Terry Everett, December 15, 2003

Recently, I was reminded of a story about a man who needed to cut his grass sought to borrow his next door neighbor's lawnmower. His neighbor refused to lend it, however, saying his wife was sick. Perplexed, the man asked his neighbor what the ailing wife had to do with lending out his mower. The neighbor responded, nothing, but if I don't want you to borrow my lawnmower, one excuse is as good as another.

Unfortunately, that's often the way it is in Congress these days and I was disappointed in the lame excuses many used for not voting recently for the Defense Supplemental Appropriations. This legislation, which passed both Houses of Congress and was signed into law by President Bush last month, ensures that our troops in harm's way in Iraq and Afghanistan will get the supplies and weaponry they need.

There are those who view our involvement in Iraq as unnecessary, and while I disagree with them, I recognize their right to that opinion. However, when we have men and women in our armed services dying on the battlefield it is, in my view, immoral to vote against giving them the very protection they depend upon to survive.

Those who opposed this supplemental legislation cited some of the following excuses: First, there was no imminent threat by Iraq to the United States before the war. Secondly, the decision to go to war alone has been too costly in lives, tax dollars, and our international reputation. And, lastly, the Pentagon's failure to prepare for the aftermath of the war has been devastating with attacks on troops and infrastructure damage for which our troops were not trained or equipped.

Regardless of one's view of these points of view, simply opposing sending badly-needed body armor, flak jackets, and armored plating for vehicles to our troops in the field makes no sense at all. Ironically, many of these same lawmakers have also made statements in recent weeks in support of our troops. Some have even attended local guard and reserve activation ceremonies to "show their support" of our men and women in uniform heading off to Iraq and Afghanistan. Where were these lawmakers when our troops needed them to vote for this vital legislation?

Let's look at their arguments. Saddam was not an imminent threat? What about Iraq's ties to Al Qaeda and plans to develop nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction? They say the decision to go to war alone has been costly. Need I remind them that the events of 9/11 were extremely costly - 3,000 lives and a serious blow to our economy. We did not go it alone in Iraq. America has over 40 partners in Operation Iraqi Freedom. As for failure to prepare for the aftermath of the war, this is an outright false statement. I've been to Iraq and have seen the progress our troops and civilian forces have made in winning the support of the silent majority of hopeful Iraqis. Iraq is a large nation - the size of California - and it is not realistic to expect all resistance from Saddam loyalists to be contained in a matter of months.

There are those who even say that the money we spent on our troops in Iraq could be better spent on "pressing needs" here at home. There will always be needs at home, but what need is more pressing than to prevent another 9/11 from occurring on our shores?

Frankly, there is no excuse good enough to deny fighting American soldiers what they need to survive. But for those lawmakers who opposed the supplemental for our men and women in uniform, one excuse is apparently as good as another. Despite their many excuses it is obvious that some partisan Democrats voted against the supplemental in a continuing effort to discredit the President.

Congressman Terry Everett, a Republican, represents the 2nd Congressional District of Alabama in the U.S. House of Representatives.