Posted on 02/14/2007 8:49:45 PM PST by familyop
Having known him through the years through my family, I just never dreamed he'd take a position like that.
Neither are Hagel and Snowe, but if you read the paragraph at the top of this thread they're listed.
Regards,
TS
2/14/2007
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Wilson Disappointed in ‘Lost Opportunity’
Urges Focus on Vital Interests
Washington, DC – Speaking on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives today, Congresswoman Heather Wilson said the non-binding resolution on Iraq is a “lost opportunity” and announced her opposition.
“The words in these two brief sentences are vague enough to allow people with quite different views on what we should do to feel satisfied with whatever way they vote,” Wilson said. “The language in this resolution is clever. But this isn’t a time for clever. We are better than this.”
Wilson urged the House to say what the nation’s vital interests are, what the House’s recommendations are, and whether or not it will fund the bullets and the body armor for the troops.
Wilson said her concern is the House chose to “punt” rather than do the hard work of building consensus and leading the way. For that reason, Wilson said, “this resolution represents a lost opportunity.”
Wilson is particularly concerned that the resolution clearly implies that Congress will not fund the troops slated to go to Iraq.
“The resolution intentionally leaves unanswered the question of whether we will fund the bullets and body armor for troops who are not there yet but are going. I believe a majority of this House would vote to equip and support the men and women being sent there, even if they question the President’s strategy,” Wilson said. “In this war on terrorism, the greatest burdens have fallen on the shoulders of a relatively small number of Americans who have volunteered to take great risks on our behalf. We must make clear to them that they will have the equipment they need to do the job we are asking them to do.
Wilson is skeptical that increasing U.S. forces in Baghdad in the quantity and with the mission and tactics described by the President and his military commanders will quell the sectarian violence between Shia and Sunni, and does not think it is vital to America’s national interests to do so. She has also supported increasing forces in al Anbar province to fight al Qaeda.
“The Iraqis must resolve their sectarian rivalries. The President believes the Baghdad security plan is the most realistic path forward. I disagree with the President on this point and I have told him so directly.”
Wilson serves as a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, a graduate of the U.S. air Force academy and served on the staff of the National Security Council during the administration of the 41st President of the United States.
See you in D.C.!!!
I hope! I hope!! :)
I wrote my congressman a nasty note, just like i did to John Warner two weeks ago.
Chuck Hagel is a republican?
Well yes and no isn't it? Yes it was there before we got there this time. No it wasn't before we 'got there' (there being Europe) and stuck our nose in a colonial/trade war in 1917. Would the nation of Iraq had existed if the European powers signed treaties without US intervention? Perhaps, perhaps not.
Iraq's history may have been a little different without British intervention but there would have been a similiar entity there. The region's history is too long and distinguished for there not to be. At one time the entire middle east was ruled from Baghdad. Since cities define civilizations and cultures Baghdad's existence ensured a political entity based upon it.
Yes, odds are it would still be part of the Ottoman Empire as the Empire continued to modernize in its later years Hey wait, a unified nation ruled from Constantinople (Istanbul) that had shown signs of leaning West? Imagine that.
At one time the entire middle east was ruled from Baghdad.
Again, a unified nation ruled from one location that held the different religions in check? Nah, that would never work....Baghdad was the capital of its province of the Ottoman Empire
Since cities define civilizations and cultures Baghdad's existence ensured a political entity based upon it.
Indeed it did. Baghdad had been part of the Empire from the 16th century. But not a political entity forced upon it by former colonial powers that happened to be victors in a war extended by someone deluded enough to believe the rest of the world 'needed' our form of government. And I'm talking about Wilson here (I know the similarities are too close but hey see my tag line)
With two North Carolinians already on this list of traitors. I'm afraid I'll discover another by reading further. Besides, I can't stand the Times anymore than I can stand these slimes.
NO, You may be brainwashed. Heck I know you are one of the brainwashed. We should have had BUSINESS FINISHED in Iraq a couple of year ago and our troops home. But someone just had to Build A Nation. War? How about this. Take Iraq out to the point they can not be a military threat for the next 4-5 decades. You don't hear the media saying that now do you? Of course you don't.
