« LEGISLATORS RAISING CONCERNS ABOUT CASINO EXEMPTION FROM SMOKING BAN | Home | WALZ BLASTED BY FELLOW DEMOCRAT OVER DM&E; CONGRESSWOMAN CALLS WALZ’S CRITCISM OF LOAN “ABSURD HYPERBOLE” »
DEMOCRATS IN MINNESOTA HOUSE INTRODUCE RESOLUTION OPPOSING TROOP INCREASE IN IRAQ
By Michael B. Brodkorb | February 5, 2007
H.F. No. 674 – A resolution opposing escalation of United States troops in Iraq.
I want to make sure you understand this was introduced in the Minnesota House of Representatives, not the U.S. House of Representatives.
UPDATE: A comment left on Minnesota Democrats Exposed exposes a key phrase in the resolution:
"BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Congress should pass legislation prohibiting the President from spending taxpayer dollars on an escalation in Iraq unless he first seeks Congressional approval."
Wow, they want to take money away from our troops.
Tags: Uncategorized
Topics: Uncategorized | 36 Comments »
36 Responses to “DEMOCRATS IN MINNESOTA HOUSE INTRODUCE RESOLUTION OPPOSING TROOP INCREASE IN IRAQ”
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
February 5th, 2007 at 11:46 PM
“BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Congress should pass legislation prohibiting the President from spending taxpayer dollars on an escalation in Iraq unless he first seeks Congressional approval.”
It used to be that politics stopped at the water’s edge.
The fact is that Congress (many of those complaining about this now) voted in favor of this war.
Now, for purely political reasons, Liberals want to take money away from our troops in the field.
Why are our state legislators, with all of the issues we are facing here in Minnesota, taking time to call on congress to defund the troops?
February 6th, 2007 at 12:08 AM
I don’t think liberals want to take money away from troops in the field. More appropriately, we want to take troops away from the field. If George Bush wants to keep the same number of troops over there with less money, well, their blood will be on his hands, not ours. We offered him a solution. Accepting or rejecting it is ultimately his call.
February 6th, 2007 at 1:09 AM
“We offered him a solution. ”
And what was that again???
February 6th, 2007 at 3:51 AM
Wow. The hubris of liberalism is back — DFLers in the state of Minnesota have all the solutions to the world’s major problems — global warming and now the war in Iraq. Uh, time to quit playing model U.N. and get down to the business for which the voters elected you — to run the state of Minnesota, not the world.
February 6th, 2007 at 6:13 AM
George Bush wants billions of dollars so more U.S. Soldiers can get killed and kill, and to play police in what appears to now be a hopeless situation in Iraq. Cheney’s Halliburton stock will probably keep going up though.
February 6th, 2007 at 7:10 AM
Actually keeping the DFL busy with non binding resolutions is a pretty good thing, keeps them from passing more laws restricting our rights
February 6th, 2007 at 8:16 AM
Denying funds is taking money away from the troops. Other words that can be used include “surrender”, “retreat” and “cut and run”. Those are some of the printable words I could use.
February 6th, 2007 at 8:38 AM
What an economic boon for our country, if we could only save that two billion dollars a week and put it to better use. Finally the Democrats are stepping up and calling the borrow-and-spend Republicans on their wild and wasteful spending. Anybody who thinks that the war is not a local issue just isn’t paying much attention. Haven’t you noticed the libraries closing, the schools closing, the hospital ERs closing, the roads not getting plowed, the bridges aren’t getting inspected. We won’t even mention the levies or the cutbacks for veterans’ medical care.
Finally, some fiscal conservatives at the state capitol.
February 6th, 2007 at 9:24 AM
There are two possible solutions, but the president lacks the backbone to do either.
1) Surge. If they are going to do the surge, do the surge. Make it 100,000 troops for sixty days. Kill everything that moves. Then bring them home. 20,000 seems like just a mess of extra targets. If the goal is to wipe out all the insurgents, do it.
2) Leave. Where would we be today if the French had stuck around after the revolutionary war and occupied us as a country? We would be a bunch of crepe eating sonsabitches. Freedom that you aren’t willing to fight for is never going to happen. It is time that the Iraqis decide if they want freedom or tyranny. We have trained them. We have given them plenty of weapons. It is time for them to either stand up to the insurgents, or roll over. We shouldn’t have to hold their hand. Seriously. Why are republicans all for welfare and eternal benefits for foreigners, but totally against helping the poor in OUR country?
February 6th, 2007 at 10:05 AM
Charley,
Are you joking? The budget proposed by President Bush is $2,900,000,000,000. Out of the budget, only $600,000,000,000 is for the military and out of that only 168,000,000,000 is for the war. Where is the other 2,300,000,000,000 going if you say that there is no money for roads or health care or whatever your cause du jour is?
