Students protest Hoekstra in Grand Rapids

Courtesy of Media Mouse

On Monday, ACTIVATE/SDS held a Critical Mass bike ride in solidarity with the "No War, No Warming" protests taking place in Washington DC (http://www.nowarnowarming.org). Here in Grand Rapids, the Critical Mass bike ride visited a fundraiser being held in East Grand Rapids for Representative Pete Hoekstra as well as the Harvey Hummer dealership on 28th Street. Similar solidarity protests were held around the country, including in Detroit. The Critical Mass ride began shortly after 5:30pm, following the distribution of stenciled patches reading "No War, No Warming" and a brief announcement explaining that the bike ride would be going to a fundraiser being held for consistently pro-war Congressman Pete Hoekstra. The 25-35 cyclists then assembled on Sheldon before beginning the ride to the Hoekstra fundraiser. The ride to the East Grand Rapids home of Dave and Linda Mehney was fairly uneventful with the Mass received generally favorable reactions from motorists and pedestrians. When the group entered the East Grand Rapids neighborhood of the Mehneys, energy rose considerably, with the group chanting "No War, No Warming" and telling people in SUVs to ride a bike instead. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the Mehneys have given over $90,000 to Republican candidates for federal office. This fundraiser featured a $1,000 per couple "private reception" with Hoekstra and a general $250 per person reception. Once the group arrived at the Mehneys' home, they were greeted by signs for Pete Hoekstra's campaign featuring a bike and the slogan "Securing America's Future." Some of the cyclists rode through the circle driveway, booing and chanting "No War, No Warming" and "Stop Funding the War," while others in the group placed leaflets on the cars of attendees criticizing Hoesktra's continued funding of the occupation of Iraq ($462 billion) and his opposition to the recent State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) legislation ($35 billion). Hoekstra's staffers--who were chatting somewhat frantically on their cell phones--quickly came out and told the group to get off the private property.

BRAVO!!! This is the third protest aimed at Hoekstra in as many weeks that I have seen or heard of(the others linked in the last diary). We as citizens must speak out against our supposed "representative" and demand change.

Pete Hoekstra backs Bush in trip to Iraq

Surprise, surprise!

"I believe it is important to be successful in Iraq, and I believe that in Gen. Petraeus and the strategy he has outlined, we have the best chance we have for success,"

So he supports the plan of letting the troops that were added as the "surge" return, when the military knew that was the timeline they had planned all along. See... that's not a withdrawl.

I keep hearing and reading success but what is the main goal? Last month Hoekstra said he doesn't want democracy in Iraq but security and stability. But the way I see it, we took that away when we started dropping bombs. Don't get me wrong, Saddam Hussein wasn't a good man by any means, but the basis of this war was and still is a lie. If we went to Iraq to free the people, if that was the idea, then we should be in a lot of countries right now by this logic. It's all a sham. Don't buy it.

Rep. Charlie Wilson, D-Ohio is on the same trip, here's what he thinks:

"what he’s seen in Iraq this week reinforces his belief that President Bush’s troop surge isn’t working and the time has come for redeployment “in a big way.” “I don’t know that the surge has returned the dividend (expected).”

He advocates "not a quick withdrawal of troops,” but the creation of a plan to bring soldiers home as “quickly as possible.” He doesn’t think the situation in Iraq will further improve if U.S. troops remain there.

“The situation here is bleak,It’s actually scary.”

Oh yeah, Rock out to this great video.... moe. Tailspin very fitting...

Pete Hoekstra and Michigan republicans ready to stay in Iraq

Today General Petraeus will report on the "situation" in Iraq. I think we all know how that will go. But for a more in depth analysis of this report watch the following video released by the National Security Network



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.

As election season nears, Pete sings a new song

It just has some of the same old lyrics as reported by the Associated Press and Detroit Free Press (ugghh...yeah I know).

In 2004 and 2005 Hoekstra was fully behind the war and the policy set forth by Bush & Co. Pete changed his talking points to "islamofascists" and Islamic Jihaadists in the months following the surge debate so he could justify the war on his terms. Not on the merits of it's supposed reasoning (that he originally supported).

"The U.S. effort to install a democracy in Iraq within three to five years was a flawed strategy with little chance of succeeding"

He's just realizing this now? No, it's a ploy. He wants to distance himself from the Bush administration (and has been taking potshots at them for about 6 months) without actually changing his stance on the war. Apparently we are all supposed to be impressed that he said what intelligent people were thinking from he beginning of the war. Just remember, if his lips are moving he's probably lying.

Hoekstra, the ranking Republican on the House Select Committee on Intelligence, said as the Iraqi government flounders, he’s changed his original support for the Bush administration’s stated goal of molding a democratic Iraq as a means to stabilize the Middle East. But Hoekstra said he opposes setting a timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops. He said Congress and President George W. Bush must decide on a unified course of action that will stabilize Iraq, based on new intelligence reports and a much-anticipated September status report by the U.S. top commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus.

Of course he opposes the withdrawl of troops. Maybe he wants to explain to the troops what they are there for now. Can we call do-overs?

And just because he can (and maybe has to, I think it's a tick, he just can't help himself) he throws this into the piece:

Radical Islam remains a real threat to the United States, he said, and that Islamic jihadists are using U.S. presence in Iraq for recruiting propaganda.

All the more reason to stay.Right Pete??