Once more with feeling

Mr. Rogers is shaking his Iranian Threat pom-poms again, this time on the Jack Lessenberry show.

Lessenberry listened to Mike's golly-gee explanation of the Iranian Threat, then neatly skewered Rogers' faulty logic (and flip-flopping history) in an essay titled Howling Wolf. Several important points that bear repeating:

1.) Rogers has demonstrated that political pressure easily trumps his FBI/House Intel experience that he so often references. Why should we listen to him this time?

Here’ s something else you may not have known about Mike Rogers, who represents a large district that sprawls from Oakland County past Lansing. Exactly five years ago, he came back from the Middle East and announced he had changed his mind and was no longer in favor of a military attack on Iraq.

Information from Saudi and Israeli intelligence agents had convinced him it wasn’t
necessary, he said. He held that position for about six weeks. But then he changed his mind again.

I imagine he, like other congressmen, was under great pressure from the White House. Well, we know how all that turned out. We were told Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. But it wasn’t true, and now we are stuck in a quagmire, with no end in sight.

2.) Those who do not remember history are doomed to repeat it

The congressman thinks we can put adequate pressure on Iran and prevent them from getting nuclear materials by imposing sanctions. Maybe. But I was in elementary school when we were told we’d overthrow Fidel Castro through sanctions. I am a member of AARP now. The sanctions are still in place, and Fidel is still there. What if it did come down to military action against Iran?
[skip]
How grimly ironic it would be if our failure to see the truth in Iraq were to blind us about the truth in Iran.

3.) Even if we could all agree that invading Iran was a swell idea, we don't have sufficient troops (or cash) to execute that plan. An honest assessment of our military will show you active duty service members who are heading back for their third -- or fourth! -- rotation in Iraq, and National Guard and reservists who have served multiple year-long deployments. Allowing political gamesmanship to stretch our military this thinly does a grave disservice to our troops and their families, not to mention our nation's security.

The fact is that we now have fewer men in uniform than at any time since before Pearl Harbor. There are insufficient troops to send to Iran, even if the nation were in the mood to do so. Mike Rogers, a veteran himself, must know that. He also knows the story of the little boy who cried wolf once too often.

Three cheers for Lessenberry! Let's hope that other mainstream media folks will start making these points, instead of blindly quoting Mr. Rogers on the "threat" of Iranian WMD.

Mike Rogers Votes Against Rest for U.S. Troops Serving in Iraq

This is a pretty simple premise, so we'll cut to the chase. Here's the background on H.R.3159:

• Prohibits units and members of the regular Armed Forces from being deployed for Operations Iraqi Freedom or Enduring Freedom (including participation in the NATO International Security Assistance Force (Afghanistan)) unless the period between deployments is equal to or longer than the period of the previous deployment
• Expresses the sense of Congress that the optimal minimum period between such deployments should be equal to or longer than twice the period of the previous deployment.
• Prohibits units and members of the reserves from being deployed for such Operations (including such NATO participation) if the unit or member has been deployed within three preceding years.
• Expresses the sense of Congress that units and members of the reserves should not be mobilized continuously for more than one year, and that the optimal minimum period between such deployments should be five years.
• Authorizes the: (1) President to waive such limitations after certifying to Congress that the deployment is necessary to meet an operational emergency posing a threat to vital national security interests; or (2) chief of staff of the military department concerned (including the Coast Guard) to waive such limitations with respect to a member who has voluntarily requested mobilization.

In other words, this would give the men and women who have served in Iraq a period to rest in-between deployments.

Here's what Speaker Pelosi had to say about this legislation:

Today, in our fifth year of war in Iraq, the readiness of our forces has declined precipitously as the result of lengthy deployments. Our soldiers are serving their third and fourth tours of duty in Iraq, a war without end. This is unacceptable, especially at a time when the most recent National Intelligence Estimate shows that al Qaeda is gaining strength and the threat of terrorism against the United States is growing.

The New Direction Congress will always ensure that our brave men and women in uniform have the tools and training they need to do their jobs and return safely home. This legislation will strengthen our military by giving our troops the chance to recover from their deployments, retrain, and re-equip before redeploying.

Regardless of how you feel about the War in Iraq, it's hard to argue with that logic. And heck, there's even a window in there for the President to waive these limitations (which, knowing him, he would do anyway).

Nevertheless, this simple logic has once again escaped the good Congressman from the 8th district, who voted against H.R. 3159 today.

They say there's no rest for the weary, and thanks to Mike Rogers, that statement still applies to our American troops who have bravely served in the war he voted for.

