Um... Congressman Walberg?



Transcript

Walberg: Did not Saddam Hussein have the weapons of mass destruction?

Schauer: No!

Walberg: You disagree with even the...

Schauer: Do you contend that he did?

Walberg: Oh absolutely he did. In fact...

Moderator: What evidence has the government found of WMDs in Iraq since we went in?

Walberg: Oh, they didn't find it once they went in, but there's clear evidence that they were shipped other places or maybe still buried in the desert. The Hamilton Commission found that out...

[Moderator?]: Did we find them?

Walberg: No, we didn't find 'em.

Hm. So, Saddam Hussein did have weapons of mass destruction, it's just that they're hidden so well that even after five years, we haven't found any. The Iraqi government was able to hide them quickly, in the midst of preparations for an invasion, without leaving any traces or having any witnesses that were able to give credible accounts to the Americans searching for the weapons.

Right.

I'm not an expert on this, but thankfully, there are some people that have spent a lot of time on this. For instance, the Iraq Survey Group, which was convened by coalition governments specifically to search for stockpiles or evidence of stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, had this to say:

The former Regime had no formal written strategy or plan for the revival of WMD after sanctions. Neither was there an identifiable group of WMD policy makers or planners separate from Saddam. Instead, his lieutenants understood WMD revival was his goal from their long association with Saddam and his infrequent, but firm, verbal comments and directions to them.

and this:

ISG has not found evidence that Saddam Husayn possessed WMD stocks in 2003, but the available evidence from its investigation—including detainee interviews and document exploitation—leaves open the possibility that some weapons existed in Iraq although not of a militarily significant capability. Several senior officers asserted that if Saddam had WMD available when the 2003 war began, he would have used them to avoid being overrun by Coalition forces.

[...]

Senior military officers and former Regime officials were uncertain about the existence of WMD during the sanctions period and the lead up to Operation Iraqi Freedom because Saddam sent mixed messages. Early on, Saddam sought to foster the impression with his generals that Iraq could resist a Coalition ground attack using WMD. Then, in a series of meetings in late 2002, Saddam appears to have reversed course and advised various groups of senior officers and officials that Iraq in fact did not have WMD. His admissions persuaded top commanders that they really would have to fight the United States without recourse to WMD. In March 2003, Saddam created further confusion when he implied to his ministers and senior officers that he had some kind of secret weapon.

In other words, Saddam Hussein really, really wanted weapons of mass destruction, liked to brag about them, but didn't actually have any. He was a deluded, aging dictator, not a serious threat.

And what about Tim Walberg's idea that the weapons might have been moved or buried? In an addendum to the final report, it was concluded that it was possible, but very unlikely.

Again, I have to ask, if there were these massive stockpiles, how is it that no one witnessed their movements across the border? I don't know, Congressman Walberg, this is straying into conspiracy-theory land. Next you're going to tell me that black helicopters from the UN are out to get you.

But wait, Congressman Walberg said that the "Hamilton Commission" found out that the weapons were buried in the desert. So he's right... right?

No. He's referring to the Iraq Study Group (not to be confused with the Iraq Survey Group above), which was a bipartisan panel, chaired by Lee Hamilton (a Democrat) and James Baker (a Republican), and which released its final report in December of 2006. Except, they weren't tasked with investigating weapons of mass destruction. They were instead asked to find a path out of the mess we had created in Iraq.

In fact, in their final report, the phrase "weapons of mass destruction" only appears once, in the biography of one of the commission members. As far as I can tell, the report never discusses the truth behind claims about weapons stockpiles, nor does it address what might have happened to those stockpiles, if they had existed.

Frankly, I haven't got any idea what Walberg is referring to. If anyone can enlighten me, I'll gladly post an update.

It's possible-- possible-- that Tim Walberg could be right, and a couple of dozen of Iraqi nuclear bombs are hidden in the desert, or in Syria, or something like that. Maybe, in some crazy, unbelievable way, that all managed to happen without us ever finding any evidence. Hey, anything can happen.

But that's not what Tim Walberg said. He didn't say, "Well, who knows, maybe it's possible that they were there!" No. He was sure that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. He mocked Mark Schauer for denying that known fact. It was ridiculous to suggest that Saddam Hussein didn't have weapons of mass destruction, and everyone knows that they're just hidden really well.

And yet, there's absolutely no evidence to support that. It's all conjecture and wishful thinking. When presented with evidence that the weapons of mass destruction weren't there, he continues on, living in his fantasy world.

We should be used to that by now. It's the same Walberg fantasy world where Iraq is as safe as Detroit, the Chinese are drilling off of the coast of Florida, Hurricane Katrina didn't cause any damage, Iraq was behind September 11, and global climate change isn't real.

This isn't funny anymore.

Labels: 2008 Election, Debates, Iraq, Issues, Mark Schauer, Tim Walberg

I'm trying to find out when this interview aired, but it was on the Bart Hawley Show on JTV:



Many thanks to YouTube user SeventhDem for the video.

As I said, I'm not sure when this aired, but this is at least twice now that Congressman Tim Walberg has linked the government of Saddam Hussein in Iraq to the tragedy of September 11th, 2001. This time, he specifically states that Saddam Hussein funded terrorist operations. This is, in fact, not true. This claim was debunked four years ago by the 9/11 Commission. Indeed, the former director of the CIA says that the claim never made sense:

"It never made any sense. We could never verify that there was any Iraqi authority, direction and control, complicity with al Qaeda for 9/11 or any operational act against America. Period."

Let me repeat this. The terrorist group Al Qaeda planned and carried out the attacks of September 11, 2001. The government of Iraq and then-President Saddam Hussein had no collaborative relationship with Al Qaeda. Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11.

Setting aside the "fantasy world" explanation I offered yesterday, it's clear that Tim Walberg is deliberately trying to distort the facts to justify his support of the war in Iraq.

Earlier today, the Battle Creek Enquirer carried an article titled "Walberg Clarifies His Comment," in which the congressman is supposed to have explained what he meant when he said that Iraq and September 11 were linked. Except, here's the only "clarification" they offered:

When asked about the comment, Walberg said:

"The fact is I strongly believe that terrorism must be defeated here and abroad. Al-Qaida was and is a threat to our family's security — they have proven that."

Lacking in any other explanation, I'm forced to conclude that Congressman Walberg stands by his claim that Saddam Hussein helped carry out the attacks of September 11, 2001.

In other news, someone who attended one of Congressman Walberg's campaign events informed me that Walberg flip-flopped-- he now supports a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. This is a dramatically different position than he had taken before, voting against such timetables throughout last year.

If this policy switch turns out to be true (I'll have to wait until I see media reports), I'll be eager to see how he explains to his supporters why he supports "timetables for defeat."

UPDATE: I'm told that this video clip was from Tuesday, August 19, 2008. That was four days after he made similar false statements on WKHM's Greg O'Connor Show and was the subject of a Schauer for Congress press release and a post by Chris Gautz of the Jackson Citizen Patriot on his blog.

Labels: 9/11 Commission, Iraq, Issues, Tim Walberg

The Politico.com ran a story a few days ago that's interesting in the context of the debate over offshore drilling for oil. Without commenting on the merits of drilling offshore, they noted that a number of proponents of drilling like to make the claim that facilities in the Gulf of Mexico went through Hurricanes Katrina and Rita without any damage and without "one drop of oil spilt," according to Senator Trent Lott (R-MS).

So, if the oil rigs could survive hurricanes without any environmental damage, obviously offshore drilling is completely safe, and environmentalists who oppose it are being unreasonable.

The problem with these assertions? Well, they're wrong. As the Politico explains:

The U.S. Minerals Management Service, however, did a study of the damage Katrina and Rita did to offshore oil wells and came to a different conclusion. It found that the two storms caused a combined 124 spills with a volume of 17,700 barrels—or roughly 750,000 gallons. That's no Exxon Valdez -- in fact, the MMS had kind words for the rigs' performances -- but it's not nothing either.

The article also cites pieces by CBS News and Media Matters which debunk the claim.

Among the proponents of drilling that the Politico mentions? Congressman Tim Walberg:

Rep. Tim Walberg (R-Mich.) said on Friday that the Gulf rigs went "through Katrina with no spills -- with derricks being washed up on shore and yet the environment has not been hurt and we've been benefited by it."

(Emphasis added.)

The problem here isn't the policy Walberg supports. There are a lot of reasons not to support his oil-company-give-away policy, but in this case, 750,000 gallons of oil spilled during Katrina and Rita aren't going to convince many voters.

Instead, the problem is what the story indicates about Tim Walberg as a person and as a politician. He's basing his policies and his rhetoric on what he wishes was true, not based on the actual facts. Rather than taking positions based on what's happening, he's following his rigid ideology and creating for himself a world that fits it. His hard line, conservative positions make perfect sense in the fantasy world he's constructed.

Offshore drilling is a lot easier to support if you pretend that there's no environmental risk and if you pretend the Chinese are drilling for oil off the coast of Florida.

Continuing the war in Iraq is a lot easier if you pretend that Iraq is as safe as Detroit.

Going to war to begin with makes more sense if you pretend that Iraq was behind September 11.

Environmental issues are a lot easier if you pretend that global climate change isn't real.

Unfortunately, Tim Walberg's facts don't quite match the ones the rest of us have to live with.

Labels: Energy, Global Warming, Hurricane Katrina, Iraq, Issues, Oil, Tim Walberg

From my inbox last night:

Dear [---],

In case you missed it, Tim Walberg did an interview with WKHM in Jackson last week. When the topic of Iraq came up during the conversation, Walberg said, "There was clear connections in Iraq to Saddam Hussein to what went on on 9/11."

Apparently the Congressman didn't get the memo that President Bush admitted this wasn't true in 2003, or that the bipartisan 9/11 Commission de-bunked this myth more than four years ago.

This got me thinking about some of the other shocking comments Tim Walberg has made over the past year that show how out of touch he is with the 7^th district. We put this video together to highlight some of his extreme viewpoints:

And, here's the video, called "The Things People Say":



I'm more than a little embarrassed that I'm represented by this man...

Labels: 9/11 Commission, ANWR, Energy, Environment, Great Lakes, Health Care, Iraq, Issues, Mark Schauer, Oil, Tim Walberg

... Sigh. Today, on WKHM:

Greg O'Connor: Tim, give me a little history lesson because somebody asked me this question earlier in the week. What's the difference – Russia invading Georgia and us invading Iraq?

Tim Walberg: Well, the difference is that there was clear connections in Iraq to Saddam Hussein to what went on on 9/11.

Audio here.