For Iraq to not be a threat the will to fight must be eliminated. You will not ever accomplish that via nation building especially in a nation where three tribes hate each other to the point of death. We do not owe Iraq a democracy we owe them a good old fashioned country tail beating or we owe them nothing at all. Our current leaders are clueless as to what war is and what it requires.
Now we are involved in a war approaching the number of years we took on and defeated two major world powers. Go read Bush's comments in the October 2000 debate in Boston and read what Bush said about war. Read what he said then see what he did. Where's the help he said our military needed? He's spending it on DEM social programs.
It was a nation ran by a ruthless dictator and his tribe ruled. Tell you what as soon as we leave the radical Clerics will put one as bad or 10 times worse. And guess what? He'll have a nice new country and equipped Army all trained by guess who? Didn't we learn anything from the first time we tried that there?
"We should have had BUSINESS FINISHED in Iraq a couple of year ago and our troops home." Hilarious. And you call ME "brainwashed" while showing such complete ignorance.
"But someone just had to Build A Nation." No someone had to build a GOVERNMENT.
"Take Iraq out to the point they can not be a military threat for the next 4-5 decades." Iraq was never a MILITARY threat it was a TERRORIST threat as it would have remained had we left and allowed the terrorists to move in from elsewhere.
"For Iraq to not be a threat the will to fight must be eliminated." Gee, you must be unaware of the FACT that the terrorists are killing FAR MORE Iraqis than they are Americans. Iraq has no will to fight. Internationally created and supported Terror groups do and they don't mind killing every Iraqi if that is what it takes to turn the lilylivered Americans against the War.
"You will not ever accomplish that via nation building especially in a nation where three tribes hate each other to the point of death." Millions of Iraqis have stepped up to the plate, put their and their families lives on the line fighting to create a stable government. That means nothing to the ignorant Monday morning quarterbacks bleeting out the latest Treason media lies.
"Now we are involved in a war approaching the number of years we took on and defeated two major world powers." What has been occurring for the vast majority of the time we have been in Iraq is not a War as we have known war. [Seven THOUSAND Allied men were killed taking Guadalcanal. Seven THOUSAND Marines were killed taking Iwo Jima. Fourteen THOUSAND US soldiers were killed at Gettysburg. Over 9500 US soldiers were killed at Antietam thousands within HOURS. There are MANY other examples of the costs of a real war.] This is a police action against terrorist elements. Our commanders would love there to be a real war since destroying enemy forces when they fight is a piece of cake.
Finding small groups hidden here and there is totally different. They have NO chance of defeating us militarily but only a chance to launch petty harassments and kill a few soldiers from time to time knowing that the feminized American people will start whining about all the "losses". Our losses, compared to a REAL war, have been trivially small. But they are enough to set off the cowardly, ignorant and traitorous.
"Where's the help he said our military needed?" There is no military help needed except in the minds of the clueless. Our problems in Iraq are INTELLIGENCE not hardware needs.
"He's spending it on DEM social programs." Just a flat out LIE. Bush created one new social program, the drug program, and that was something he campaigned on.
One would have to go to a Treason Media article to find as much bilge and nonsense as you have posted.
I see no chance we will be leaving anytime soon given the crucial role the area plays in our National Security. We are still in Germany and Korea half a century later and this is far more complex than either.
"Didn't we learn anything from the first time we tried that there?" What the hell is that idiocy supposed to mean? Are you claiming WE set up Saddam? That is a popular LIE the Left loves but there is no truth in it.
We helped put him in power perhaps? To handle another enemy perhaps? Iran perhaps? We supported Iraq perhaps? Try spinning my comments harder come on you can do it. I know you can LOL... When Conservative congress critters have serious questions and reservations perhaps it is wise to ask what they are and why? But No! They betrayed Bush WHAA!!!!!!! MOMMY make da mean conservatives behave WHAA!!!!!!
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.