February 6th, 2007 at 10:08 AM
I think it’s absolutely crazy and wrong for the Minnesota Legislature to be wasting time about an issue they have no control over. They would rather spend time trying to take the money away from our troops on the field rather than pass any bills to put money into the State of Minnesota. And I thought liberals loved to spend money!
February 6th, 2007 at 10:15 AM
Fred (aka GOP Strategist),
What would have happened in Europe if the U.S. had left just a couple of years after WWII ended? We still have troops in both Europe and Japan. We still have troops in Bosnia and Kosovo after the war Clinton started in 1993.
And the idea that we don’t help the poor in the U.S. is a bunch of B.S. too. We spend hundreds of billions of dollars annually helping the poor.
February 6th, 2007 at 10:25 AM
The fine print of this resolution matters less to me than the gall of the MN Legislature collecting per diems while they have meaningless debates on US foreign policy.
It isn’t their job (nor is it the business of the Mpls City Council).
We have a US Senate to engage in toothless debates on US foreign policy.
February 6th, 2007 at 10:31 AM
DemocRats are looking for ways to sink this war and rack up yet another loss for the United States.
Fact is they will try to take the spending away so the troops suffer but what they really want is to go back to the old days when they were able to meet our service men and women at the airports and spit on them and call them baby killers.
Funny thing is leftist ideals do not work without military might behind it. A strong high school footbal team would be able to overpower a country of liberals and tree huggers.
February 6th, 2007 at 10:35 AM
If that’s all the state legislature has to do, God help us.
I thought they ran on issues like health care reform, education, and cutting my property taxes.
Same old same old.
I challenge them to come to my neighborhood and tell me that political posturing over the war is more important than safe neighborhoods, lower taxes, and affordable health care.
Dolts!
February 6th, 2007 at 11:10 AM
The Democrats are losing this war? This war was lost years ago due to the ineptness of the GOP. You cannot deploy democracy. Now, the GOP refuses to debate the issue on the floor of the Senate. It’s ridiculous.
After the patrol on Thursday, Sgt. Michael Hiler, 26, stepped down from his Humvee and described the day’s effort as “stupid.” “We should have pulled out a long time ago,” Hiler said. “It’s going to take the hand of God to change anything about what we do here, which is nothing. This country’s going to fall apart sooner or later, and at this point I say, ‘Good riddance.’ ”
“I don’t think the infantry or pretty much anyone in the United States Army are properly trained to deal with the guerrilla tactics these guys use against us,” said Spec. Jeffrey Steele, 22. “This is a policing thing, you know. It needs more investigation into how these guys work, where they’re located. I don’t think we can do any better.”
Let’s cut the BS and Bring Our Troops Home.
February 6th, 2007 at 11:25 AM
Marty Siefert is bemoaning the fact that tons of paper is not moving around the legislature as the democrats are being deliberative -vs- prolific. And now he is complaining that democrats ARE moving quickly on a poorly thought-out idea?
Seems to me no matter what the Democrats do, he will be complaining. And, in turn, Michael will be writing about it.
February 6th, 2007 at 11:33 AM
I just wrote my MN Rep…and I gave him an earful. Why are they even talking about this? It would be no different than the MN Senate talking about NASA funding. It’s not their jurisdiction and that’s not why they were elected.
Morons…GOSH!
February 6th, 2007 at 1:19 PM
Chris,
Please check your figures again, because it really depends on what federal expenses you attribute to war. Veterans’ benefits, military retirement, interest on loans made for military purposes, weapons development, etc. etc. The two billion per week is ONLY the Iraq war and ONLY the money spent directly on extraordinary costs. It doesn’t even include replacing the helocopters that get shot down, much less the Humvees that wear out, much less the money lost to fraud.
If you add up all the military expenses, it comes to well over half of the entire US budget. The US budget for its military is equal to the military expenses of the rest of the ENTIRE WORLD put together. It’s pretty stupid, if you think about it, to only spend money on stuff that kills people and blows stuff up. No sane person would view this money as an investment for the future.
You would have to be fairly superficial to believe that one person (Ronald Regan) could “win” the cold war. What really happened, if you analyse a bit deeper, is that the Soviet Union spent more money than they had on weapons that didn’t do anything useful and on weapons they couldn’t afford. Where is the Soviet Union now? In fact, how are those Russians doing generally? Have you seen the mortality statistics? Have you watched the rate of alcoholism or the rate of people freezing to death in the cities? Or maybe you have been reading the personal ads and you have seen the huge quantities of Russian “brides” suddenly available?
Chris, we aren’t going to win this war. You can believe me now or you can watch as our country flushes itself directly down the toilet. But it will happen. It’s getting a little late to get ourselves out of this hole, but at least it might be prudent to stop digging.
February 6th, 2007 at 1:55 PM
Charley,
The entire budget for the Pentagon is 600,000,000,000 out of a budget of 2,900,000,000,000. End of story. It’s liberal kook propaganda to say that half of the budget goes to the military. That’s completely untrue. In fact, it’s an out and out lie. Pick up a copy of the Budget — you can probably even order one from Amazon.com and you will see the truth. Out of the 600,000,000,000 only 168,000,000,000 is for the war. The rest is for regular military personnel, ordering equipment, standard operations, etc.
Also, I’m glad that you people on the left finally admit that the U.S. can’t win anything. You said that in the first Gulf War. You said it in Vietnam. You said it during the Cold War. You said it even during WWII. Your defeatist attitude will not inspire the American people. Why don’t you just start waving the white flag and maybe the Islamofascists will show you some mercy.
February 6th, 2007 at 1:56 PM
By the way, your revisionist history of President Reagan isn’t fooling anyone either. If it wasn’t for Reagan’s policies, the Berlin Wall would still be standing today.
February 6th, 2007 at 2:02 PM
Charley,
I also responded to your Habeas Corpus argument on the other thread. It went up last night but got lost in the system. I had to re-post it this morning.
February 6th, 2007 at 3:31 PM
Good to know our DFL fuck ups are focusing issues of importance to the state. Jackasses.
February 6th, 2007 at 5:13 PM
Isn’t this sort of what Demcrats promised to do. And isn’t this the reason why despite all their flaws Americans gave Democrats their support in November?
This not supporting the troops line is a symptom of the sickness that is extream partisan politics. Why not redirect that passion toward arguing in favor of the war, because ultimatly thats why we have troops in the first place, and I’m pretty damn sure those troops that feel they are where they should be want Republicans to support their war.
If Republicans can convince the public this war is worth fighting those troops will get the financial support they need, but if it’s time to bring those troops home and you make an effort to keep them over their simply by using rehtoric then I hardly think thats support of the troops.
February 6th, 2007 at 7:06 PM
Not at the state level Mike. Those ass clowns in St. Paul weren’t elected for this bullshit.
February 6th, 2007 at 8:16 PM
Chris,
Here is the chart I am using: http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm
As you can see, it puts the figure at 30% for current military, 19% for past military. Some of the slight of hand you are falling for, I believe, includes stuff like putting the entire nuclear weapons program under the Department of Energy and putting the entire military-related debt in similarly masking catagories. The reality is, however, that we are spending more than we have on war, that we are using China and other mostly Asian countries to buy that debt, and that we have outsourced our industry to them in the process.
Again, this war is costing us far more than what we have. The country is going bankrupt, and it is Halliburton and Lockheed and Blackwater that are gettiing the money, not some imaginary welfare moms.
It also isn’t the soldiers or the vets getting rich. They are putting their lives on the line for a war that will never profit them or the small, patriotic towns they come from. Frankly, they are getting screwed and they are just beginning to figure it out.
So no more of this nonsense about not supporting the troops. It’s the war I don’t support. It’s the war that is bleeding the country dry, not some reservist trying to pay off his college loans. It’s the war that has been used to justify the destruction of the very principles of liberty that made this country great. And because we have transformed our country from a nation of freedom, into a nation spreading torture and greed, we are witnessing the decline of something you and I apparently both love.
Go ahead and credit Ronald Reagan for pulling down the Berlin wall, if you want. The problem we are facing is that George W Bush is now pulling down the Statue of Liberty.
February 6th, 2007 at 11:17 PM
Charley,
I resent your comment that George Bush is tearing down the Statue of Liberty. The people tearing down the Statue of Liberty are the al Qaeda terrorists who attacked us on 9/11. Only you would rather hate the leaders of your own country and falsely accuse them of doing evil things than to look real evil in the face and call it what it is. As I’ve said to you people on the left over and over again, there is no comparison between the beheadings of Americans and putting underwear on someone’s head at Club Gitmo.
You’re absolutely wrong that 1/3 of the budget goes to the military. Not even close. Have you ever read the budget??? I have. You talk about the debt and the ongoing deficits. Under the Clinton administration, the deficits averaged 2% of GDP. The current budget under the Bush administration is 1% of GDP. The country is not going bankrupt. Even if we were, the bankruptcy is not being caused by the war. We spend billions of dollars more on entitlements than we do any other item in the budget. But you wouldn’t know this since you haven’t actually picked up a budget and looked at it.