Okay. Tim Walberg isn't stupid. Really, he's not. But apparently he thinks you are.

Iraq and the regime of Saddam Hussein had absolutely nothing to do with the attacks of September 11, 2001. Nothing. But Walberg thinks you're stupid enough to fall for it.

Labels: 9/11 Commission, Iraq, Issues, Tim Walberg

I'm leaving in a little while for Chicago and far more important things than politics, so posting is going to be light for a few days. To tide you over, here are a few significant items.

Fundraising

Senator Mark Schauer's pre-primary fundraising report can be found here. The numbers?

Raised (2Q+16 days): $427,714.16
Raised (Cycle-To-Date): $1,331,557.22
Contributions From Individuals: $262,844.48
Cash-On-Hand: $928,686.45

I will do a more complete post next week.

Housing

From the comments, we get a link to this story:

A sweeping housing bill passed the House yesterday that will aide people across the country trying to keep their homes, it also includes a $7,500 tax credit for first-time home buyers and allow the Treasury department to extend a line of credit to mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Republican U.S. Rep. Tim Walberg voted against the bill.

Of course he did. I'll write more about that next week, too.

Iraq

From the Lansing State Journal, we get this passage from an article on Mark Schauer and Sharon Renier:

Both candidates said they oppose the Iraq war. Schauer said he would use the congressional power of the purse to change what he called a failed strategy from the Bush administration.

Renier, meanwhile, said she would demand that generals adopt her plan for Iraq and would vote to withhold funds if they don't. Pressed to reveal more details of that plan, Renier declined, saying, "If it's going to be on the front page, you might as well tell the enemy."

So... Sharon Renier has a secret plan to end the war. It's possible she was misquoted or misrepresented, but that sounds a little Nixonian to me.

Party Unity

Also from that Lansing State Journal article:

And while Schauer said he'd support Renier if he loses, Renier emphatically declined to return the favor.

"Hell no," she said when asked if she'd support Schauer against Walberg. "They're both about the same. They've not done anything for the state."

"I voted for Sharon Renier against Tim Walberg in 2006, so I have nothing against her personally," Schauer replied. "I don't think Sharon Renier knows me very well and I think she has a fundamental misunderstanding about me. I would hope she would have an open mind."

This I find troubling. Of all people, Sharon Renier should understand why almost anyone would be better than Tim Walberg.

Walberg Watch Video of the Week

For your enjoyment:



As of July 09, 2008, I have been working with the Schauer for Congress campaign in Lenawee County. My thoughts and writings are my own opinions, and I do not speak for Senator Schauer or anyone else in his organization.

Labels: Affordable Housing, Democratic Party, Environment, Fundraising, Global Warming, Iraq, Mark Schauer, Sharon Renier, Tim Walberg, Video

Between now and the August 5 primary, I'll be looking at several important issues facing our country and Michigan's 7th District, and I'll be trying to give you some idea of where each of the candidates stands on the issue. I'm going to do my best to be unbiased, but I hope you'll forgive me if a little bias creeps in.

The War in Iraq

There's less media coverage and slightly less violence, though it's worth noting that 29 American soldiers died in Iraq during June (up from May), and 712 Iraqi civilians died in the same period. Although less that in other periods, Iraq is far from peaceful-- certainly not as safe as Detroit. The decline in violence is largely due to the "surge," or increased troop levels proposed and enacted by President Bush in 2007. That policy was intended to give the new Iraqi government a chance to enact much-needed legislation and bring together its own country... something which has not happened. Of the 18 benchmarks for measuring progress in Iraq, the Iraqi government had accomplished only three of them as of January of this year.

Meanwhile, as the Detroit Free Press reported last month, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are fleeing their country in what is rapidly becoming one of the largest humanitarian crises in the world.

WASHINGTON -- A half-million Iraqis fled their embattled country in 2007, the third consecutive year more Iraqis were displaced than any other nationality, a survey of the world's refugees reported Thursday.

[...]

It said the Iraqi exodus "from the violence and instability of their homeland" constituted "the largest refugee crisis of 2007."

"While the Bush administration and the United Kingdom are busy trying to win the war, they have provided no leadership toward ensuring the rights and well-being of the victims of this war," the report said. "Europe, which for the most part warned of the dire humanitarian consequences of the war, has also done nothing to help the people they were so concerned about."

In the United States, meanwhile, media coverage of the war has declined. From a March 24, 2008 article:

Media attention on Iraq began to wane after the first months of fighting, but as recently as the middle of last year, it was still the most-covered topic. Since then, Iraq coverage by major American news sources has plummeted, to about one-fifth of what it was last summer, according to the Project for Excellence in Journalism.

[...]

Experts offer many other explanations for the declining media focus, like the danger and expense in covering Iraq, and shrinking newsroom budgets. In the last year, a flagging economy and the most competitive presidential campaign in memory have diverted attention and resources.

Yet despite this, the war in Iraq remains one of the issues considered "very important" in public opinion polls. A CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll conducted from June 26 to June 29, 2008, found that 84 percent of Americans labeled "the situation in Iraq" as either "very important" or "extremely important," making it the second most important issue, after the economy (94 percent) and above gas prices (77 percent) and health care (76 percent).

When asked to choose the issue that should be the top priority of the federal government in an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll (June 6 to June 9, 2008), 24 percent chose the war in Iraq, second only to "job creation and economic growth," at 27 percent.

The same CNN poll cited above found that 30 percent of Americans favor the war in Iraq and 68 percent oppose it. As far as future policy in Iraq, those polled were asked:

"If you had to choose, would you rather see the next president keep the same number of troops in Iraq that are currently stationed there, or would you rather see the next president remove most U.S. troops in Iraq within a few months of taking office?"

To that question, 33 percent said they would rather see the troop levels stay the same, while 64 percent said that they would rather see most troops removed from Iraq.

It's important to keep in mind that these are national numbers, and that the 7th District itself is likely somewhat different.

Tim Walberg (R)

On his campaign website, Congressman Tim Walberg says this under the header "Safe & Secure America":

Tim believes energy independence is essential to our national security. That’s why he supports expanding the use of alternative energies, and exploring for energy in Alaska to reduce gas prices and our dependence on Middle Eastern oil.

Tim supports our troops and intelligence officials as they combat terrorism. Tim also knows the importance of securing the border, and opposing amnesty and drivers’ licenses for illegal immigrants.

This is all he has to say on anything even remotely resembling the war in Iraq. His official House website gets a little closer to taking a position, under the header "War on Terror":

As Americans we are reluctant warriors, but throughout our rich history, whenever our troops have been in harm’s way, America has supported the men and women in uniform and made certain our troops have the necessary resources to accomplish their mission.

My wife and I pray for all men and women in uniform, and grieve for the loss of lives and injuries inflicted on these heroes who proudly serve our nation. I, as much as anyone else, want this war to be over.

I cannot support any resolution that says America has already lost and the leaders of our country no longer believe our troops can come home victoriously. It tells other nations that we are an unreliable ally, and they can no longer count on us in times of distress.

Without a doubt, mistakes have been made in Iraq, and these mistakes are important to acknowledge, but we must go forward with a new strategy in Iraq based on quantifiable goals and measurable results.

Read about my January 2008 trip to Iraq here.

In 2006, his campaign website read:

Tim wholeheartedly supports President Bush in the War on Terror. He supports Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and our troops as they finish the mission in Iraq to assure the victory of freedom over tyranny.

When Secretary Rumsfeld resigned in November of 2006 and Robert Gates was appointed to replace him, Walberg's website was changed to read:

Tim wholeheartedly supports President Bush in the War on Terror. He supports Secretary of Defense Gates and our troops as they finish the mission in Iraq to assure the victory of freedom over tyranny.

Also in 2006, from my coverage of the Siena Heights University congressional debate:

"Do you support a withdrawal from Iraq? If not, what future course do you see?"

Walberg
- "We too easily forget 9/11" [Audience begins booing], "We too easily forget the bombing of the USS Cole"
- Terrorism still an important issue
- No cut and run, must stay in Iraq
- The Iraqi army is working

And, in an article published in today's Dexter Leader, Walberg says:

As the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq reach their sixth year, Walberg said he is committed to keeping high levels of U.S. troops in both countries.

"Sept. 11, 2001, fundamentally changed our world and placed America in a global war against terrorists, which we are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan," he said. "While our commitment in these countries is not endless, we cannot allow Iraq and Afghanistan to once again become training grounds from which terrorist groups can plot and launch attacks around the globe. Additionally, the free world can not allow a terrorist-sponsored regime to control Iraq.

"America's soldiers are making progress and our troops are returning home as security is turned over to the forces of Iraq and Afghanistan."

In his response, Congressman Walberg repeats a common misconception about Iraq prior to the war, saying that "we cannot allow Iraq and Afghanistan to once again become training grounds from which terrorist groups can plot and launch attacks around the globe." Although Afghanistan's Taliban government did provide a safe haven for al Qaeda and its leader, Osama bin Laden (here and here, for example), there is overwhelming evidence that the same is not true of Iraq under Saddam Hussein.

For instance, from the Washington Post:

The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq.

Along with the contention that Saddam Hussein was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction, President Bush, Vice President Cheney and other top administration officials have often asserted that there were extensive ties between Hussein's government and Osama bin Laden's terrorist network; earlier this year, Cheney said evidence of a link was "overwhelming."

But the report of the commission's staff, based on its access to all relevant classified information, said that there had been contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda but no cooperation. In yesterday's hearing of the panel, formally known as the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, a senior FBI official and a senior CIA analyst concurred with the finding.

and, on "60 Minutes," former CIA Director George Tenet said:

"It never made any sense. We could never verify that there was any Iraqi authority, direction and control, complicity with al Qaeda for 9/11 or any operational act against America. Period."

In Congress, Walberg has voted in support of President Bush's troop "surge," against a responsible redeployment from Iraq, and against funding for troops in Iraq that includes a timetable for withdrawal. Walberg also voted against mandating longer periods of rest and recovery for servicemembers between tours of duty in Iraq.

Speaking in support of the "surge," Walberg said the following on the floor of the House of Representatives:

“I rise today to honor America’s brave men and women currently serving in the name of freedom and oppose this resolution of retreat.

“As Abraham Lincoln said famously in his Second Inaugural Address, ‘Fervently do we pray — that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away.’

“As Americans we are reluctant warriors, but throughout our rich history, whenever our troops have been in harm’s way, America has supported the men and women in uniform and made certain our troops have the necessary resources to accomplish their mission.

“Without a doubt, mistakes have been made, and these mistakes are important to acknowledge, but we must go forward with a new strategy in Iraq based on quantifiable goals and measurable results. We must not retreat.

