posted on May 26, 2007 07:19:30 AM new
Why I voted in support of funding the Iraq war
by Rep. Tim Walz
Yesterday, the Congress of the United States voted on funding for the Iraq War. Instead of having the opportunity to consider a reasonable compromise that would reflect the will of the American public and scale back the U.S. commitment in Iraq, my colleagues and I were forced to choose between giving the president a blank check and providing our troops with the funding they need.
Several weeks ago, my colleagues and I passed a supplemental funding bill that tied our troop presence in Iraq to the Iraqi government's progress in meeting benchmarks of success. I supported that bill because it held the Iraqi government accountable to standards set by President George W. Bush earlier this year and it provided incentives for the Iraqi government to govern itself. I was disappointed when, despite his earlier commitment to these standards of success, the president did an about-face and vetoed that legislation.
The spending bill we passed yesterday provided the needed funding for our armed forces in Iraq, while also funding veterans' and active-duty military health care beyond what the President requested. This new bill still requires the Iraqi government to meet benchmarks of success. However, instead of tying the U.S. troop presence in Iraq to the Iraqi government's success in achieving these benchmarks, the new bill cuts their foreign aid if the Iraqis do not meet the benchmarks.
Although critics on both sides will see yesterday's votes as a sign that Democrats caved in to the president, I do not believe that to be the case. I voted for the supplemental funding yesterday because it is the only option I had to ensure our troops in the field have the resources they need.
A clear majority of Americans are opposed to the president's "surge" plan and want to bring our forces in Iraq home. However, our system of government allows the president to use his veto pen to prevent Congress from doing so. When the president decided to veto our previous Iraq spending bill, Democrats in Congress had only two options: Gather a super-majority to override his veto, or take a new course. We in Congress do not have that super-majority, so we cannot force the president to accept a bill that ties our troop presence in Iraq to reasonable measures of success so we can ensure that our military has a winnable mission.
And so, we must find a new course. I would like to believe that if the Congress withheld funding for Iraq, Bush would eventually negotiate with us on compromise legislation to meet our military's needs, force the Iraqis to take responsibility and begin to bring our soldiers home. But over the past few weeks, I have witnessed a very different and disturbing reality.
The truth is, throughout this debate, the president has been unwilling to compromise. He made it clear that if my colleagues in Congress and I voted against this newest funding bill, he would not relent. The president refuses to consider any legislation that would take away his blank check in Iraq and as commander in chief, he has the authority to continue this war despite the wishes of the American public and a majority of Congress.
"""""""My fear is that if we had not provided the funding the president requested, he would have kept our soldiers in Iraq regardless of whether they had the resources they need to complete their mission. """""""""
I spent 24 years serving in our armed forces and I cannot allow that to happen. The only way I can moderate the president's recklessness is to ensure he does not leave our soldiers in Iraq without the funding and equipment they need.
Some advised me to vote against continued funding for the war, in order to show my unhappiness with the way the president has handled it. I could not do that. I came to Congress to make hard decisions on behalf of the people of southern Minnesota, and in this case,
****I believe my first responsibility is to ensure the safety of those Minnesotans who are serving in Iraq by making sure they have the resources they need. *******
########The president may be willing to play a game of political chicken with our troops, but I am not.#######
I am not happy about this legislation; I would have preferred to vote on a compromise package that holds the Iraqi government accountable for its own security and begins to bring our soldiers home. Unfortunately, the president made it clear that he is unwilling to consider a proposal like that.
Yesterday's vote is not the end of the debate on the war in Iraq. Instead, the discussion continues in Congressand across the countryabout how best to bring our troops home and allow the Iraqis to govern themselves.
posted on May 26, 2007 08:45:33 AM new
Any CHILD knows his statements are NOT true.
He's TRYING to defuse the ANGER of the radical left for NOT doing as they all promised they do.
Coward....votes one way...then tries to excuse his actions. Typical.
"I do not believe that to be the case. I voted for the supplemental funding yesterday because it is the only option I had to ensure our troops in the field have the resources they need."
No....TRUTH IS he and all of them DID have other options. Several, as a matter of fact.
But what they WERE lacking was a BACKBONE to follow what they CLAIM are their convictions. LOL LO LOL
They can't have it BOTH ways. Clinton and obama SAID they weren't going to vote against funding our troops and THEY DID.
The ones making all sorts of EXCUSES for why they didn't vote the way they promised they would.....aren't LEADERS....they're sheep...followers too afraid of standing up for their convictions.....typical of MOST except the 14 in the senate who did vote against the funds.
