Apology not accepted
Last Thursday, in a moment of frustration over Bush's veto of S-CHIP, Rep. Pete Stark (D-CA) pissed off House Republicans when he said to them:
“You don’t have money to fund the war or children. But you’re going to spend it to blow up innocent people, if we can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the president’s amusement.”
Predictably, House Republicans responded with a call for censuring Mr. Stark - which went down in flames today in a 196 to 173 vote.
Still, for some reason, Stark felt the need to apologize:
“I want to apologize to, first of all, my colleagues, many of whom I’ve offended; the president, his family; to the troops...I do apologize. I hope that with this apology I will become as insignificant as I should be, and that we can return to the issues that do divide us, but that we can resolve in a better fashion."
But why should Stark be censured, and why should he apologize? All he did was express how he felt - how millions of Americans feel - about the war and about health care for children (which appear to be mutually exclusive, when it comes to funding). Whom, exactly, did he offend?
Sorry, Mr. Stark - apology not accepted. Because it was unnecessary. Get back in there and keep fighting for children's health care, and next time, don't back down.