February 13, 2007

Putnam clings to failed Iraq policy

Text of the Resolution opposed by Rep. Putnam

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.

Adam Putnam, as Chairman of the House Republican Conference, is third in line in the House Republican leadership. He represents special interests of Florida's 12th Congressional District.

Today Congressman Putnam spoke on the Iraq Resolution. My comments follow excerpts from that speech.

    Putnam: "After all the tough talk we heard from the other side, this is a rather toothless 97 words."
Yes, congressman, so toothless it's giving you and your Minority Party conniption fits. Rather than wasting your time criticizing Democrats for their timidity, though, why don't you spend a couple of minutes trying to think of an occasion during the past four years that you dared to raise a serious question on Bush-Cheney's failed policy in Iraq. Talk about a toothless wonder!

    Putnam: "Now, the majority has surely studied its constitutional law, and knows that the most direct way it can affect the current strategy is to cut off the funds necessary to win the war. So why are we not having - this week - a real up-or-down vote on troop funding?"
Congressman, why are you, like all the apoplectic Republican leaders on the losing side of the Iraq issue, so desperate to have Democrats cut funding? Whatever the ultimate outcome in Iraq, you will blame them for losing the war anyway. Give it up. The American people have already decided that George Bush - with your unwavering support - lost Iraq a long time ago.

Yet you support the madness still. Perhaps if you had exercised proper oversight of the war when Republicans had an iron grip on Congress, you'd still be in the majority. So sit down and shut up. If in two years Democrats haven't done a better job than you did, I'll join you in protesting their lack of progress.

    Putnam: "Actually, the Congress has had one up-or-down vote on the new strategy for victory - well, it more was like up-only, when the Senate unanimously confirmed General David Petraeus as commanding officer in Iraq."
Even a small child would recognize that statement as utter nonsense. In confirming General Petraeus's military appointment, the Senate in no way relinquished Congress's constitutional responsibilities. George Bush was not granted dictatorial powers to use our troops as his personal army, ignoring the will of Congress and the voice of the American people.

    Putnam: "Today, al-Qaeda operates in over 60 countries with members in the hundreds and supporters in the hundreds of thousands, maybe millions."
Right. But al-Qaeda terrorists were not active in Iraq until George Bush created the perfect environment for them. "Bring'em on," indeed. How many thousands of new terrorists has your colossal blunder and mismanagement of the war created?

Meanwhile, where is Osama bin Laden? Is he in Iraq now and, like Bush and Cheney, searching for WMD's? That would make as much sense as your pretension of "taking the war to Iraq" because terrorists from Afghanistan attacked us on 9/11. You're not only failing Logic 101, you're flunking geography as well.

    Putnam: "The consequences of failure in Iraq read like a far-fetched war game, but I assure you they are quite real -- the inevitable incursion of Iranian and Syrian combatants into the country, the threat to peaceful Arab states, and the further emboldening of Hamas and Hezbollah."
You said it. And that end result became possible the day George Bush embarked upon his invasion of a country that did not threaten US security. If I, along with many other observers, could at the time sit in Lakeland, Florida (your congressional district, far removed from the military geniuses in the White House) and predict the consequences of blowing the doors open to hell, where was your head - and where has it been for four long years? Why should I trust your judgment on anything - especially Iraq? Why should Congress give an idiot free rein to further "surge" the catastrophe he created?

And why, congressman, don't you have the guts to put the blame for failure on those who created and implemented the failed policies - not those who were right all along, and those who have inherited the monumental, perhaps impossible, task of stopping the Middle East from spinning further out of control?

    Putnam: "So we have arrived at one of those muddy historical crossroads: will we continue to take the fight to the enemy or will we fall back and hope the enemy does not pursue?"
Name one Iraqi involved in 9/11. There are none, so stop the lies. We invaded their country, remember?

    Putnam: "Time was, politics stopped at the water's edge - but no longer it seems."
That time was before the Bush gang and their echo-chamber in the Republican Congress cynically and shamefully politicized foreign policy in every way imaginable - even to impugning the patriotism of anyone with the good sense to question Bush's irresponsible policies.

In your arrogance before last November's elections, you foolishly believed that Republican power was not only absolute, but permanent. How sad for this country that, since 9/11, your party has behaved, for crass political advantage, with flagrant disregard for truth and integrity.

