Is Souder Listening?
July 28, 2016 at 4:25 p.m.
By -
I have read and reread your article on Congressman Mark Souder's appearance in Warsaw for the Lincoln Day Luncheon and your interview of him just before that event. For the life of me I am having a great deal of difficulty following his thoughts. This means one of three things: You did not capture those thoughts accurately, I am hopelessly dimwitted, or Congressman Souder is confused.
I am persuaded, for the most part, that my mind is clear and that your reporter, Teresa Smith, captured Mr. Souder's replies correctly. This leaves the troubling conclusion that our Congressman is, well, a bit mixed up.
Is he really saying that Congress should not micro-manage the Iraq war, but that we should have a gradual pull-out to the borders to watch the ensuing conflagration?
Is he really saying that we entered Iraq on what looked to be good intelligence, that turned out to be bad intelligence, that now looks to be good intelligence?
Is he really saying, "If Bush wasn't so dog-gone stubborn, we'll have a Vietnam-like pullout"? Dog-gone that Mr. Bush. Is the Congressman recommending such a pullout?
Did he really mean to say because Mr. Bush is so stubborn we will see a collapse like Vietnam? If this is what you mean, Mr. Souder, some of us having been saying this for a long time.
Is he really saying that Social Security is 70 percent of our total current budget, that grade schoolers expect to live to 110 years, that when we hit 65 we will surrender our power so that our children do not have to pay a 50 percent FICA tax, and that somehow the influenza outbreak of the early 1900s is in any way relevant to this discussion? I will concede that if I was there some of this might make some sense.
Perhaps the most troubling comment he made is the last: "What I don't have is people back here discussing anything. It's discouraging."
Apparently reading the Times-Union is not part of Mr. Souder's work practice. I have written letters repeatedly, as have many others, on the subjects of war, the environment, trade, immigration, tax policies and numerous other subjects. I have lost count of my own letters to this paper. The debates on these subjects have been healthy and lively.
Mr. Souder, some of us are listening to you very carefully. And we are openly discussing important issues of the day. What we wonder is very simple: Are you listening to us?
David C. Kolbe
Warsaw, via e-mail[[In-content Ad]]
Latest News
E-Editions
I have read and reread your article on Congressman Mark Souder's appearance in Warsaw for the Lincoln Day Luncheon and your interview of him just before that event. For the life of me I am having a great deal of difficulty following his thoughts. This means one of three things: You did not capture those thoughts accurately, I am hopelessly dimwitted, or Congressman Souder is confused.
I am persuaded, for the most part, that my mind is clear and that your reporter, Teresa Smith, captured Mr. Souder's replies correctly. This leaves the troubling conclusion that our Congressman is, well, a bit mixed up.
Is he really saying that Congress should not micro-manage the Iraq war, but that we should have a gradual pull-out to the borders to watch the ensuing conflagration?
Is he really saying that we entered Iraq on what looked to be good intelligence, that turned out to be bad intelligence, that now looks to be good intelligence?
Is he really saying, "If Bush wasn't so dog-gone stubborn, we'll have a Vietnam-like pullout"? Dog-gone that Mr. Bush. Is the Congressman recommending such a pullout?
Did he really mean to say because Mr. Bush is so stubborn we will see a collapse like Vietnam? If this is what you mean, Mr. Souder, some of us having been saying this for a long time.
Is he really saying that Social Security is 70 percent of our total current budget, that grade schoolers expect to live to 110 years, that when we hit 65 we will surrender our power so that our children do not have to pay a 50 percent FICA tax, and that somehow the influenza outbreak of the early 1900s is in any way relevant to this discussion? I will concede that if I was there some of this might make some sense.
Perhaps the most troubling comment he made is the last: "What I don't have is people back here discussing anything. It's discouraging."
Apparently reading the Times-Union is not part of Mr. Souder's work practice. I have written letters repeatedly, as have many others, on the subjects of war, the environment, trade, immigration, tax policies and numerous other subjects. I have lost count of my own letters to this paper. The debates on these subjects have been healthy and lively.
Mr. Souder, some of us are listening to you very carefully. And we are openly discussing important issues of the day. What we wonder is very simple: Are you listening to us?
David C. Kolbe
Warsaw, via e-mail[[In-content Ad]]
Have a news tip? Email info@whitewaterpublications.com or Call/Text 360-922-3092
Local Events