Representative Hank Johnson of Georgia’s 4th Congressional District has decided to “explain” whey he supports the cut and run act proposed by the House last week on a New Blog he has set up.

Johnson’s blog is being hosted by the “Moderate Blog Network” and some may feel that the first term Georgia Representative fits that title well. Johnson, for those who may not know, is the candidate that beat the unstable Cynthia McKinney in the last election in the 4h District and next to her ANYONE would seem “moderate”. Johnson is nothing, though, if not a typical, far left Liberal so a political moderate he most definitely is not.

His first (and so far only) entry in this Blog is an explanation of why he voted to support the “Iraq Accountability Act”.

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.

While Johnson claims to stand on compassion here, his support of an immediate withdraw will do nothing to further the concept of saving lives.

Still, his is typical of a self-centered support of defeat. It’s all about HIS feelings couched in a somewhat dubious claim of caring for “our brave men and women in uniform”, sadly. While he seems to be trying to save the lives of our troops, he makes no mention in his “explanation” of why he doesn’t seem to care about the millions that will die in the Mid East should the US pull out now.

He doesn’t discuss the turmoil the region will fall into if we leave (the only legitimate comparison of Iraq to Vietnam, as it occurs), not to mention the chaos that would result in the world’s energy supply if the entire region were to lapse into a bloody region wide conflict between Arab nationalists and Iran with a side show of Israel standing against them both.

So, Johnson’s position on the war is the typical far left position. More proof of his being anything but moderate is also revealed in his entry.

I was an original supporter of the amendment offered by Congresswoman Barbara Lee, which called for a fully-funded, immediate withdrawal from Iraq. Regrettably, that amendment was rejected before it could even be considered on the floor. It is clear that more aggressive measures to curtail the president’s power would be destined for the same fate in this body.

This is a McGovernite, far left strategy… actually, running with your tail between your legs doesn’t even qualify as a “strategy”, so I’ll have to take that back. It’s hard to believe he cares about peace or saving lives because neither would be well served by the US cutting and running. He is not for any measured policy, but is for a radical one instead.

Johnson reveals that he is a member of the most fringe anti-war group by admitting that this particular cut and run policy he signed onto is not nearly radical enough for him but that he felt he had to support it or end up with no policy he could support. This tends to reveal that his particular ideas have little support in Congress which also shows us how radical he really is.

I carefully considered voting against this bill and holding out for something more aggressive and restrictive. But, having watched this debate unfold, I am convinced that such a proposal would not pass.

Lastly, he makes no mention of one of the other chief features of this act.


This bill is so larded with illicitly tacked on spending for things like peanut storage in his own state, and other boondoggle spending, that it boggles the mind and makes the lie to Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s claims that she is going to be fiscally responsible.

Among many other including the Georgia peanut funding are such things vital to the war effort as $24 million for funding for sugar beets, $40 million for the Tree Assistance Program,$22.8 million for geothermal research and development,$3.5 million in funding for guided tours of the Capitol, and far more. (For a partial pork list, see Dean Barnett)

All in all, Johnson reveals his far left radicalism and his unconcern for the lives of millions of people as well as his complete lack of any idea of how truly to create peace.

His being hosted on a claimed “moderate” site, might be indicative of the fallen state of the definition of the word “moderate” these days. If Johnson is a moderate, Attilla the Hun was merely a successful politician.

And now my beef — and it is a minor one, to be sure — with the site on which Representative Johnson’s blog appears. In today’s political climate, the term “Moderate” usually refers to someone who is in the middle on many positions and policies. I have been contacted by Johnson’s blog Host at and he informs me that by moderate they mean a more civil tone of discussion. I salute and support the laudable attempt to moderate the overheated tone of politics on he web. Too many sites are repulsive for their obscenities and hate.

But, I believe he misleads a bit using the word moderate when he means civil. I think too many visitors would, as did I, think they are searching out a middle of the road site and would find instead, some entries that are just as far left as anything one would find on or any other far left site. One current video posted there, for instance, claims we are living in a police state because of video surveillance systems run by city police departments.

Then there is Mr. Johnson’s obvious liberalism to confront. The final analysis is that, while Georgians may think they elected a moderate compared to what they had before, Johnson reveals he does not stray too far from the normal liberal line.

Be Sociable, Share!