Wednesday, February 14, 2007

It's official: Mike Rogers approves of Bush's Iraq escalation

According to the Detroit News, Mike Rogers plans to vote against 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."

So, Mike Rogers officially supports George Bush's Iraq War escalation, which at least 60% of Americans oppose. I can't say I'm surprised, but (to borrow a phrase from Dick DeVos) this is still very... disappointing.

Michigan has already lost 130 members of the US Armed Forces in Iraq. How many more have to die for a mistake, Rep. Rogers?

UPDATE: Well, Mike Rogers is already making excuses for a vote he won't cast until Friday. This just in from the Lansing State Journal...

Rogers, R-Brighton, spoke on the second of a three-day House debate on a non-binding Democratic resolution that says Congress "disapproves" of President Bush's decision to send more than 20,000 additional troops to the Iraq war. Rogers said he wouldn't vote for the resolution because it was too simplistic to deal with the complexities in Iraq and didn't solve any problems.

Too simplistic? Since when is anything in Congress too simple? Would he prefer the resolution to be more complicated in the way its language disapproves of Bush's escalation? I think the two-sentence resolution is pretty damn clear:

(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 2 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq.

If Mike Rogers doesn't support the Iraq escalation (as he claims), then he should be man enough to vote for this resolution on Friday. This is a vote we won't soon forget.

1 comment:

Kelster93 said...

Hang on, there, Mikey! Just last week, you had "serious concerns" about the escalation and hoped that Bush would make a "readjustment" in his plan.

The House resolution clearly states its support for the troops, and its willingness to provide funding for the troops already in the field. So why the backpedaling?

Apparently, keeping on Bush's good side is more important to Rogers than truly supporting the troops who are sacrificing so much.