“At this critical time, the American people long for true leadership and resolve, and I urge my colleagues to put aside political posturing and partisanship and ensure our troops have the resources and support needed to complete their mission. Victory is the only option.”

Note that when Congressman Walberg says:

Without a doubt, mistakes have been made in Iraq, and these mistakes are important to acknowledge, but we must go forward with a new strategy in Iraq based on quantifiable goals and measurable results.

... he was apparently satisfied with meeting only three of the 18 benchmarks noted above.

Note also that, while Congressman Walberg says:

"Well in fact in many places it's as safe and cared for as Detroit or Harvey, Illinois or some other places that have trouble with armed violence that takes place on occasion."

... that level of safety and security is apparently not sufficient to bring home the 154,000 American military personnel currently in that country.

Mark Schauer (D)

On his campaign website, state Senator Mark Schauer has this to say, under the header "The War in Iraq":

America needs a strong national defense, but, I don't believe that requires blindly following the Bush-Cheney Administration and its failed policy and flawed execution. More than four years after the President declared "Mission Accomplished", nearly 4,000 American lives have been lost and more than 28,000 have been wounded. Still the President and his allies have no plan and no exit strategy--but continue to spend $400 million on this war each day.

One of my first official acts as a state Senator in 2003 was to vote against a resolution in support of President Bush's strategy in Iraq. Sadly, my fears and doubts about Bush's so-called 'strategy' were well-founded – and now our country continues to pay the price. Congress must work to find a new course that ensures our security here at home and honors the lives of the brave men and women who defend our freedom.

Schauer is, in fact, incorrect in his assertion above. He says that "nearly 4,000 American lives have been lost and more than 28,000 have been wounded," when in fact, as of today, 4,112 American soldiers have been killed in Iraq and well over 30,000 American soldiers have been injured.

Like Walberg, Schauer is asked by the Dexter Leader to share his preferred policy for the war in Iraq:

Addressing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Schauer said if elected, he would begin drafting legislation to bring U.S. troops home.

"Capturing Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban leaders who were responsible for attacking us should have been our No. 1 priority after Sept. 11, 2001," Schauer said. "The war in Iraq has been a tragic distraction, which I opposed from the beginning. I believe the time has come to safely and responsibly bring our troops home."

Schauer said he would like to see combat brigade withdrawals within 16 to 18 months.

"Of course, I also believe the plan must allow for a certain degree of flexibility based on ground conditions, and we should maintain a troop presence to protect our embassies and diplomats."

When I spoke with Senator Schauer last year, he said:

The Bush Administration has created a mess in Iraq. We need to be clear that by changing policy and beginning to withdraw troops, that doesn’t mean that it’s gonna be easy going in Iraq. It’s gonna be very difficult. But what I know is that a policy of staying the course and further long-term involvement of our troops in Iraq is not the answer, and I think will make things worse over a longer period of time. I would expect to be part of a Congress that will change policy, begin to reduce our military involvement in Iraq. I’m not going to commit to a specific timetable, but clearly we need to begin to reduce our military presence in Iraq and allow that to country to rebuild itself…

As a legislator in the Michigan Senate for the entire duration of the war in Iraq, Schauer has not had the opportunity to vote on funding or withdrawal bills as Walberg has. However, in 2003, shortly after being sworn into the Michigan Senate, he voted against this resolution:

Senators Cropsey, Garcia, Patterson, Gilbert, Van Woerkom, Stamas, Hammerstrom, Goschka, Cassis, Kuipers, Bishop, Birkholz, Jelinek, George, Brown, Allen, Sikkema, Hardiman, McManus, Toy, Barcia, Sanborn and Olshove offered the following resolution:

Senate Resolution No. 37.

A resolution to express support for the President's strategy for protecting the security of the United States through our efforts in Iraq and to express support for our men and women in uniform and their families.

Whereas, While our nation has faced a wide range of threats to our freedom over the years, the unique war on terrorism in which we now find ourselves engaged demands an exceptional commitment. From our leaders and our military to our citizens and state and local governments, we all must work together to increase the security of our homeland. In the aftermath of September 11th, our country must deal with the entire range of terrorist threats before us; and

Whereas, The ongoing preparations for a military action to deal with threats from Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction are a direct and necessary response for the United States and our allies. As the world learns more about the links between the reign of hatred of Saddam Hussein and international terrorist organizations, including those affiliated with Osama bin Laden, the gravity of the world's situation has become increasingly clear. The smokescreen of misinformation that has hampered United Nations efforts in Iraq must not be permitted to jeopardize the homeland security of our nation or the stability of other parts of the world; and

Whereas, A number of Michigan citizen soldiers are engaged in the noble effort to defend our liberties. In addition to those already serving in the military, several reserve units have been called into duty. It is important to voice our support for all of them, as their courage and steadfastness in the face of war represents the highest standard of citizenship. For the families with loved ones in the military, the world's tensions take on much more intensity. Once again, we are reminded that the true cost of freedom is clearly beyond measure; and

Whereas, Unity in the face of adversity is essential for success in any grave battle. The people of this state, well aware of the high stakes of any military action, stand behind our President in his work to protect peace in our troubled world; now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate, That we express support for the President's strategy for protecting the security of the United States through our efforts in Iraq and to express support for the men and women of our military and their families; and be it further

Resolved, That copies of this resolution be transmitted to the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, and the members of the Michigan congressional delegation.

Sharon Renier (D)

On her campaign website, Sharon Renier has a great deal to say-- more than can be quoted in this post. To get a complete picture of her thoughts on the subject, read her entire position, under the header "War and War Powers of Congress." I'd like to provide you with a few excerpts from that essay:

The war in Iraq is wrong. I've been saying so since it began. I was saying so when it wasn't fashionable to do so, which is why I bravely stood up and ran for US Congress in 2004 and 2006. I also have a way to get our troops out. One way is to bring Iraqi troops here to be trained. Currently, if you are an Iraqi troop, you get to go home at night to your family. Bring them here and let's get them trained in 8 weeks like we do our troops. The second part of the equation is covert, a secret, and I'll keep that to myself. In case we ever get to use my idea, I want to make sure that our troops remain safe.

[...]

And that, friends, is what we have here. Our government has gotten us into an endless war with an enemy with no face and taken away our basic rights and freedoms afforded us under the US Constutition. First, the face of terror and fear was Osama bin Laden; then it was the President of Iraq, Saddam Hussein. Actually, the reason we dragged Iraq into the whole thing is because you can't declare war on a person, so you have to have a sovereign country to invade. Well, Sadam Hussein is dead, but we still have all of this terrorism out there, and frankly it doesn't seem like anyone in Washington is too concerned with Mr. bin Laden these days. So, darn it, just how can we protect ourselves from all of this terror?

In the issue of the Dexter Leader cited above, Renier is also asked about the war in Iraq:

Renier said some of her other top priorities would include placing a limit on federal deficit spending and finding a way out of the war in Iraq. Renier also said she has plans to restructure campaign finance reform laws, an area that separates her from most candidates.

"I don't support war, period. I support diplomacy. I can't go out and slug my neighbor without going to jail, so why is it OK to kill?" she said. "To bring our troops home, we need someone like me in office with moral courage and backbone to pull the purse strings on the war in Iraq. No money, no war."

In 2006, as the Democratic nominee for the 7th Congressional District, Renier had this to say at the Siena Heights University debate:

"Do you support a withdrawal from Iraq? If not, what future course do you see?"

Renier
- Get Iraqis off American welfare
- Not a "cut-and-run Democrat" despite what opponent might say.
- Best thing to do is to get the American face out of Iraq-- we're polarizing figures in the region
- Bring in an international peacekeeping force
- Iraqis won't protect themselves because they know that we're there for them; they'll only take responsibility if they know we're leaving.

Labels: 110th Congress, Iraq, Issues, Walberg Voting Record

The Walberg Watch Video of the Week:



For those that don't remember this episode (or want to relive it), the comments were initially covered here. Stephen Colbert's take on the situation is available here.

If you have subjects you'd like to see in future videos, feel free to mention them in the comments. And if you think you can make a better video than me, by all means, please do so!

Labels: Iraq, Issues, Tim Walberg, Video

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

Everyone has little things that bug them. They're not really all that important, and you know it, but it just drives you crazy. It's been bothering you deep inside, but you feel silly complaining about it, because you know it's not a big deal.

Me? I hate it when people don't use their turn signals. I also can't stand it whenever a store reorganizes itself, and you're wandering around lost and confused. It bugs me a lot.

But you know what? It's not a big deal, and I get over it. And in the occasional interview I've had with the press (not that it happens that often), I've never felt the urge to complain about any of those things.

Apparently, that's the difference between me and Congressman Tim Walberg. He was in Iraq recently (more on that later), and when he returned, what did he discover? They made changes at the congressional cafeteria! Obviously, he needed to tell WJR's Frank Beckmann all about it.

Beckmann: Well, welcome back home, and now you can look forward to getting back to the House cafeteria and that new menu they have there

Walberg: It is terrible, Frank, and in fact this morning I was grousing about the taste of my double espresso. Normally, in the Longworth building, there's a Starbucks there and I get my double espresso and it tasted absolutely chemical this morning. Well, I got to our conference, and they were talking about some people who have had bad reactions, actual physical reactions to the new paper cups. Well I had the paper cup in my hand and I said well I wonder if that’s it. Then I get back to my office, I find out it is now no longer Starbucks coffee, it is some organically-grown coffee that’s supposed to be green. Well, maybe that’s the problem. So, so far I'm not happy. They put scrambled eggs on cardboard now, uhhh, and you can imagine what a scrambled egg tastes like at a consistency moving around on a cardboard plate. It isn't good.

Beckmann: It's kind of like being back at Boy Scout camp, isn't it?

Walberg: [laughter]

It even got some national media coverage, from CBSNews.com.

To me, it just comes across as pitiful. He comes home from a country where American soldiers and Iraqi civilians are losing their lives every day, and that doesn't seem to have any impact on him. But they change the coffee? It's the end of the world!

I'm not the only one who felt like this. Here's an editorial from MLive.com (for some reason, the link doesn't seem to work anymore...):

[Walbergs, hopefully, don't represent the majority, MLive.com, 1/17/08]

MLive.com (Lynsy Smithson-Stanley)

Thursday January 17, 2008, 8:42 AM

After sharing his experience in Iraq on the radio yesterday, Congressman Tim Walberg shared his disgust for the environmentally sound changes the Capitol is making in the cafeteria.