Mike Rogers: You're Invited!

Big kudos to the folks over at Living Blue for putting this video together:

Noncommittal.
That was the response that a group of 8th Congressional District residents opposed to the Iraq War got Thursday (July 12, 2007) when they met with Republican Rep. Mike Rogers' staff about the upcoming "Take a Stand" event at the Michigan Capitol.

The group, which included the mother of a man who has served a year in Iraq, a Shiawassee County veteran opposed to the war, and others, gathered outside Rogers' office in Lansing. Rogers was in Washington, but staff members met with four of Rogers' constituents.

Afterward, participants said they had a chance to explain their positions to Rogers' aide and hand-delivered a letter, along with a petition signed by 200 people, inviting Rogers to the Aug. 28 "Take a Stand" event being organized by Americans Against Escalation in Iraq.

Remember, Mike Roges has been funded by Iraq war profiteers for years, so I can't say I'm surprised that the response to this invitation was ignored. However, this is grassroots activism at its best, and I applaud everyone who was involved.

He's dancing as fast as he can

Mr. Rogers' remarks during this week's debate on the Iraq resolution were a virtuoso performance of tap dancing.

Rogers is against the proposed troop surge --

In a rare break from President George W. Bush, Rogers' nonbinding resolution states that Congress disagrees with the administration's troop surge

... tappity-tap-tap...

but he's also against the resolution because "it doesn't bring one soldier home."

No, wait, he's against it because "Its clear purpose is to divide those of us in this chamber ... This resolution does nothing to bring members together."

...tappity-tap-tap...

But isn't this the same Mike Rogers who earlier this month only included his GOP Intel committee colleagues in discussions of his alternative resolution?

Bonus irony points go to the Free Press for its article on how the Michigan Congressional delegation would be voting on the resolution. The sidebar listed 7 reps as "Supporters of resolution," 7 reps as "Opponents" and one with his own special category: "With another solution."

Hey, Mike's a special guy. He deserves his own category. And boy, can he dance!

Calling Congressman Rogers

Phone call to the D.C. office of Congressman Mike Rogers this afternoon.

"Congressman Mike Rogers office," says a woman's voice.

"Hello," I say, "I'm calling because I want Congressman Rogers to support the Democrats' resolution condemning President Bush's escalation in Iraq. I don't understand why he's equivocating. He says he's against Bush's strategy but yet he won't vote for the resolution condemning the strategy. I don't understand his position."

"Can I have your name and address?"

I give her my name and address. When she's done she says, "I'll forward your concerns to the Congressman and he'll be in contact with you about his position." Click.

I am assuming future contact about his position on his opposition to the resolution that opposes the escalation/surge strategy he also opposes will take place through the mail. Now that I write it out, it sounds like he opposes himself. Not sure how that works. Regardless, I'm looking forward to seeing him clarify his complicated position on a simple resolution.

For those of you that want to tell the Congressman how you think he ought to vote on this resolution, call 202-225-4872.

Meanwhile, I'll be checking my mailbox for that clarification, Congressman.

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.

Americans want Congress to stop the escalation

From Gallup, via TPM:

PRINCETON, NJ -- The American public is more in favor of Congress passing legislation that would set caps on the number of U.S. troops serving in Iraq and a timetable for withdrawal of all troops than they are in favor of Congress passing a non-binding resolution expressing disfavor with the recently announced troop "surge," while 6 out of 10 Americans oppose the surge. A majority of Americans continue to say that U.S. military involvement in Iraq was a mistake. Many Americans say that their congressional representative's position on the war will be an important factor in their congressional vote next year, but most do not know what their representative's position on the troop surge is.

Overall, the Gallup poll finds that "the increase in U.S. troops in Iraq is opposed by a 60% to 38% margin."

Similarly, a CBS News poll finds that 45% of Americans want Congress to block funding for more troops, and another 8% want to block all funding for the war.

A poll in USA Today shows that 63% of Americans want all troops home by the end of 2008.

While Mike Rogers hasn't explicity stated his opposition to Bush's escalation, he has offered his own alternative plan for success in Iraq. Of course, Congress will not be debating the merits of Rep. Rogers' plan for Iraq this week. Instead, they will be debating the democrats' straightforward resolution:

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That—

(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.

Each member of the House will be allotted five minutes to voice their opinons on this matter. We look forward to hearing what Mike Rogers has to say, and are anxious to see how he chooses to vote.

Just remember, as the Gallup poll pointed out:

Many Americans say that their congressional representative's position on the war will be an important factor in their congressional vote next year

We have long memories.