A Letter From Congressman Gabrielle Giffords, Arizona's 8th District

(CLICK LETTERS TO ENLARGE)

For those of you thinking the vote on HR 2956 last week was pressured in any way by Cindy Sheehan and her leftist looney friends, I present above a letter I received from Gabrielle Giffords, freshman congressman and total Pelosi suckup. I had originally written to her regarding immigration. However, this response had NOTHING TO DO WITH IMMIGRATION (see, she ran on campaign promises to enforce border laws, yet abstained from the vote when it came right down to it).

Admittedly, the scanner didn't work all that well. However, the date at the top should be clear--May 31, 2007. The last page is also clear with her signature.

What isn't clear is this particular paragraph on page 2:

Make no mistake, the effort to require a timeline for redeployment of troops from Iraq is far from over. I will continue to vote in support of a responsible shift of troops from Iraq to targeted regions around the world where there are serious threats to America. Many members of Congress and military leaders agree that September will be an important turning point for evaluating the effects of the President's
surge. As a member of the House Armed Services Committee, I will be briefed on the situation in considerable detail

Not only does this letter show a determined effort to continue wasting taxpayer time and money in non-binding resolutions that are simply going to be vetoed, she also clearly shows she is willing to let things stand until September.

Well. So, how did she vote this week in Roll Call 624 on HR2956? Did she live up to her word to wait until September and let General Petraeus do his job? A General she helped unanimously approve--both him and his plan?

OF COURSE NOT! SHE VOTED "YEA"--TO BREAK HER WORD IN LETTING GENERAL PETRAEUS DO HIS JOB, WITHDRAW TROOPS, IGNORE THE PROGRESS BEING MADE--IN SHORT, HER "NORMAL" PELOSI SUCKUP ROUTINE. You can find the results of Roll Call 624 here.

Since the letter isn't clear, I'm going to re-type it in its entirety. Those familiar with democrat spin will be able to pick this apart in a heartbeat. Bottom line though? GIFFORDS LIED--OUR TROOPS AND IRAQIS HAVE--AND WILL CONTINUE--TO DIE.

Dear Miss [Redacted]:

I appreciate your interest in the U.S. involvement in Iraq and I am writing
to update you on the most recent congressional action.

As you probably know, on May 24th the House of Representatives passed the
final version of the Fiscal Year 2007 Emergency Supplemental bill. It passed
280-142 with strong bipartisan support and also cleared the Senate. The next day
President Bush signed it into law (well, this much she got through without a lie)

I voted for this legislation because I cannot, in good conscience, allow the
military to run out of money while American service men and women are being
attacked every day. As this month concludes, it unfortunately becomes the
deadliest month for U.S. troops in 2 1/2 years; ten soldiers were killed on
Memorial Day alone. (maybe, if their funding hadn't been held up with non-binding resolutions and time wasted presenting bills that were certain to be vetoed, those soldiers wouldn't have died. They might have had the supplies they needed--instead congress
PURPOSELY CHOSE to waste time, money, and OUR SOLDIERS BLOOD. As a member of the House Armed Services Committee, you of ALL people KNEW withholding funds would--and DID--cost our soldiers their lives).

Earlier this year, I voted against the President's surge plan (AFTER unanimously approving General Petraeus and his plan!). I also voted four times to send him a supplemental appropriations bill with firm timetables for a responsible redeployment of troops from Iraq (yeah--surrender, cut and run, and outrageous pork for your pet projects!). That includes my vote to attempt to override his veto of the first version (a veto you and all the other representatives KNEW you had NO WAY of overriding...yet you
CONTINUED to send the President bills you KNEW would be vetoed, you COST troops their LIVES with your games AND you and your politicizing cronies cost the taxpayers money for the time you wasted in such mental masturbation TRYING to force the President to do what YOU wanted).

Along with most Americans (do NOT make the mistake you speak for the majority, NOT with the current dismal approval ratings of congress), I understand that achieving stability in Iraq requires an aggressive political and diplomatic strategy--not a massive U.S. military presence (in other words you want to try to negotiate diplomatically with those who have made it CLEAR they WILL annihilate us--what part of that do you NOT understand?--and at the same time tie our soldier's hands, telling them to play nice in war). But failing to pass a supplemental appropriations bill or prompting another veto would not have fixed President Bush's strategy (A strategy YOU approved when YOU approved General Petraeus,
thereby making it YOUR strategy as well) in Iraq (although it infuriated you that he kept his word--unlike you--he said he would veto anything except a clean bill--send him a clean bill--it took FOUR tries for a CLEAN bill)--it would only have prevented the military from replacing worn out equipment (which you effectively did yourself by continuing the nonsense for FIVE (5) months). Our troops are embroiled in an untenable civil war between Iraqi factions (sorry--not buying it--it is NOT a civil war between factions it is a war against an ideologically bankrupt, brutally savage political structure masking itself as a religion), but they did not choose or design their mission. We cannot abandon them (yet continuing to play with funding does just that; not living up to your word, the word you gave General Petraeus does just that; not
funding them in a timely manner and, instead, continuing to play games does just that).

