PAC Man: Mike Rogers funded by Iraq War Profiteers

On the 4th Anniversary of the Iraq War, I thought it would be prudent to take a look at some of the corporations that have profited from the conflict. Surprise – Surprise! Quite a few Iraq War Profiteers have been bankrolling Mike Rogers' political campaigns for years through corporate PAC contributions.

Here's the wall of shame:

• General Dynamics: The sixth-most brazen War Profiteer of 2006 gave Mike Rogers $10,000 during the 2006 election cycle, $4,000 during the 2004 campaign, and $7,500 during the 2002 cycle.
  
• Chevron: The eighth-most brazen War Profiteer of 2006 gave Mike Rogers $2,000 during the 2006 campaign cycle, and $1,000 during the 2004 election.
  
• ExxonMobil: The ninth-most brazen War Profiteer of 2006 gave Mike Rogers $5,000 during the 2006 campaign cycle, $2,000 during the 2004 election, and $3,000 during the 2002 cycle.
  
• General Electric: Raked in $2.2 billion in Military contracts during 2005, and gave Mike Rogers $2,000 during the 2006 campaign cycle, and $1,000 during the 2004 election.
  
• Lockheed Martin: The eighth-largest War Profiteer of 2004 gave Mike Rogers $4,000 during the 2006 campaign cycle.

The grand total comes to a cool $41,500.

Of course, war profiteering is nothing new. However...

in eras past, courageous leaders like Harry Truman opened up investigations into this kind of profiteering, today, lawmakers go out of their way to actually prevent scrutiny. Remember, it was the Senate last year that voted down legislation to create stiffer penalties for war profiteers, and it was Vice President Cheney who went to the Senate floor to curse off the bill's sponsors for having the nerve to even raise the issue.

When will it end? When lawmakers of both parties start putting America's national security concerns over the concerns of their defense industry campaign donors. In an era where every politician wants to be "pro-national security" - allowing defense industry profiteering is exactly the opposite. It drains resources away from the programs that actually protect our troops but have been underfunded, and it undermines a more effective 21st century defense policy that would better protect America.

Like virtually everyone in America, Mike Rogers says he supports the troops:

America’s military men and women who sacrificed so much must know that the new way forward in Iraq is a plan in which the military mission and the rules of engagement are clearly defined, and specific benchmarks are outlined for Iraqis to take over so our troops can come home.

Yet, when Mike Rogers got the chance to vote on the Iraq resolution opposing George Bush's vaguely-defined and ill-conceived troop escalation last February, he ultimately voted to support sending 20,000 additional troops to Iraq.

With at least 58% of Americans favoring withdrawal from Iraq immediately or within a year, it's not hard to see how painfully out of touch Mike Rogers is with the rest of the country, and his constituents in the 8th district.

Could it be that Mike Rogers ultimately puts the needs of his defense industry campaign donors ahead of our men and women in uniform? That's a question that only Rogers can answer, but based on his unwavering support for the War in Iraq after four years of bloodshed, I think his record speaks for itself.