Finally, about the troops. You say that the troops are torturing people and tarnishing our country’s image abroad. How can you support them if they are so bad? You cannot say you support the troops and then despise what they are doing. It’s not intellectually honest.
February 6th, 2007 at 11:31 PM
How about just passing property tax relief for the families of those serving in Iraq?
“For every year in which a resident of a homestead is serving in Iraq, the property taxes on that homestead are waived by the State of Minnesota. This includes all fees, assessments, levys, and local property taxes by local units of government. Affected local units of government may apply for payment of those fees from the General Fund.”
February 7th, 2007 at 8:56 AM
//The problem we are facing is that George W Bush is now pulling down the Statue of Liberty.//
LOL — good one Charley. Ignorance often is the best punchline… and you’re a very funny guy.
BTW — You and your ilk don’t support the war, fine. But don’t repeat that canard that you support the troops. Bullshit.
February 7th, 2007 at 11:41 AM
Brian,
For once you don’t have a bad idea. Although I would go further and support not assessing State income taxes to military pensions.
February 7th, 2007 at 1:44 PM
Chris, I completely agree with you that terrorists are attacking our freedom. Of course. No question.
The question has always been, however, how should we respond? I simply do not understand how you could justify protecting freedom by taking it away. It seems to me that terrorists completely win that way. So I view the U.S. use of torture as a success for terrorism. Likewise Guantanamo and Kandahar. When Bush bypasses the law by using warrentless wiretaps or illegal data mining, I view it as a success for terrorism.
No, Chris, I do not believe that you can advance freedom by taking it away.
As for the troops, I certainly do believe that I support them. I want them home. I want them treated, if they have been injured. I want them to be helped in any way we can. And I am sure that I do not support anyone, in or out of uniform, who tortures anyone or kills innocent civilians. Do you? All that being said, I tend not to condemn those in uniform who have conducted torture, because I believe that they have been illegally instructed or put in impossible positions. The villians of this piece, in my opinion, are not the soldiers and marines. The villans are folks like Alberto Gonzales, George W Bush, Dick Cheney and their ilk. And maybe misguided folks who ask soldiers to make unreasonable sacrifices that they wouldn’t make themselves. (Don’t take it personally.)
February 7th, 2007 at 5:45 PM
Charley,
(1) You said that the U.S. uses torture. Prove it. The U.S. does not sanction torture. Putting underwear on someone’s head or having them around culturally insensitive dogs is not torture. Sleep deprivation and loud music are not torture. Cutting off the heads of infidels with swords is torture. And dare I say, flying planes into buildings to burn people alive and cause others to jump 110 stories to their deaths is torture.
(2) You say the Bush administration is illegally data mining and wiretapping. Back it up! The Supreme Court has not ruled those actions illegal. Furthermore, not one effort has begun in Congress to stop either data mining or wiretapping. Not one. That’s because the Democrats have seen for themselves that the practices work and have actually foiled terrorist attacks – see, e.g. the plot to blow up airliners over the Atlantic with chemical explosives.
(3) You say you can’t be for freedom while taking it away. What freedoms are being taken away? I don’t see my freedoms being taken away except by people who want to kill me because I’m an infidel. The first responsibility of government is to protect its citizens and the homeland from outside forces. You can’t have freedom unless you have the right to live.
(4) The troops are not allowed to carry out illegal orders by anyone. You cannot accuse them of torturing people illegally and support what they are doing at the same time. You’re either for the troops or against them. By the way, the Bush administration has restored many cuts made to the VA under the Clinton administration. Never have the soldiers been taken care of so well — ask the boys and girls at Walter Reed where people marched outside of their hospital rooms calling them mass murderers.
February 7th, 2007 at 6:16 PM
I’m all for the legislators in St Paul sticking to state issues, and am hopeful Republicans might start doing that sooner then later.
February 7th, 2007 at 7:57 PM
Mike,
Huh? Republicans don’t control anything in St. Paul except for the Governor’s office. And all the Governor can do is propose legislation, and either sign or veto what comes out of the legislature. So how is it that Republicans aren’t sticking to state issues when they don’t control a single committee in the legislature?
February 7th, 2007 at 8:38 PM
Torture… according to Human Rights Watch, in 2006 we find strong evidence of torture by the new Iraqi government that we helped found, and additional evidence of US detainee abuse from the 2003-2005 timeframe.
At least there are no more reports of Iraqis abused at the hands of Americans…
http://hrw.org/englishwr2k7/docs/2007/01/11/iraq14705.htm
February 7th, 2007 at 9:38 PM
Brian,
You are really something. You sit there and say you support the troops and then accuse them of torture. Next, you’ll be calling them mercenaries like this guy:
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/2007/01/the_troops_also_need_to_suppor.html