Need help refuting e-mail from my repuke Congressman

[Number9Dream]

Several days before HR 63 (the vote opposing the troop surge), I e-mailed my Rep., Charlie
Dent (R-PA), urging him to vote for HR 63 and oppose any troop surge. Of course, he voted with the repukes. Yesterday, I received the following e-mail from Dent. I would like to refute the points he attempts to make for a LTTE. I'm sure my fellow DUers can come up with points that I haven't thought of. Please read Dent's letter, and then please give me some counter-punches.

Thank you for contacting my office in opposition to the President's proposed troop surge and in support of House Concurrent Resolution 63, which opposes the deployment of additional U.S. forces to Iraq .
While I have expressed concerns regarding the troop surge in Baghdad , I could not support this bill. From a policy standpoint alone the Resolution fell short in a critical area. It only said what Congress was against. It never gave us the opportunity to say what we were for. To that end, I am still dismayed that the Majority had us debate this issue for thirty-six hours but dictatorially did not allow us to offer viable alternatives to benefit our troops and our national interests.
One such alternative would have been House Concurrent Resolution 45, which has been introduced by Congressman Frank Wolf (VA-10). This legislation, of which I am a co-sponsor, emphasizes the need for U.S. forces to accelerate the training of their Iraqi counterparts, establishes milestones for success in Iraq , and promotes diplomatic initiatives in order to advance stability in the country and in the region. These were all sensible recommendations of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group.
I have tried to understand the Iraq War from many different viewpoints. I have talked with my constituents, both pro and con, about the conflict. I have listened to military and intelligence briefings. I have visited Iraq and talked with the commanders on the ground-all to increase my professional awareness of what is going on there.
But my concern here goes beyond the professional. Our involvement in Iraq has affected me on a personal level as well. One of my Congressional aides, Jason Lane of Allentown , is a reservist who has been called to active duty and is deployed to Iraq . I listened to what Jason's mother had to say about having both her sons, Jason and Kevin, serving in that country. I have visited wounded troops in military hospitals. And I have attended the funerals of local young men who gave to this country what Abraham Lincoln called "the last full measure of devotion."
I thought of all these men and women as the debate unfolded. Ultimately, as was stressed during the exchanges on the Floor, this was a non-binding resolution, or a piece of legislation with no real effect. This resolution would not have stopped a single servicemember from deploying or brought a single one home. In fact, the mission that we spent thirty-six hours debating began before we started. From the number of calls, e-mails and letters I received in my office from people in the service, from families of people in the service, and from veterans, I became convinced that this non-binding resolution, which changes nothing about our Iraq strategy, would in fact do at least one thing - hurt the morale of our troops and their families.
Thus, as I went to cast my vote, I realized that what was most important here was to side with Jason and the other brave men and women who are serving and who have served in Iraq . How could I vote for a non-binding resolution that changes nothing while our soldiers are daily putting everything on the line while serving their country?
I stand by what I believe is a sensible course, one on which the Majority should have allowed a vote. To that end, we need to begin focusing on:

Accelerating the training of Iraqi soldiers and police so that they can quell sectarian violence and take the lead in combating the Sunni insurgency.

Securing Iraq 's territorial integrity so that unfriendly nations who want to see America fail cannot pass more terrorists and supplies into that country.

Fighting Al-Qaeda in the provinces.

Redoubling our diplomatic efforts in the Middle East in order to encourage other countries in the region to help in the building of a stable Iraq .

Ultimately, a bipartisan solution will have to be found in order to ensure that we do not fail in Iraq . Non-binding resolutions that are offered only for partisan gain and that do not offer specific alternatives do a disservice to our men and women in uniform. That is why I felt compelled to vote against H. Con. Res. 63.
Again, thank you for contacting me and taking the time to voice your opinions regarding this important debate on Iraq . If you would like to receive periodic electronic mail updates on current issues in Congress, visit my website at www.dent.house.gov to sign up for my E-Newsletter. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any additional questions or comments you may have involving this or any other federal issue.

With best wishes,
Sincerely,
Charles W. Dent
Member of Congress

[Roland99]

1. Actually, I find myself agreeing pretty much 100% with what your Rep. wrote.

Esp. this part:

This legislation, of which I am a co-sponsor, emphasizes the need for U.S. forces to accelerate the training of their Iraqi counterparts, establishes milestones for success in Iraq , and promotes diplomatic initiatives in order to advance stability in the country and in the region. These were all sensible recommendations of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group.

[Lasher]

2. Dent isn't too bad for a Publican.

Dent is pro-choice and in favor of stem cell research. He supports development of alternative energy resources and voted against the Terri Schiavo fiasco.

Although I see several opportunities for rebuttal I will offer one counter punch:

Dent said in his letter, "...I am still dismayed that the Majority had us debate this issue for thirty-six hours but dictatorially did not allow us to offer viable alternatives to benefit our troops and our national interests."

Closed rules dictate that bills go to the floor for a vote without any possibility of amendment. This tactic undercuts the very essence of democracy: In a bicameral system, allowing bills to be debated openly is the only way that the minority can have a real impact, by offering amendments to legislation drafted by the majority.

House Republicans oversaw a monstrous increase in the number of closed rules prior to losing majority control last year.

In 1977, when Democrats held a majority in the House, eighty-five percent of all bills were open to amendment. But by 1994, the last year Democrats ran the House, that number had dropped to thirty percent.

Of the 111 rules introduced in the first session of the 109th Congress (when Dent was first elected), only twelve were open. Of those, eleven were appropriations bills, which are traditionally open. That left just one open vote -- H. Res. 255, the Federal Deposit Insurance Reform Act of 2005.

In the second session of the 109th Congress there was not a single open rule outside of appropriation votes. Under the Republicans, amendable bills became a genuine Washington rarity.

Much more ammo here:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/12055360/cover_story_time_to_go_inside_the_worst_congress_ever/3

Democrats are committed to changing Congressional rules to make them more fair to the minority - in sharp contrast with the extremist 109th Congress. Congressman Dent seems to have forgotten that it was he and his Republican allies who developed the rules of which he now complains. These days I myself find such objections amusing.

Lasher

[gratuitous]

3. Gee, he's suddenly got all kinds of good ideas

I wonder why he didn't insist on any of them when he was in the majority? His statement that "I am still dismayed that the Majority had us debate this issue for thirty-six hours but dictatorially did not allow us to offer viable alternatives" is the rankest hypocrisy, coming from a Republican whose leadership ran Congress during the last six years like a Mafia capo running his crime family.

My best wishes for you, Mr. Dent? That you should attend the funeral of every KIA from your District for the rest of your term, and begin collecting your pension at the earliest possible date.

[LiberalFighter]

4. "hurt the morale of our troops and their families" ??

If anyone has hurt the morale of our troops and their families it is George W Bush and Republicans who forced them to fight in Iraq.

Forced them through stop orders to serve beyond normal duty tours.
Forced them to fight without proper training and protection.
Forced them to serve in capacities beyond their expected training.
Forced them to serve more than once in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Forced returning troops to receive less than adequate medical care.
Forced them to fight a war that was not necessary.
Forced them to fight a war that was a lie and continues to be nothing but lies.
Forced them to fight a war for a President that they wish would just disappear from the face of the earth.
Forced them to fight a war that embarrasses the United States in the eyes of the world.


"I have visited Iraq and talked with the commanders on the ground-all to increase my professional awareness of what is going on there."

Just the commanders? Not any of the troops other than a former office aide?