home

The House Just Says No to Troop Surge

By TChris, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Fri Feb 16, 2007 at 05:44:33 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

It isn't enough, but it's something. After years of nothing, the vote is worthy of note.

After four days of emotional debate over the extent of presidential powers in wartime and the proper role of Congress, the House of Representatives adopted a resolution today denouncing President Bush’s plan to send more American troops to Iraq.

The 246 to 182 outcome included 17 Republican votes in favor of the (unfortunately) nonbinding resolution.

< Jose Padilla Competency Hearing Continued | Breaux May Run For LA-Gov >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    The House Just Says No to Troop Surge | 13 comments (13 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Woo-hoo (none / 0) (#1)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Fri Feb 16, 2007 at 07:19:50 PM EST
    We could all sleep soundly at night now. What a somewhat, kinda, almost but not quite, moral victory. Yay. Hoo-ah. How courageous. God bless the USA.

    Congressional Iraq Vote (none / 0) (#2)
    by hrikneh on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 05:45:54 AM EST
    Yes, this vote is for a non-binding resolution. Let's pay attention to what Rahm Emmanuel said yesterday after passing this legislation. He said that President Bush could veto a binding resolution. President Bush cannot deny this majority bi-partisan vote against his surge.
    I watched Nacy Pelosi and the rest of her team on c-span after the vote. She stated emphatically that this is just the beginning and this is historical. Emmanuel also stated that this is the first time in 4 years that the congress has not rubber stamped Bush's Iraq policies. This is a victory and gives me hope that the Congress can and will step up to the plate and bring our troops home.

    Democrats won't cut Iraq war funding (none / 0) (#3)
    by Andreas on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 05:54:28 AM EST
    The WSWS writes:

    The resolution and the three days of debate that preceded its passage are a further demonstration that the Democratic Party shares the imperialist goals of the Bush administration in Iraq, and that its criticisms are entirely on the level of tactics. In a literal sense, the resolution is not an antiwar measure at all, but merely a statement of disagreement with the method chosen by the White House to continue and escalate the war.

    The resolution devotes half its 97 words to declaring support for US troops currently occupying Iraq, while stating that Congress "disapproves" of Bush's decision to escalate the war. The resolution neither condemns the ongoing slaughter in Iraq, nor the initial decision to invade and conquer the country. If implemented--rather than contemptuously ignored by the White House--it would leave American policy in Iraq exactly where it was on January 9, the day before Bush ordered the "surge" of additional troops.

    After House vote on non-binding resolution: Democrats won't cut Iraq war funding
    By Patrick Martin, 17 February 2007

    And if you read (none / 0) (#7)
    by dutchfox on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 12:31:27 PM EST
    "liberal" pro-Democratic sites like Common Dreams you get this:
    US House Delivers Stinging Rebuke to Bush Over New Iraq Strategy and in the NYT: A Divided House Denounces Plan for More Troops

    Stinging Rebuke, Denounce. I don't think so.

    Parent

    Meaningless (none / 0) (#4)
    by Slado on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 09:52:31 AM EST
    If you consider this vote anything other then political posturing then you are deluding yourself.

    If I was in the anti-war crowd this would enflame me.  I'm not so maybe I'm off base but what a bunch of wimps.

    For 4 years they've complained, they campaigned on the war and it got them elected and what do they do?  They make a big celebratory vote and that's it.

    Maybe this is the start of something bigger but I highly doubt it.  

    Democrats can say what they want but this is no way to support the troops.  If they really think ending the war is supporting the troops then end it.  Cut off funding, make it happen.

    Instead they vote to send a new general to Iraq.  They support him and the troops but they don't support his plan that is being inacted anyway by the president but they won't cut off funding the war because they support the troops.   Give me a break.

    Murtha is a boob but at least he's an honest one.  He says cut off the funding, end the war now.   That's a plan.   IMHO it's a bad one but it's at least debatable.   What's this plan.  Wave a white flag from 3,000 miles away and pretend like we can vote the war into non existance?

    This vote lets the troops know that we don't support what they're doing but they should know that we support them.

    You can't have it both ways.  

    Support the Troops

    Both ways? (none / 0) (#5)
    by Repack Rider on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 10:19:49 AM EST
    You can't have it both ways.

    That's right.  You either support the troops, or you want to keep them in harm's way to continue getting killed for no reason except to put off admitting that sending them there was a criminal act.

    If you think they should stay in Iraq, you are not supporting the troops.  I served, and if you think troops in Iraq is a good idea, why are you still here?

    Parent

    et al (none / 0) (#8)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 04:16:40 PM EST
    Slado, or anyone, for that matter has the same right to discuss the war.

    RePack - Especially for you. If serving is to be a criteria to discuss, I am sure you tell squeaky, edger, Jondee, etc., to please be quiet.

    Che - I don't think Slado is on your side.

    Parent

    Don't put words in my mouth (none / 0) (#9)
    by Repack Rider on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 07:44:11 PM EST
    I never suggested that serving was a requisite for discussion, but what kind of despicable person would you have to be to ask someone else to risk his or her life in a futile cause, while offering ZERO sacrifice of your own?

    If I ask someone else to take a risk, I will make sure I offer something of my own.  So sure, if you are able-bodied, support the war in iraq, and do not choose to serve, you are entitled to your opinion and I am just as entitled to consider you lower than the stuff I scrape off my shoe.  

    You are free to choose which category you want to be part of, patriotic or hypocrite.

    Parent

    Bravo (none / 0) (#10)
    by Dadler on Sun Feb 18, 2007 at 11:54:54 AM EST
    Excellent post.  Spot on.

    Parent
    RePack (none / 0) (#11)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Feb 18, 2007 at 06:26:42 PM EST
    You wrote:

    but what kind of despicable person would you have to be to ask someone else to risk his or her life in a futile cause, while offering ZERO sacrifice of your own?

    Huh? Tell you what. I'll dump on Slado as soon as Bill and Hill tell us why they didn't serve. Okay?

    You write:

    If you think they should stay in Iraq, you are not supporting the troops.  I served, and if you think troops in Iraq is a good idea, why are you still here?

    That comment is a definite attempt at putting down the comment made by Slado, given that he thinks they should be there, and you don't.

    Parent

    incontinence and incosistency (none / 0) (#13)
    by Sailor on Sun Feb 18, 2007 at 09:24:23 PM EST
    jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 07:01:20 AM EST
    I [...] call for everyone to just shut up unless they have served, or are now serving.


    Parent
    Slado (none / 0) (#12)
    by MiddleOfTheRoad on Sun Feb 18, 2007 at 07:27:19 PM EST
    If you consider this vote anything other then political posturing then you are deluding yourself.
    If I was in the anti-war crowd this would enflame me.  I'm not so maybe I'm off base but what a bunch of wimps.

    You are not in the anti-war camp, so stop pretending about what you would do or would not do if you were not there.

    For 4 years they've complained, they campaigned on the war and it got them elected and what do they do?  They make a big celebratory vote and that's it.

    No it is not it.

    Maybe this is the start of something bigger but I highly doubt it.

    I doubt it too, but that is not because of Democrats.  It is because Bush can veto and the Republicans can fillibuster.  

    Democrats can say what they want but this is no way to support the troops.  If they really think ending the war is supporting the troops then end it.  Cut off funding, make it happen.

    Why does everything have to be about "supporting the troops"?  Why can't the House declare that the surge is opposed by a majority of Americans.  Support for troops is totally orthogonal to saying that the "surge" is wrong.

    Of course once they start in that direction, you will be supportive of their efforts, right?  Since you propose it, you'll support them on cutting off the funding, right?

    Instead they vote to send a new general to Iraq.  They support him and the troops but they don't support his plan that is being inacted anyway by the president but they won't cut off funding the war because they support the troops.   Give me a break.

    The surge is not the general's idea.  It is Bush's idea.  And what is so wrong with confirming the general (someone has to be the boss there right) and then declaring that Bush has the wrong tactics?

    Murtha is a boob but at least he's an honest one.  He says cut off the funding, end the war now.   That's a plan.   IMHO it's a bad one but it's at least debatable.   What's this plan.  Wave a white flag from 3,000 miles away and pretend like we can vote the war into non existance?

    Bush and the Republicans said that the Dems were cowards (which is a remarkable statement considering that both Bush and Cheney avoided Vietnam) and that the Dems were surrender monkeys.  They raised this issue repeatedly during the 2006 campaign.  They lost handily.  The American public loves the "surrender monkeys".

    This vote lets the troops know that we don't support what they're doing but they should know that we support them.

    You can't have it both ways.

    We don't support the tactics of their CiC.

    It is your side which resulted in the deaths of 3000 and 10's of thousands being wounded.  With such "support" from you, it is no wonder that the American public is looking for alternatives.

    Parent

    Slado (none / 0) (#6)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 10:54:13 AM EST
    Do us a favor.

    Stay off our side.

    The House Just Says No to Troop Surge | 13 comments (13 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment