kNOllenberg Speaks in Support of Bush’s Surge of Troops in Iraq

Joe Knollenberg finally spoke. It was cryptic. But Joe Knollenberg said he supported President Bush’s plan to escalate the war in Iraq by sending in 21,500 more troops.

Joe’s statement’s were unremarkable as usual. They included phrases such as:

Joe Knollenberg: “we also need to acknowledge that some positive things have happened in Iraq. . .”

Joe Knollenberg: “turning sovereignty over to the Iraqis . . . is a big deal.”

Joe Knollenberg: “Fostering democracy in the heart of the Middle East was important. “
( Joe Knollenberg forgot to mention that The Bush/Knollenberg War in Iraq has fostered an increase in terrorists in Iraq.)

Since one of our frequent readers often asks us to evaluate other members of Congress, we will do so — the Republicans who, like Joe Knollenberg, support the President’s escalation of the war in Iraq almost uniformly ignored the language of the resolution and instead rambled on about WWII or Vietnam, or Al Qaeda (funny how they don’t talk about Osama Bin Ladin anymore). Not a single one of them disputed the validity of the language of the resolution itself.

The resolution asked 2 simple questions:

1. Do you support the troops
2. Do you oppose Bush’s plan to surge the troops by over 20,000?

Voting NO like KNOllenberg can only be interpreted as meaning that 1)he does not support the troops; and 2) he does support Bush’s plan to surge the troops by over 20,000.

Which WishyWashyWay Will Joe Go Today?

The Detroit News is reporting that Knollenberg is going to vote NO on the House Resolution that supports the troops and opposes President Bush’s escalation of the War in Iraq by sending over 21,000 more troops to the area.

Specifically, the resolution they are voting on this week reads as follows:

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That–

(1) Congress and the American people will continue to support and protect the members of the United States Armed Forces who are serving or who have served bravely and honorably in Iraq; and

(2) Congress disapproves of the decision of President George W. Bush announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq.

The first part of the resolution says that Congress supports the troops. By voting NO, apparently Joe Knollenberg is saying that he does NOT support the troops.

The second part of the resolution says that Congress disapproves of Bush’s escalation of the war in Iraq. By voting NO, Knollenberg is saying that he Supports Bush’s plan to “Stay the Course” and just add more combat troops.

The vote is scheduled for Friday. Meanwhile, each member of the House has been alloted 5 minutes to explain their position on the vote.

Knollenberg hasn’t spoken yet. Apparently Knollenberg isn’t important enough within his own caucus to be allowed to speak within the first half of the debate.

Heck, Joe kNOllenberg even voted NO to even debate the resolution. (See Rollcall Vote #97.) kNOllenberg does not want to have an open or honest debate on the issue. Maybe because he realizes that his position is completely out of step with his constituents.

House To Vote on Resolution Opposing Bush’s Escalation of the War in Iraq

The U.S. House of Representatives will spend the week debating whether or not the House should support or oppose Bush’s plan to escalate the war in Vietnam Iraq.

The resolution is artfully crafted in that it makes 2 clear and direct assertions — that those who vote for it support the troops, but oppose Bush’s decision to send over 20,000 additional troops.

Specifically, the resolution reads:

(1) Congress and the American people will continue to support and protect the
members of the United States Armed Forces who are serving or who have served
bravely and honorably in Iraq; and

(2) Congress disapproves of the
decision of President George W. Bush announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy
more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq.

According to CNN, the vote is scheduled for Friday, February 16, 2007.

Between Tuesday and Friday, each Member will be given 5 minutes to speak in support or opposition to the resolution.

There is no announcement on Joe Knollenberg’s official website regarding how he plans to vote. Perhaps he still can’t make a decision about whether or not to escalate the war in Vietnam Iraq.

Oh What a Tangled Web They Weave…

In an earlier post, I presented information about Joe Knollenberg’s “close” connection with the corrupt Randy “Duke” Cunningham who resigned from Congress in shame after taking over $ 1 million in bribes from lobbyists.

Before moving on from that matter, I thought it would be a good time to include a little more information on the connection between Joe Knollenberg, Mark Valente — the lobbyist for whom he did the favor, and various other scandal ridden Congressmen.

In the earlier post, we provided information that Mark Vallente, a lobbyist, had worked with Joe Knollenberg and Randy Cunningham to get a cap removed on legal fee reimbursement’s made by the DC School Board. Although numerous Republicans and even the White House opposed lifting the cap, Joe Knollenberg, the chair of the committee overturned the cap.