On WJR Detroit, he bemoaned the "absolutely chemical" taste of the coffee, which had so sneakily replaced his Starbucks double espresso.

Let the surge stand, but for the love of all that is holy, GET THIS MAN HIS STARBUCKS!

Let's say, just for the sake of argument, that the Capitol used the organic standard set by another federal institution, the USDA. In that case, then this new coffee was certified by the federal government to have been ...at least 95 percent organically produced ingredients (excluding water and salt). Any remaining product ingredients must consist of nonagricultural substances approved on the National List or non-organically produced agricultural products that are not commercially available in organic form.

Yet he was tasting chemicals. Interesting, Congressman.

He described the changes, including the use of "cardboard" for plates, as "terrible."

In reality, this "cardboard" is really 100 percent biodegradable and part of the greater Green the Capitol Initiative. Other changes include switching the Dome to earth-friendly lighting and eliminating what Walberg must like his eggs served on: styrofoam.

Or, as we "green" people like to call it, the worst substance in the world (insert Keith Oberman intonation here.)

So here's to hoping others in position to lead our country into the future aren't hopping on the anti-change bandwagon.

(Emphasis added.)

Over at Michigan Liberal, Eric B. has more to say:

How was Magic Frank able to bring this stinging indictment of new paper products, and organic coffee in general, to the attention of his listeners? At the end of the clip, Magic Frank mentions Chesapeake rockfish with sweet potato fennel hash and yellow pepper relish; and also pears with Stilton cheese and watercress. Plug it into Google, and you come up with a stinging investigation on the new House menu by The Politico (which gave us weeks of detailed coverage on John Edwards' haircut). It gives us comments from anonymous House staffers who've apparently forgotten that they can always bring their lunches from home, and also Jeff Ventura, the spokesman for the guy who runs the cafeteria and my newest hero, who gave former retail peons everywhere reason to cheer when he said this:

"We have had a few people observe that [straw] phenomenon and we had to tell them, 'Sip your coffee like a normal human being,'" Ventura said. "We're trying to save the planet here."

Right, just like those normal human beings who are smart enough to send back eggs when they're runny enough that they move around the plate.

Tim Walberg-- self-proclaimed environmentalist-- doesn't like the new biodegradable plates or the organic coffee. But that's okay. He wants his artificial coffee and styrofoam back, and that's his right.

But is it really a big deal? Is it worth complaining about on WJR, especially if you already have a pretty spotty record on environmental issues? Does it really matter all that much? If you were talking to Frank Beckmann on the radio, and he asked you about your cafeteria, would you launch into a long diatribe about it? Or would you stick with the things that really mattered?

Besides, you'd think Walberg would be nicer to the organic coffee, considering an organic farmer with no money almost beat him in 2006.

Labels: Environment, Iraq, Tim Walberg

From the Battle Creek Enquirer:

With wrapped boxes in hand, nine people walked up the stairs in the Commerce Pointe building to U.S. Rep. Tim Walberg's Battle Creek office on Wednesday.

Chris Simmons, field representative for the Tipton Republican, greeted the group who handed him the six empty packages.

"These gifts are like Congressman Walberg's promises," said Dale Bennett, speaking on behalf of the group. "They're beautiful and they're empty."

Bennett, a member of the Joint-religious Organizing Network for Action and Hope (JONAH) Clergy Caucus, was accompanied by five other members of the caucus, three members of the Kalamazoo-based Michigan Citizen Action and a representative of the national environmental organization Clean Water Action.

Erin Knott, Michigan Citizen Action assistant director, said the empty boxes represented Walberg's support for critical domestic priorities, including education, children's health care and veterans' benefits.

(Emphasis added.)

Beautiful and empty. Honestly, I wish I had thought of that. If you've ever heard Congressman Walberg speak, his rhetoric sounds great, but means nothing. Beautiful and empty.

Walberg's website reads:

The Great Lakes are a treasure essential to both Michigan and the entire nation.

Beautiful, isn't it? But how does he really feel?

“I don’t know how many of you realize that here in this state in the United States, we do not allow even the slant directional drilling under the Great Lakes... Our environmental lobby has done so well in lobbying efforts from keeping us from doing that, that we don’t drill in ANWR, we don’t drill under the Great Lakes... I don’t understand that.”

On Iraq, Walberg says:

Without a doubt, mistakes have been made in Iraq, and these mistakes are important to acknowledge, but we must go forward with a new strategy in Iraq based on quantifiable goals and measurable results.

That sounds pretty good to me. "A new strategy," with "quantifiable goals and measurable results" is a reasonable policy. But when Congress considers legislation that

Directs the President, by January 1, 2008, to transmit to the congressional defense, appropriations, and foreign relations committees a comprehensive U.S. strategy for Iraq. Requires the President to update such strategy no later than July 1, 2008, and every 90 days thereafter, including a description of the number of Armed Forces deployed to Iraq and the missions for which they are so deployed.

Tim Walberg votes No. A beautiful promise, but, apparently, empty.

For that matter, Congressman Walberg promised $500,000 for W.K. Kellogg Airport, which was a particularly beautiful promise. We weren't supposed to notice that it was an empty promise, as he went ahead and voted No on that funding.

When given these symbolic gifts, what was Congressman Walberg's response?

Walberg was in Washington, D.C., on Wednesday when the gifts were delivered, but he responded via e-mail, saying excessive government spending and tax increases have delivered a recession and job losses for Michigan families.

"I voted for the largest increase for veterans care in American history, while consistently working to eliminate wasteful spending to balance the budget and prevent more tax increases on struggling Michigan families and small businesses," he said.

Matt Lahr, Walberg's press secretary, said the congressman was expected to vote in favor of State Children's Health Insurance Program legislation approved Tuesday by the U.S. Senate that extends the program into 2009 without the $35 million expansion sought by Democrats.

Lahr said Walberg also supported reasonable education initiatives such as the College Opportunity and Affordability Act of 2007.

Yep. More empty promises.

Labels: 110th Congress, Constituent Services, Great Lakes, Iraq, Issues, Tim Walberg

I don't know about any of you, but I did attend one of Congressman Tim's visits to the district this summer, and I wonder if he was really there?
In his "Weekly Wrap up" of Friday, August 31, he takes on the "hot button" issues he faced from his constituents...Taxes, Education, The Second Amendment (?), and Health Care.
What's missing from this list?
Only the major topic of the visit I attended, Iraq and the War!
Of the hour we spent with Tim, the war, terrorism, war funding, and the like took up most of the time. The other major topic was the farm bill.
You think he didn't add it to the list, because he continues to fully support President Bush's policy?

Labels: Constituent Services, Iraq, Tim Walberg

I'm resposting this past Sunday's post at To Play the King to remind us all of who we're up against.

Tim Walberg stands side by side with President Bush on almost every issue and couldn't be more proud to do so. This rubber stamping is never more evident than when it comes to the War in Iraq.

To trust Tim Walberg to exercise good judgment on the Iraq war is folly. While he claims to supports the war, he clearly does not support the troops fighting in this conflict.

Case in point: U.S. military leadership has been unambiguously clear about the danger of the armed forces reaching a critical breaking point. Troops are stretched dangerously thin and many are serving their third tour in the combat zone. Furthermore, we are finding more and more veterans affected by PTSD when they come home and are not receiving adequate treatment in the short time before being redeployed.

H.R. 3159, as passed by the House on August 2, would allow our troops a longer break between tours of duty. The legislation would "mandate minimum periods of rest and recuperation for units and members of the regular and reserve components of the Armed Forces between deployments for Operation Iraqi Freedom or Operation Enduring Freedom."

Walberg voted NO on this legislation. It is safe to assume that while the 7th District's congressman is in favor of The War, he is opposed to giving our troops the time they need to mentally and physically recover from the rigors of combat. He is opposed to legislation that would guarantee that our troops have time with their families to reconnect and make sure their family lives are in order. He is opposed to legislation that would give children and spouses time to reconnect with a parent who serves this fine country overseas.

This cavalier attitude toward national security is a disgusting and unforgivable betrayal of our men and women in uniform. He ought to ask what kind of family values deny troops a guaranteed amount of time with their loved ones before packing up their Kevlar and heading back into the combat zone. I would challenge Walberg to ask any veteran or active service member if they would object to a break before returning to war. Ask any of them if it would be of benefit to them personally – and to our military -- to have this time? Ask them if this break would make them more effective in the field upon their return? I doubt there would be any NO votes on that question.

Tim, it's a break, pal. You weren't ending their service in the military or heaven forbid ending the war. The bill was just giving the troops a little breather. But then again, I guess someone who has never been shot at and only poses with guns wouldn't understand why someone in combat might need a designated break before heading back in.

Below is a brief summary of the bill passed in the House despite Republican Tim Walberg's opposition.

Roll Call Vote 796. H R 3159 RECORDED VOTE 2-Aug-2007 1:53 PM

Explanation (from Library of Congress):

Prohibits units and members of the regular Armed Forces from being deployed for Operations Iraqi Freedom or Enduring Freedom (including participation in the NATO International Security Assistance Force ( Afghanistan)) unless the period between deployments is equal to or longer than the period of the previous deployment. Expresses the sense of Congress that the optimal minimum period between such deployments should be equal to or longer than twice the period of the previous deployment.

Prohibits units and members of the reserves from being deployed for such Operations (including such NATO participation) if the unit or member has been deployed within three preceding years. Expresses the sense of Congress that units and members of the reserves should not be mobilized continuously for more than one year, and that the optimal minimum period between such deployments should be five years.

Authorizes the: (1) President to waive such limitations after certifying to Congress that the deployment is necessary to meet an operational emergency posing a threat to vital national security interests; or (2) chief of staff of the military department concerned (including the Coast Guard) to waive such limitations with respect to a member who has voluntarily requested mobilization.

Labels: 110th Congress, Iraq, Issues, Tim Walberg, Walberg Voting Record

Congressman Tim Walberg has been a vocal supporter of President Bush's failed strategy in Iraq, and his views of Iraq have gotten him in trouble from time to time.

I certainly hope that everyone is aware of the human cost of the war in Iraq-- 3,699 American soldiers killed as of today-- but there are other resources that have been wasted on the endeavor as well. What could we have achieved if we had focused those resources on more constructive projects?

The National Priorities Project issued a report answering that question, with a breakdown by state and congressional district. Here are the numbers:

The war in Iraq has cost Michigan's 7th Congressional District $804.85 million. How else could that money have been spent?

From just this district, 137,528 children could have been provided with health care for the entire length of the war.

Or, 6,488 affordable housing units could have been built.

Or, 72 elementary schools could have been built.

