Mikey The Coward

Well, well, well…how interesting it was to read the Bucks County Courier Times this morning.

Under the headline “Fitzpatrick Takes New Stance On War Policy,” we have this revelation:

“Freshman Congressman Mike Fitzpatrick, R-8, Monday blasted (the paper’s description) President Bush’s ‘stay the course’ policy in Iraq, a strategy he has publicly supported throughout his first term on Capitol Hill.

‘I have reluctantly concluded…that when it comes to the war in Iraq, President Bush has been bold, principled, resolute, but mistaken in crucial ways vital to the success of our mission there,” Fitzpatrick said Monday morning in a conference call with reporters. ‘I believe we need a new strategy for success in Iraq’.”

(“blasted”?)

By the way, if you’ve guessed that I was unable to find a link to this story from the Courier Times’ web site, you would be correct.

Update: OK, they got me - they added the link later.

"However, Fitzpatrick offered no new strategy for America’s role in the war and criticized what he called the “cut and run” strategy proposed by Democrat and Iraq War veteran Patrick Murphy, his opponent in November’s election.

--

Monday Murphy called Fitzpatrick’s criticism of his exit strategy and his new-found opposition to President Bush’s war plan ‘politics at its worst.’

‘I think it’s the most transparent political ploy I’ve seen in all my years,’ Murphy said. ‘We’re 92 days from Election Day and Mike doesn’t even have the backbone to take a position after he stood with President Bush for two years.’

--

‘The families of Bucks County know where I stand and unfortunately we cannot say the same thing about our congressman,’ Murphy said.”

Given that Mikey has now flip-flopped on Bush and the Iraq War, I wonder what other positions he has that he may now be willing to compromise in the name of winning in November (and Above Average Jane gives us some food for thought on that one – yep, Mikey sure knows how to sign off on those resolutions against Darfur and in support of The Forever And Ever Never Ending For All Time You Goddamn Libtard You (still love that one) Global War On Terror, doesn’t he?

And what follows is a column that appeared in the Philadelphia Daily News last May from Jon Soltz, who is executive director of the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America Political Action Committee (I’m republishing it here because you may have to register, and it’s too important not to read).

Supporting the troops should be more than a slogan

IT IS SAID that political debate should end at the water's edge, and once our troops have been deployed, we should all rally around them.

As a veteran of Iraq, I know my fellow soldiers appreciate that. Yet when we cross back to our own shores, we do not enjoy the same uniform support from many in the halls of Congress.

Sure, especially around campaign season, they talk about how they "support the troops." But I often feel like asking, "How?" I can picture them in front of me, stunned, trying to come up with an answer.

Right here in the Philadelphia area, two congressmen, who will likely face veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in November, are already trumpeting their credentials on veterans issues.

Rep. Mike Fitzpatrick, on his campaign Web site, claims that helping veterans has been "a top priority on his agenda." Fitzpatrick is likely to face Iraq veteran Patrick Murphy in the general election. Rep. Curt Weldon, who is facing Afghanistan veteran Joe Sestak, writes on his congressional Web site that he is a "leading advocate for vets." Unfortunately, the rhetoric doesn't match the reality.

It is useful to examine where our nation is, in terms of its ability to care for the hundreds of thousands of troops who have returned home from war and who will be returning home from war.

In early 2005, because of budget constraints, Department of Veterans Affairs facilities began to cut back on services to veterans, had to postpone construction and repairs on facilities, kill orders for desperately needed medical equipment and keep staff positions unfilled - just to stay afloat. These cuts affect our returning heroes, they wait longer to be seen or receive services, pay more for their prescriptions and now have to pay fees to enroll in the VA system.

Consider the case of one Iraq war vet, Robert Acosta, who lost part of his arm and had his leg shattered in an explosion when a terrorist tossed a grenade into his truck. The prosthetic he got proved faulty. When he visited the VA for a new one, he was told there would be a long wait. He ended up having to use duct tape to hold his prosthetic arm together because of the delays.

Duct tape to hold their prosthetics together, Mikey. And you’re really not backing away from Dubya anyway, are you?

Injuries are not always physical, though. A study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that one in three troops returning from Iraq will seek counseling within a year, though most believe the number may actually be higher.

Already, those with serious mental-health needs are being turned away because of underfunding. The result will prove to be the same as it was with the Vietnam veterans - many will be unable to cope with the transition back to civilian life and become drug addicts, alcoholics, homeless, or worse - suicidal.

IN THE PAST few years, there have been plenty of votes in Congress that might not completely solve the problem, but would go a long way toward giving veterans the care they need and deserve.

Both Reps. Fitzpatrick and Weldon repeatedly voted no on helping these 21st-century patriots. They voted no on a bill to extend the military health care program to members of the National Guard and reserves, on an amendment that would have increased funding for VA services by $2.6 billion, and another that would have increased funding by $3.1 billion.

Rep. Weldon also voted against adding $1.8 billion to VA health care in 2003, and for legislation in 2004 that cut a promised increase to the VA by half.

As an Iraq veteran, there is only one thing that gets to me more than being used as a political pawn - and that is having those who use us vote against us.

How is that really supporting the troops?

How indeed, and how is flip-flopping on your supposed convictions supposed to “support” them also?

At least, as one letter writer to the Courier Times noted today, Patrick actually has a plan.