Friday, February 16, 2007

Help Retire Joe Knollenberg

Help Retire Joe Knollenberg

http://www.actblue.com/page/retirejoeknollenberg 2008 is going to be the year the we retire Joe Knollenberg (R) from Michigan's 9th Congressional district. Joe said he would only serve two terms when he took office, well, he's been in Congress for 7 terms. It's time for Joe to retire, so we're going to help him.Your contribution will go to whoever the Democratic nominee is for the 2008 Congressional cycle and will help to fund a successful campaign to put a Democrat in Joe's seat. The Democratic Campaign Committee has already targeted Joe Knollenberg and your contribution will convince them to support the nominee for this seat.We will be holding retirement parties across the district. Look for parties in your area and contribute generously.Make your generous contribution here:http://www.actblue.com/page/retirejoeknollenberg

Our goal is to raise $100,000 by April of '08

kNOllenberg Speaks in Support of Bush's Surge of Troops in Iraq

Joe Knollenberg finally spoke. It was cryptic. But Joe Knollenberg said he supported President Bush's plan to escalate the war in Iraq by sending in 21,500 more troops.

Joe's statement's were unremarkable as usual. They included phrases such as:

Joe Knollenberg: "we also need to acknowledge that some positive things have happened in Iraq. . ."

Joe Knollenberg: "turning sovereignty over to the Iraqis . . . is a big deal."

Joe Knollenberg: "Fostering democracy in the heart of the Middle East was important. "
( Joe Knollenberg forgot to mention that The Bush/Knollenberg War in Iraq has fostered an increase in terrorists in Iraq.)

Since one of our frequent readers often asks us to evaluate other members of Congress, we will do so -- the Republicans who, like Joe Knollenberg, support the President's escalation of the war in Iraq almost uniformly ignored the language of the resolution and instead rambled on about WWII or Vietnam, or Al Qaeda (funny how they don't talk about Osama Bin Ladin anymore). Not a single one of them disputed the validity of the language of the resolution itself.

The resolution asked 2 simple questions:

1. Do you support the troops
2. Do you oppose Bush's plan to surge the troops by over 20,000?

Voting NO like KNOllenberg can only be interpreted as meaning that 1)he does not support the troops; and 2) he does support Bush's plan to surge the troops by over 20,000.

Wednesday, February 14, 2007

Which WishyWashyWay Will Joe Go Today?


The Detroit News is reporting that Knollenberg is going to
vote NO on the House Resolution that supports the troops and opposes President Bush's escalation of the War in Iraq by sending over 21,000 more troops to the area.

Specifically, the resolution they are voting on this week reads as follows:

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That--
      (1) Congress and the American people will continue to support and protect the members of the United States Armed Forces who are serving or who have served bravely and honorably in Iraq; and
      (2) Congress disapproves of the decision of President George W. Bush announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq.
The first part of the resolution says that Congress supports the troops. By voting NO, apparently Joe Knollenberg is saying that he does NOT support the troops.

The second part of the resolution says that Congress disapproves of Bush's escalation of the war in Iraq.
By voting NO, Knollenberg is saying that he Supports Bush's plan to "Stay the Course" and just add more combat troops.

The vote is scheduled for Friday. Meanwhile, each member of the House has been alloted 5 minutes to explain their position on the vote.

Knollenberg hasn't spoken yet. Apparently Knollenberg isn't important enough within his own caucus to be allowed to speak within the first half of the debate.



Heck, Joe kNOllenberg even voted NO to even debate the resolution. (See Rollcall Vote #97.) kNOllenberg does not want to have an open or honest debate on the issue. Maybe because he realizes that his position is completely out of step with his constituents.

Monday, February 12, 2007

House To Vote on Resolution Opposing Bush's Escalation of the War in Iraq

The U.S. House of Representatives will spend the week debating whether or not the House should support or oppose Bush's plan to escalate the war in Vietnam Iraq.

The resolution is artfully crafted in that it makes 2 clear and direct assertions -- that those who vote for it support the troops, but oppose Bush's decision to send over 20,000 additional troops.


Specifically, the
resolution reads:

(1) Congress and the American people will continue to support and protect the
members of the United States Armed Forces who are serving or who have served
bravely and honorably in Iraq; and

(2) Congress disapproves of the
decision of President George W. Bush announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy
more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq.

According to CNN, the vote is scheduled for Friday, February 16, 2007.

Between Tuesday and Friday, each Member will be given 5 minutes to speak in support or opposition to the resolution.

There is no announcement on Joe Knollenberg's official website regarding how he plans to vote. Perhaps he still can't make a decision about whether or not to escalate the war in Vietnam Iraq.