But remember, as James Carr has pointed out in the recall effort, the funds that have been spent on this war were not supported by actual tax dollars-- it's borrowed money, placed on the "national credit card." We'll be paying this off for decades to come, and yet we won't have those elementary schools or housing units. Instead, we have a crippled country in a volatile region of the world.

Tim Walberg would never dream of voting to fund children's health care or affordable housing or building schools. He's an anti-tax advocate and fiscal conservative. And yet, here he is, proudly standing with President Bush and voting to continue the war.

Labels: Iraq, Issues, Tim Walberg

The effort to recall Congressman Tim Walberg continues with the launch of RecallWalberg.com. From the website:

Welcome to the Recall Tim Walberg web page! Recall efforts began in July 2007 after close examination of Representative Walberg’s voting record and comments regarding the war in Iraq including his continued behavior of ignoring the voice of many people in the Michigan 7th Congressional District. Representative Walberg unconditionally supports the war in Iraq while refusing to pass a tax to pay for it. He has contributed to the deficit by his vote in favor of the war, which in turn directly contributes to the economic burden Michigan residents continue to experience each day.

Since March 20. 2003, our nation has spent and continues to spend an amount in excess of $451 billion dollars, none of which has been funded by taxes. The use of the nation's credit to fund this expense transfers this burden to future taxpayers, many of whom have not reached the legal voting age. The children and families of the 7th district deserve better representation.

The website includes contact information if you'd like to join the effort or give your feedback.

Labels: Iraq, National Debt, Recall, Tim Walberg

In today's issue of the Adrian Daily Telegram, there's a front-page article about the recall petition filed against Congressman Tim Walberg. It's not available online yet (I'll post a link when it is), but here are some excerpts.

James R. Carr filed recall petition language against the freshman congressman shortly after he became eligible on July 4, six months after he took office. He composed language that he said gives reasons for both liberals and conservatives to eject Walberg from office. It states Walberg voted to continue U.S. military involvement in Iraq and relies on borrowing money and passing on the debt to future taxpayers.

[...]

Carr proposed the following statement that would appear on petitions: "Congressman Walberg has voted for the continuation and funding of the current conflict in Iraq without providing sufficient funds, thereby necessitating the borrowing of money by the federal treasury, thus increasing the federal debt on the current and future taxpayers of this country."

[...]

It would be an enormous task to collect enough signatures in the seven-county congressional district that Walberg represents, agreed Carr. He is counting on a flood of angry voters to make it happen.

Volunteers from both parties will join a recall effort, he said, "if the mood of the district is as I perceive it, and as I've been told it is by Democrats and Republicans."

[Clerk Lou Ann] Bluntschly said Secretary of State officials will have to calculate how many signatures are needed to force a recall election. State law requires a number of signatures equal to 25 percent of the votes cast for all candidates for governor in the last election. The 7th District takes in all of Lenawee, Hillsdale, Branch, Jackson and Eaton counties and portions of Washtenaw and Calhoun counties.

There's a lot more in the article than that, but those are the important details. I haven't made up my mind on a recall yet, but it'll be interesting to see what happens.

There's a hearing on the clarity of the language which will be held July 23rd at 1:30 PM in the Probate Courtroom of the Judicial Building in Adrian.

UPDATE: The Telegram now has the story available online here.

Labels: Iraq, National Debt, Recall, Tim Walberg

Here's what Congressman Tim Walberg says about Iraq on his official House website:

I cannot support any resolution that says America has already lost and the leaders of our country no longer believe our troops can come home victoriously. It tells other nations that we are an unreliable ally, and they can no longer count on us in times of distress.

Without a doubt, mistakes have been made in Iraq, and these mistakes are important to acknowledge, but we must go forward with a new strategy in Iraq based on quantifiable goals and measurable results.

"Quantifiable goals and measurable results." Sounds pretty good, right? Congress asked the White House for a report on 18 benchmarks to be submitted no later than July 15, 2007, and that report is available here. What's the result?

According to the Bush Administration, "satisfactory progress" has been made in only eight of the 18 areas. Mind you, this is coming from the people whose political capital is entirely invested in making progress in Iraq. Even they admit that the current strategy is failing.

Increasingly, members of President Bush's own party are abandoning that failed strategy. If those "quantifiable goals" aren't being met, it's time for a change.

Yet Congressman Tim Walberg voted against that change today, voting No on the Responsible Redeployment From Iraq Act. It passed, 223 to 201.

Here's the summary of the bill:

Responsible Redeployment from Iraq Act - Expresses the sense of Congress that: (1) the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 authorized the President to use the Armed Forces as appropriate to defend U.S. national security against the continuing threat posed by the government of Iraq at the time; (2) the government of Iraq which was in power at that time has been removed; (3) the current Iraqi government does not pose a threat to the United States; and (4) after more than four years of efforts by members of the Armed Forces and U.S. civilians, the government of Iraq must now be responsible for Iraq's future course.

Directs the Secretary of Defense to commence the reduction of the number of Armed Forces in Iraq beginning no later than 120 days after the enactment of this Act and complete the reduction and transition to a limited presence in Iraq by no later than April 1, 2008

Directs the President, by January 1, 2008, to transmit to the congressional defense, appropriations, and foreign relations committees a comprehensive U.S. strategy for Iraq. Requires the President to update such strategy no later than July 1, 2008, and every 90 days thereafter, including a description of the number of Armed Forces deployed to Iraq and the missions for which they are so deployed.

But Tim Walberg voted No on bringing the troops home. Walberg voted to continue on a path of failure, signaling that he sees nothing wrong with the 608 American soldiers that have died and 3,801 soldiers that have been wounded so far this year. After all, Iraq isn't any worse than Detroit!

Meanwhile, here's the progress report for the "War on Terror" since we've been in Iraq:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Al Qaeda is the strongest it has been since the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, a new U.S. government analysis concludes, according to a senior government official who has seen it.

Despite a campaign of military action and counterterrorism operations, al Qaeda has regained its strength and found safe haven in the tribal areas of Pakistan, the report says, according to counterterrorism officials familiar with the report.

Contact Congressman Tim Walberg.

Write a letter to the editor.

Let's end this terrible war.

Labels: 110th Congress, Iraq, Issues, Tim Walberg, Walberg Voting Record

I'm generally a fan of most foods, but desserts have a special place in my heart. So I couldn't help but be jealous of Congressman Tim Walberg when I read this:

Two local congressmen are among those targeted by a nationwide peace group to receive "peace pies'' for Mother's Day this year.

Reps. Mike Rogers, R-Brighton, and Tim Walberg, R-Tipton, are among the 150 representatives and senators from 38 states slated to receive peace pies from mothers participating in a national demonstration supporting a U.S. Department of Peace.

The homemade pies will be delivered to congressional offices this weekend with a slice missing to show how little impact the estimated $8 billion needed to create the department will have on the federal budget, organizers said.

So why do Rogers and Walberg get pies? Well, apparently getting a "peace pie" isn't something you should be proud of.

Both Rogers and Walberg are on the list because of their staunch support for the war in Iraq and military defense initiatives, said Patty Kuderer, communications director for the Peace Alliance, the nationwide nonprofit organization pushing legislation to establish a national department of peace. Kuderer said.

"The approach we have toward violence and conflict is not working and we're calling on moms, and all people really, to stand up proactively,'' she said.

Tim Walberg gets a pie because he supports violent policies. I've got to say, I really like the idea of using pastries for political symbolism.

For more information on the Peace Alliance, you can visit their website here. The "Peace of Pie 2007" page is here.

Happy Mother's Day, everyone!

Labels: Department of Peace, Iraq, Mother's Day, Peace Alliance, Tim Walberg

When the House passed a supplemental spending bill for military operations in Iraq, it included a proposed timetable for withdrawal of American troops. After reconciling the bill with the version the United States Senate passed, it was voted on again. This new version passed, 218-208.

As was expected, Congressman Walberg voted No, opposing any effort to end the war in Iraq.

... Ah geez. This is my last post for tonight. I think I've caught up with where things are at for the most part, but now I'm kind of tired.

Feel free to comment on Iraq and Congressman Walberg. I'm going to go and relax. Too much blogging for one day.

Labels: 110th Congress, Iraq, Issues, Tim Walberg, Walberg Voting Record

An e-mail from the MDP:

Thank you to the hundreds of people who signed the petition last week telling Republican Congressman Tim Walberg to stop rubberstamping Bush's failed Iraq War policies. With your help, we can make it thousands.

Tell your friends to sign the petition.

If you haven't signed the petition, please sign it now. The more people that sign the petition, the more powerful it becomes. Walberg already knows he is in for a tough election in 2008. He does not want any more focus on his support for the very unpopular Iraq War.

Sign our petition and help put the pressure on Walberg to stop his rubberstamping of Bush's failed Iraq polices.

Last Friday President Bush came to Michigan to continue to promote his failed Iraq war strategy. Bush is no longer calling for 21,000 more troops, he is now calling for 30,000 more troops. How many more troops will he call for tomorrow? We must tell Walberg to stop supporting the escalation of the war. Enough is enough.

We need to spread the word that Walberg's support for escalation must stop.

Jason Moon

Communications Director, Michigan Democratic Party

Click here for the Michigan Democratic Party's page devoted to Congressman Tim Walberg.

Labels: Democratic Party, Iraq, Tim Walberg

You know it's a big story when Stephen Colbert mocks you on Comedy Central's Colbert Report...



Seriously, though, I really am getting tired of writing about Congressman Walberg's stupid comments on Iraq. It's embarassing enough to think that our elected representative would say something like that, and that this is how the rest of the country gets introduced to south-central Michigan.

But this one incident is sadly representative of the kind of politician Tim Walberg is. He's not interested in what's best for his constituents, or what they want, he's interested in spreading the failed policies of the White House, the Club for Growth, and the extreme right-wing of the Republican Party. He's not interested in the facts about Iraq; instead, he's committed to following the failed policies of a failing leader.

Labels: Colbert Report, Iraq, Issues, Tim Walberg

Port Huron may not be in the 7th District, but the Port Huron Times Herald got it absolutely right today in this editorial. It's refreshing to know that other people recognize how wrong Congressman Walberg was... I was starting to wonder after an editorial and letters to the editor in support of his comments appeared in Adrian's Daily Telegram (Tim Walberg's hometown paper, and mine as well).

Here are a couple excellent excerpts from the Times Herald editorial:

Congressman wrong on war and on Detroit

Walberg peddles false hope even as violence gets worse

Good news, America! The war is going well. Most of Iraq is peaceful and serene. Places such as Kirkuk and Basra are no more dangerous than Hamtramck or Highland Park. Outside of a few bad neighborhoods such as Sadr City and Fallujah, things are peachy keen.

