Gus Bilirakis Iraq Debate - February 19, 2007
Debate Clip
If the link above doesn't work, click here for a full list of Representative Clips
Speech Transcript: http://guswatch.blogspot.com/2007/02/gus-bilirakis-is-for-sending-more.html
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
OMG, he's even more pathetic than I thought. Does he even have a clue how stupid the tired GOP talking points sound at this point?
To the Honorable Gus Bilirakis:
I know that the resolution against the escalation in Iraq was passed by the House. I've seen the transcripts and read what you had to say during this important debate.
I disagree with much of what you said, especially your conclusion to vote against the resolution.
This "surge" is in fact an escalation, and not large enough to really turn any tides. Escalations have been tried here several times before, and have not worked. Thousands of soldiers have been killed and Iraq continues to fall into chaos.
The premises for the war, changed several times and each one a lie, should be reason enough to express disapproval. In fact, those lies should be enough to impeach, if not to try our administration in the Hague. And you feel compelled to vote against expressing disapproval?
You want to support the troops. So do I. How about a surge in EQUIPMENT like body armor and Strykers and armored Humvees? How about better medical care, including mental?
In WWII, which actually WAS a defining battle of the times, we supported the troops with: a draft, rationing, tax increases, prosecution of war profiteers, conversion of factories, and more. In this "defining battle" we've been asked to SHOP!
We've been at this longer than WWII, and we still don't understand "the enemy." The planners are fools and worse. Say so. Then come up with better plans.
The history of Iraq has been one of cynical American meddling for decades. However much I hated that, it was at least managed from a distance. But this president has kicked the anthill and insists our troops stand there until the ants calm down.
The terrorists of 9/11 came from Saudi Arabia. Giving Iraq a constitution won't ever change that, and won't keep terrorists from coming from wherever they're welcome, including our "friends."
Although I don't pretend to be an expert, I see several paths:
** We could take the advice of generals proven right and fired for it, and put 400,000 troops in Iraq. That would have worked better 4 years ago, and might take 600,000 now, but if this is a defining battle, let's draft everyone and buy the Chrysler division from Daimler and convert it to making military vehicles and raise taxes and turn down thermostats and ration gas and sell war bonds.
** We could back out entirely, planning for a safe and orderly exit for our troops. Iraq would have their civil war. Why not? We had ours. Maybe the UN could help out. Then we could get back to running our country, securing our ports, rebuilding our alliances, reducing our need for foreign oil, and addressing global warming.
** We could stumble on like this, letting soldiers die, bankrupting our economy, leaving ports unsecured, enriching Halliburton and Blackwater, losing international respect and trust, unable to address whatever other threats may occur, while making speeches about "supporting our troops," until the Chinese buy us for a dime on the dollar and make us their new sweatshop when they call in their loans and when the world trades oil for Euros instead of dollars.
I don't see that last one as the Goldilocks solution.
I watched Congressman Gus Bilirakis speak against the resolution against the Iraq escalation Thursday night on C-Span. Correction - I watched him read the White House talking points verbatim. Honestly, shouldn't he know them by heart now? Even though he should know them by rote, he read the usual Luntz speak and got louder as he climaxed with a list of terrorist attacks beginning with the World Trade Center in 1993 and ending with a big finale of September 11th.
As Lil' Gussie read the usual crap, I was struck about how awkward and bizarre his delivery was. He kind of reminded me of Elmer Fudd. I tried using google to find a video clip of him reading his script, but I came up empty:
http://images.google.com/imghp?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=xx-elmer&q=&tab=di
Anyway, he mangled every other word as he using a chopping motion with his hand. Maybe we should call him Adolph Fudd.
Gus "Fudd" Bilrakis indeed voted no but I don't remember hearing about his service to our country? Where did he serve?
I have family serving in the military, Why does Gus support extending the death sentence for our troops:
“Extended Duty” and “Pilot says troop’s helicopter use rises”
I noticed that on page 8A in the February 12, 2007 edition of the St. Pete Times, there are 2 articles referring to Bush’s Iraq Escalation. The first one refers to the Iowa National Guard’s 1st Battalion, 133rd Infantry Regiment’s recent extended deployment in Iraq. “Instead of six, Espinosa has about 40 more missions to go.”
Infantry travel on the ground, right?
Moving on to the article underneath, Maj. Gen. Jim Simmons says “flying time for troops is growing because of the risks of road travel.” So despite the clear danger of increasing helicopter attacks, Maj. Gen. Jim Simmons adds …wait for it…
“It’s the safest way I know to get around here."
To those of you who have served, I thank you for your service. To those of you who have not served but still support the escalation in Iraq, I suggest that you empty your wallets, saving accounts and any able bodied household members and offer them all up for this suicide mission.
What has Gus Bilirakis sacrificed for the invasion of Iraq? Inquiring minds want to know.
It is time to bring our brave soldiers home alive and well.
Post a Comment