Rep. Hodes Responds to the President's State of the Union Address

Representative Hodes recently responded to the President's call to send 21,000 more troops to Baghdad by demanding "a change of course, not an escalation." While his statement wasn't particularly radical (I have no doubt that the staffer who wrote his editorial grabbed it directly from the talking points provided by the Democratic leadership) I found it disturbing becuase it seems like he recognizes his responsibility to oppose the President's plan and refuses to act accordingly.

Like so many members of his party, Mr. Hodes campaigned on what he refered to as a plan for a responsible exit strategy from Iraq. He pledged to "hold the administration accountable and enforce, through the appropriations process, a responsible and comprehensive exit strategy." For those of us looking beyond the semantics, that meant cutting off funding for our troops in Iraq so the president would have to choose between their safety and retreat from his idealistic foreign policy goals.

Unlike with so many other politicians, particularily the 2nd Districts own longserving Charlie Bass, who urged caution and restraint, Mr Hodes' language seemed clear and simple. He was going to support a plan to bring home my friends and neighbors in the National Guard, he was going to force the President to redeploy our active duty forces in a matter of months, and he was going to support crafting a new coalition of nations to defend Iraq's nascent democracy.

Sadly enough, after a whole month as our Representative in the House, Mr. Hodes hasn't signed onto a single piece of legislation that would make an iota of difference to our posture in Iraq. In this, the first month of their return to the majority based on a campaign devoted in its totality to the War in Iraq, Mr. Hodes' party has passed 61 pieces of legislation, not a single one of which has anything to do with the War.

Some 17 pieces of legislation regarding the war are up for consideration in the House. While Representative Shea-Porter has followed through with her campaign pledge by acting as a co-sponsor of Representative Murtha's resolution, "To Redeploy US Forces from Iraq," Representative Hodes has forsaken his supporters.

In point of fact, other than the Democrats vaunted six "100 hour" bills, Mr. Hodes has gone out of his way to support only two pieces of legislation; one regarding bank holding company regulation and the other expanding the IRS's bureaucracy by prohibiting the secretary of the treasury to hire private companies to support their efforts.So I guess my question, the reason I've decided to add my first post to this blog, is this: Why does my Representative think banking regulations are more important than the lives of our brave soldiers in Iraq? What's changed so much since he was elected just 85 days ago?

(See attached editorial for context and please feel free to comment)

_____________________________
I'll work to change Bush's flawed war plan
By Rep. PAUL HODES
For the Monitor
January 27. 2007 8:32AM

On Tuesday evening I watched the State of the Union address for the first time as a member of Congress. While I found the pageantry inspiring, I was dismayed by the president's speech.We heard another attempt to allay, with hollow rhetoric, the concerns of an alarmed nation. Rather than seize an opportunity to level with the American people and set the new course they demand, the administration again chose to cling to its delusions and insist that its failing policies be continued unchallenged.

In 2003 the administration requested and received from Congress authority to invade Iraq on the basis of the claim that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and presented an imminent threat to our national security. Senior administration officials claimed that the Iraqi government was connected with the al-Qaida terrorists who perpetrated the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.We now know that neither the premise for the invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq nor the claim of a connection to 9/11 was true.

After the fall of Baghdad, the administration sent in officials with little or no knowledge and understanding of Iraq, its people, its cultures or its politics. Costly mistakes, including the dismantling of the army and the failure to secure weapons stockpiles, paved the way for the current situation:

• More than $450 billion spent, with billions unaccounted for.

• An Iraqi government unwilling to control - or incapable of controlling - warring sects and their militias.

• More than 3,000 American soldiers killed, and more than 25,000 soldiers maimed or wounded.

• Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians killed, wounded or driven from their homes by sectarian violence.
• A profound loss of respect for our country in the region and around the world.

The administration still has no plan for a responsible exit strategy for the troops mired in Iraq. But now, unbelievably, the president want to send an additional 21,000 troops to Iraq. This proposal is a cavalier rejection of the views of the American people, the consensus of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group and the counsel of military commanders.

Our strategic interests require a change of course, not an escalation. The imperative to support our troops requires a change of course, not an escalation. Last year, the Republican-controlled House declared in the Defense Authorization Bill that 2006 would be a year of transition to Iraqi control of Iraq, and that redeployment would begin at that point. Yet here we are in 2007, with the administration calling for escalation.

The time has come for this Congress to say enough is enough. The time has come and gone for statements of concern. The time has come and gone for "Trust but verify." It is now time for Congress to do what the American people said so clearly in November that they wanted us to do: change the course in Iraq. When you're in a hole, stop digging.I support our troops, and I oppose the administration's proposed escalation.

I resolve to work with my colleagues over the coming weeks for a concrete new direction in Iraq. In the absence of an acceptable plan from the president, the American people have called upon Congress to lead the way. Demand for a new direction in Iraq is, in large part, the reason I am in Washington, and I intend to honor that.

(U.S. Rep Paul Hodes represents New Hampshire's 2nd District. He is a Democrat from Concord.)