Thursday, February 15, 2007

How do we define "Support"?

Reminiscent of Bill Clinton's "What is is" Word Game, it appears that Congress has decided to take a page from the Clinton playbook and now, in a much more defiant and detrimental move, are playing with the word "support".

In today's WaPo article by Jonathan Weisman,GOP Looks Beyond War Measure to Fight on Funding, outlines the course of action for the GOP in reaction to the debate that is unfolding on the floor of the House and Senate this week over the deployment of more troops to Iraq. Sadly, many Republicans are bowing to pressure from the left to join them in supporting that non-binding *cough* useless resolution for reasons that simply boggle the mind.

Weisman's piece gave his readership the following quote;
When Rep. Heather A. Wilson (R-N.M.) charged that the resolution offers no support for troops not yet deployed to the battlefield, House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) showed just how sensitive Democrats are to the charge.
"No one ought to hide behind the troops. No one ought to come to this floor and say that this Congress, 435 of us, will not support whatever soldier or sailor or Marine is deployed to Iraq," Hoyer said angrily. "Whether it is today or tomorrow, they will have our support."

Now, please go back and read that again. Hide behind the troops? By thinking in the best interest of the troops and their morale is an act of hiding behind the troops? They will have our support? If we take away belief in their mission, the funding for their operations and the trust that the Iraqi people put in our hands when they stood beside us at the start of this war, someone please tell me, what is left? What class of support is left? Again, mind boggling. It is abundantly clear that Congress needs an English Lesson on the meaning of the word support. There are obviously various shades to the dictionary definition yet I would like to specifically focus on definition 5;
to maintain (a person, family, establishment, institution, etc.) by supplying with things necessary to existence; provide for: to support a family.

This specific definition actually uses the example "to support a family". These troops truly are the deepest extent of family. Few Americans can say that they have no one whom they care for, whom they consider "family" that has put on the uniform of the USA. Is this how we treat family? Taking away things necessary to existence? Not truly supporting them by not providing for them? Of course not!!

As I write this I am watching the House debate on this non-binding resolution and I suggest that you ALL get your hands on the statement of Rep. Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI), he is simply kicking ass! He has it all out there and he is making a stand. God Bless him! He is not leaving anything in the clubhouse! Screw NY, I am moving to Michigan!

One last comment on this, as McCotter called "idiotic resolution", if we truly want an idea of what to do, I suggest we get some ballots sent to Iraq and ask the men and women on the ground, they are the ones who are truly making the sacrifice, they are one who are giving their lives, ask them what needs to be done. They obviously have a better grasp on the reality of Iraq than anyone in Congress ever will. Therefore once I hear what the troops say ~ then we will know what support truly is. Are you listening Congress?



djtyg said...

In the last session of Congress, Thaddeus McCotter voted NO on expanding healthcare benefits to members of the military's Reserve and National Guard components. He doesn't support the troops at all.

I'm an OIF/OEF vet and I live in his district. I will be supporting whoever runs against him.

Of course since you have comment moderation on, I wouldn't be surprised if you censor this Soldier to make Thad look good.

A Proud Infidel said...

Hey DJ! Thanks for the comment! I only moderate to keep those who post about the newest stock to buy and etc. Any true comments that come through will always be posted. This is about an honest debate, we can all learn from each other. I don't know McCotter, I just happened to be watching C-SPAN and he had quite a rant on and some really significant things to say.

If you say he voted against expanding heath benefits to you guys then he is a flipper just like McCain, Kerry and the others whose names make we want to vomit when I hear them.

Thanks for your service, DJ. You are the true Americans that make this nation great, it sure as hell isn't those clowns in Washington.

Stay safe


djtyg said...

Thanks for your kind words. I apologize for my previous accusation.

I don't think we should be in Iraq, but I went there because I wanted to protect my friends in my company. It's why many of us go, as politics gets set aside when your fellow Soldiers are involved.

There are many politicians who do hide behind us, and use us as nothing more than election campaigns and photo ops. These are the people who put yellow stickers on their car and then vote against expanding VA benefits (or even slash them). Thaddeus McCotter is one of those politicians and I'll be happy if he gets retired in 2008.

Once again, thanks for the kind words.

A Proud Infidel said...

Hey DJ,
No need to thank me, you were the one who put on the uniform. Sad to hear that the VA is trying to screw you guys, I work with a lot of Vietnam Vets and they went through and still go through the same type of crap. They promise you guys the moon then chip away at your benefits over time.
I will keep an eye on McCotter as this thing unfolds and if anything interesting pops up on your end, don't hesistate to e-mail me,

Take care, Man. You're a Hero. The true blue kind.