Wolfe: Rahall's vote on Israel a 'slap in the face'
Cabell County Sheriff Kim Wolfe, a Republican who faces 15-term incumbent Nick Joe Rahall, a Democrat from Raleigh County, in the fall responded to Rahall's vote on Thursday in the House.
Rahall, one of four Lebanese-American House members, was one of eight members of the House of Representatives to vote against a resolution backing Israel's military drive into Lebanon against the terrorist group Hezbollah.p
The resolution passed 410-8.
Wolfe said southern West Virginians need to bring Rahall to accountability for voting against Thursday's resolution.
posted by Gundovald at 7/24/2006 01:19:00 AM
3 Comments:
Shockdoc writes:
A slap in the face...or a clarion wake up call that our Federal government is still hellbent on getting us entangled in foreign alliances and continues the march overseas looking for monsters to slay. By giving support, we just prolong the fighting and make ourselves a target from many unexpected directions. To wit: the fallout from our foreign policy over the past 60 years, including the loss of 241 American Marines in Lebanon in the early 80's. And to all the chickenhawk neocons out there, you should dust off and crack open Reagan's biograph and yread what he had to say about his misadventure in Lebanon. Sobering. Not too different than George Washington's take on the dangers of a standing army kept on standby for the whim of Presidents.We can learn from history and history books -- but we've got to crack the cover first. Tell GWB that books don't work by osmosis.
Let's have Congress stick to their job, which is to stick to the Constitution. We'd all be safer and more prosperous. Let individuals decide if they want to sacrifice their sons and money overseas.If it ain't in the Constitution, they can't do it -- no matter what the polls or pundits say.
Hope Rahall sticks to this priniple with other votes. Unlikely.
I guess the only way around it is for Congress to pass an amendment to the Constitution saying:
"It is OK to support other governments with our precious young men and money".
Shockdoc -- getting behind liberty and reason since we can see it is not good to have faith in force, nor, is it good to put force in faith.
Maybe Mr. Rahall was voting against terrorism. Maybe what constitutes "terrorism" ought to be more carefully defined. The article says the house vote was 410 to 8. Imagine that. 410 people thought one thing and only 8 people were not in line with that thinking. In line. Maybe that's the right concept after all. Could it be that this tiny minority was voting against terrorism? I think it depends upon the definition of "terrorism." Are the 8 people being dishonest or is it the 410 people who are being dishonest? It can't be both.
Perhaps the 8 were individuals who thought about their vote and its implications. Thinking back there were very few who voted against giving Bush an authorization for a use of force against Iraq. All of our legislators would do well to look beyond the heat of the moment and consider the full ramifications of their vote on every subject.
Post a Comment
<< Home