And, with your speech today, the game, as you call it yourself, continues - while better men and women than you continue to shed their blood for your mistakes.

    Putnam: "This week's discussion should be about the way through, not the way back."
You're 32 years old, congressman. Men older - and younger - than you are dying every day in Iraq.

Make "the way through" more than idle rhetoric: Put your ass where your ideology is.


Paulyne said...

From Texas
The same goes for the liver bellied bunch of GOP still holding on here to their lost dream of pretending they had a cause.
Bush's comments today actualy made me blush for his total ignorance. He has no idea of whats going on.
Back to the Jack Daniel George.
You looked like a blooming idiot.
By the way the press were not laughing with you, they were laughing at you and to your face.

Is Ought said...

People will remember that some of us stood for the truth in this time of struggle and defended women's rights, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and the defeat of slavery. We said no to the Islamist monsters who wished to bring forth their domination of the world. The defeatists among us stood by and did nothing to stop their pre-medieval sexism, racism, slavery and terrorism. They instead gave excuses for these acts of aggression. We gave hope to the majority of Muslims, most of whom are peaceful people just wanting a prosperous life for their families, a life free of the oppressive Islamists and their apologist tools in The West. History will be the judge.

Aikäne said...

Paulyne, I watched the military genius's press conference this morning, too. What's more amazing than his stupidity is that diehard supporters are not embarrassed into silence by such a show of incompetence. The same Republican crowd who applaud Bush's every mistake as heroic would be swarming like killer bees if we ever had a Democratic president show that level of ignorance, arrogance and incompetence all wrapped up in one big winking, pulsating, dry heaving glob of inhumanity.

If I understood him today, he practically announced outright an imminent strike on Iran - but how would we know, based on his inarticulate murmerings. And, worse, who who would stop him? My patience has run out with the sham we call a constitutional government.

Aikäne said...

is ought, are you saying that Bush invaded Iraq for women's rights, etc.? What have you been drinking?

Is Ought said...

I'm saying that women's rights are just one problem of many within the Islamist ideology. Beheading non-believers, suicide bombers and flying planes full of people into buildings full of people are some other.....ummm....problems with Islamism. Islam must reform. Bush is giving Muslims a great opportunity right now. Likely a last chance. The alternative won't be good for Muslims.


Aikäne said...

is ought, how in God's creation is killing 650,000 Iraqis forcing Islam - or anyone else - to reform? Violence begets violence.

Bush has created more enemies than friends. He also failed to finish the job in Afghanistan, failed to protect our own borders, took world opinion that was universally supportive of the US after 9/11 and turned our friends against us -- all while squandering our lives and resources in a country that had provided some balance of power in the gulf region against the terrorists and radicals that were our real enemies. In case you misunderstood - Saddam and Osama were not friends.

The old arguments that Bush made (and that you continue to believe, apparently) about invading Iraq have nothing to do with "giving Muslims a great opportunity right now."

You are simply repeating the same old propaganda that has been discredited time after time. Get the facts straight:
Iraq is not Islam. Iraq did not send terrorists to the US. George Bush did not invade Iraq to "reform" Islam, or to free women, or to democratize the world.

If those were in fact the reasons used to justify the invasion of Iraq, how many countries on earth must we invade to make you and George Bush happy?

Is Ought said...

how in God's creation is killing 650,000 Iraqis forcing Islam - or anyone else - to reform?

First of all your numbers are false. Secondly, but far more important you seem very confused about who is killing Iraqis. Pick one day from the news and take a look at who killed who. (you could pick today for instance) See whether it was suicide bombers or terrorists planting roadside bombs that did the killin'. I'm sure you have some honesty and won't mind telling me what you find. I'll check the news too, and see what I find.
here's the numbers:

Iraqi civilians killed last year by ISLAMIC Terrorists

Iraqi civilians killed collaterally in incidents involving Americans
(and Islamic Terrorists)

Source: IraqBodyCount.net (includes civilians caught in crossfire who may have been killed by the terrorists, and terrorists who may have been counted as civilians)

You might be interested in this website, as all terrorist attacks since 9/11 are documented on the mmain page. Care to take a guess how many individual attacks have been carried out since 9/11? Attacks in Iraq are actually the minority of the attacks worldwide documented. Take a peak. Very sobering.

btw, Aikane, will I be banned from your blog for continuing to present facts (even though I'm being polite)?


Aikäne said...

No, you won't be banned, but we're both wasting our time, so don't expect me to respond further. I am not interested in waging an international war against Muslims, and you are not interested in discussing the idiocy of Bush's Iraq policy - the subject of the post to which you responded.

Using your "facts" gleaned from the so-called "Religion of Peace" is a useless exercise as well. Despite the group's "religious" name, a quick scan of their web pages reveals a different "doctrine," including statements like this: "Islam is clearly not a religion of peace."

And if you believe your own statement that terrorist attacks in Iraq are actually the minority of the attacks worldwide, then you must agree with me that Bush's invasion and occupation of Iraq are misdirected.

From your prior comments above, I doubt your interest in peace with Muslims, however. Your statement is clear: "Islam must reform. Bush is giving Muslims a great opportunity right now. Likely a last chance. The alternative won't be good for Muslims."

Oh. Or what? The judgment of Bush will fall on them? Total annihilation of Muslims because their religion "is clearly not a religion of peace"?

To me, that seems oddly like the fanaticism of people who kill others to make the world a better place.

As for my "fake" numbers, do you believe Iraqis are less dead, whether killed by US bombs, criminals, warring factions, or terrorists? Even if my numbers are inaccurate, how many dead do you consider OK to "make their world safe for democracy?"

For other estimates of casualties in Iraq, try google, or see my previous post at Will Americans say enough? or read the Reuters report of Oct. 11, 2006: Study estimates 655,000 Iraqi deaths due to invasion.

Bottom line: Stop wasting my time.

Is Ought said...

"Islam must reform. Bush is giving Muslims a great opportunity right now. Likely a last chance. The alternative won't be good for Muslims."

Oh. Or what? The judgment of Bush will fall on them? Total annihilation of Muslims because their religion "is clearly not a religion of peace"?

You're probably right that we won't agree on much. I'm for freedom and you're an apologist for oppression. A very wide divide indeed. In the overall sense I truly wish I wasn't right about the realities surrounding Islamist ideology. Unfortunately though, any semblance of intellectual honesty shows that I am.

.....for now, I'll leave you with an excerpt of an essay blog I read just a week ago. I think you'll find the (unfortunate) answer to your question "Or what?" in the link below the excerpt.

~~~~~For, as much as we should do everything possible to avoid a second 9/11, the blunt fact is that the United States, Europe and the entire edifice of Western Civilization, can ride out a second 9/11. It can ride out 100 9/11s and still, in an inch of time, return and thrive.

This society can even ride out the killing by weapons of mass destruction of any kind of a number of cities. America, Europe, and Western Civilization can survive anything the radical Islamists can throw at us.

The society that will have much more difficulty surviving with its cherished "values" intact will be what happens to the global society of Islam should it continue to attack the West with increasing ferocity.~~~~~~~~



Aikäne said...

Weird. You defend Bush and his intentional destruction of a country that never attacked us; you advocate for the destruction of Islam -- and you call me the "apologist for oppression."

I have already given you more attention than most bloggers would have. I wish you well in your personal being, but I'm thankful you have no influence in the world. So long.

Is Ought said...

You're a polite person and I do appreciate that you have been patient with my commentary. I'm not looking for attention, but I am definitely trying to sway you.

I don't advocate for the destruction of Islam. I fully support what is in all likelyhood a final chance for peaceful mainstream Muslims to reign in the Islamist oppressors in their midst.

I'm quite willing to live and let live but when the Islamists started killing people in droves then all bets are off.

You're quite right on one thing, though. Iraqis didn't attack us on 9/11.
However, I think that you haven't given much thought to the strategic reasons that Iraq was chosen for an attempt to reform within Islamism. Whose interests would a direct attack on Saudi Arabia have served? (remembering that 15 of 19 terrorists on 9/11 were Saudi nationals)

Believe it or not, I was once where you are now (relatively). Here's two essays that greatly influenced my opinion in the aftermath of 9/11. If you decide to read these essays, be sure to read both as the writer gets some things semantically wrong in the first one. The next day he clarifies the first with a subsequent essay. also take note of the date of the essays since he engages another blogger that is quite skepical of the strategy for attacking Iraq. The author doesn't blog in typical format but he links to counter-argument and answers. His essays generated a huge response within the blogosphere, so I'm a little surprised if you haven't read them before. I've read some of your other blog posts and I'm quite sure you'll apreciate these writings. enjoy