General Richard Cody, the Vice Chief of Staff of the Army, recently testified before Congress that if a supplemental appropriations bill was not approved by June, the Army's ability to provide equipment to soldiers on the ground in Iraq would be significantly compromised (DUH---YA THINK? In other words, quit messing with the troops lives over your petty squabbles--DO YOUR JOB)

Specifically, the bill includes a $1 billion increase for the National Guard and Reserve equipment, $1.1 billion for military housing, and $3 billion for the purchase of Mine
Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicles (MRAP)--vehicles designed to withstand
roadside bombs. (Gee, if you hadn't screwed around for FIVE (5) months with your stupid power games, they'd already have had them, wouldn't they? How many lives could have been saved then?). Also $4.8 billion is designated to ensure that troops and veterans receive the health care they have earned with their service (and yet, the VA hospitals are overcrowded, understaffed and the troops have to wait inexcusably long time periods for services--and how about Walter Reed? What have you done there?)

In addition, the bill includes eighteen key benchmarks for political, economic and reconstruction progress in Iraq. This is the first step in creating much needed accountability (look in the mirror and start with YOURSELF for costing FIVE (5) months of unnecessarily lost soldier's lives while you played
keep-away with the funds).

Make no mistake, the effort to require a timeline for redeployment of troops from Iraq is far from over. I will continue to vote in support of a responsible shift of troops from Iraq to targeted regions around the world (tell you what--before you try to redeploy anyone, why don't you embed yourself with someone of Michael Yon's caliber and see what is really at stake outside of your
delusional ivory tower?) where there are serious threats to America (LIKE WHERE? THERE ISN'T ANY OTHER PLACE THIS CRUCIAL AT THIS TIME!). Many members of Congress and military leaders agree that September will be an important turning point for evaluating the effects of the President's (AND
YOUR) surge. As a member of the House Armed Services Committee (how in the HELL did a freshman get onto that committee? Who bought the position for you?) I will be briefed on the situation in considerable detail (unless you're being briefed by General Petraeus, you are wasting taxpayer time and money and reneging on your word--PERIOD).

But given the President's refusal to do the right thing (you mean not give in to your temper tantrum, keeping HIS word when YOU don't keep YOURS--things that involve integrity and patriotism), time for negotiations on a supplemental appropriations bill has run out and our troops on the frontlines must have the equipment they need (again, had you not played power control games with the President, when he told you he would veto any and all presentations that were NOT clean bills, you lost over FIVE (5) months--and how many of our troops lives?)

I have REPEATEDLY asked this woman to answer direct questions and quit treating me like a typical part of her moron constituency. She has steadfastly continued to treat me as if I have no right to ask questions, as if I have no brain to see through her mudslinging and finger pointing (to everyone except herself, naturally), her complete lack of integrity and accountability for her actions in withholding funds and costing troops their lives--each and every response from her has been carefully worded and couched in innuendo that she is the hero and the President is the villain.

This is what these people count on.

Being able to "snow" the general public, counting on the general public not having the courage to call them on the carpet for their lack of action where the troops are concerned, their costing lives while they play games and their egregious misconduct.

They don't have the courage to embed with those on the front lines--they stay in the green zone--a zone that requires extra staff to protect them when those troops could be accomplishing the mission instead of babysitting.

They're terrified of victory and don't want to hear anything remotely resembling victory (hence all the broken words in now denying General Petraeus the original September timeline--there is significant progress and it terrifies them). They refuse to answer the question, "Why did you approve General Petraeus and his mission if you were simply going to undercut him at every turn?"

She, and the others like her, are EXTREMELY dangerous for our country. Unfortunately, too many of the SALADS with BDS dressing lap this garbage up like it was caviar and champagne.

Had she been running against the incumbent during the election, she NEVER would have succeeded. Unfortunately, the incumbent retired. That retiree was Jim Kolbe, a staunch supporter of the troops, their mission and tough on immigration (I may not have approved of his personal lifestyle choices, but his service to the country was exemplary). She's not even a pale shadow of him.

The question here is, how much more crap are you going to put up with? Or are you going to pretend you are on the same level as the rest of the SALADS with BDS dressing, bury your head in the sand ala Ostrich Syndrome, and leave your ass up in the air for kicking?

Sphere: Related Content