In another interesting exchange of favors in 2001, Joe Knollenberg and Randy Cunningham worked together to overturn a cap on lawyer fees in D.C. Apparently Congress had previously imposed a cap on the DC School Board for their reimbursement of legal fees. Lobbyists for several lawyers worked to get the cap lifted. It was an uphill challenge since the Republican’s who were the majority in the House always tend to vote against laws that reimburse lawyers because they think such laws encourage lawsuits. The White House had come out against removing the cap.

But, with Joe Knollenberg and Randy Cunningham on the committee, the lobbyists prevailed. According to a December 6, 2001, article in the Washington Post, it was Joe Knollenberg, the new chairman of the committee who bowed to the lobbyists and granted their wishes.

The story of how the lawyers’ advocates succeeded illustrates anew the influence wielded by individual members of Congress — and unelected players — who take a personal interest in District legislation.

In this case, key roles were played by lobbyist Mark Valente III, who enjoys close ties to House GOP leaders, and Rep. Joe Knollenberg (R-Mich.), the new chairman of the House panel that oversees the District budget.

Valente was lobbying on behalf of the Alexandria law firm of Dalton, Dalton & Houston, which often represents parents seeking special education services for their children. Knollenberg has long been sympathetic on the issue of lifting the cap — his top aide has an autistic son and won a large judgment against a suburban Detroit school district after a debilitating legal fight.

The real kicker in the Washington Post story is the part where Joe Knollenberg is praised by Randy Cunningham as being the one responsible for basically giving the lobbyists what they wanted!

“The new chairman [Joe Knollenberg] made the difference,” said Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham (R-Calif.), who fought the change and who is the longest-serving member of the House Appropriations subcommittee on the District.

I thought it would be a good time to discuss how well Mr. Valente is enmeshed in the Republican machine.

Joe Knollenberg, Mark Vallente, John Shimkus, Mark Foley, and Tom Delay

It is always nice to know that some people are just generous to a fault. Looking at the FEC data, it seems that Mark Vallente is one of those people. Mark Vallente and his wife have given tens of thousands of dollars in contributions to Republican Candidates and PACs.

Few people may recognize the name “Mark Vallente”, but anyone who has followed politics in the last few years certainly know the names of Mark Foley and Tom Delay. Many people in Southeast Michigan may recognize the name of Joe Knollenberg, and a few would probably say that the name John Shimkus seemed familiar.

Well, John Shimkus was in charge of Congress’s Page Board. He was responsible for the pages. In the Fall of 2005, he was told about Mark Foley being too “friendly” with a page. Shimkus went with Jeff Trahndel to meet with Foley. Shimkus never brought the issue up to the “Page Board” which consists of other members of Congress. Instead Shimkus reportedly told Foley to stop it.

The Washington Post reported

GOP leaders have said they referred the matter promptly to Rep. John M. Shimkus (R-Ill.), who heads a three-lawmaker panel that oversees the House page program.”

Shimkus questioned Foley, but at that time, he had seen only suspiciously friendly e-mails, not the explicit instant messages revealed recently. In one e-mail to the former page, for example, Foley asked for a picture of him. The boy reportedly told an associate that he considered the request to be “sick,” but Foley convinced Shimkus that the exchanges were innocent, Shimkus and Republican leaders said.

Republicans appeared to have kept the matter under wraps. Rep. Dale E. Kildee (Mich.), the only Democrat on the House Page Board, said yesterday: “I was never informed of the allegations about Mr. Foley’s inappropriate communications with a House page, and I was never involved in any inquiry into this matter.”

So, Shimkus was one of the Republicans who knew about Foley, but didn’t stop him from his activities. It seems that protecting their majority in Congress was more important to them than protecting young boys and girls. Shimkus knew of Foley’s activities for nearly a year before it became public.

In the run-up to the elections last fall, many people were calling for Hastert, Reynolds, and Shimkus to resign alongside Foley since they were the ones who “covered-up” Foley’s actions.

Needless to say, other than Foley, none of them voluntarily resigned. Apparently the Republican Party didn’t pressure them to resign.

So if you have heard of Shimkus, that could why his name was familiar. Or it could be from the news reports that noted that his campaign treasurer was also a powerful lobbyist in Washington DC’s Republican circles. That lobbyist was Mark Valente.

