Congressman Hank Johnson on the Iraq Accountability Act

Congressman Hank Johnson posted at today:

I am passionately opposed to the war in Iraq. I am committed to bringing our brave troops home and sickened by the prospect of prolonging this tragic and unnecessary conflict.

And today I have made a very difficult decision – by far the most difficult I have ever made in public service.

Here is the full post.


  1. saltynuts says:

    I disagree with Congressman Johnson on this bill and on many other things.

    But as a Republican living in DeKalb County, I’ve got to say that it’s refreshing to have a Member of Congress who is so articulate and principled.

    I also respect the fact that he really seems to give it a lot of thought and more importantly, that he seems to respect both the process of governing and the voters he represents.

  2. John Douglas says:

    What Congressman Johnson doesnt disagree with is leaving the middle east to the muslim fascists who would destroy America at the earliest possible moment.

    Supporting the troops but not the mission is like supporting cops but not law enforcement. Impossible.

  3. Federalist says:

    Mr. Douglas,
    Didn’t the American fascists destroy the middle east? Yeah, they did. The mission in Iraq was over years ago, the President obviously has had some other interests in Iraq and has let over 3000 troops die because of those interests. Bring the troops home, there is no greater way to support them. What is left to accomplish in Iraq? Help the Shiites win a civil war? That is not what Congress authorized, and finally the system of checks and balances, that millions of U.S. citizens and soldiers have died for, is beginning to work again. There is no way to believe in the possibilities of this country and the freedom it stands for, or the freedom from and prevention of tyranny the constitution provides,…and support the war in Iraq.

  4. jkga says:

    Senator Douglas-

    You seem to think that the presence of American troops in Iraq is somehow preventing Muslim terrorists from attacking the US. Could you clarify how that works?

    I’ve heard people say that we are fighting them over there so that we don’t have to fight them over here, but that’s never made sense to me – there’s no reason terrorists would have to come through Iraq to get to the US. Any thoughts?

  5. bowersville says:

    So Federalist is a Democrat supporting Whitehead for the 10th!

    If you want to talk about the destruction of the middle east, blame America 1st, then support Whitehead for the 10th!

    And Rugby, plain and simple, [deleted by Erick and bowersville goes to the penalty box]

  6. dingleberry says:

    Wow, Senator Douglas,

    That is some reasoning you demonstrate. Thank God we have elected officials like you to make decisions for us…it saves me from having to ask my five year old for advice.

    So, “supporting the troops but not supporting the war is like supporting police but not supporting law enforcement” huh?

    How about this, Senator….police perforce a no-knock raid on my house and kill my elderly grandma, just to find out they had the wrong house. Should I have supported that mission? Because, according to YOUR logic, if I don’t support the killing of my innocent grandma, then I don’t support the police.

    Troops do what the leaders of this country tell them to do. The troops and the mission are two DIFFERENT things. If you can’t distinguish between the two, then, quite frankly, you’re an idiot.

Comments are closed.