03.21.07
John Carter Voted Against “The U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans’ Health, and Iraq Accountability Act”
There’s are a couple of very good descriptions of the bill here and here (.PDF). Also check out this article from DefenseNews. There’s quite a bit in the bill but here is its main focus:
- Ensures that U.S. forces in the field have all of the resources they require;
- Directs more resources to the war again al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan;
- Improves healthcare for returning service members and veterans; and,
- Sets a timeline for ending U.S. participation in Iraq’s civil war.
Yesterday in committee Rep. John Carter voted against this bill. Why? Well we get some clue from this post on his blog, Cutting Pork from the Emergency War Supplemental. It’s not time to call John Carter unpatriotic for not supporting the troops, although some may see it that way, I think what Mr. Carter is doing is even more cynical than that. He’s playing cheap political games and trying to score political points with needed funding for our soldiers and Marines in the battle field, and our veterans. Also pay close attention to the “Readiness” portion of the bill. To find out why this part is so important, read this article from the Hartford Courant, Mentally Unfit, Forced To Fight.
Rep. John Carter’s vote against funding the troops gives us an insight into his true character. No matter when he says he’s for Ensuring the Best Care for Our Servicemen and Women, his actions don’t match his rhetoric. If supporting the troops, also means he has to appropriate money to the Gulf Coast which was devastated by Hurricane Katrina then count him out. And if supporting the troops means holding the President accountable and making sure our soldiers and Marines are well rested, well prepared, have healthcare, have body armor, and armored Humvees then you can count out the Congressman whose district includes the largest Military Base in the United States of America. He’ll vote the party line instead.
JimNtexas said,
March 21, 2007 at 11:02 pm
This post is beneath you.
As you well know, this bill is part of Murtha’s stated plan to “slow bleed” the troops by micromanaging the military with impossible standards to preclude the executive branch from carrying out the instructions Congressmen like Murtha gave it when war was declared.
Murtha and most other Democrats voted for the war, and now they are too cowardly to revoke their earlier vote. Instead they want to “slow bleed” our military to ensure defeat.
I would also warn you that the tone of your post characterizes military people as just another poor victim group who need handouts from enlighten liberals. Most military find this patronizing tone, common among Democrats, to be very off-putting.
wcnews said,
March 22, 2007 at 7:49 am
Now we can disagree on whether or not this is a good strategy for getting out of Iraq and that’s fine. But to say this is beneath me and bring the same weak GOP talking points of the Hannity, Limbaugh, Fox News crowd, to your comment doesn’t do much for your argument. Debunked here.
Congress is well within it’s rights to use the power of the purse to try and get the President to do the people’s will. I’ve always had a problem with the fact that this was never a “declared war”. If it’s so important why didn’t Bush come to Congress and do it right? Same reason he never got the second vote from the UN we were promised. The point is it’s a first step to getting our troops out, and the sooner the better.
I’m sorry you take giving our military what it needs as patronizing, and I’m far from enlightened. If the military finds it patronizing, and I doubt they do, then at least they’ll be alive to hate me.