I got this in my email from Hill:

"On November 14, 2007, I voted in favor of H.R. 4156, the Orderly Responsible Iraq Redeployment Appropriations Act. This bill provides the troops with the funding necessary for food and equipment, funding to train and equip Iraqi security forces and, most importantly, funds to redeploy our troops out of Iraq.

Our troops have performed magnificently in every effort they have undertaken, and our combat mission in Iraq has been fulfilled. Now, our missions must change to a diplomatic one where we work to turn over control of all political and security issues to the Iraqi people.

Let me be clear: this bill is not a veiled cut-and-run policy. In contrast, it places significant emphasis on creating a comprehensive, long-term, diplomatic, political, and economic strategy to bring lasting stability to Iraq. Our commitment to the region is not complete simply because our military mission is finished."

Well, good for him, if he sticks with it. It's about time. But there are a couple of things in this message that strike me as typical, backstabbing Baron Hill. For one thing, while I agree with him in praising the troops, what is this malarky about our "combat mission" and our "military mission" being completed? What the hell is he talking about? Since when is illegally invading another country and unleashing monstrously violent chaos there a "mission" of any kind, this side of Hell? This is, to me, yet another example Baron Hill finding a way to praise the monstrous policies of the administration and the GOP, under the guise of praising the troops.

Baron, if you are a Dem, please try to get it through your head that it's possible to praise the soldiers for their service, without implicitly praising the illegal and immoral mission they were sent on.

And what is this reference to "cut and run"?! Why would any Dem, this side of Barak Obama, INSIST on repeating one of the most vile and mendacious GOP talking points? We Dems and progressives should NEVER dignify GOP talking points that portray ending an illegal and unwanted OCCUPATION as cutting and running. Did the Brits Cut and Run after Yorktown, or did they give up a wrongheaded and unjustified policy?

Why can't we have a real Dem in Indiana 9, instead of a faux Dem who sounds like a Republican even when he's TRYING to sound like a Dem?