An Ol' Broad's Ramblings
R.O.E.
I have to ask…why would any congress critter vote against allowing our military men and women to defend themselves?
Rep John Mica introduced an amendment (H.R. Amdt 318) to H.R. 1540 that would do just that.
AMENDMENT DESCRIPTION:
Amendment requires that the rules of engagement allow any military service personnel assigned to duty in a designated hostile fire area to have rules of engagement that fully protect their right to proactively defend themselves from hostile actions.
AMENDMENT PURPOSE:
An amendment numbered 38 printed in House Report 112-88 to require that the rules of engagement allow any military service personnel assigned to duty in a designated hostile fire area to have rules of engagement that fully protects their right to proactively defend themselves from hostile actions.
Seems pretty cut and dry to me. We know that many of the Democrats don’t give a damn about the safety of our troops, but when I see that there are Republicans that voted against this amendment as well, then I have some serious problems. The one who shocks me the most….. Paul Ryan. As a matter of fact, only one Republican from Wisconsin voted to let the soldiers defend themselves, Reid Riddle. Is there something in this amendment that escapes me? It’s pretty simple language, so I’m not sure just what the objections are with those who voted against it.
If anyone has an explanation, I’d sure be happy to hear it.
I am going to do some serious investigation into this. There MUST be more to it than that…WHY would Ryan vote against this? If I get any answers, I’ll most definitely let you know.
I’d muchly appreciated it. It’s bugging the bejabbers outta me!