Meeting Roskam about the war

On Monday, March 19, a group of other citizens seeking to bring our troops home from Iraq met with U.S. Congressman Peter Roskam (Rep., IL Dist. 6) at his office in Bloomingdale. Here is there report:

A bricklayer and foster father, a former math teacher, a children's novelty-candy salesman, a retiree from COD and peace activist, friends of a mother who had lost her son to an IED just six weeks ago and a grandfather who still lives with the pain of a grandson lost two years ago in this ongoing war. We all came looking for answers from Peter Roskam; for some vision of how he plans to bring an end to a war, now opposed by 63% of Americans, started on false pretenses and continuing behind a shield of upholding troop morale.

In short, Peter Roskam doesn't have a plan to bring an end to the war in Iraq and is the very embodiment of the President's "be patient and stay the course" non-plan. He feels, he told us, that his slight margin of victory in November was a mandate for his campaign promise to "finish well" in Iraq. When asked by several members of our group what that might look like, he could not articulate anything specific. When asked whether he thought he would tolerate two more years of the heightened violence and destruction (please see http://www.americanprogress.org/ Iraq by the numbers for all the figures) or five more or ten he responded that he would not be "cross-examined". Sort of ironic coming from a former personal injury attorney and public servant.

Please be assured that Mr. Roskam was extremely polite and a good listener. His staff was welcoming and we were seen promptly at 9:30 as was promised. Of course, this should be the norm when having a meeting with one's employers but, as anyone who has ever tried to meet with Henry Hyde will tell you, it can often feel as if the constituent serves at the pleasure of the congressperson and not the other way around.

We weren't surprised to learn that Mr. Roskam believes that there are droves of Islamic fundamentalist terrorists who, without provocation, are planning our demise everyday (please go to www.gpoaccess.gov/crecord to see the text of his floor remarks on Feb 16th) and that most of them are now in Baghdad. He believes Mr. Bush's homeland security policies have kept us safe from further attacks (nevermind that passport services overflow calls are being handled by volunteers...a digression but not really). He believes that if we don't keep these terrorists in the playpen we call Iraq, they will wander over here (probably across the Mexican border with all of those social-security stealing "illegals" he campaigned about).

Mr Roskam whose favorite phrase is "let's unpack that" when he wants to debunk something he feels has been been properly thought through, did not have any interest in "unpacking" his own things. He did not want to unpack the reason why we chose to attack Iraq when Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia provided the villains of 9/11. He did not want to unpack his rationale for why he voted for the surge of troops even after assuring Kevin Landeck's grieving father that he was the guy who would offer his ear and make a difference. Rich Landeck told Peter personally that Kevin repeatedly said that the war was being run incompetently and that they could not militarily solve the problems he saw in Iraq. When asked several times whether he would be willing to pack up his own child's things to go to this war, Mr Roskam avoided an answer.

Toward the end of our meeting, Roskam shared an analogy he gives when talking to our grade school children. The U.S., he posits, is like a person standing at the side of the pool and the Iraqis are like a person drowning. The U. S. is reaching out its hand to the Iraqis but unless they reach back, the U.S. can't pull them out. What he neglects to tell them is that it was the U.S. who pushed them in in the first place and then proceeded to hold their heads under water for four years now. Makes you wonder how long it will take him to unpack that. In 2008, District 6 needs to do more than cross-examine Peter Roskam, they need to vote him out.

NY & Iraq

Lot of things have been happening the past week to report on – the biggest of course is Roskam delivered his floor speech and vote on the Iraq war resolution last week. I would written on this sooner, but I myself was taking advantage of the 3 day weekend to leave work a little bit early on Friday and head to New York with my girlfriend. It was a really interesting to go see ground zero and all the construction around where the World Trade Center used to be. Of course, all this got me thinking about a few things on the Iraq debate.

First of all, and it bears repeating, is the fact that Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. The Republicans often try to link Iraq to 9/11, but the two are completely unrelated. Along those lines, I find it very interesting that the cities directly targeted by 9/11, NY and Washington DC, both overwhelmingly reject Bush and his Iraq policy. The good people of NY do not want to see their city attacked again. Their lives are literally at stake, but they realize that a surge of troops in Iraq will do nothing to make them safer at home. Rather it will only put others at risk.

The reason I was able to get off work and go to NY in the first place was that Monday was a Presidents Day holiday to celebrate George Washington’s Birthday. I think anyone listening to the Iraq debate should have been required to read his farewell address first. In it he warned against the U.S. getting involved recklessly in foreign entanglements. His warning of "do not go abroad in search of monsters to slay lest ye become one," should still be heeded even today.

Anyways, below are Roskam’s comments on Iraq. What do you think of his comments and of his vote to rubber stamp Bush’s Iraq policies?

Mr. ROSKAM. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, we are here to debate a House Concurrent Resolution, and the root verb of ``resolution'' is resolute. I just want to challenge the House today to consider the resolution of our enemies. I would like to read three quotes to you.

Resolved, by Samba bin Laden. The whole world is watching this war, and the two adversaries, the Islamic nation on the one hand and the United States and its allies on the other. It is either victory and glory or misery and humiliation.

Or how about this? Resolved, in the al Agenda charter: There will be continuing enmity until everyone believes in Allah. We will not meet the enemy halfway, and there will be no room for dialogue with them.

Or how about this, and I am paraphrasing: Resolved, from Samba bin Ladens deputy, who said that the plan is to extend the jihad wave; to expel the Americans from Iraq and extend the jihad wave to secular countries neighboring Iraq, clash with Israel and establish an Islamic authority.

Is there anybody among us who doubts the resolve and clarity with which our opponents are speaking? I don't.

I think what is lacking today in our conversation is the consequences of failure. The previous speaker used the words ``victory'' and ``success.'' He had a very low view of them, and I understand his characterization of those words. He said we have heard those words before. That is what the gentleman from New Jersey said.

But, do you know what? We will hear the word ``failure'' when it is used in the context of this challenge that is before us.

There is no question that there has been great difficulty that has gone before us in this fight. There is no question that there have been great mistakes that have been made, and I am wholeheartedly in favor of us acting as a coequal branch of government and calling for benchmarks and demarcation and holding the administration accountable for its decisions.

But if we fail in this, if we pull out, if we retreat, if we yield, what will happen? Is there anybody really who thinks that Iran, for example, will be less provocative? Is there anybody who thinks that al Agenda will be less provocative?

If we fail, extremism in this world, will it be ascendant or will it be descendant?

Madam Speaker, I close with a simple question, and that is, we need to ask, What is it about this resolution that will do one of two things? Does this encourage our troops, or does this discourage our enemies? I would suggest that this resolution, while it is serious, oh, it is very serious, it is not substantive. This is the ultimate expression of legislative passive aggression. It offers no substantive alternative.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition, and ask my colleagues to do the same.