My letter FROM Steny Hoyer on Iraq funding

I've been spending a bit more time writing and calling my representatives since the 2006 election, especially in light of what I see to be what would be considered (pre-global warming) a "glacial" pace in dealing with the serious issues that have resulted from the actions of Dear Leader.  I wrote an e-mail via Congressman Steny Hoyer's website about my concerns about Iraq when the funding resolution was being voted on by the House. I was going to delete this diary, but now that that travesty of a bill was passed just prior to the recess that congress should not have taken, I think it might inform folks of what we might get if we didn't have Nancy Pelosi as speaker.

I'm putting his response to me below, with my comments highlighted. While this was from more than a month ago, I think it's informative on what Mr. Hoyer believes about how we got into the war, and how we should get out.  See after the jump for details. (By the way, if this is bad form to publish a letter in a diary, please let me know and I'll delete it.)

June 19, 2007
Dear (billlaurelmd):

Thank you for contacting me with your thoughts regarding the war and occupation in Iraq. I appreciate hearing your views on this important matter.

...which were essentially, don't fund the occupation! If I recall correctly, I sent it when the House was considering H.R. 2006.

The Bush Administration's handling of the war in Iraq has been disastrous (billlaurelmd says:  that's an understatement...): the Administration ignored the advice of top military commanders and sent too few troops into Iraq, miscalculated on intelligence, failed to properly plan for the occupation, and has grossly underestimated the monetary and human costs of the war. Further, the Administration has consistently strengthened the recruitment efforts of insurgents through policies that allowed the widespread mistreatment of detainees in American custody. Today, Iraq is on the verge of becoming one of the world's worst refugee crises, with more than four million displaced Iraqis and thousands fleeing weekly.

Mr. Hoyer, it seems to me that insurgent recruitment efforts are strengthened by our mere PRESENCE in Iraq.  And what about the oil law that was being considered by the Iraqi parliament (such as it is), that is a thin cover for U.S. control of Iraqi oil?

I believe strongly that all civilized nations have a collective obligation to act against an international lawbreaker who threatens peace and stability, and that military action against Hussein's regime was justified due to Iraq's failure to comply with United Nations disarmament and inspections requirements. Nevertheless, I would not have voted to authorize military action against Iraq had I known the incompetent manner in which the war and the ensuing reconstruction effort would be conducted.

Ummmm, Mr. Hoyer ... Saddam Hussein was in compliance with the most recent resolution (1441, adopted 11/8/02) by the UN, at the time the U.S. and Britain began "shock and awe" and then invaded Iraq. Incidentally, I believe it's against U.N. rules to write the invaded country's new constitution for it, no?. Please don't use the "incompetence" meme again.  You are clearly is referring to the implementation of what you considered a good policy, when the policy itself was flawed at best.  Very unfortunate.

The President's current plan to increase troop levels is not a new strategy, but a continuation of his "Stay the Course" approach, without the necessary shift of responsibility towards Iraqi forces. I believe that the escalation in troop levels is too little, too late, due to the Administration's critical failure to put enough troops on the ground at the outset of hostilities to secure and stabilize a nation of 26 million people.

Well, we agree there, at least...but there's the little matter of the invasion itself.  Mr. Hoyer, was there any way that an invasion of Iraq would have worked out to our benefit, and to the Iraqis?

There are no easy answers in the war in Iraq, but there are several positive steps forward that we must take, for the good of our country and for the long-term benefit of the people of Iraq. First, we must shift greater responsibility to the Iraqis for their security, and transition the principal mission of U.S. forces from combat to training and counter-terrorism.  Second, we should begin the phased redeployment of our forces within the next six months. Finally, we must implement an aggressive diplomatic strategy, both within the region and beyond, which reflects the continuing obligation of the international community to help stabilize Iraq and which assists the Iraqis in achieving a sustainable political settlement. Put simply, we need a diplomatic surge, not a military one.

In the Washington Post this a.m., it stated that 30% of the equipment we're giving to the Iraqis is missing (and probably winding up in the hands of insurgents).  How is reconcilable with the first action item?  And on that shift of mission, perhaps we should go to Afghanistan and find Mr. binLaden?

In this regard, the on March 23, 2007 the House of Representatives passed H.R. 1591, the Troop Readiness, Veterans' Health and Iraq Accountability Act. I regret that the President vetoed this bill, thereby defying the will of the American people and bipartisan majorities in Congress. This carefully crafted bipartisan legislation fully funded our troops, and provided additional funding for military and veterans' health care over and above the President's request. Additionally, it held the Iraqis accountable for the first time in four years. Furthermore, it provided for a responsible redeployment of American forces from Iraq, which is a provision supported by nearly two-thirds of Americans.

Most recently, the House of Representatives voted to pass H.R. 2206, the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act of 2007. In addition to providing the necessary funds to protect our troops, H.R. 2206 holds both the President and the Iraqi government accountable for the first time since the beginning of the war. H.R. 2206 establishes eighteen political and security benchmarks for the Iraqi government to meet, and it makes $1.6 billion in new economic assistance to Iraq conditional on achieving progress toward those goals. Additionally it requires a series of reports from the Administration and outside auditors on progress in Iraq in both July and again in September. This is an important step in our efforts to change the course in Iraq.

While it is laudable that Veterans who have sacrificed mightily in this misbegotten elective war are having funding improved for their care, I have a few questions:  In H.R. 2206, what are the consequences if the benchmarks aren't met?  And you have the FOX reporting on the HENHOUSE.  What about an INDEPENDENT report from someone who hasn't broken the law and otherwise lied to the American people, as Mr. Bush arguably has?

As debate regarding the future of the U.S. presence in Iraq proceeds, please know that I am committed to providing our troops with the resources and equipment necessary to effectively protect themselves and perform their duties safely. And like you, I sincerely hope for their speedy and safe return. With Kindest regards, I am

Sincerely yours,

STENY H. HOYER

SHH:

Does that last SHH: mean he wrote this personally?  And at least he was polite at the end ;-).

Anyway, Mr. Hoyer isn't the most progressive congressman in the House, obviously.  So I think we can do far worse than Ms. Pelosi.