Posted on 10/19/2003 12:19:12 PM PDT by mgiorgino
On October 17, Congress voted overwhelmingly in favor of President Bush’s request for $87 billion to continue securing the peace in Iraq and Afghanistan—a solid mandate for America’s reconstruction of these war-torn countries. In the House of Representatives, the vote was 303-125. The entire San Diego delegation voted in favor of the resolution—except Bob Filner!
On October 17, Congress voted overwhelmingly in favor of President Bush’s request for $87 billion to continue securing the peace in Iraq and Afghanistan—a solid mandate for America’s reconstruction of these war-torn countries.
In the House of Representatives, the vote was 303-125. The entire San Diego delegation, including Republicans Duncan Hunter, Duke Cunningham, and Darrell Issa and Democrat Susan Davis voted in favor of the resolution—except Bob Filner!
Susan Davis decided to support supplemental funding after a four-day congressional visit to our troops in Iraq. “As I spoke to several of our commanders and soldiers in the field, it became clear that the needs of the military for better force protection and the need to fund major infrastructure projects were closely linked.” (Union-Tribune, Oct. 16)
Filner, who didn’t make the trip to Iraq, wants to protect our troops on the cheap—suggesting we spend the money on domestic programs and provide our warriors with better protective vests instead!
Filner faulted President Bush for pursuing no “real effort to have the U.N. play a meaningful role” in Iraq. (The Star-News, Oct. 17) Yet, on October 16, the United Nations Security Council voted unanimously in favor of a U.S. resolution, which calls on the 191 member states to contribute troops and money. Germany, France and Russia—the chief obstructionists to the war—all agreed to the proposal, which leaves the U.S. in command of all peacekeeping forces in Iraq.
Even Syria voted in favor of the U.S. proposal. China noted that their attitude has become "more and more positive." South Korea immediately pledged more troops and $200 million. These governments apparently have growing confidence in President Bush’s plan to help the Iraqi people build a nation that is stable, secure, and free.
The U.N. seems to be coming around—but not Bob Filner. Filner voted to withhold funding from our front line troops in Iraq. This is not surprising, coming from an elected official who told students in San Marcos (including the sons and daughters of deployed Marines) that the liberation of 25 million Iraqis from a brutal dictatorship would diminish America’s “moral authority” in the world.
Filner is clearly out of touch with his own congressional district, which overwhelmingly supports our armed forces. Last month, Filner was one of only 15 House members who voted against the Armed Services Appropriations Bill for 2004: crucial legislation that means thousands of jobs in San Diego and Imperial Counties and can mean the difference between life and death for our embattled Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines.
Opposing our armed forces may make Barbara Lee more popular up in the coffee shops at Berkeley, but it doesn’t make any sense to the metalworkers, pipe fitters, electricians, welders, carpenters, crane operators, and other workers at the shipyards in National City.
America is significantly safer due to aggressive military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and other theaters. Saddam and the Taliban can no longer threaten the United States or our allies. Shifting the battle from the streets of New York and Washington to our enemies overseas is an important part of our long-term security strategy.
The question is simple: do we continue to fight? Or, do we cut and run, as both Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden have always predicted. Clearly, Filner would have us back out. Such a senseless surrender might save some American lives in the short run, but make no mistake: We’ll be sending a message that terrorism works against us, and both our enemies and our friends will understand the implications—and act on them. We would be inviting another, more deadly September 11!
It is clearly a time for war and we must fight the terrorists until they are destroyed. However, it is also a time to heal and a time to build in Iraq and Afghanistan. That is why I strongly support the supplemental appropriations bill. In the words of President Bush, “If we are patient, united, and determined, our nation will prosper, and our nation will prevail.”
Mike Giorgino is a retired Navy Commander and a Gulf War veteran. He is a Republican candidate for Congress in California's 51st Congressional District. He may be contacted via e-mail at mgiorgino@aol.com.
Non. Sense.
We owe them nothing. Eighty-Seven billion tax dollars--to build them a cell phone network (among other idiocies)?
We have lots of targets left, and more for our troops to do than "win the hearts and minds" of people with black hearts and minds. Our soldiers were not intended to be target dummies for terrorists.
We busted them up. We should have completed the job and left them to sort out their own sty. We have Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Pakistan, Libya, North Korea, and others to administer our tender ministrations upon.
Pull our troops out and go after the other nations that actively support terrorists.
====================================
Just for comparison, be aware that $87 billion could send Americans to Mars. It could establish a permanent base on the Moon. And we are building cell-phone networks for towel-heads.
--Boris
SOD Rumsfeld then shared a letter written by Ronald Reagan in 1981 in response to then Soviet leader Brezhnev on America's fitting role as leader of the free world:
"Brezhnev had sent him a letter accusing the United States of destabilizing the world with its territorial ambitions and imperialistic designs. President Reagan replied, quote, "There's not only no evidence to support such a charge; there's solid evidence that the United States, when it could have dominated the world, at no risk to itself, made no effort whatsoever to do so.
"When World War II ended, the United States had the only undamaged industrial power in the world," he wrote. "Its military was at its peak, and we alone had the ultimate weapon, the nuclear bomb, and the unquestioned ability to deliver it anywhere in the world. If we had sought world domination, who could have opposed us?"
"He went on to say, "But the United States followed a different course, one unique in the history of all mankind. We used our power and wealth to rebuild the war-ravaged economies of the world, including those nations that had been our enemies," unquote.
"Think of what he wrote and the power of the truth he spoke. Because of those efforts after World War II, freedom did take root in Japan, in Germany and Italy and indeed across Europe. And the liberated nations of Europe then joined with the United States to form the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Together we stood up to the forces of communist tyranny, and by the end of the 20th century, liberty had sped -- spread across the entire continent of Europe and beyond."
"When President Bush spoke here, he pointed out that in 1941 there were only about a dozen democracies on the face of the Earth, and by the close of the 20th century, there were more than 120. Today many of those recently liberated nations are now at the forefront of the effort to help Iraq and Afghan peoples recover their freedom and maintain them. And if we are steadfast, free societies can take root in those countries and we will have still new allies in the battle for freedom and moderation in the Middle East."
http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2003/tr20031010-secdef0752.html
8 Proud to Have Liberated Iraq ["I have never been prouder to be an American"] ~ Barry Farber
America is significantly safer due to aggressive military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and other theaters.
Please take a moment to thank the author of this terrific letter - a Freeper who knows.
If you want on or off my Pro-Coalition ping list, please Freepmail me. Warning: it is a high volume ping list on good days. (Most days are good days).
About the same. And with clowns like you around, I'd be glad to go.
--Boris
Promises ~ Promises!
And I never thought I'd see a program that I'd be willing to pay more taxes for! Here it is.
Avoid sharp objects.
Eighty-four billion dollars to "rebuild" Iraq has nothing to do with national security. My comparisons put the size of this wasteful spending in context.
Better the money spent on sending humans to Mars than thrown away "helping" to "nation-build" our sworn enemies.
Let us spend the money destroying the rest of the terrorist states.
--Boris
If the new nation is secure, it is a useful base for dealing with Syria and Iran.
Regarding waste, more is lost on Medicare/HUD waste, fraud and abuse in any given fiscal year--but Tom Daschle is mum on that.
A remarkable statement since Iraq was very secure on 9/11/2001, as were Syria, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Pakistan, et al.
--Boris
Iraq was a dangerous enemy and will be a valuable ally, a distinction lost on you. Do not bother replying.
Unlike, e.g., our "valuable allies" the Saudis and the Syrians?
--Boris
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.