A lobbyist running a campaign? Now that’s cozy.

So we know that Shimkus and Valente were close. We also know that Shimkus was “close” to Foley. We also know that Knollenberg has done at least one favor for Valente.

That started me thinking about the possibilities if this Tainted Troop may have some other connections as well. Of course if you want to get to the root of things, follow the money.

Oh, and Valente was actually the treasurer of 9 other Republican leadership PACs.

Mark Valente is a Very Generous Donor to Republican Campaigns

Now, there is nothing wrong with being generous in giving to political campaigns. It would be wrong however if there were some quid pro quo, i.e., that a lobbyist gave or raised money for a candidate in order to get a favor from the candidate. (Particularly when some “favors” are worth millions of dollars.) Looking at the money trail is interesting.

The data I looked at was from the FEC website. According to that data, and I haven’t checked their math yet, it seems that Mr. Valente has given $ 59595 to Republican candidates and PACs while his wife Claudia has given $57,470 since 1996. That is a lot of money. And there may be even more. I’ve noticed some discrepancies in the FEC data which I’m deciphering now. Plus, those amounts don’t count whatever they may have raised for candidates by hosting fundraisers.

What is really interesting is that there every single GOP Member in Michigan’s Congressional Delegation has gotten significant donations from Mr. Valente — including Joe Knollenberg. (I’ll post a table summarizing these donations shortly.)

Oh, and Mr. Shimkus — the friend of Foley — was also the recipient of some very generous donations by Mr. Valente.

Even more interesting is the tie between Mr. Shimkus’ PAC fund (separate from his individual campaign committee) was also a recipient of money from Mr. Valente. And also from Tom Delay.

Then there is that little matter of Shimkus’ PAC giving donations to Republican Congressman Roskam — in excess of federal campaign laws! The FEC lists the “Committees who Gave to This Candidate” and for Roskam, the page lists a donation from the John S. PAC of $3000.00 on 2/22/06 and $5000.00 on 3/27/06. The limit is $5000.00.

Roskam, by the way, used to work as an aide to Tom Delay. As with Duke Cunningham, Delay resigned from Congress in shame too. He has been fighting charges that he laundered campaign money through the RNC.

So, while treasurer of Shimkus’ PAC, that PAC made contributions — to a candidate who is a good friend of Tom Delay — in excess of FEC limits on contributions.

And then of course there is all the money that Delay gave to his loyal band of Republicans. Much of which was run through Delay’s Americans for a Republican Majority PAC (also known as ARMPAC).

Oh. Here is where the fun really starts. Who gave what to whom? Who accepted what from whom? Was there quid pro quo? Stay tuned. That will be in the next episode. Oh what a tangled web…

Is Joe Knollenberg Tainted With Corruption Like Duke Cunningham and Jack Abramoff?

I am deep into researching campaign contributions and gifts and trips, etc., that have been accepted by Joe Knollenberg.

We’ve already discussed Joe Knollenberg’s propensity for lobbyist paid luxurious vacations, but just how close is Joe Knollenberg to corruption scandals like the one involving shamed Congressman Randy “Duke” Cunningham and the $$$ millions he took in bribes from Defense Contractors. We know that Joe Knollenberg was on some committees with Duke Cunningham.

Or how close is Joe Knollenberg to the scandal ridden lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

Joe Knollenberg & The Duke Cunningham Corrpution Scandal

Brent Wilkes was the defense contractor that conspired with Duke Cunningham and who gave Cunningham more than $ 630,000 in bribes. In exchange, Cunningham steered millions of dollars in federal contacts to Wilkes’ companies including ADCS and Group W.

This is not small change. Since 1996, Wilkes’ brought in at least $95 million in government contracts.

While, the Duke wasn’t the only Congressman to receive money from Wilkes or
Joe Knollenberg was the 10th largest recipient of money from Wilkes, his companies, and his employees for the period of 2000 – 2005.

According to the FEC, the following entities received considerable sums of money:

1. NRCCC $68,000
2. Duke Cunningham $55,750
3. John Doolittle $35,000
4. Duncan Hunter $27,500
5. Tom Delay $26,000
6. Jerry Lewis $22,000
7. Bush-Cheney 04 $16,000
8. Henry Bonilla $15,500
9. Ben Gilman $13,000
10. Lindsay Graham $13,000
11. Joe Knollenberg $12,000
12. Billy Tauzin $12,000
13. Jerry Weller $10,000
14. Larry Craig $8,000

In a December 13, 2005, article in the very Conservative National Review Online, Rich Lowry lumps Joe Knollenberg’s “earmark” of $ 8 million — to a company run by one of his biggest campaign contributors — right in with a discussion of the Duke Cunningham and Jack Abramoff scandals.

In the article, Lowry states:

This is a corrupting process because it depends on congressmen prioritizing special interests, slipping earmarks into bills with no debate, and getting rewarded for it with campaign contributions. In the case of Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham (R., Calif.), who has resigned following bribery charges, the sleaze slid into outright criminality. Defense contractors who had almost no business got smart and began larding Cunningham with contributions and under-the-table payoffs. Suddenly, the firms won federal contracts funneled to them through earmarks championed by Cunningham.

Cunningham might have been exceptional in his lack of subtlety, but other congressmen work much the same way. Last week, it was revealed that Rep. Joe Knollenberg (R., Mich.), inserted an earmark into a transportation bill that forced Amtrak to haul additional private freight cars or forgo $8.3 million in additional federal dollars. The freight cars in question belonged to ExpressTrak, a company whose owner is a big Knollenberg donor. Knollenberg now says he is going to rescind the earmark, showing that some members of Congress are still capable of being shamed.

Lowry goes on to discuss how it seems to have become commonplace for Congressman to exchange favors and federal money to lobbyists in exchange for gifts, vacations, and campaign contributions. Lowry says:

This trading of contributions for official favors is ingrained in the appropriations process. It is part of the scandal around former GOP superlobbyist Jack Abramoff. A Washington Post analysis shows that eight of the 20 top recipients of contributions from Abramoff and his team sit on appropriations committees. One e-mail exchange between Abramoff and an associate, Tony Rudy, has Rudy asking whether a Native American tribe can fund a hunting trip for congressional staff as a “thank you … for the approps we got.”

It is no coincidence that earlier this year, Joe Knollenberg voted against ethics reforms in the House that would have limited his ability to give out such earmarks.

In another interesting exchange of favors in 2001, Joe Knollenberg and Randy Cunningham worked together to overturn a cap on lawyer fees in D.C. Apparently Congress had previously imposed a cap on the DC School Board for their reimbursement of legal fees. Lobbyists for several lawyers worked to get the cap lifted. It was an uphill challenge since the Republican’s who were the majority in the House always tend to vote against laws that reimburse lawyers because they think such laws encourage lawsuits. The White House had come out against removing the cap.

But, with Joe Knollenberg and Randy Cunningham on the committee, the lobbyists prevailed. According to a December 6, 2001, article in the Washington Post, it was Joe Knollenberg, the new chairman of the committee who bowed to the lobbyists and granted their wishes.

The story of how the lawyers’ advocates succeeded illustrates anew the influence wielded by individual members of Congress — and unelected players — who take a personal interest in District legislation.

In this case, key roles were played by lobbyist Mark Valente III, who enjoys close ties to House GOP leaders, and Rep. Joe Knollenberg (R-Mich.), the new chairman of the House panel that oversees the District budget.

Valente was lobbying on behalf of the Alexandria law firm of Dalton, Dalton & Houston, which often represents parents seeking special education services for their children. Knollenberg has long been sympathetic on the issue of lifting the cap — his top aide has an autistic son and won a large judgment against a suburban Detroit school district after a debilitating legal fight.

The real kicker in the Washington Post story is the part where Joe Knollenberg is praised by Randy Cunningham as being the one responsible for basically giving the lobbyists what they wanted!

“The new chairman [Joe Knollenberg] made the difference,” said Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham (R-Calif.), who fought the change and who is the longest-serving member of the House Appropriations subcommittee on the District.

In Part II of this series, we will continue to discuss — or perhaps the better term would be “disclose” — Joe Knollenberg’s connections to the corrupt Duke Cunningham and numerous corrupt lobbyists like Jack Abramoff.

Knollenberg Sides With Bush & Supports Escalating the War In Iraq

Congressman Joe Knollenberg has avoided taking a position on George Bush’s escalation of the war in Iraq.

The January 25, 2007 Free Press quoted Knollenberg as saying:

My patience with the war is growing thin. We need to see real progress in Iraq soon.

Isn’t everyone’s patience thin? Doesn’t everyone want to see real progress? His statement is just another one of his Washington insider political tricks. Knollenberg has been in Congress for 14 years and he is just another one of them. He will do whatever the Party tells him to do.

Knollenberg refuses to oppose the escalation of the War in Iraq even though a majority of his consituents oppose the escalation. Can we impeach Knollenberg? Have a recall? Anything to get him out of office.

Knollenberg doesn’t seem to have the capacity or the competency to serve in Congress.

Joe Knollenberg Voted NO on Ethics Reform

Here is the real reason that Congressman Joe Knollenberg voted NO on the ethics reform bill that passed the house last month — he likes to take lobbyist paid vacations.

The AP reported that between 2002 and 2005, Joe Knollenberg took three lobbyist funded trips worth nearly $12,000.

That doesn’t include the weeklong trip to Hawaii he took last January.

The reason Joe Knollenberg voted NO on ethics reforms is because he wants more free trips from lobbyists like Jack Abramoff.

(The AP story is no longer available for free online, but this link contains a partial reprint.

Joe Knollenberg Doesn’t Think Healthcare is an Important Issue

After writing about how Joe Knollenberg doesn’t even list “Iraq” as an issue on his list of issues on his website, I noticed he doesn’t list “healthcare” as an issue either.
Knollenberg must be out of touch with this District if he doesn’t think “healthcare” is an issue.

Knollenberg Wants to “Stay The Course” in Iraq

In an effort to discern Joe Knollenberg ’s position on Bush’s war in Iraq, I reviewed all of the public statements I could find. I searched the Congressional Record, Joe Knollenberg ’s own website, and I also conducted a google search for information from newspapers, magazines, trade journals, etc. What I found confirms what has already been stated on this site. Apparently, the war in Iraq is not an important issue to Joe Knollenberg .

Joe Knollenberg doesn’t even list “Iraq” as an “issue” on his webpage.

Joe Knollenberg  has made only a handful of comments on the issue and has nothing in writing.
Joe Knollenberg  Supports Escalation
I only found 2 statements in the Congressional Record:

• THE TRUTH ABOUT THE WAR IN IRAQ — (November 03, 2005)
  
  If you click the link you will see Joe Knollenberg is basically saying the war is going well.

The only other statement I could find was one he made when he voted to approve the Authorization to use Military Force against Iraq:

• AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002 – (House of Representatives – October 08, 2002)
  
  Again, if you click the link you will see that Joe Knollenberg seems to just be reading reading George Bush’s talking points into the record. There doesn’t appear to be any original thought involved. Unfortunately, like Bush, Joe Knollenberg didn’t do his homework. If he had, he would have known that those “aluminum tubes” were not related to nuclear weapons. This was a line from Bush’s September 12, 2002 presentation to the UN – but that information had already been debunked by Bush’s own experts in both the Department of Energy and the State Department. So Knollenberg was making false statements into the Congressional Record.

We do know that Joe Knollenberg has accepted over $110,000 in campaign donations from defense department contractors. That is less than his friend Duke Cunningham, but then again, Cunningham is now in jail for accepting bribes.

Joe Knollenberg ’s Press Statements
Bush gave his speech on escalating the war in Iraq on January 10th. The next day, the Detroit News ran a brief article quoting a few Congressional Reps from Metro Detroit regarding their position on Bush’s speech. The article, entitled “Bush gets cool reception in Michigan. Even former staunch supporters of Iraq policies are hesitant to accept president’s plan”, quoted Joe Knollenberg as saying:

<blockquote>Rep. Joe Knollenberg of Bloomfield Hills offered “conditional support,” but

without real progress in Iraq “within 90 days,” he said, “we really have to
evaluate what we’re going to do.”</blockquote>

Radio station WWJ AM has a similar statement attributed to Joe Knollenberg on their webpage:

““His leadership is on the line here and he knows it,” said Rep. Joe Knollenberg , a Republican from Oakland County’s Bloomfield Township. Thecongressman said he would only offer “conditional support” for the plan andwanted to see significant progress in the next three to four months.”

USAToday has an article regarding the June 16, 2006 vote in which Joe Knollenberg voted to

“reject[s] setting a timetable for pulling U.S. forces out of Iraq, labels the
Iraq war part of the global fight against terrorism and praises American
troops”.

There is no statement or additional information about Joe Knollenberg . It is just a list of who voted Yea and Nay.

