“I would like to say that we should re-communicate our support for our troops there and not cut funding for them, while standing silent on the surge.” – Rep. Lee Terry [Omaha World Herald, 2/13/2007]
A time comes when silence is betrayal.
- Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Dr. King used those powerful words to speak out against the war in Vietnam more than 40 years ago. Those words are still very powerful today, as they relate to the war in Iraq. Still, Congress has largely remained silent on Iraq for the past four years, and until today’s expected vote, has not spoken out on the proposed escalation of the war in Iraq.
Nowhere is this attitude of deference to the President’s will more apparent than in our own representative, Lee Terry. Ever the partisan lapdog, ever-willing to spout talking points and insulting rhetoric, Terry got on the House floor yesterday and spoke out against the proposed resolution disapproving of the “surge.”
Terry, like his House colleagues from Nebraska, is following Republican advice to keep the debate away from “the surge, or the current situation in Iraq.” So, while Adrian Smith is so disingenuous as to say that opposing the President’s proposal means that you support “staying the course” in Iraq, Terry took a different tactic: first silence, then lies.
Terry was quoted by the World-Herald on Tuesday that Congress should “[stand] silent on the surge.” The Nebraska Democratic Party responded, with a strongly-worded press release:
All Nebraskans should stand by the men and women who are fighting daily in this war. However, “standing silent” on the tough decisions does nothing to support our troops. They deserve a rigorous debate. They deserve to know where their representatives stand on the issues and proposals being considered. They deserve leadership, not silence.
True to his word, Terry stood silent on the surge. That’s where the lies began. It’s helpful at this point to read the entire resolution put forth before the House. It’s very simple, 97 words long, and difficult to misunderstand:
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That—
(1) Congress and the American people will continue to support and protect the members of the United States Armed Forces who are serving or who have served bravely and honorably in Iraq; and
(2) Congress disapproves of the decision of President George W. Bush announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq.
Just so we are clear, this is the resolution that Lee Terry spoke in opposition to yesterday on the floor of the House of Representatives:
We have lost some of the bravest, most dedicated and committed Americans we have been honored to know, love, and mourn. They deserve the highest honor and respect from this Congress and the American people for their service. Those brave men and women still in harm’s way have earned the right to come home as quickly as possible. This does not mean, however, that we should abandon this mission and leave Iraq to certain failure by prematurely pulling out our troops, nor should we cut military funding or adopt nonbinding resolutions that embolden our enemies and undermine our troop morale.
Ignoring the wisdom of withdrawal for the time being, what the hell does this have to do with the resolution? How can I take your opposition to this resolution as anything but support for the escalation of our military involvement in Iraq?
Now, that last statement has been accused by many speakers on the Democrat side as being a red herring to chase the American public away from the attention of this addition of 20,000 troops. But I read their authored resolution. And the words are that you support and protect members of the Armed Services who are serving, are serving or have served, which means that they will not support our troops, any uniformed member that is newly sent to Iraq [...]
Well, it is a red herring, Mr. Terry. We’ll get to withdrawal, next. The withdrawal that 63% of the American public is in favor of. But this resolution is about the escalation of our military involvement in Iraq, and evidently, you’re afraid to speak to that, even though you obviously support it. Instead, you resort to accusing those of us who want to bring our troops home safely of not “supporting our troops,” while squelching the very debate and oversight of this war that give the troops the support they deserve. Even for Lee Terry, this is piling on the rhetoric a little too steep.
But wait! It gets so much better:
This Congress must not repeat the mistakes of Vietnam.
No. Seriously. He said that.
Those kind of mistakes?
Like putting yourself in an unwinnable war without any sort of exit strategy?
Like accusing those who oppose the war of treason?
Like blindly supporting the President no matter what?
I think the ship has sailed on that one, Mr. Terry. Now, could you do us all a favor and not repeat any of those mistakes anymore?
Related:
Does Lee Terry Still Live In His Parents Basement, Too?
Lee Terry and Nebraska Republicans Vote Against Raising The Minimum Wage
Lee Terry Votes Against a Safer America & the 9/11 Commission Report
2 Responses to “Lee Terry: Staying Silent”