Rogers turns somersault in biggest flip-flop in recent memory

The latest position Mike Rogers is taking on the Iraq occupation illustrates one of two things: President Bush’s approval ratings are so low that Rogers will no longer be an apologist for the occupation, or he is the biggest flip-flopper ever.

In a floor speech on the debate over the non-binding resolution opposing the escalation of the Iraq occupation, Rogers said he will vote against the resolution and introduce one that suggests reassigning some troops within Iraq to the Anbar province to combat al-Qaida forces; giving Iraqi forces the primary responsibility for quelling sectarian violence in Baghdad; reopening state-run factories that were closed; and clarifying U.S. forces' rules of engagement.

In the understatement of the year, the Livingston County Daily Press & Argus said this about the resolution, “In a rare break from President George W. Bush, Rogers' nonbonding resolution states that Congress disagrees with the administration's troop surge — just as the Democrats' resolution does.”

Is this the same guy who was the biggest Bush cheerleader who said just last summer that anyone who did not support Bush’s failed Iraq polices was a terrorist and an insurgent. Now he’s breaking ranks with Bush. I don’t know if that says more about Bush’s policies or Rogers flip-flopping.

It would be nice if he finally saw the light like more and more Americans are everyday, but obviously that’s not the case because he’s not joining members of the Republic Party and endorsing the Iraq resolution.

There were a few things interesting in the speech, but other than that it sounded like a typical Rogers’s stump speech.

He said there were admittedly mistakes, such as not enough troops when the invasion bean and disbanding Iraq forces right after the occupation began. How about we never should have invaded a sovereign country in the first place?

He used his standard of ploy of someone coming up to him and tearfully telling him his position is the best one. In this case it was an unnamed wounded solider who wanted his leg amputated so he could regain the full range of motion in order to pass the Army physical fitness test so he could go back to Iraq. He was willing to lose a leg to go back because he supported the mission so much. With that kind of dedication it makes you wonder why they have a backdoor draft and involuntary extend tours and use other stopgap measures to keep troops in country.

This is a typical Rogers emotional speech, but these people are never identified or ever named. I think if a man were that dedicated I would remember his name and tell as many people who would listen about his determination and courage.

This reminds me of a story he told in a speech last summer at a chamber of commerce luncheon in Howell about how an undercover CIA agent working in Afghanistan who supported the mission so much that he came up to Rogers and told him so, just like the unnamed solider. He so wanted to tell Rogers this he was willing to blow his cover, and he also asked him to telephone home for him. The only problem was his opponent in the Congressional race was a former CIA agent and knew that would never happen.