More on why Fossella needs us in Iraq

In the first edition of this thought, we explained that Rep. Vito Fossella needs the US to stay in Iraq for as long as possible because his mantra of support the troops would be exposed should they return home and focus shift to his numerous votes against troops and veterans; against healthcare for reservists and national guard, against pay increases for our troops, against requiring they are trained before sent into war, and against veteran access to educational benefits.

Today, let's revisit his speech on the floor of the House before voting against the Supplemental bill Bush is now threatening to veto;

I ask if we surrender this battlefield, which battlefield will our enemy choose next?

New York…Los Angeles…Washington?

I mention this because on Friday, April 6, there is a McClatchy article that starts;

In speech after speech, in statement after statement, Bush insists that “this is a war in which, if we were to leave before the job is done, the enemy would follow us here.”

It is amazing how similar both Rep. Vito Fossella and President Bush think on the issue of Iraq, despite Vito's repeated claims that he is an independent thinker for the island, unless that means independent of what his constituents think. The article goes on to address Bush's comment that the war will come here if we don't fight them over there, so by default they also address Fossella's claims of the same thing. Here is what think tanks from his own party and what our own military are saying;

“The president is using a primitive, inarticulate argument that leaves him open to criticism and caricature,” said James Jay Carafano, a homeland security and counterterrorism expert for the Heritage Foundation, a conservative policy organization. “It’s a poor choice of words that doesn’t convey the essence of the problem - that walking away from a problem doesn’t solve anything.”

U.S. military, intelligence and diplomatic experts in Bush's own government say the violence in Iraq is primarily a struggle for power between Shiite and Sunni Muslim Iraqis seeking to dominate their society, not a crusade by radical Sunni jihadists bent on carrying the battle to the United States.

So support the military, just don't listen to them is what Rep. Vito Fossella must be telling us.

While acknowledging that terrorists could commit a catastrophic act on U.S. soil at any time - whether U.S. forces are in Iraq or not - the likelihood that enemy combatants from Iraq might follow departing U.S. forces back to the United States is remote at best, experts say.

“There are very few foreign fighters who are going to be leaving the area because they don’t have the skills or languages that would give them access to the United States,” said Benjamin, who served as the National Security Council’s director for transnational threats from 1998 to 1999. “I’m not saying events in Iraq aren’t going to embolden jihadists. But I think the president’s formulations call for a leap of faith.”

"The war in Iraq isn't preventing terrorist attacks on America," said one U.S. intelligence official, who spoke only on the condition of anonymity because he's contradicting the president and other top officials. "If anything, that - along with the way we've been treating terrorist suspects - may be inspiring more Muslims to think of us as the enemy."

So should Congress revoke the war powers granted to the President, and should Congress bring our troops safely home, once again Fossella is left with his own words haunting him. As long as our troops are stranded in Iraq, Fossella can run around crying wolf and telling us the terrorists will follow us here if we leave, despite what military and policy strategists who address these issues are saying to the contrary. And thus ends another installment of the 'Hypocrisy of Fossella.'