Rep. Mike Rogers has finally mustered the courage to respond to his constituents' opposition to the Iraq War -- with a brief statement claiming that the war is essential to American security.
The Lansing State Journal reports that it reached Rogers by email after a Thursday protest at Michigan State University organized by Americans Against Escalation in Iraq.
According to the Lansing State Journal, the Brighton Republican replied to the protest with the following statement:
"We have several problems in Iraq - an Iranian problem, an al Qaeda problem and a sectarian violence problem. What we need is not empty political resolutions like the measure on the House floor recently, but an honest, bipartisan dialogue on what strategy we need if the surge, which I did not favor, does not work.
"Immediate withdrawal is not a strategy and neither is ignoring the challenges. Our nation's security rests on our ability to take partisan politics out of this debate and move forward together. We must agree on a strategy that brings our troops home without leaving an al Qaeda safe haven in Iraq."
Let's dissect this bit of nonsense.
First of all, Rogers leaves out the biggest problem we have in Iraq -- an incompetence problem created by George Bush's decision to invade the country in the first place.
Then Rogers calls for a "dialogue" IF the surge doesn't work. So why doesn't Rogers start the dialogue by laying out his plan IF the surge doesn't work?
After that bit of hot air, Rogers throws out the red herring that "immediate withdrawal is not a strategy." A withdrawal next April is not "immediate" by any stretch of the imagination.
Then he claims that "our nation's security" rests on this debate. "Our nation's security" has nothing to do with the war in Iraq. The war has made us less safe, as shown by the recent National Intelligence Estimate that Al Qaeda has regained its strength while the U.S. has been distracted by the unnecessary war in Iraq. The NIE report said that the Iraq War had had a "rejuvenating effect" on Al Qaeda.
As for Al Qaeda finding a safe haven in Iraq, why would Al Qaeda move there from the safe haven it already has in Pakistan, to which its leaders fled after George Bush botched the war in Afghanistan?
Why do journalists routinely print such nonsensical statements from politicians? Unfortunately, journalistic norms requiring "balance" sometimes work against journalists' desire to seek out the truth. If just once a newspaper could tell Rogers that his statement is not worthy of being printed because it doesn't say anything new, he might change his ways. But no newspaper will, for fear of being labeled biased. So he -- and other politicians -- get away with issuing statements that dodge the question and hide the truth.
4 comments:
It's such a cop out for him to say he was against the surge. I know he proposed an alternative plan in a resolution he introduced, but Rogers knew that wasn't going anywhere, and voted with the republican caucus to support the escalation anyway. He could've obstained or voted against the troop surge, if he truly opposed it.
As I've pointed out numerous times, Rogers' last three campaigns have received significant support from war profiteers like Exxon, Chevron, Lockheed Martin, GE, and Halliburton. The war has been good to these companies, and in exchange for his continued support of George Bush's war, these companies have been good to Mike Rogers.
Judy - aren't you a former reporter? don't you understand that not quoting the congressman who is the subject of a protest wouldn't be bias, it would be journalistic incompetence?
Anonymous,
I believe that is what I said in the last paragraph -- that journalistic norms work against the search for truth. Newspapers, however, could send the email back to Rogers and note that his comments were not responsive to the situation and give him a chance to amend them or they would refuse to use them. Right now, politicians know that newspapers will print whatever is sent to them in the name of "balance."
so the "search for truth" requires that reporters not print quotes from politicians they don't agree with or find to be not on point? strange logic. isn't that for the reader to decide?
Post a Comment