In an article from today's Detroit Free Press Pete Hoekstra says
"he just hopes the report leads to a discussion about what America's real threats are in the Middle East and around the world from "radical Jihadists" and how the nation is going to address them -- and not just with troops in Iraq."
This sounds alot like what he said in a memo released to republicans on February 10, 2007 on the eve of the "surge" debate:
"If we let Democrats force us into a debate on the surge or the current situation in Iraq, we lose."
Hoekstra continues to beat the drum for more war and more conflict around the globe under the auspice of "radical jihadists". I wonder why that is? Maybe because a large amount of his campaigns have been funded by defense contractors since the start of the war in Iraq.
General Dynamics $20,000
Northrop Grumman $18,250
GENTEX Corp $17,950
Boeing Co $17,000
Lockheed Martin $16,500
Raytheon Co $16,444
L-3 Communications $6,000
Who do you think Pete Hoekstra represents when he votes?
Fellow Michigan republicans had this to say:
Rep. Candice Miller
the report has the "potential to be a historic pivot on the way forward," providing a chance to better define the troops' mission and odds of victory. She's willing to give the troop surge more time if there's enough evidence of success.
Rep. Mike Rogers
"he expects there could be some troop withdrawals when a "strategic change" is announced"
Rep. Tim Walberg
"I'd love to be able to say that we will continue the surge and in light of the impact, we'll start a drawdown of the troops," "I would hope that I could say that."
Rep. Vern Ehlers
"Certainly it would be silly to remove troops at a time when it appears things are turning around,"
It seems they have already made up their mind.