Excuses, excuses the liberals are FULL of them.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on May 26, 2007 09:08:26 AM new
linduh your response is not a surprise, it could've been C&P'd from hundreds of your other posts. ...."everybody lies but YOU" is your tired old mantra
And, as usual, you have NO facts or proof that what Walz said was not true.
I wasn't surprised that you couldn't "grasp" the post and what it said because you couldn't even comprehend your own post(see Planned Parenthood thread).
posted on May 26, 2007 09:14:02 AM new
proof???? You want proof there are several things he COULD have done besides give in to President Bush????
Try reading our constitution and LEARN what POWERS both houses [who are NOW controlled by the dem party] COULD use IF they weren't so gutless.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on May 26, 2007 09:20:41 AM new
I know you're dense also....but he was lying, not telling the truth, when he said he had NO OTHER CHOICE>
Sure he did....as did each and everyone of the gutless wonders. But they're politicians and can't stand facing the truth of any situation anymore than YOU can, sybil.
They all could have voted to provide only enough funds to withdraw our troops asap.
They couldn't. As I've posted before they'd THEN have to take responsibility for the aftermath of that crazy decision....and they KNOW that.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on May 26, 2007 10:18:05 AM new
Sure I did. That's just another FALSE statement you continue to repeat.
I posted the article to make an entirely different point than what you were trying to focus on.
DENSE....because you just said you agreed there was NOTHING he could have done EXCEPT vote for the funding. When that just WASN'T/ISN'T true at ALL.
Not at ALL true, sybil. But you refuse to admit the truth....so I see you as being DENSE.
And now, I've given YOU all the attention I plan to give you too. You and kiara are just going to have to stop your obsession with me and start speaking with one another.
I can only deal with your nonsense so much each day....and I've already reached that limit.
posted on May 26, 2007 10:19:53 AM new
I agree...you are very limited
And, if you had any self-control at all you wouldn't HAVE to post at all.....
[ edited by mingotree on May 26, 2007 10:20 AM ]
posted on May 26, 2007 10:38:26 AM newI'M DENSE ????
Linda calling everyone else names but she still believes a Canadian language exists and claims to have the proof, but then can't back it up.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on May 26, 2007 11:10:08 AM newI can only deal with your nonsense so much each day....and I've already reached that limit.
Meaning that besides having no control she's backed herself into too many corners before even getting out the gate this morning. So it's easier to call names and evade answers than even attempt an answer.
posted on May 26, 2007 11:14:05 AM new
"""Meaning that besides having no control she's backed herself into too many corners before even getting out the gate this morning. So it's easier to call names and evade answers than even attempt an answer.""
Good summarization, Sister Ilk.
Kiara I would enjoy your opinion of Walz's letter and that of any other Sister/Brother Ilk.
Democrats face a BIG problem....their supporters who GAVE up. Who voted to fund the war.
Hopefully they'll TARGET walz as being one of the 'cavers'.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on May 26, 2007 11:22 AM ]
posted on May 26, 2007 12:00:45 PM new
Linda_K
posted on May 26, 2007 10:18:05 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sure I did. That's just another FALSE statement you continue to repeat.
I posted the article to make an entirely different point than what you were trying to focus on."""
( Uh, not quite linduh, you didn't comprehend that it was the accuser who may be fined $2,500 NOT Planned Parenthood.)
"""DENSE....because you just said you agreed there was NOTHING he could have done EXCEPT vote for the funding. When that just WASN'T/ISN'T true at ALL."""
( Uh, no , I never said I agreed.)
"""Not at ALL true, sybil. But you refuse to admit the truth....so I see you as being DENSE.
And now, I've given YOU all the attention I plan to give you too """(either put a comma before "too" or spell it "two". TRY to make some sense)
""". You and kiara are just going to have to stop your obsession with me and start speaking with one another.
I can only deal with your nonsense so much each day....and I've already reached that limit."""
posted on May 26, 2007 01:06:03 PM new
""""Liberals are SLAMMING members of their own party."
And I LOVE it. Fully."""
Guess that's the only fullfilment you're getting.....
and I see you have conveniently overlooked the Republican in-fighting .....
I gotta admit I loved it when the bushits went after McCain, especially the part about his "love child."....And then there's all the Repugs who are changing their tune about the war, distancing themselves from bush in the vain hope of getting re-elected
posted on May 26, 2007 01:20:11 PM new
I'm referring to the DEM supporters BLASTING the gutless dems who just CAN'T find their backbones to end this war.
They recognize they've been had....and they're pissed. lol They won't forget this betrayal come '08 either.
