Nixon, Quinn take weekend trip to Iraq
Nixon walks with Brig. Gen. Gerald Lang at a base in Iraq
Gov. Jay Nixon and his Illinois counterpart joined three other governors who spent the weekend visiting military commanders and troops in Iraq and Kuwait.
Nixon announced his whereabouts in an unusual Sunday conference call with reporters. Speaking from Kuwait, he said the trip, which began with a briefing at the Pentagon on Friday, was organized by the Department of Defense.
He said the touring group included Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn, as well as the governors of Texas, Minnesota and Nevada.
Nixon said his purpose was to “interact face to face with these courageous Missourians” in the National Guard, the Reserves and the regular military.
“They are doing a tremendous job under difficult conditions,” including wind, sand and 119 degree heat, he said. “These folks are stunningly committed.”
Nixon said he spent Saturday night in Baghdad and met with many Missourians serving in Iraq. He said U.S. forces are making “significant, real progress” in their mission and are “focused and upbeat.”
Their main concerns involved the high unemployment rate back home and transitioning back into civilian life, Nixon said.
Nixon said that under Defense Department rules, he could not disclose where he was going next or when he would return to Missouri.
But he said technology keeps him in constant touch with his staff, so he did not hand off the reins of government to Lt. Gov. Peter Kinder.
Former Gov. John Ashcroft started that practice, keeping control rather than ceding power to then-Lt. Gov. Mel Carnahan. A court decision supported Ashcroft’s position that with modern technology, a governor can govern from afar.
How much did this “photo-op” cost the taxpayers of Missouri?
Seriously! How dare he go over there to show support?!
How could the governor of Illinois spend a month shouting that we have to raise taxes or the state is going to fall apart and then go on a sight-seeing photo op? Man I hope Illinoisans wise up and vote him out.
As a Veteran and a taxpayer this is an outrage. Do you really think the troops care if these guys drop by to say hello? I am sure they have many more things on their minds than wanting to see them. When states are in such a fiscal mess cutting programs and eliminating jobs this is just wrong. Instead of bringing business back to our states they will just bring expensive bills to be paid for by the taxpayer.
Just noting this story from KWMU (St. Louis NPR) files on May 24, 2006, about then-Missouri Governor Matt Blunt visiting Iraq on a similar mission along with two fellow governors, including the one he was supporting for the GOP presidential nomination - and whose ticket he fervently hoped to join as VP. When you make accusations about burnishing political credentials with photo ops, please remember to include Matt and Mitt. I personally had nothing against Blunt making the trip and I have nothing against Jay Nixon making the same trip as Blunt to show appreciation to the men and women in the National Guard. God bless them all.
Blunt, two fellow governors visit troops in Iraq and Afghanistan
ST. LOUIS (KWMU) - Missouri Governor Matt Blunt is traveling in Iraq and Afghanistan this week.
He’s there with two fellow governors Republican Mitt Romney of Massachusetts and Democrat Brian Switzer of Montana.
Blunt arrived in Iraq Tuesday. He visited with members of the Missouri National Guard outside Baghdad.
The governor says no one complained about being under-equipped.
“I’m asking those types of basic questions, and certainly one of them is do you have everything you need to fulfill your mission’?” Blunt said. “And the answer has been yes.’ Several of them had been here before, and they felt like they were more well-equipped now than they ever had been in the past.”
About 1,300 Missouri Guard personnel are serving in the Middle East and Afghanistan.
The governors did not make their travel plans public until after they landed in Iraq.
The Defense Department is paying for the trip.
© Copyright 2009, KWMU
If he supported the troops he wouldn’t send them to fight for oil companies. My oh my just imagine another President Nixon. I think Jay can go all the way..What branch of the military did Mr. Nixon serve in?
I don’t know who is paying for the trip. It may be the state or the federal government or a combination of both. My guess is that it is a waste of taxpayers dollars to send Blunt there when he was Governor and now to send Nixon.
The state or federal financial situation isn’t great now. Aren’t there more important uses of scarce resources? What legimate purpose does the trip serve? There may be one but I don’t get it. Sounds more like politics than anything.
Any of you think that this might cheer up some of our Missouri troops over there? My bro-in-law is in Bahgdad, and he says they like getting ANY sort of attention from the folks back home, including our politicians. Your cynical bitching about how much it costs doesn’t help our men and women serving on our behalf…it just makes you look like an uncaring jerk.
Hey no politician came over to me to say hello and THANK ME during Vietnam.
Well thanks for your thoughts, but it was nice to see my Governor here showing his support. Just because you people think we’ve been called back home due to the change of power in the White House, doesn’t mean it really happened. We’re still here! …and instead of coming back home, our next trip will be Afghanistan. So I want to thank you guys who voted history. Now that the first black man has become president, maybe next election you can vote in real CHANGE. Until then, I’ll try and keep safe.
This is not about a political photo op…it’s about Nixon doing his job, the same way Governor Blunt did his when he visited the troops during his tenure. Nixon serves as Commander in Chief of the Missouri National Guard. Visiting those NG members serving their country in Iraq not only gives the troops much needed attention and a brief moment of remembrance of their home state, but also gives Nixon a first-hand view of the conditions and actions going on over there. I’m no fan of Nixon, but I don’t believe that anyone should be criticizing him for this. As far as cost to taxpayers, I’d much rather foot the bill for a flight to Iraq than pay to send him to a sporting event. The return on this investment is much higher.
There were some good comments in response to my comment. I am reconsidering my position.
When are they coming home? They are not coming home, they will just be going to Afghanistan. Iraq never should have been but being in the military calls for duty such as Afghanistan and I suggest those who oppose the duties of being in the military not sign up for another tour of duty. There are many who do not mind serving all the demands of being in the military and even then, the are in need of much support.
Please, do not do sign up for another tour CAdams. Military life, you are not cut out for and neither am I or many others. I admit I do not see myself as being able to handle it not to mention the fact that being the aggressor as was the war with Iraq, it is in total conflict with my religious beliefs.
My point is this. Before the election, all I heard from people who opposed Bush is that “War is not the answer.” “Support the troops by bringing them home.” I never heard a protester once say “Bring the troops home so that they can go fight in Afghanistan.” It was “bring the troops home.” Then all of a sudden leading up to the election, this new president and his party started talking about shifting the war to Afghanistan. What did their supporters do? Well they fell in lockstep saying…”Yeah, get the troops out of Iraq so that they can fight a JUST war in Afghanistan.” Well news flash, we were already in Afghanistan. So what happened to bringing the troops home? What happened to “War is not the answer”? Where are the picket lines of protest now? “Just War” my rear-end. You people don’t support the troops coming home unless your opposition is in the White House.
I plan on staying in. I’m just trying to show how much hypocrisy is out there, that’s all. There is no change.