a pure democracy. They are notionally elected to exercise their judgment on behalf of their constituents...Many times the popular will and the greater good will coincide, but there are times when the legislator has to take a stand, and this was one of them.
IMHO, the reason that Hagel opposes the war is because of his close affinity with Arab causes. In the past, Hagel has received 100% ratings from Arab lobbies.
Right now on C-Span, Representative Dave Reichert, R-Washington is giving great speech on the consequences of the Democrat-forced surrender in Vietnam. There's still some good Republicans left.
I would reply that we are a republic and not a democracy; the best example I can think of in recent history might be the Jim Crow Laws here in the south. Imagine such a thing being debated on a federal level...A representative from an overwhelmingly white district may have had a constituency that was 95-5 in favor of perpetuating the laws...yet, if that representative did what they knew to be the moral and right thing, they would vote with the 5% opposition.
The problem with your analysis is that I am addressing issues of policy - that is, the difference between one legitimate course and another legitimate course.
You are bringing up a matter of law - that is, the difference between an illegitimate course of action and a legitimate course of action. Our lawmakers can't pass an illegal law - that's an illegitimate course of action.
The example I used was only to illustrate a more general concept. Even with two perfectly legitimate courses of action, there may be one that is morally questionable and unethical and another that is decidedly just and proper. Even if the overwhelming majority of constituents back the former, a representative taking his or her oath seriously, would be compelled to vote for the latter.
To paraphrase Abe Lincoln - All Congrees critters who atively work to undermine the war are saboteurs and deserve to be exiled or hanged.
If this happens, America's and its Soldiers will get a Stab in the Back!
Don't you even read what you post? We stopped selling arms to Iraq in 1967 according to YOUR article. Iraq's armaments were overwhelmingly SOVIET with the next in line FRANCE. There was almost NO American weapons or weapons systems except as were obtained without US approval from third parties. Saddam was armed by FRANCE and the USSR. That FACT will not stop you from trotting out the LIES of the Leftists claiming otherwise I am sure.
"We for a decade kept this man in power..." WOW you are posting the complete DU playbook aren't you? There is a big difference between "keeping" someone in power and not removing him. He kept himself in power.
The rest of your post is sheer crap as well. How many Middle Eastern terror leaders were assassinated by the US prior to Ford's EO? I'll wait dadadadadeedeeda. OK times up. NONE
LaTourette...ugh.
Things are seldom that straightforward. This current situation certainly isn't. In fact, courses of action are very seldom so starkly differentiated as you propose.
Don't get me wrong...I think, in retrosopect, the Bush Admin could have handled a lot of things differently, particularly selling the war and the occupation to the American public...and that things are not so cut and dried, hence my original post...that these legislators have to walk a fine line and there may be a lot more involved to their votes than merely the will of their constituents. There is a moral component to do what they feel is the right, or at least the best choice, amongst those that they are given...and there will be times when, if they are doing their jobs correctly, the would have to have the moral courage to go against the popular will...and their will be times they may find it necessary to oppose their own party. Having said all that, I think this choice is a relatively easy one, and voting with the dems on their "non-binding resolution," is a morally weak and indefensible choice that is against the interests of the nation at large.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.