Why are the anti-war folks trying to help Bob Inglis?

… Especially now that he’s not voting with them any more?

Mr. Inglis got himself into major trouble with his poorly explained vote on the meaningless resolution against our Iraq involvement. Apparently, he’s been trying to back away from that since. Now he’s ticked off the other anti-war folks:

Americans Against Escalation in Iraq
http://www.NoIraqEscalation.org
For Immediate Release                 Contact:  Moira Mack
April 26, 2007

Rep. Inglis Defied the Will of South Carolinians on Iraq AGAIN

Despite Glaring Failures of Bush Iraq War Policy, Rep. Inglis Voted in Lockstep with the President on Iraq for the 8th Time

Washington, DC -– Wednesday the U.S. House of Representatives voted to bring a responsible end to the war in Iraq in an historic vote on the Iraq Accountability Act. The conference committee’s version of the Iraq Accountability Act would send President Bush legislation that sets timetables for the safe, responsible redeployment of American troopsInglis out of Iraq.  Just like the last time the House considered such legislation, Rep. Inglis failed to support the exit strategy that South Carolinians are demanding and instead voted to continue President Bush’s failed policy of unending war. In fact, all of the Republican Members of Congress from South Carolina defied the will of South Carolinians.

“In a slap in the face to South Carolinians who have been demanding a responsible end to the war in Iraq, Rep. Inglis once again failed to stand up to President Bush’s failed Iraq policy. South Carolinians are fed up with the President’s open-ended war and  his stubborn refusal to face the reality of the situation in Iraq and they will not sit idly by while their Member of Congress allows the Bush Administration’s ineptitude to continue,” said AAEI spokeswoman Moira Mack.

“Rep. Inglis is officially lap dog to the Bush Administration. After four years, the deaths of over 3,300 American soldiers, tens of thousands wounded and almost $400 billion spent, it’s long past time to bring a responsible end to the war. South Carolinians will remain active and continue to rally, protest, hold press conferences, and call their Members of Congress until our troops are safely home from Iraq.”

This is the 8th time Rep. Inglis has voted in lockstep with President Bush on Iraq (vote history attached).

   

Moira Mack
    Hildebrand Tewes Consulting, Inc.

                                    -30-

Notice all the angry cliches that are so typical of these kinds of releases, on so many issues, but particularly this one — "lockstep," "lap dog." Of course, they threw in a little "alternative reality" twist, saying he was defying the constituents’ will. But I don’t think they meant to be ironic. I think they really think "the people," and all of "the people," want us to give up in Iraq.

Seriously, when I first saw the headline, I honestly thought it was saying that he had voted against our involvement in Iraq again. Then I read on.

All that said, I’ve got to remember to give Mr. Inglis a call. I’ve been perplexed both my his original vote, and by his apparent reversal. In the past, he’s always been willing to go his own way, and damn the political consequences. Of course, that’s one reason why he sat out a couple of years before being re-elected.

Also, I would hate to seem him supporting the surge because he’s been intimidated into it as a matter of party loyalty. I hate party loyalty. I’d rather see him support it for the reasons I do — because we have to try to succeed in Iraq, not give up. Yet not so long ago, he was voting for giving up — or so it seemed.

It’s confusing.

Oh, wait, here’s his explanation. See what you think of it.

 

5 thoughts on “Why are the anti-war folks trying to help Bob Inglis?

  1. bud

    “I hate party loyalty. I’d rather see him support it for the reasons I do — because we have to try to succeed in Iraq, not give up.”
    – Brad Warthen
    Brad just doesn’t get it. His position for stay-the-course IS partisan. Highly partisan. Supremely partisan. It’s a dogmatic, stubborn position that borders on insanity. Brad is the poster child for partisanship when it comes to Iraq. Brad continues to criticize people for partisanship but he, is in fact, stubbornly partisan in the face of all the facts that prove this approach has failed.
    Success in Iraq mandates an American withdrawal of our armed forces, not a continuounce of a failed policy. American presence in Iraq is the chief stumbling block for preventing success. There is no other way to look at the facts on the ground after four years and reach a logical conclusion that we must continue to stay the course. It’s simply impossible to support this insanity based on any kind of rational thought process. Therefore supporting the surge (which is really nothing but stay the course on steroids) is both illogical and very PARTISAN.

    Reply
  2. bud

    FromDictionary.com
    partisan:
    an adherent or supporter of a person, group, party, or cause, esp. a person who shows a biased, emotional allegiance.
    From Rassmussen
    Fifty-seven percent (57%) of American voters now favor either an immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq (37%) or a firm deadline for their withdrawal (20%). The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that just 35% of voters are opposed to both of these options for ending the war.
    Here’s how to frame the Iraq debate that correctly defines who the true partisans are: The partisan position in Iraq is OPPOSITION to any timetable for withdrawal. The MAINSTREAM, non-partisan, position is to SUPPORT a timetable. Currently 35% of all Americans, mostly Republicans, are partisan on this issue since they support an indefensible CAUSE, I.E. continued military occupation by American troops.
    So what does that make Bob Inglis? Apparently he’s a flip-flopper.

    Reply
  3. Doug Ross

    Bud, please allow Brad the freedom to define what “partisan” means. He already has the copyright on “civility”.

    Reply
  4. Carol Hathaway

    Mr. Ross, Bud, I think you’re being unfair to Mr. Warthen. It is not necessarily partisan to support the Iraq war, or even to support the “surge,” even now. Not everyone who disagrees with you has impure motivations, even in cases such as this one, where you’re right and they’re wrong.
    I therefore do not accept, without additional evidence, Bud’s claim that Mr. Warthen’s motivations are partisan. He is wrong, obviously, but there could be a number of reasons for that.
    It’s clear, for example, from Mr. Warthen’s endless discussion of the silly little Nazi rally, that he’s not the smartest person in the world. A smart person would have ignored the rally, perhaps giving it just enough notice to remark that little fringe groups are going to show up and prance around from time to time, and that if you ignore them they’ll go away.
    A smart person who wanted to expend a little extra effort to show the Nazis how unimportant and silly they really are might have contacted friends in the gay community, in order to organize a particularly flamboyant gay pride parade marching up and down the street in front of the Nazis.
    Mr. Warthen, on the other hand, treated this little ragtag band of losers like they were the most important people in the world. The same lack of intelligence that caused him to overestimate the importance of the Nazi rally might also cause his support of the Iraq war.
    Mr. Warthen also doesn’t seem to me to be particularly well informed. I doubt, for example, that he saw the Bill Moyers piece dealing with the failure of the press in the leadup to the Iraq war. I doubt that he is aware of the work by Knight-Ridder (now McClatchy) revealing at the time that the administration’s case was built on lies. I doubt that he saw John McCain get pwned by Jon Stewart on Tuesday’s “Daily Show”. I doubt that he saw John McCain get pwned again by Jon Stewart, when Bill Moyers interviewed Stewart on “Bill Moyers’ Journal”, discussing Stewart’s work and the wretched behavior of the media.
    Someone who is apparently relatively unintelligent, and is also uninformed about important issues of the day might, purely due to a lack of information and understanding, and without any partisan motivation whatsoever, support our continued presence in Iraq, and might even support the “surge”.
    What evidence can either of you give that Mr. Warthen’s motivations are partisan?
    Has he failed to engage the arguments of opponents of the Iraq war, choosing instead to simply repeat slogans promulgated by the Bush administration?
    That would be partisan.
    Has he pretended that failing to support Bush Administration policy is the same as failing to support the troops?
    That would be partisan.
    Has he suggested that opponents of the war are motivated simply by a dislike of President Bush, rather than by their honest opinion of the war?
    That would be partisan.
    But until you can provide evidence that Mr. Warthen has engaged in such behavior, or similar behavior, I am simply not willing to accept that he is acting in a partisan way. Again, the fact that someone does not agree with you, even if he is wrong and you are right, does not prove that he is motivated by partisan considerations.

    Reply
  5. bud

    Carol, I believe Brad has committed all of the acts you claim would prove him to be a partisan. However, that is not necessary to satisfy the dictionary definition of a partisan. One merely has to demonstrate an irrational support for a particular cause regardless of overwhelming evidence proving the cause will fail to achieve the stated objectives of the cause. In the history of the universe has there ever been a more discredited cause than America’s continued occupation of Iraq??
    Here are the words of a genuine partisan. Can you guess who said this?
    “Mr. President, can anyone seriously argue that another six months of United States forces in harm’s way means the difference between peace and prosperity and war there?
    Is that very dim prospect worth one more American life? No, it is not.”
    — John McCain (R-) about Clinton’s [policy in Somalia, Oct 14, 1993.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *