McHugh Watch

On July 12th, after receiving the first report mandated of the President regarding the Iraqi government’s attainment of benchmarks, the house passed the Responsible Redeployment from Iraq Act. It was in response to the dismal report that the Iraq government has failed to make any progress, much less satisfactory progress, on over half of the 18 benchmarks that congress mandated for continued funding.

It outlines a comprehensive policy strategy for force reduction in Iraq. The bill is policy statement not a tactical direction. Rightfully, tactics should be left to the military commanders to carry out policy. McHugh and the Bush enablers continue to spew the message that congress has no right to make policy and should be left to the military.

Nothing can be further from the truth, and obviously, Mr. McHugh did not learn the lessons that he should have when he had got out of serving in Vietnam by getting a Masters of Public Administration from Syracuse. He did not learn that it was the intent of the founding fathers when they created the Constitution that the elected representatives of the people make policy and the military carries it out. Why else would they have make is so that only Congress can declare war and not some general.

The Bush enablers never cease to re-codify the language. They no longer refer to it as a “surge”, but have again invented a new moniker: a counteroffensive. A counteroffensive that will last for years without any stabilization of Iraq or the Iraqi government stepping up to the plate towards any of the benchmarks.

It is becoming fashionable on Capital Hill for the Bush enablers to become critics of the President. Most notably those that are up for re-election in competitive races in 2008. Republican Senators are dropping like flies and there are now significant Road to Damascus experiences being felt by Republican representatives.

John McHugh continues to be an Bush enabler voting against the Redeployment Act. He can afford to be “principled” because his base in Jefferson County associates him with Fort Drum; Fort Drum with economic infusions of government money; and the Iraq War with Fort Drum. The unspoken, but often whispered, connection is that the Iraq War is good for Fort Drum and Fort Drum is good for Jefferson County. So, we are willing to sacrifice blood for economic prosperity. Since John McHugh has so successfully created the perception that he is responsible for Fort Drum, and that the vast majority of the voting public in Jefferson County has bought that hook line and sinker, he will continue to support the war. Madison, Clinton and Franklin, Essex, and Oneida Counties are not enough to out weigh the effect of Jefferson County on the vote tally.

No matter what he says about his “concerns” regarding the Iraq war, he continues to vote in support of George Bush. We need to remember his actions. No death bed conversions for him. It’s too late. Anything he does to distance himself from Bush will be in words only and not in actions. He has done enough damage with George Bush. The only reason for him to “convert” is because he’s scared. That’s not good enough. He sees no foreseeable challenge, so there is no impetus to change. He is a consummate politician who is laying the ground work for a conversion should he need it. By expressing concern over and over again, and yet doing nothing to support that concern, he prepares a pathway to jump ship by creating a paper trail of words that he can take out of context in campaign commercials and debate – Having it both ways. Any change of heart will be based on a political calculus and brazen insincerity.

He’s counting on us being as gullible as ever. No, there will be no death bed conversions for John McHugh. Let’s be plain, he’s willing to trade blood for money. We should be as indignant at accepting any change in his war support as we are with Robert McNamara’s apology to the nation about Vietnam in his memoir In Retrospect. McNamara knew at the time he was wrong and Vietnam was not winnable. McHugh does too.

On this Memorial day, it is only fitting to remind ourselves of what our representatives are doing with regard to the Iraq war. May is headed to be the bloodiest month for American soldiers to date. Today on NPR, Naval Academy Chaplain Lt. Commander John Owen told us of his ”profound duty to inform the family of a fallen sailor that their loved one is dead and that any day can become Memorial Day when you bear news that will change people’s lives forever.”

For us, the Iraq war is almost an abstraction. Our lives go on with hardly a ripple caused by this war. We continue our conspicuous consumption and take pleasure in the everyday joys of life. Yet for these families – these Moms and Dads – their lives have changed irrevocably: forever.

