Today the question before this body, Mr. Speaker, is not ``How shall we respond to the unprovoked attack by a foreign nation upon the United States or its fielded military forces abroad?'' We are not debating ``How will we respond to the menace of a political and/or cultural movement that is enveloping nations across the globe and is knocking on the door 90 miles off the coast of Florida?'' Nor, Mr. Speaker, are we discussing a response to an act of aggression by a dictator who has invaded his neighbor and has his sights on 40 percent of the world's oil reserves, an act that could plunge the American economy, so dependent on energy, into a deep spiral. Finally, Mr. Speaker, and this point must be made very clear, we are not discussing how America should respond to the acts of terrorism on September 11, 2001. That debate and vote was held over a year ago; and our men and women in uniform, led by our Commander-in-Chief and Secretary of Defense, are winning the war on terrorism.
John Hostettler: “Today the question before this body, Mr. Speaker, is not ``How shall we respond to the unprovoked attack by a foreign…”
Editor's note · Context
Addressing the ongoing military response to terrorism and the implications of foreign aggression.
Share
More from John Hostettler
I rise in support of H.R. 418, the Real ID Act. The REAL ID Act incorporates four of the 9/11 Commission recommendations that are necessary to effectively protect our constituents from terrorists seeking to exploit loopholes in our…
We are letting them go to court. That is exactly right, we are going to let them go to court. A blatant violation is determined by a court of law and not by ACLU attorneys behind closed doors.
Though they represent different law enforcement agencies, these officers all have one thing in common, they all carry guns. So why is it that residents of Washington, D.C. are forbidden from protecting their families in this same fashion…
First of all, Mr. Jefferson was in France during the approval process of the Bill of Rights.