What? You can't believe it?

You're in good company, then, because no one else quite believes it either - excluding, of course, the truest of the true believers in President Bush's bungled foreign policy. You know the kind. If the president said the Earth is square, they'd have the measurement to prove it.

No one is a truer believer than Tim Walberg, a freshman congressman from Lenawee County in southern Michigan.

and

Then there's another point: Walberg is wrong. Flat wrong.

Iraq is not like Chicago. It is not like Detroit.

In the four years since the war began, 1,576 people have died violently in Detroit. About the same number have died in Iraq thus far this month.

Detroit is measurably less violent than it was a decade ago. The opposite is true in Iraq, where the number of civilian deaths and bombing attacks have risen sharply in the past year. By summer, the number of U.S. troops in Iraq will exceed the size of the original invasion force in 2003.

It is worrisome that a member of Congress, even a novice member, could be so out of touch with reality. It raises a question: Was Walberg merely shilling for the president and peddling false hope about a war gone wrong, or is he really this dense?

That's the key question.

Do you really want Walberg representing you in Washington in two years?

Donate to ActBlue's General Election Fund for MI-07, which will be contributed to the eventual Democratic nominee next year.

Labels: Iraq, Issues, Tim Walberg

Ah, more on Congressman Walberg's poorly-chosen words regarding Iraq and Detroit. Remember, folks, this is the story that defines the rest of the country's perception of our district.

Just to recap, this is what he said:

Walberg: "In talking with people who have been on the ground over
there (Iraq) and have returned in just recent days, as I will talk
coming up Wednesday when I'm over at Walter Reed Hospital again
talking to our troops as well as some of the officers who have
returned, they indicate to me that 80 to 85% in a conservative
fashion, of the country is reasonably under control at least as well
as Detroit or Chicago or any of our other big cites. That's an
encouraging sign."

Radio Host: "I've never heard Iraq compared to Detroit before."

Walberg: "Well in fact in many places it's as safe and cared for as
Detroit or Harvey, Illinois or some other places that have trouble
with armed violence that takes place on occasion."

On the one hand, this is just a sign of how incredibly out-of-touch Walberg is with the actual state of affairs in Iraq and with the wishes of the American people. That in and of itself is worth discussing.

But then there's this whole other dimension to it. Why did he pick Detroit, Chicago, and then Harvey, Illinois? Here's what the mayor of Harvey, Illinois had to say:

Harvey Mayor Eric J. Kellogg said in a statement that Walberg's comments take "racial profiling and stereotyping to extreme levels.

"Even though our country appears to have accomplish(ed) great gains in racial harmony, we still have members of Congress who suffer from the highest levels of ignorance and stupidity."

So was it a hint of racial bias shining through? Mayor Kellogg isn't the only one to have that thought. A couple people sent me links to this:

Whitest Man in America Compares Detroit to Iraq

Congressman Tim Walberg (R-MI), perhaps the whitest person I've ever seen, is taking heat for comparing Iraq and Detroit on a Michigan radio station. The Republican congressman representing rural southern Michigan said that most of Iraq "is reasonably under control, at least as well as Detroit."

... And it continues from there.

At the Lincoln Day dinner for the Jackson County Republicans (where, incidentally, Walberg was introducing none other than Karl Rove, President Bush's top political strategist), Walberg took a moment to defend himself. Reporter Susan Demas (apparently at the Battle Creek Enquirer now, after working with the Jackson Citizen Patriot previously) brings us this:

JACKSON — After winning kudos from Rush Limbaugh and appearing on Fox News Channel this week, U.S. Rep. Tim Walberg said Saturday the firestorm over his comments comparing Iraq to Detroit is “overblown.”

I'm just going to interject that, if I were a politician that in any way hoped to appeal to moderate voters, I wouldn't want Rush Limbaugh to praise me for anything. Really.

“No apology is necessary,” Walberg said at the Jackson County GOP Lincoln Day Dinner. “I have no reason to.”

[...]

“There was nothing racist about it,” Walberg said. “I meant it as a compliment to people in Detroit and Chicago. Aren’t there white people in Chicago? Aren’t there white people in Detroit?”

According to the 2003 U.S. Census, 12 percent of Detroit residents are white, 82 percent are black and 5 percent are Hispanic. In the Chicago suburb of Harvey, whites make up 10 percent, blacks are 80 percent and Hispanics are 13 percent.

Political analysts have said Walberg’s remarks could hurt his 2008 election fundraising, something the congressman shrugs off.

“Our goal is to make a real strong showing in the first quarter, so people like Joe Schwarz back off,” Walberg said after Rove’s remarks.

Walberg defeated the incumbent Schwarz in the 2006 GOP primary. Schwarz, R-Battle Creek, has said he’ll decide whether to run again this summer.

And that's his defense. There are white people there, too, and he's gonna raise a lot of money.

Hm.

I'm not going to try to speculate on the racial side of this. I will, however, say that it's really terrible timing on his part to say all this the same week that he voted against a bill to help low-income (and often African American) victims of Hurricane Katrina. It just sort of sends the wrong message.

This is also the wrong thing to say:

“No apology is necessary,” Walberg said at the Jackson County GOP Lincoln Day Dinner. “I have no reason to.”

So I pose a few questions to you, the residents of the 7th District and readers of the blog:

1. Does Tim Walberg owe anyone an apology? If yes, to whom?
2. Do you think his comments were racially inspired?
3. Will his strategy of raising a lot of money in the first quarter scare off any serious challengers?
4. He mentions Joe Schwarz by name, and seems to be more worried about a primary challenge. How little respect does he have for Democrats in this district?

Share your thoughts in the comments.

UPDATE: I forgot to mention this comment from the Enquirer story, by a user named bccurmudgeon:

I honestly can't remember a time before when I was in agreement with Carolyn Kilpatrick, but this is it.

Note that Walberg's chief concern as expressed in this article seems to be that he raises a lot of money to make his political opponents back off. He doesn't think he should apologize for insulting the largest city in the state he "represents" or for demonstrating his breathtaking ignorance of foreign affairs, statesmanship, or simple common sense.

This man is narrow, untutored, and in thrall to personal ambition.

Labels: Iraq, Issues, Race Relations, Tim Walberg

I've refrained from commenting on my own thoughts on Congressman Walberg's latest media gaffe. It's gotten him national attention, which is what every politician is constantly looking for, but somehow, I don't think even the whole-hearted support of Rush Limbaugh will help him turn this into a positive. Honestly, for a politician as experienced as Tim Walberg, it seemed politically tone-deaf.

Surely he knew, as soon as the radio host said, "I've never heard Iraq compared to Detroit before," that he would get some negative attention from this. He must have known that comparing the largest city in Michigan to a warzone-- regardless of his intent-- would send the wrong message.

But afterwards, he didn't say, "Yeah, it was a dumb comparison, an entire Middle Eastern nation experiencing significant violence can never be compared to Detroit or any other single city. It's a complex situation, and there are a lot of factors at play, we're watching something totally new and unpredictable unfold and, while I'm optimistic about the future, I recognize that there are serious issues. Similarly, I recognize the hard work of people in Detroit and elsewhere in confronting their problems with crime, and applaud their efforts to change the perception that the city is a blemish on our state. Above all, I'm sorry for having said something dumb."

That's what he should have said. But he didn't.

Instead, he has defended his comments, reasserting that 80 to 85 percent of Iraq is comparable to life in Detroit. (For those interested, listen to his interview with WJR, where he made many of the same points.) If anything, this shows a disgusting lack of respect for the opinions of others.

All right, Congressman Walberg. If you're going to stand by your words, so be it. Let's talk about this.

Just for a reminder, here's what he said:

Walberg: "In talking with people who have been on the ground over
there (Iraq) and have returned in just recent days, as I will talk
coming up Wednesday when I'm over at Walter Reed Hospital again
talking to our troops as well as some of the officers who have
returned, they indicate to me that 80 to 85% in a conservative
fashion, of the country is reasonably under control at least as well
as Detroit or Chicago or any of our other big cites. That's an
encouraging sign."

Radio Host: "I've never heard Iraq compared to Detroit before."

Walberg: "Well in fact in many places it's as safe and cared for as
Detroit or Harvey, Illinois or some other places that have trouble
with armed violence that takes place on occasion."

"Reasonably under control" is what he says. What is "reasonably under control"?

Is somewhere between 59,408 and 65,246 civilian deaths as a result of military action "under control"? Is 654,965 Iraqi deaths (according to the Lancet survey) "under control"?

Is 3,234 American servicemembers killed "under control"?

Is a place that requires 180,000 US troops really "under control"?

When the capital and largest city of a country (though, perhaps not part of Walberg's 85 percent) had an average of only 2.4 hours of electricity each day in October 2006, is it really "under control"?

When the Secretary-General of the United Nations is interrupted by a rocket attack during a press conference, is that "under control"? And how often does that happen in Detroit?

When thousands of Iraqis who helped the United States early in the war are begging for a chance to come to America, because they're afraid they'll be killed if they stay in Iraq, is it really "under control"?

When two million Iraqis have already fled their country to neighboring countries, and another 1.8 million have left their homes and sought safer places in Iraq, is it "under control"?

And what is this 80 to 85 percent Walberg speaks of? From listening to him, one might think that the violence is entirely concentrated in Baghdad and a few other trouble spots. But, while Baghdad sees considerable violence, bombings and attacks are present throughout the country. Is that "under control"?

And what if it all were limited to, say, Baghdad, the destination of troops in President Bush's escalation. Is it okay to exclude Baghdad as part of that 15 percent that isn't as safe as Detroit? The Baghdad metropolitan area has 8 million residents, which is roughly 30 percent of the country's 26.7 million population. A city of that relative size in the United States would have a metro area with 90 million people (based on a rough estimate of 300 million total). In case you're curious, 2005 estimates of the populations of the top ten metropolitan areas in the United States (including Detroit-Warren-Flint at #9) added together totals only a bit more than 87 million.

So is it okay to exclude hot-spots like Baghdad, and say everywhere else is "under control"?

Look, Congressman Walberg, we get it. You support the war, you support President Bush, and you think that people like me are hoping for defeat because we hate freedom and love the terrorists or whatever. That's fine, you're entitled to your opinion.

And if you want to compare the conditions in a complicated country to a couple of American cities, go right ahead, and look foolish. (Though, I've got to say, picking cities with high African American populations and suggesting that their crime rate is comparable to Iraq isn't the way to reach out to African American voters.)

But calling Iraq-- any part of it-- "under control" on a level comparable to any city in America is a sign of how out-of-touch you really are.

Oh, and on another note, he says repeatedly that he's simply relaying a message from the troops he has spoken with. For all I know, that may be true. But don't think that all Iraq veterans are supportive of Walberg's position regarding Iraq (here, for instance, or here).

(By the way, Tim Walberg's hometown paper-- and mine-- the Adrian Daily Telegram got it wrong in today's editorial when they defended Walberg. Sad.)

That's my rant for today. Now that you've gotten through it, would you consider contributing to ActBlue's MI-07 General Election Fund? All money donated goes toward the eventual Democratic nominee.

Labels: Iraq, Issues, Tim Walberg

Today, the US House of Representatives voted on passage of HR 1591, titled the "U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Health, and Iraq Accountability Act, 2007". Kind of lengthy, eh? It describes itself simply as a bill "Making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes."

However, most media outlets will describe it like this:

The House of Representatives on Friday voted 218-212 to approve an emergency $124 billion supplemental war spending bill that includes a firm deadline -- August 31, 2008 -- for combat troops to leave Iraq.

That's the key bit right there. There's been plenty of discussion of whether the bill is tough enough, or whether it's too tough, or any number of other viewpoints, but the significance is this: HR 1591 is the first spending bill for the war in Iraq that calls for an exit strategy and sets a target date.

The bill passed, 218-212. Only two Republicans voted with the Democratic majority, while 14 Democrats chose to oppose the bill.

Now, although Congressman Walberg claims most of Iraq is as safe as America's major cities, he doesn't seem to think it's safe enough to bring the troops home in a year and a half. He voted No, as did the rest of Michigan's Republican representatives.

Labels: Iraq, Issues, Tim Walberg, Walberg Voting Record

Just a little update on the Walberg V. Detroit comment, Walberg's thoughtless comment made it to national news yesterday on the The Situation Room's Cafferty File. After Cafferty made his report Wolfe said something to the affect that 'I don't know of any IED's going off in major American cities.' (Sorry that is a paraphrase I'm not sure of his exact wording) Below are some of the comments people emailed in to the show. None of the Comments posted to the Cafferty File site were from Michigan or Illinois.

Since Bagdad is as safe as Detroit, the American troops should come home immediately. If we don't need an army in Detroit, we don't need one in Baghdad.
-Patricia, Florida

I'm curious, Jack. How many body bags do they use in Detroit and Chicago every night? How many innocent people are kidnapped and killed? How many bombs explode? How many soldiers are killed or wounded? This congressman needs to get his head out of his... out of the sand. -Al, Kansas

So since nearly all of Iraq is as safe as Chicago or Detroit, I'm sure he'd heartily agree with me and others who say that our military need not be there. But honestly, how can someone forget the tiny fact that Detroit and Chicago are not in the midst of religiously motivated civil wars? -Andrew, Texas

Fox “news” has also chimed in on this mess. Brit Hume started out his Political Grapevine Segment by stating:

There are some things you just can't say in America these days. Michigan Republican Congressman Tim Walberg said in a radio interview that American soldiers returning from Iraq have told him that most of the country is calm.

Sigh. Oh, and the title of this Grapevine; Feelings Get Hurt Over Political Correctness
Here are the links to both the Cafferty File and Brit Hume coverage
Cafferty File
Brit Hume

Way to make a name for yourself Mr. Walberg.

Labels: Iraq, Issues, Tim Walberg

Thanks Tim for bringing attention to the 7th District. It is nice to see that you do not run from your comments. This from the Battle Creek Enquirer today,

Walberg has not apologized, and has, in fact, expanded on his statement Thursday.

Look at all the sites that have picked up on this story. Democrats understand what Walberg is all about and it goes to show how far Republicans will go. I am amazed how many defend Tim.

DCCC
Michigan Democratic Party
explorefortruth.blogspot.com
undeniableliberalism.blogspot.com
suntimes.com
murdoconline.net
madbookseller.blogspot.com
boomantribune.com
15seats.blogspot.com
badmack.blogspot.com
spbiloxi.blogspot.com
blog.case.edu
snapnotion.com
theflatlandalmanack
myspace.com
uncooperativeblogger.blogspot.com
americablog.blogspot.com
2valuable.blogspot.com

Labels: Iraq, Tim Walberg

Just in case you were wondering how the war in Iraq was going, Tim Walberg informs us that the country is, basically, the same as Detroit.

I got this in an e-mail today from an attentive listener:

Yesterday, Tim Walberg on WILS radio said the following:

Walberg: "In talking with people who have been on the ground over
there (Iraq) and have returned in just recent days, as I will talk
coming up Wednesday when I'm over at Walter Reed Hospital again
talking to our troops as well as some of the officers who have
returned, they indicate to me that 80 to 85% in a conservative
fashion, of the country is reasonably under control at least as well
as Detroit or Chicago or any of our other big cites. That's an
encouraging sign."

Radio Host: "I've never heard Iraq compared to Detroit before."

Walberg: "Well in fact in many places it's as safe and cared for as
Detroit or Harvey, Illinois or some other places that have trouble
with armed violence that takes place on occasion."

Honestly, I don't know what to say to that.

UPDATE - 21 March, 5:28 PM: The Michigan Democratic Party has the audio here. The comments got some coverage in the Battle Creek Enquirer as well, with part of MDP Chairman Mark Brewer's statement:

State Party Chair Mark Brewer today demanded Walberg apologize for saying most of Iraq is as safe as Detroit. Walberg made the comments on a Lansing radio show Monday, Brewer said in a press release.

“Tim Walberg continues to embarrass and misrepresent the people in his district. He needs to immediately apologize to them, the city of Detroit and people across Michigan,” Brewer said.

“To compare our largest city to Iraq, a country currently in the middle of a bloody civil war where thousands of our troops and tens of thousands of civilians have been killed, many by beheading and torture, is unconscionable.

“His comments and rubber stamp approval of President Bush’s polices, including the plans for massive troop escalation, are out-of-touch with Michigan voters and what is needed to resolve this conflict.”

Labels: Iraq, Issues, Tim Walberg

I went to Tim Walberg's official web site to see what was on his mind. I was wondering what he had to say about Iraq. So, I went to his issues page. I was surprised that Iraq was not listed. Then I saw the last link, WAR ON TERROR. Sure enough that is where he talks about Iraq, well kind of.

As Americans we are reluctant warriors, but throughout our rich history, whenever our troops have been in harm’s way, America has supported the men and women in uniform and made certain our troops have the necessary resources to accomplish their mission.

My wife and I pray for all men and women in uniform, and grieve for the loss of lives and injuries inflicted on these heroes who proudly serve our nation. I, as much as anyone else, want this war to be over.

I cannot support any resolution that says America has already lost and the leaders of our country no longer believe our troops can come home victoriously. It tells other nations that we are an unreliable ally, and they can no longer count on us in times of distress.

Without a doubt, mistakes have been made in Iraq, and these mistakes are important to acknowledge, but we must go forward with a new strategy in Iraq based on quantifiable goals and measurable results.

Congressman Walberg must be praying to the Republican spin doctors. This is now my number 1 reason Walberg must not be reelected in 2008. Anyone who still attempts to tell us that Iraq = War on Terror must think we are all stupid.

Labels: Iraq, Tim Walberg

Today, the United States House of Representatives sent a clear message to President George W. Bush, expressing their disapproval of his plan to escalate the war in Iraq. Voting 246-182, the House passed H. Con. Res. 63. It will now proceed to the Senate.

As was expected, Tim Walberg voted No on the resolution.

H. Con. Res. 63 reads as follows:

Disapproving of the decision of the President announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq.

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That--

(1) Congress and the American people will continue to support and protect the members of the United States Armed Forces who are serving or who have served bravely and honorably in Iraq; and

(2) Congress disapproves of the decision of President George W. Bush announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq.

Although non-binding, it serves as the first step toward action in preventing an increase in troop levels in Iraq and preventing further loss of life in Iraq. Two Democrats voted against the resolution, while 17 Republicans crossed the aisle and supported an effort to change the course in Iraq and avoid a disastrous escalation. Among them was Michigan Republican Fred Upton (MI-06).

Representatives were allowed five minutes each to state their position on the resolution and advocate a position. These five-minute speeches varied from well-reasoned thoughts on the war to ridiculous statements and assertions-- notably, Congressman Don Young (AK-At large), who called for all those supporting the resolution to be "arrested, exiled, or hanged." (Young claimed to be quoting President Abraham Lincoln; however, Lincoln never said anything like that.)

While not as ridiculous, Congressman Walberg's speech on the subject was equally insulting to those of us that wish to honestly, openly debate President Bush's escalation. Rather than argue about the merits of the plan, this is the best Walberg could offer:

“I rise today to honor America’s brave men and women currently serving in the name of freedom and oppose this resolution of retreat.

(Emphasis added.)

The resolution does nothing to advocate retreat-- indeed, it states support for "America's brave men and women" and only disapproves of President Bush. To misrepresent it is foolish.

Congressman Walberg has demonstrated today that good government is not his goal, and that he does not believe oversight should be exercised over the executive branch and its failed policies. Instead, he embraces the insulting politics of deception, simply assuming his constituents are too simple-minded to read the resolution for themselves.

Walberg owes his constituents and the men and women in uniform an apology for misrepresenting the issue for political purposes.

Labels: 110th Congress, Iraq, Issues, Tim Walberg, Walberg Voting Record

Tim Walberg had his five minutes to respond to the President's plan for a troop surge in Iraq. His words are posted on the Battle Creek Enquirer's web site. I give them to you in full.

“I rise today to honor America’s brave men and women currently serving in the name of freedom and oppose this resolution of retreat.

“As Abraham Lincoln said famously in his Second Inaugural Address, ‘Fervently do we pray — that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away.’

“As Americans we are reluctant warriors, but throughout our rich history, whenever our troops have been in harm’s way, America has supported the men and women in uniform and made certain our troops have the necessary resources to accomplish their mission.

“Without a doubt, mistakes have been made, and these mistakes are important to acknowledge, but we must go forward with a new strategy in Iraq based on quantifiable goals and measurable results. We must not retreat.

“At this critical time, the American people long for true leadership and resolve, and I urge my colleagues to put aside political posturing and partisanship and ensure our troops have the resources and support needed to complete their mission. Victory is the only option.”

I love this, "but we must go forward with a new strategy in Iraq based on quantifiable goals and measurable results. We must not retreat." What goals and results is he talking about? I can't keep track, they change all the time. New strategy? Sending 20,000 more troops is not a new strategy it is the same failed strategy just on a larger scale.