We need to start making this war personal. We need to start demanding of those that continue this war to step up to the plate and enlist – along with their children – to fight this war. If this war is so important to our national security, they need to fight – because most of us don’t think it is. Most of us think that this is another Vietnam – unwinnable with nothing to win. I know that’s highly improbable for our chickenhawks to fight. After all, they all have their excuses. They are so important. Mr. McHugh’s was a “heart murmur”. Mr. Cheney’s was five deferments. Mr. Bush’s was a year off to campaign. How about their children? Why isn’t Barbara Bush using her Yale education to lead soldiers in the “surge”? We all know Mr. Kuhl is brave with a gun, particularly when he’s drinking and threatening his wife. No, it’s time to stop the abstraction. This is real personal. They have very little credibility when they order other parent’s sons and daughters to the killing fields and have not or will not serve themselves or have their children serve. It’s that simple. Put up or shut up. Continue Reading »

GM profits are down by 90% this quarter. A lot of that is due to the losses by their financial arm GMAC. More ominous however are their continuing loses from the North American car manufacturing operations. The reason: GM is not making cars that Americans want to buy. Is it any wonder that the Massena plant is closing. Those that invoke the “efficiency” of the market place as an almost religious mantra are now seeing that efficiency in its most brutal manifestations. Yes, the “invisible hand” of an unrestrained and unguided market is forcing the closure of the GM Powertrain division in Massena.

GM, like so many American companies, has put short term gains above long term stability. They have refused to invest in the future and come up with fuel efficient cars. In fact, after successfully conducting a leasing trial in southern California, GM crushed and buried the EV1, the electric battery car. Instead, they have scared the wits out of our local union leaders who, joined by our congressman, have resisted government benchmarks for fuel efficiency (CAFE) standards. The last time fuel efficiency was demanded by the congress was in 1976 after the Arab Oil embargos. Since then, Detroit and Big Oil has fought them tooth and nail. That was fine when gas was relatively cheap. It was also fine when Congress, could put its head in the sand about global warming. That was before the ice caps so dramatically started to break off. Continue Reading »

Predictably, Mr. McHugh voted against the supplemental appropriations bill to fund our troops, Veterans’ care, including VA and military hospitals, farmers’ milk support, the minimum wage, the Center for Disease Control, the Home Energy Assistance Program (HEAP) just to name a few. Here’s a complete listing of programs that he voted against. He’s for the minimum wage, but votes against the minimum wage. He votes for it one time and then against it the next time. He’s for the troops but then won’t fund them. He decries the treatment of our wounded soldiers in our nation’s military hospitals and yet refuses to financially support those hospitals. He’s for the milk income loss program but then votes against it.

There must be a good reason. Here it is verbatim from the final version of HR 1591:

SEC. 1315. REVISION OF UNITED STATES POLICY ON IRAQ.
(a) Findings- Congress makes the following findings:

(1) Congress and the American people will continue to support and protect the members of the United States Armed Forces who are serving or have served bravely and honorably in Iraq.
(2) The circumstances referred to in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243) have changed substantially.
(3) United States troops should not be policing a civil war, and the current conflict in Iraq requires principally a political solution.
(4) United States policy on Iraq must change to emphasize the need for a political solution by Iraqi leaders in order to maximize the chances of success and to more effectively fight the war on terror.

(b) Prompt Commencement of Phased Redeployment of United States Forces From Iraq-

(1) TRANSITION OF MISSION- The President shall promptly transition the mission of United States forces in Iraq to the limited purposes set forth in paragraph (2).
(2) COMMENCEMENT OF PHASED REDEPLOYMENT FROM IRAQ- The President shall commence the phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, with the goal of redeploying, by March 31, 2008, all United States combat forces from Iraq except for a limited number that are essential for the following purposes:
(A) Protecting United States and coalition personnel and infrastructure.
(B) Training and equipping Iraqi forces.
(C) Conducting targeted counter-terrorism operations.
(3) COMPREHENSIVE STRATEGY- Paragraph (2) shall be implemented as part of a comprehensive diplomatic, political, and economic strategy that includes sustained engagement with Iraq’s neighbors and the international community for the purpose of working collectively to bring stability to Iraq.
(4) REPORTS REQUIRED- Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and every 90 days thereafter, the President shall submit to Congress a report on the progress made in transitioning the mission of the United States forces in Iraq and implementing the phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq as required under this subsection, as well as a classified campaign plan for Iraq, including strategic and operational benchmarks and projected redeployment dates of United States forces from Iraq.

Yes, his unflagging support of George Bush and support of a failed foreign policy has let all us down back here in the North Country. He continues to follow, support and parrot a false message that we are fighting al Qaeda. The problem is no matter how often he repeats it, the mantra does not even approach the truth.

It has weakened both his and his party’s position. During the last two campaigns he claimed that his seniority status in the majority party could only benefit us back here. Needless to say, that has all changed. The more he and his party dig in and follow GWB off the cliff, the less likely will his party come back to power. Is there any question as to why the majority of news coverage of the 2008 Presidential campaign is directed towards the Democratic candidates. It’s clear that the American people have grown weary of being ignored by his party and that the next President is going to be a Democrat.