Then there is the January 25, 2007 Free Press article which quoted Joe Knollenberg as saying:

My patience with the war is growing thin. We need to see real progress in Iraq soon.

On October 1, 2005, the Oakland Press reported that Joe Knollenberg   put out a press release stating:

“Pulling our troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan now would be absolutely detrimental to the safety and security of all Americans,” he stated. “We owe it to those serving overseas and their families, as well as the Iraqi and Afghan people, to continue in our fight against terrorist extremists. “We have made good progress in the war on terror, and God willing, the Iraqi people will soon have the ability to defend themselves. “Until that time comes, however, the U.S. must stay the course and not simply stand by while terrorists and dictators exploit innocent people and threaten our security here at home.”

On December 15, 2005, The Oakland Press reported on a group of constituents who went to Joe Knollenberg’s office to discuss bringing home the troops.

Knollenberg thinks that any withdrawal of troops from either Iraq or Afghanistan would be dangerous for the safety of Americans, said his press secretary, Jennifer Hing.
“He feels that by calling for and giving any sort of timetable for withdrawal, we give terrorists the upper hand on the war,” she said. “He agrees with the president when he says the withdrawal of the troops will come when the Iraqis say they are ready.”

The Oakland Press ran an article back on March 25, 2004 where they quoted Joe Knollenberg as saying:

Despite demonstrations to the contrary, most Iraqis don’t want Americans to leave until their country is again “safe,. . .

They article said that Joe Knollenberg indicated he was ‘encouraged by the scenes of progress he witnessed around Iraq’, but then they quote him as saying:

“We rarely got outside military compounds,” he said. “We drove through Baghdad but didn’t get out.”

The Oakland Press Article goes on to state: “Knollenberg reported signs of an improving economy, including growing numbers of cell phones and satellite dishes.” Too bad Joe Knollenberg didn’t realize that those cell phones he was so pleased about have been used to detonate the bombs and Improvised Explosive Devices (IED’s) that have been maiming and killing US troops.

Analysis of Joe Knollenberg ’s Statements

Joe Knollenberg Says He Supports the Troops But His Votes Show Knollenberg Does NOT Support the Troops

The November 2005 statement implies that he supports the troops. I certainly support the troops. Every American supports the troops. But taking a closer look at his “support” for the troops I found:

• Rep. Knollenberg voted to continue awarding contracts to Halliburton even if the Pentagon’s own audit processes found that more than $100 million of their contractor’s costs in Iraq were unreasonable.
• Rep. Knollenberg opposed expanding access to the military’s TRICARE health insurance program to thousands of Reservist and National Guard members, even though 20 percent of all Reservists do not have health insurance, and 40 percent of Reservists aged 19 to 35 lack health coverage.
• Rep. Knollenberg voted against granting a bonus to grant a $1,500 bonus to every American service member serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, including National Guard and Reserve forces.It seems that Joe talks the talk but he doesn’t walk the walk. Knollenberg says he supports the troops, but he votes against them.

Joe Knollenberg  Still Says Stay the Course in Iraq
Joe Knollenberg  hasn’t said much about the war in Iraq, but what he has said has been 100% in line with President Bush.

Joe Knollenberg even uses Bush’s line about how important it is to STAY THE COURSE.

Joe Knollenberg hasn’t said or done anything contrary to Bush’s plan.
Conclusion

Joe Knollenberg ’s most direct statement has been to “STAY THE COURSE” in Iraq.

He hasn’t said or done anything to counter that position.

Joe Knollenberg  still advocates “STAY THE COURSE”.

Why Is Knollenberg Covering Up His Position on the Escalation of the War in Iraq?

Congressman Joe Knollenberg has avoided taking a position on George Bush’s escalation of the war in Iraq.

The January 25, 2007 Free Press quoted Knollenberg as saying:

My patience with the war is growing thin. We need to see real progress in Iraq soon.

So, does that mean that Knollenberg is supporting the escalation in troops?

Does it mean that Knollenberg is opposed to the escalation? Isn’t everyone’s patience thin? Doesn’t everyone want to see real progress? Shouldn’t we expect more from our Representatives in Congress? Once again, Knollenberg is failing to represent the interests of the people of the 9th District.

What is Congressman Knollenberg’s position on escalation of the war in Iraq?

 

More importantly, why won’t he tell us?