"the American people long for true leadership and resolve." Yes, we do Congressman Walberg. Unfortunately we are not getting it from you or the President. We are getting it from the Democrats in the House and Senators like our own Carl Levin.

Congressman thank you very much for this weak simple minded statement. This may be all we need to send you back to Tipton.

Labels: 110th Congress, Carl Levin, Iraq, Tim Walberg

The House is debating President Bush's plan to escalate the war in Iraq this week. Here's the Democratic resolution:

H. CON. RES. 63

Disapproving of the decision of the President announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq.

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That--

(1) Congress and the American people will continue to support and protect the members of the United States Armed Forces who are serving or who have served bravely and honorably in Iraq; and

(2) Congress disapproves of the decision of President George W. Bush announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq.

(Thanks to Nirmal at Capital Viewpoint)

As Congressman John Conyers (MI-14) notes, this resolution, thanks to the rules of the House, will put everyone on record as either supporting or opposing President Bush's plans for escalation. None of this criticizing-the-plan-then-blocking-a-vote stuff we've seen from the Senate.

Does the position this resolution takes have support? Yes, according to the latest polls (here and here, for example).

Will Congressman Tim Walberg support it? So far, no public statements have been made relating directly to this resolution. But here's what he said after President Bush's State of the Union message:

"I support the president's determination for victory and feel it is imperative we provide American men and women in combat with resources that will enable them to come home safe and victorious. The war on terrorism is the calling of our time, and we cannot shirk our obligation to protect our families and nation from the enemies of freedom."

And, while he wouldn't comment specifically on any resolutions, here's what he told The Hill:

Rep. Tim Walberg (R-Mich.) said he supports the president’s “determination for victory and [feels] it is imperative we provide American men and women in combat with resources that will enable them to come home safe and victorious.”

And here's what he said when he got the question, "Do you support a withdrawal from Iraq? If not, what future course do you see?" at the Siena Heights University debate last year:

- "We too easily forget 9/11" [Audience begins booing], "We too easily forget the bombing of the USS Cole"
- Terrorism still an important issue
- No cut and run, must stay in Iraq
- The Iraqi army is working

So, why isn't Walberg's position the best position for Iraq? Why shouldn't we just support President Bush's plans?

The new National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq starkly delineates the gulf that separates President Bush's illusions from the realities of the war. Victory, as the president sees it, requires a stable liberal democracy in Iraq that is pro-American. The NIE describes a war that has no chance of producing that result. In this critical respect, the NIE, the consensus judgment of all the U.S. intelligence agencies, is a declaration of defeat.

(Emphasis added.)

That's an op-ed in the Washington Post titled "Victory Is Not an Option" by Lt. Gen. William Odom, President Reagan's NSA Director. His is just the latest voice to speak against President Bush's-- and Congressman Walberg's-- plans for Iraq.

Contact Tim Walberg, and encourage him to vote for H. Con. Res. 63, and against the wasteful, terrible strategy that the White House is about to embrace.

Labels: 110th Congress, Iraq, Issues, Tim Walberg

The President addressed the nation last night and presented his new? plan for Iraq. 20,000 additional troops is crazy. Lets look at what our local politicians think of the plan.

In the Lansing State Journal, Tim Walberg says he agrees with the President.

Walberg said he favors the president's proposal because, "The majority of the people still want our United States forces to come home in victory."

What the heck does that mean? Yes, we want victory. I also want to win the lottery, but I don't sell off the home to buy tickets.

Senators Stabenow and Levin have it right.

Stabenow said Iraqi leaders won't take Bush's benchmarks seriously if at the same time, the United States sends more troops.

"The Iraqis need to step up and make the tough decisions necessary to govern their country," Stabenow said. "I am not convinced that escalating the number of troops will achieve that goal."

Sen. Carl Levin, D-Detroit, said he opposes any increase in troops.

"America supplying more troops while Iraqi leaders simply supply more promises is not a recipe for success in Iraq," he said.

Then in the Detroit News Walberg showed how out of touch he is.

Alone among the state's Republicans in offering unqualified support was newly elected Rep. Tim Walberg of Tipton. "I like the strength of commitment to victory," he said.

Even Joe Schwarz who was more than happy to campaign on the fact that he had voted with Bush 80 - 85% of the time realizes the President has no plan. The Battle Creek Enquirer has the story about the Congressman's talk in Albion yesterday.

He said a troop surge would only result in more American troops dying, and a gradual withdrawal was necessary.

It is interesting how far Schwarz is distancing himself from the Administration.

(Bush Sr.'s administration) didn't want to get into an urban warfare situation in Baghdad," said Schwarz, who sat on the House Armed Services Committee. "Well, what's happened? ... There appears to have been no real policy. If there's no real policy, there's no real strategy. And if there's no strategy, you just kind of float out there in the ether."

As I posted yesterday I attended this event. I had a chance to talk to Congressman Schwarz after his presentation. I asked him why he had not been more vocal of his opposition to the President's policy in Iraq while he served. Schwarz said to me that he was in person and maybe he should have more publicly. Schwarz also said that he disagreed with John McCain who has called for even greater troop numbers than the President. Remember that Schwarz was the head of McCain's Michigan campaign when he ran for President in 2000.

Labels: Iraq, Joe Schwarz, Tim Walberg

This will be a brief post. There should be more tomorrow in the Battle Creek Enquirer. Former Congressman Schwarz spoke in Albion this morning about his time in Washington. He spoke at great length about the situation in Iraq. Joe Schwarz was extremely critical of the Bush Administration's policy. Schwarz even said that there is no real policy.

As the President is about to announce a plan to increase our forces in Iraq, Joe Schwarz said that, "there is no future in Iraq militarily." He then stated his opinion that increasing forces by 20,000 will not make a difference.

I will be very interested to see what Andy Rathbun of the Enquirer writes about this.

Labels: Iraq, Joe Schwarz

President Bush is looking to increase troop strength in Iraq. Not sure where he got this idea. Does not seem to have much support. This from the Huffington Post,

"the No. 2 U.S. commander in Iraq conceded Sunday that a military "surge" escalation would not be enough to rescue Iraq"

The Republican Party seems to be fractured on what to do in Iraq. John McCain is on the same page as the president as both look to increase the number of troops in Iraq. Former General Wesley Clark thinks this is a mistake.

Without such fundamental change in Washington's approach, there is little hope that the troops surge, Iraqi promises and accompanying rhetoric will amount to anything other than "stay the course more". That wastes lives and time, perpetuates the appeal of the terrorists, and simply brings us closer to the showdown with Iran. And that will be a tragedy for not just Iraq but our friends in the region as well.

There is more and more evidence that the Republicans are split over what to do in Iraq. What does Mr. Walberg think? During the campaign he supported the President. Does he still? If you live in the 7th District write Tim Walberg and ask him what his position on Iraq is. Go to http://www.house.gov/writerep/ and fill in the form.

Labels: Iraq, John McCain, Tim Walberg, Wes Clark

Setting the tone for his next two years in Congress, Congressman-elect Tim Walberg (R) speaks out on Iraq. What are Walberg's thoughts on the situation?

And for Congressman Elect Tim Walberg of the 7th district, this is one of his biggest concerns.

"To say anything other than Iraq and the war that's going on there is necessary is wrong. The reason we got in and the ultimate battle that goes on with terrorism; it's extremely important to me and my constituents," Walberg says.

This is more or less the only quote of substance from the WILX story... I'm always hesitant to use local television news stories because they can be light on information, but I thought this was worth talking about.

So let's look closely at just what Walberg is saying.

• "To say anything other than Iraq and the war that's going on there is necessary is wrong." It's not the clearest wording I've ever seen, but Congressman-elect Walberg is telling us that American involvement with the war in Iraq is necessary.
• "The reason we got in and the ultimate battle that goes on with terrorism; it's extremely important to me and my constituents." This part confuses me more. Something (or things), apparently, is (are) extremely important to his constituents. Part of that is "the ultimate battle that goes on with terrorism," but it's not clear if he means that terrorism is the same as "the reason we got in" the situation to begin with.

On Walberg's campaign website, his stance on National Security is given as:

Tim wholeheartedly supports President Bush in the War on Terror. He supports Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and our troops as they finish the mission in Iraq to assure the victory of freedom over tyranny.

During the debate at Siena Heights University before the election, these were my notes on Walberg's response to the question, "Do you support a withdrawal from Iraq? If not, what future course do you see?":

Walberg
- "We too easily forget 9/11" [Audience begins booing], "We too easily forget the bombing of the USS Cole"
- Terrorism still an important issue
- No cut and run, must stay in Iraq
- The Iraqi army is working

From all of this, I hope you'll agree it's safe to characterize Congressman-elect Walberg's position as this: He supports President Bush and the Iraq policy of former Sec. of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. He believes withdrawing (and, probably, a timetable for withdrawal) would be a mistake, and believes Iraq is the central front of the War on Terror. In other words, he supports President Bush-- and Bush's rhetoric-- 100 percent.

If anyone thinks this is a misrepresentation of his position, please say so in the comments. I'd say it's a fair characterization.

So does Walberg's stance line up with most Americans? From PollingReport.com (formatting edited and emphasis added):

Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg Poll. Dec. 8-11, 2006. N=1,489 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3. RV = registered voters

"Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling the situation in Iraq?"
12/8-11/06 - Approve 35% Disapprove 62% Unsure 3%

[...]

"All in all, do you think the situation in Iraq was worth going to war over, or not?"
12/8-11/06 - Worth It 40% Not Worth It 56% Unsure 4%

[...]

"As you may know, some members of Congress are calling for a timetable for withdrawing American troops from Iraq, while others are saying that our troops should remain in Iraq until the country is secure, and others are proposing that more troops should be sent to Iraq. Do you think the United States should withdraw troops from Iraq on a fixed timetable, or should keep the current level of troops in Iraq as long as it takes to secure the country, or should send more troops to Iraq?"

12/8-11/06
Withdraw On a Fixed Timetable 52%
Stay as Long as It Takes 26%
Send More Troops 12%
Unsure 10%

... And there's plenty more where that came from, with polling done by several different organizations. Clearly, the country is headed in a different direction than Congressman-elect Walberg.

Still, I'd like to apologize. When I started this post, I had planned to offer a good look at Tim Walberg's position on the war in Iraq, and refute it with solid facts, not polling data. But I can't do that. Why? Because, except for some vague statements and election campaign soundbites, it doesn't seem like Walberg really has any ideas for Iraq.

I'll gladly do another post when he has a position. Until then...

Labels: Iraq, Issues