Prior to election he was a willing functionary, now he is forced into that position. He has no power and certainly no influence to bring back the significant pork that he continually claims to do by associating himself with every federal grant that comes back here whether he was responsible for it or not. The only thing standing between him and the electoral pink slip is the lack of insight by the voters. Many in Jefferson and Lewis and St. Lawrence counties still credit him with the Fort Drum expansion and that is where his base lies. The further one gets from Jefferson County, the less impressed the electorate is by him.

So even if he is continually re-elected, he won’t be able to help us. He certainly isn’t helping the American people. So long as he and his party maintain its unpopular support for George Bush and his war, the American people are going to reject them. He may be re-elected again and again by his base in the Western part of the district, but he’ll accomplish very little.

Let’s get it very straight: regardless of what he says, his action of voting against the supplemental appropriations bill does one thing – it lets our troops hang out to dry. He and George Bush will try very hard to obfuscate it and turn it around on the Democrats, but the truth is – the bill fully funds the troops. No if, ands, or buts. He is hanging both the troops and us in the North Country out to dry.

Frankly, I have a hard time waking up in the morning, looking myself in the mirror and saying, “I got nothing accomplished yesterday.” For my money, I want a doer representing me, not a functionary.

As of this evening, I can reliably report to you that our soldiers in Iraq have still not been told of the extension of their tour of duty. To them it is “still a rumor.” They are finding out from their families. This by an administration that has continually treated our soldiers as expendable commodities. The armed forces are stretched to their limit. West Point graduates are leaving the Army at record levels after their five year commitment is completed. It amounts to a brain drain when 46% of the service academies’ graduates leave after a minimum of service. Compare that to the thirty year running average of 25%.
So the Army is being degraded to fight Bush’s personal war that our congressman with whom Mr. McHugh has not broken. After today’s bombing in the Green Zone, the President and those who fall in behind him attribute it to al Qaeda. It is called staying on message. They teach you that, and the most successful politicians are those that can continually bury their heads in the sand and “stay on message.” It is if keep telling the lie over and over again, it will eventually be accepted as the truth. Continue Reading »

This afternoon, I went to a Good Friday service. To Christians, Good Friday commemorates our Lord’s death on the cross. Near to his death he cried out “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me,” mirroring David’s lament in Psalm 22 “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Why are you so far from saving me, so far from the words of my groaning?” So Good Friday is a very somber day in the Christian calendar and not a place for humor. Therefore today, the pastor asked the congregation for concerns to lift them to God and the response was to be: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken us.” There were numerous concerns, both personal and global, and of course you could guess that the crisis in the Mideast was among them. As I was listening to the requests, knowing full well what the congregational response would be, I nearly uttered “the President of the United States,” with the inevitable response: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken us.” Certainly the humor did not escape me, but neither did the somber commemoration. I mutely chuckled, my wife nudged me in the ribs, and I did refrain.

But we are facing a very serious crisis in the next few months. The American people want our combat troops out of Iraq. The Congress, representing the vast majority of Americans are now on their way to using their unarguable power of the purse to achieve those ends. The American people have spoken through our electoral process. The President doesn’t get it. England’s Charles I didn’t get it either. He lived - and died - in a transition of change from the divine right of kings to accountability to the people. Continue Reading »

For those of us who lived through the Vietnam War and were subject to the drivel that dripped from the mouths of our national leaders, we have very little patience for the spin, the lies and the deceit that we are being fed again today. It was hard for us then and hard for us now to see so clearly the march of the inevitable leading to a national nightmare. Much like Cassandra, who bore the curse of being able to see the future but having no one believe her, most of the American people see the continued carnage in Iraq as unstoppable until we leave.

Just after the Gulf of Tonkin resolution was rushed through the Congress, only two Senators voted against it: Wayne Morse of Oregon and Ernest Gruening of Alaska. Just after the vote in August of 1964 Morse had this to say:

“But one thing I do know – and that is we’re going to be bogged down in southeast Asia for years to come if we follow this course of action, and we’re going to kill thousands of American boys until finally, let me say, the American people are going to say what the French people finally said – they’ve had enough.”

Listen here:

Prophetic – and for being so courageous, he lost his Senate seat to Bob Packwood in 1968.

William Fulbright, engineered the Gulf of Tonkin resolution through the Senate, only to regret it. Looking back on those frantic days, when the Congress and the American people were bamboozled, and with the focus of the retrospectroscope with the uncovering of the White House tapes that so clearly showed President Lyndon Johnson and his defense secretary, Robert McNamara, orchestrating, almost minute to minute, the Gulf of Tonkin incident he ruefully looked back:

“The events as they related them of August 4, 1964 were not true. In fact there was no attack at all – so it was they represented to us that we had been attacked which was all a phony and was false and the rationale for the resolution was if we’ll pass this quickly and unanimously, if possible, it will be a warning to the North Vietnamese and they will no longer infiltrate - they’ll quit - it’ll scare ‘em all - we’ll bloody their nose and they’ll stop and I suppose in Texas politics if you do that these people stop. It just didn’t work that way in Vietnam.”
Listen here:

It sounds all so familiar.

I wonder what Mr. McHugh will say years from now. How many more thousands do we need to sacrifice. Blood begets blood. Walter Cronkite puts it something like this: What is our duty to the dead – to sacrifice more in a cause where military victory is not only unattainable but inappropriate? That duty sustains wars, and that investment in blood makes retreat look dishonorable. Continuation is the hardest course to resist.

Particularly for those who view it from the distant perspective of the comfortable seats on Capital Hill; those who have never been to war and who see it from sterile safety of their congressional office cocoons or those who dress up and play soldier to vicariously experience war. In August 2004 and heard Mr. McHugh tell the Central Labor Council how his plane got shot at as they were descending into Baghdad.

I wasn’t impressed.

We must stop now before we have to build yet another black wall on the Washington mall with 57,000 names on it.

To hear more of Walter Cronkite and the beginning of the Vietnam calamity listen here from NPR:

Responding to criticism to his vote on Friday against the supplemental appropriations bill Mr. McHugh said,

“It took away from local commanders on the field, who are in the heat of battle, really the flexibility to make the decisions that they need to make. It’s micro managing from Washington the kind of debacle we got ourselves into in Vietnam”

The bill specifically funds an orderly and safe withdrawal from Iraq after March 1, 2008:

(d) … the Secretary of Defense shall commence the redeployment of the Armed Forces from Iraq not later than March 1, 2008, and complete such redeployment within 180 days.

(e) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, funds appropriated or otherwise made available in this or any other Act are immediately available for obligation and expenditure to plan and execute a safe and orderly redeployment of the Armed Forces from Iraq, as specified in subsections (c) and (d).

It says nothing about the “heat of battle” or “micromanaging” commanders in the field. It directs the Secretary of Defense to withdraw the troops. Directions to and funding of the activities of the Secretary of Defense do not constitute “micromanaging” but rather funding and broad policy direction.

In fact the Act explicitly states:

It is the sense of Congress that, because the commanders of the United States Armed Forces in Iraq have the training, experience, and first-hand knowledge of the situation on the ground–

(1) the commanders should be allowed to conduct the war and manage the movements of the troops; and

(2) Congress should remain focused on executing its oversight role.

What could be more clear. Continue Reading »

In his own words:

And we can, we must have, a different approach, one that especially places responsibility for success where it rightfully lies, and I have heard my colleagues tonight speak about that, with the Iraqi people. I propose an amendment to the supplemental appropriations bill that will just do that, require the Iraqis to step forward, to stand up, to stop the talking, and to begin to act.
– John McHugh, February 13, 2007 before the House during H. Con. Res 63 debate.

Today’s vote on the supplemental appropriations bill was one of the most disturbing votes that our congressman has cast in his tenure as our representative. It is not a surprise that he once again voted to continue this war and support the President – he’s consistent – but rather he voted against what he publicly told us he stood for on the floor of the house. What is most disturbing is that he voted against the tenets of the very bill, HR 775, that he introduced on January 31, 2007 and called the Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense and for the Reconstruction of Iraq.

The very actions that he called for in his bill were each addressed in today’s supplemental appropriation. See here for a line by line comparison of his bill HR 775 and today’s bill. You will find that every single item of concern to Mr. McHugh was addressed in today’s bill – and still he votes against it. Continue Reading »

Sadly, but not unsurprisingly, Mr. McHugh voted against the supplemental appropriations bill that would have supported our troops by giving them the money and equipment they need to wrap up this war and then start a six month withdrawal by March of next year.   To add insult to injury, he voted against the Milk Income Loss Contract Program funding leaving our farmers out in the cold.
I report this now, more comment later.  This is a profound vote that can not go unnoticed.