Sep

17

2007

Carol Shea Porter: The answer is “no.”

by Doug

Carol Shea Porter
Carol Shea Porter (D-NH)  says "no" to any more money for Iraq War.
.
At a town hall meeting here in Laconia on Sunday, my Congresswoman, Carol Shea-Porter, to the delight of the mostly Democrat and Independent people in attendance, promised to

"vote against a supplemental (military) budget, and will continue to vote against it."

When Nathaniel Gurien of North Conway asked why some Democrats aren’t doing the same, Shea-Porter stated that she thought that it was because if there was no supplemental budget, they
"truly believe that the troops won’t get what they need."
She promised that she is doing all that she can do to help persuade them that even without the funds, the troops would still get what they need. She reassured the crowd that she would not waver, but could only do so much as far as other fellow Democrats who still support funding the Iraq War. Nathaniel wondered if it was simply because
"they were simply afraid of being called names."
I found Nathaniel rather interesting in that he appears as frustrated with the Democrats as I am with the Republicans. He noted that
"The Democrats are too afraid of their 2008 prospects to do what we elected them to do in ’06."
Not Carol Shea Porter. She assured the forty or so people in attendance that she will continue to work to end the war in Iraq. The one redeeming factor in this for me, such that it is, is that, to her credit, Ms. Shea-Porter is honest about where she comes down on this issue, and will not waver. If only we could find some politicians on our side that could be so reliable on such key issues. Nancy Pelosi must be quite proud of her protoge from New Hampshire…
.
[Note: while coming from opposite ends of the political spectrum, Nathaniel and his wife and I spent some time chatting after the event. While we all disagree on the issues, we enjoyed each other's company. This is how politics should be...]

Like it? Share it!

by

See all posts by Doug
Visit Doug's website

Leave a Comment

  • http://www.neoconplanet.com Randy

    That’s all well and good if you’re among the cut-and-run crowd. I don’t know anyone (pro or anti-war) who wants our troops there one second longer than necessary. Carol’s position, however, WILL end up costing troops’ lives simply because the supplemental spending bills buy EXACTLY the things those men and women out in the field need to survive.
    Sorry Carol, you can’t have it both ways.

  • Ninbus

    Note to Randy: take a few deep breaths and then do a little basic research. Money for the troops is already in the pipeline – no one – let me repeat that: NO ONE is advocating pulling the plug on these men and women in Iraq. Congresswoman Shea-Porter is, herself, a military wife and fully understands the implication of what you’re saying. It is just not true.
    If you carefully listened to The Decider last week, he’s saying that he intends to “kick the can down the road” to the next president and, more frightening, that he anticipates the Iraq fiasco lasting some 10 years….or more (see: South Korea).
    Sane people understand that this must end. How happy are you that our country is spending between $2 to 3 BILLION per week in Iraq? How about spending a little of that money right here in the United States? How’s the NH infrastructure doing these days? Health care? Education for our kids? Domestic security? All of these things are not being taken care of as we pour billions of dollars (much of which is stolen by the “young democracy” there) into the rat hole of Iraq.
    Enough is enough.

  • wolfwalker

    So Shea-Pompous may be a traitor, but at least she’s a consistent traitor. Thrilling. Takes a load off my mind, f’sure.

    Ninbus, every single one of those things could be funded in full (or left up to the states or the individual, as appropriate), along with the Iraq war and enough of a surplus left over to make a dent in the national debt, if not for the myriad stupid ways in which the federal and state governments waste money.

  • http://www.granitegrok.com doug

    My point is that she isn’t waffling her position. If we get some Republicans with the gonads to take such an unambiguous position in the opposite camp, we could have a race.
    It’s better than “I was before it before I voted in favor of it– not!” That’s my point.
    I also did find her to be cordial, and am not afraid to say so. I vehemently disagree with her, and engaged her about Petraeus and Moveon during the meeting. Skip took her on about troop numbers and such. It would have been nice if a few Republican “leaders” had shown up and also done so, rather than the lopsidedly friendly audience (not that we weren’t “friendly” in the nice sense)that she instead got.

  • http://www.neoconplanet.com Randy

    Nice talking points, Nimbus. Does that treatment for BDS come in pill form yet? Maybe you should have been in uniform (as I was) during the Clinton years and how his eviceration of the military absolutely DESTROYED morale.

    Military spouse? Did her husband make a deployment? (Psst–the answer would be “NO”.) She knows/remembers about as much of what our current military spouses are going through as she gleans off an episode of “Army Wives” on Lifetime–in other words, not a whole lot. Bottom line, her claim of being a military spouse is TECHNICALLY correct, just as my claim of being a Gulf War vet would be TECHNICALLY correct even though I was not in the Gulf during that time period, but was on active duty and in a combat arm.

    Try reading Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution sometime–you know, the part where the Congress funds the military. We cut their funds off, we cut THEM off. Some want to call it “slow bleed”, yet it’s funny how blood from a wounded soldier flows just as quickly when there’s no medevac chopper, no way to treat him, and the uparmored vehicles which might have prevented his injury simply weren’t available for lack of funds.

    And as far as a “either/or” situation, yes, you CAN actually supply items both domestically and abroad if money is spent wisely. How much have liberals wasted in the past 40 years (70, if you include the so-called “Social Security” fiasco) in enabling programs which do little besides create a permanent underclass dependent upon the nanny state?

    Bottom line, Nimbus–my research is just fine. Matter of fact, most of it is first-hand experience and talking to the folks who have served and continue to serve in “the sandbox”. I certainly hope Carol can sleep at night if we do in fact leave before victory is achieved. I still wonder how the Congress of the 1970′s managed after what transpired in Vietnam.

Previous post:

Next post:


Notice in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C., Section 107, some material on this web site is provided without permission from the copyright owner, only for purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research under the "Fair Use" provisions of Federal copyright laws. These materials may not be distributed further, except for "Fair Use" non-profit educational purposes, without permission of the copyright owner.