==========
Meaning that besides having no control she's backed herself into too many corners before even getting out the gate this morning. So it's easier to call names and evade answers than even attempt an answer.
It's been understood for a long long time now kiara....whether YOU can grasp it or not....
I don't play the GAME your way. Communication works BOTH ways or it doesn't happen.
Funny how you NEVER spew this nonsense when it's all the liberals NOT answering questions.
hypocrite once again. NO double standards allowed.
But I know it's just a GAME with you.....so you can get some, ANY little bit of attention.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on May 26, 2007 01:42:18 PM new
Meanwhile, AQ speaks out about the funding issue.
Al Qaeda: War Funding Bill Will 'Change Nothing at All'
Saturday , May 26, 2007
CAIRO, Egypt —
An Al Qaeda front group warned U.S. President George W. Bush Saturday that the Iraq war funding recently approved by Congress would not improve chances for success in the country.
After weeks of debate, the U.S. Congress passed the spending bill on Thursday, providing $95 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"Don't be happy for the money allocated to your soldiers," said a statement issued by the Islamic State of Iraq. "With God's help, the money will heal no wound and change nothing at all ... the battleground will be a witness to what we say." The statement was posted on a Web site commonly used by Islamic extremists, but its authenticity could not be verified.
Bush acknowledged Thursday that Al Qaeda terrorists would likely intensify their attacks in anticipation of a September progress report by the top U.S. commander in Iraq.
"And so, yes, it could be a bloody — it could be a very difficult August," said Bush at a news conference.
Responding to these comments, the Islamic State of Iraq's statement said, "The tyrant of this era, Bush, came out to say that the coming days will be difficult on the Rafidain (Iraq) land, but we tell him that they will be tougher for the enemy than the old days."
The statement also reminded Bush of comments made in late January by Al Qaeda's second-in-command, Ayman al-Zawahri, mocking the president's plans to send more than 20,000 additional troops to Iraq to improve security.
"Why not send 50 or 100 thousand?" said al-Zawahri in a videotape. "Aren't you aware that the dogs of Iraq are pining for your troops' dead bodies ... so send your entire army to be annihilated at the hands of the mujahideen to free the world from your evil."
================================
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on May 26, 2007 03:16:46 PM new
"My fear is that if we had not provided the funding the president requested, he would have kept our soldiers in Iraq regardless of whether they had the resources they need to complete their mission.
I spent 24 years serving in our armed forces and I cannot allow that to happen. The only way I can moderate the president's recklessness is to ensure he does not leave our soldiers in Iraq without the funding and equipment they need."
Yeah---who is the coward here. He spent 24 years in the National Guard, taught all over the world and worries that our troops will be left high and dry by our president. He felt he had no choice because the president would have kept troops in Iraq anyway, with limited resources. Now that is a sorry set of circumstances. He is worried about the president's recklessness.
These are not excuses. This is his explanation (sounds heartfelt to me) of why he voted the way he did. Excuses are non-existent WOMD, war on terror, scaring the crap out of people to get them on his side, etc.
posted on May 26, 2007 06:50:42 PM newKiara I would enjoy your opinion of Walz's letter and that of any other Sister/Brother Ilk.
Mingo, Walz sounds honest and sincere to me and explained his position quite clearly and his reasons for voting the way he did. As he said, he doesn't want to play a political game of chicken with the troops like the president is willing to do because Walz has had a long military career himself and knows the importance of them having the proper resources to carry on with the mission they've been ordered to do.
I don't play the GAME your way. Communication works BOTH ways or it doesn't happen.
Linda, to equate me not answering your nosy questions about my personal affairs to you being unable to answer to a claim you made right here on this topic is just idiocy.
Funny how you NEVER spew this nonsense when it's all the liberals NOT answering questions.
I don't care if other liberals answer your questions or not because I'm not responsible for their posts, just for mine. Do you think I should team up with you and keep them in line so they don't damage your fragile psyche any more than it already is?
posted on May 29, 2007 09:13:50 AM new
That's alright. Tim Walz don't stand a snowballs chance in hell of getting re-elected.
He lied his way into office, and then we all found out his main supporter was Rick Kahn. He is the moron that turn Welstone's funeral into a demomoron political rally.
The only reason he won was because of the public displeasure of the war. He didn't have a real agenda to put forth to the voting public.
Mingopig lost her sock puppet and is now looking to other areas of the state to find new sock puppets for her wacked out fix.
.
.
.
If it's called common sense, why do so few Demomorons have it?
Are YOU a Bunghole?