That's right. I said it. Senator John D. Rockefeller IV (D-WV) LOVES it.
But how can one really know? Like Commander Codpiece he "opted out" of serving in other battlefield action so we can't really base the assessment that he LOVES the war on his past Viet Nam experience, can we?
All one need do is ignore his rhetoric and look at his voting record.
He's one of a handful of Senators who voted to invade Iraq and even though he's apologized for that, since then he's voted to hand GeeDubya a blank check time and again year after year. It doesn't matter that the American public undoubtedly wants a timetable and the Iraqi government voted for a timetable, George Bush, Shelley Capito (R-WV) Joe Lieberman and Jay Rockefeller all purportedly know better.
When it recently came down to pinning a timetable to the funds in the Senate, he capitulated to Bush's demands to drop the timetable.
So I called his office in Washington DC to ask why he voted against the recent Reid-Feingold bill which was fashioned to put a tourniquet on the American blood and cash flowing in that gaping wound caused by Cheney's business venture in Iraq.
Of course I couldn't get a direct answer from the young reptilican working the phones in his D.C. office. So like most everyone else who took the time to express their concern about the endless deaths and ongoing destruction in Iraq, I'm certain that I'll eventually get a letter expressing essentially the same hollow talking points that Shelley Capito's office is publishing regarding congress' "support for the troops" and "fighting terror".
I base that certainty on the stack of letters from both Rockefeller's and Capito's offices responding to my past queries shoveling essentially the same rhetoric while conveying no real solutions.
The team over at WV Blue blog published an answer (of sorts) on their site last Friday.
His vote on Reid-Feingold is essentially why the Democrats had to cave in on getting our troops out. Personally I'm sick and tired of it.
You can read my response to his hollow talking points below...
"I strongly support ending U.S. military involvement in Iraq’s civil war,
...But not strongly enough to end it with with your vote, eh?
"and I am enormously frustrated that the President vetoed the bill to begin a phased redeployment of our troops, with the goal of having our combat troops out of Iraq by the end of March 2008.
...YOU'RE frustrated? So how do you think the troops and their families felt when he vetoed the funds? And just how do you think they'll take the news that there are no plans to bring them home?
"The Feingold amendment would have taken the additional step of prohibiting spending for military operations in Iraq after next March.
...That meant we would have either redeployed before the cash runs out in March ‘08 or else forced Commander Codpiece to come back with yet another "emergency" spending bill" request, right?
"I voted against that amendment because at this point I don’t think cutting off funding is the right way to end this war.
...So you think that handing Bush another blank check IS the right way to end his pointless occupation?
"Even as we demand that President Bush and Vice President Cheney change course In Iraq, we must be steady in our resolve to support the troops on the ground.
...So why not stop shoveling the rhetoric and actually support the troops LEAVING already?
"Let there be no doubt -- we must bring this misguided war to an end, for the sake of peace and stability in Iraq and the entire region,
...Look. Not all of your constituents are fools. Iraq was MUCH more stable before you broke with the rest of your WV delegation and voted to hand Commander Codpiece the keys to the most powerful war machine ever. When Iraq was somewhat less stable after Saddam Hussein was toppled, instead of asking for the keys back you backed his revving the war engine in surge after surge by your votre to "fill er up". That contually made it WAAAY less stable in the 3-1/2 years that followed. The fact is that this latest surge has not changed that. They're only just now getting around to securing the ammo dumps in Iraq. If anything Bush’s "gun it" strategy has only made things worse.
Instead of rebuilding Iraqi infrastructure, you and Shelley Capito and Senator Lieberman have each voted time and again to build the largest embassy in the world and around a dozen fortresses in Iraq. Although the embassy is larger than the Vatican, recent reports are that it is still apparently not large enough.
"for the sake of our efforts to fight terrorism worldwide,
...Which gets worse the longer we stay
"and for the sake of the future of our Army and Marine Corps
...whatt? Haven’t they suffered long enough in that hellhole after as many as FIVE deployments?
"and, most importantly, the individual soldiers and Marines who are serving in Iraq right now.
...so we're doing them a favor by leaving them there?
"We must transition our military mission in Iraq away from large scale policing of Iraq’s civil war and toward targeted counter-terror operations,
...YOUR term "COUNTER TERROR OPERATIONS" is a matter of perspective. Independent polls say that Iraqis believe any occupiers, including troops are the terrorists in Iraq.
"training the Iraqi Army,
...which is no longer a goal as stated in the news story found at this site.
Oh and by the way, why didn’t you know that? Aren't you still the chairman of the Senate "Intelligence" Committee?
"and providing security to U.S. personnel and facilities in Iraq.
...Facilities built purportedly to try to stop sectarian violence which has gone on for a thousand years or else to shelter and protect foreign occupiers there to steal the oil, depending on where you live and where you’ve invested..
"But in the meantime, and for as long as we have troops in Iraq, those troops need and deserve every protection we can give them."
..."for as long as we have troops in Iraq we will protect them" but you won't take them from harm's way. Now that comes dangerously close to sounding like the circular logic of the neocons running this country.
Will the circle be unbroken, Senator?
Evidently not as long as you and Joe Lieberman have any say in it.