The January 25, 2007 Free Press quoted Knollenberg as saying:
My patience with the war is growing thin. We need to see real progress in Iraq soon.
So, does that mean that Knollenberg is supporting the escalation in troops?
Does it mean that Knollenberg is opposed to the escalation?
Isn't everyone's patience thin? Doesn't everyone want to see real progress?
What is Congressman Knollenberg's position on escalation of the war in Iraq?
More importantly, why won't he tell us?
5 comments:
After seeing this post, I called Congressman Knollenberg's office and asked what Congressman Knollenberg's position was on President Bush's plan to increase the troops in Iraq.
His staffer said he hasn't really taken a position. He doesn't think the status quo is acceptable and that he is concerned about the size of troops.
I asked if he had a position on any of the Senate resolutions that are being discussed regarding the increase in troops and the staffer said he didn't have an opinion yet.
Everyone I know seems to have formed an opinion on whether they support the escalation in Iraq or not. Some support it. Some don't. But other than Knollenberg, I haven't met anyone yet who was so afraid to take a position on the issue.
This is an important issue. I am very disappointed that my Congressman either won't take a position or won't tell me what it is. His constituents deserve to know where he stands.
His webpage shows him as being a supporter early on in the war so I guess I can assume he is still supporting the President.
I wouldn't doubt there are Americans who haven't decided whether Bush should escalate the War in Iraq or not.
But those people are NOT Members of Congress.
Knollenberg is the ONLY member who refuses to state his position.
If he hasn't made a decision yet, then he is negligent in his duty because Bush isn't waiting for his answer, Bush is sending those troops over right now.
If he truly hasn't decided whether or not to support the escalation, than he simply isn't qualified to be in Congress. There is no excuse for that level of incompetence or negligence.
So Chetly, if Knollenberg decides to rob a bank would you tell me it was okay because other people rob banks too?
Your argument holds no water. You can't make what Knollenberg does okay just by pointing out someone else did it too.
What is the next excuse? The sun was in his eyes?
Taking luxurious vacations paid for by lobbyists is wrong.
Not showing up to vote on important issues is wrong.
Being unable or unwilling to take a position on the escalation of a war -- in which thousands of Americans have been killed and tens of thousands more have been seriously wounded -- is simply unacceptable.
And I don't care who you want to quote as having not taken a position.
Besides which, Lieberman has many statements on the record stating his support for the escalation so contrary to your lame excuse, Lieberman is not "undecided". He has been clear on his position. Which is appropriate for a member of Congress. I would expect him to have a position -- a strong position. I may not agree with it, but at least he took a position.
KNothingberg does nothing. He isn't representing his District. He doesn't stand a chance at being re-elected.
Um. Chet -- the name of this Blog is "Vote No on JOE". It doesn't have anything to do with Conyers or Clinton.
The name of the site isn't "Let's Compare Joe To . . .".
You said "Of course a staffer isn't going to have up-to-second positions for the Congressman on such a rapidly evolving issue."
Up-to-second? I would have been happy to hear any position from him regarding the escalation.
Bush announced his plan on January 10th. I called on January 26th.
Knollenberg couldn't make up his mind in 16 days?
I'll stand by my statement -- if he can't form a position on an issue as critical as escalating the war in Iraq, then he isn't qualified to represent the 9th District.
Chet --
You said: "I prefer my Congressman to be deeply contemplative of such important matters."
I agree that all Members of Congress should be dutiful and deliberate in their decision making.
But Knollenberg isn't "contemplative", he is comatose.
He is just afraid to state his position because his position is whatever George Bush tells him it is -- and he knows the majority of his constitutents disagree.
Your other statement that "The blog's purpose is demonstrate its point - voting no" and that comparisons are important is correct. And I would expect that this blog will compare and contrast Knollenberg's position with the position of the Democratic challenger. But we don't know who that is yet.
It is however disingenuous of you to assert that whomever it may be will act like Senator Clinton or Congressman Conyers, or whomever else you use for the villian-of-day. You know as well as anyone that Democrats cover the spectrum of views. We don't know if Joe will be challenged by someone with views similar to Joe Lieberman or Russ Feingold. So your assertion that they will act like Clinton or Conyers is simply silly at this point.
Post a Comment