No Comment
This press release from Vets for Freedom (VFF) gives a new meaning to the phrase No comment. I’ll let the memo speak for itself:
Vets for Freedom expresses disappointment that veterans were not able to meet with Congressional leadership from both sides of the aisle in Congress today. While many Republican Senators, including leadership, made themselves available for questions and input, interaction from Democratic leadership was noticeably absent. In spite of that, Vets for Freedom members remain committed to speaking with elected leaders on both sides of the aisle.
Republican leadership (and some Democrats, although not leadership) made room in their busy schedules, on very short notice, to speak with veterans. These veterans flew in on their own dime to ask Congress to give General David Petraeus the time he needs to fully implement the surge of American forces in Iraq. Veterans are very grateful and thankful for the time that these Senators took to spend with them.
Five days in advance of today’s events, Vets for Freedom meeting requests—for 5 minutes—were submitted to the Majority Leader and the Speaker of the House. Repeated attempts were made to contact and meet with the Democratic leadership. “In the end, they made a disappointing decision to decline meeting with veterans who have first-hand knowledge of the situation on the ground” said Pete Hegseth, an Iraq War veteran and executive director of Vets for Freedom. “It is especially disappointing because Democratic leadership’s misguided policy, a declaration of defeat, will lead to a national security disaster for the United States.”
Vets for Freedom is a nonpartisan organization established by combat veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Its mission is to educate the American public about the importance of achieving success in these conflicts by applying our first-hand knowledge to issues of American strategy and tactics—namely “the surge” in Iraq. Vets for Freedom is the leading voice representing troops and veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan. For more information, please visit www.vetsforfreedom.org.
Considering the solemnity and seriousness of the issue and the firsthand experience these veterans have with that issue, isn’t it reasonable to ask why the Democratic leadership in the House and Senate refused to even listen to these veterans? Wouldn’t it have been wise to hear what they had to say?
The fact that they didn’t speak with Vets for Freedom speaks volumes as to how much political pressure the House and Senate Democratic leadership is under from the Nutroots. Let’s ask some questions about why Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Dick Durbin and Steny Hoyer wouldn’t meet with VFF.
- Did this quartet choose not to meet with VFF because they weren’t interested in hearing what these military veterans had to say?
- Did the Democratic leadership of the House and Senate choose not to meet with these veterans because they were ordered not to by their Nutroots fundraisers?
- Did this quartet steer clear because they had already decided upon a course of action regardless of the facts?
I think this AP article gives us the answer as to why they didn’t meet with the veterans:
MoveOn.org, the anti-war group, announced plans for more than 130 events around the country to coincide with the Senate debate, part of an effort to pressure Republicans into allowing a final vote on the legislation. A candlelight vigil and rally across the street from the Capitol was prominent among them, with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, (D-CA), attending.
It’s extremely disturbing that Reid, Pelosi, et al, would rather listen to MoveOn.org rather than listening to Gen. Petraeus. It’s disturbing to think that Reid’s and Pelosi’s Iraq policy would be formed by anti-military political activists rather than by military experts and by reports from Iraq.
Earlier tonight, I listened to a portion of Tom Coburn’s speech. I thought his comparison of the situation in Iraq to a cancer patient was extremely apt. He said that a patient diagnosed with cancer faces some serious choices, much like the Senate faces a serious choice with Iraq. Sen. Coburn said that the choice before the Senate was similar to the choice a cancer patient had to make. Should they start chemotherapy and radiation or should they send the patient home.
The implication to what he said was that a patient that’s receiving treatment isn’t guaranteed a cure but a patient that chose not to receive treatment was destined to a painful and certain death.
Continuing the surge doesn’t guarantee victory, though the evidence we’re getting now certainly points that direction. However, following the Democrats’ plan guarantees the death of Iraqi freedom.
Another facet of Sen. Coburn’s speech dealt with moral choices. Sen. Coburn asked whether a moral nation could leave Iraq, guaranteeing that the Iraqi people would live under another oppressive regime. He said he didn’t think so. I concur.
Technorati Tags: Vets For Freedom, Tom Coburn, David Petraeus, Military, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Dick Durbin, Steny Hoyer, MoveOn.org
Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog