Iraq resolution passes House

Gator

U of B and B Alumnus
Senate to consider similar measure Saturday
AP
Updated: 3 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - The Democratic-controlled House issued a symbolic rejection of President Bush's plan to deploy more troops to Iraq on Friday, opening an epic confrontation between Congress and commander in chief over an unpopular war that has taken the lives of more than 3,100 U.S. troops.
The vote on the nonbinding measure was 246-182, with 6 not voting.
"The stakes in Iraq are too high to recycle proposals that have little prospect for success," said Speaker Nancy Pelosi, leader of Democrats who gained power last fall in elections framed by public opposition to the war.
"The passage of this legislation will signal a change in direction in Iraq that will end the fighting and bring our troops home," she vowed.
Bush's Republican allies said repeatedly the measure would lead to attempts to cut off funds for the troops. Outnumbered, they turned to Rep. Sam Johnson of Texas to close their case - and the former Vietnam prisoner of war stepped to the microphone as lawmakers in both parties rose to applaud his heroism.
"Now it's time to stand up for my friends who did not make it home, and for those who fought and died in Iraq already," he said. "We must not cut funding for our troops. We must stick by them," he added, snapping off a salute as he completed his remarks to yet another ovation.
Bush made no comment on the developments, and his spokesman said the commander in chief was too busy to watch the proceedings on television.
After a secure videoconference with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, Bush said the Iraqis were reporting progress: providing troops to fight alongside Americans, making sure that no ethnic or religious factions are ignored in the security operations, providing $10 billion toward reconstruction and working on an oil revenue-sharing law.
The developments in the House marked the first vote of the new Congress on the war. Roughly 400 of 434 lawmakers spoke during four days of a dignified debate - an unusual amount of time devoted to a single measure.
Moving quickly, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has called a test vote for Saturday on an identical measure, and several presidential contenders in both parties rearranged their weekend campaign schedules to be present.
Republicans said in advance they would deny Democrats the 60 votes they need to advance the resolution, adding they would insist on equal treatment for a GOP-drafted alternative that opposes any reduction in funds for the troops.
The developments unfolded as a new poll showed more than half those surveyed view the war as a hopeless cause.
A sizeable majority, 63 percent, opposes the decision to dispatch more troops, although support for Bush's decision has risen in the past few weeks from 26 percent to 35 percent, according to the AP-Ipsos poll.
President undeterred
The House measure disapproves of Bush's decision to increase troop strength, and pledges that Congress will "support and protect" the troops.
Bush has already said passage of the measure will not deter him from proceeding with the deployment of another 21,500 troops, designed primarily to quell sectarian violence in heavily populated Baghdad.
Already, troops of the Army's 82nd Airborne have arrived in Iraq. Another brigade is in Kuwait, undergoing final training before proceeding to Iraq. Three more brigades are ticketed for the Baghdad area, one each in March, April and May.
In addition, the Pentagon is sending two Marine battalions to Anbar province in the western part of the country, the heart of the Sunni insurgency.
Bush and his allies in Congress calculated days ago that the House measure would pass, and increasingly have focused their energy on the next steps in the Democrats' attempt to end U.S. participation in the war.
"I'm going to make it very clear to the members of Congress, starting now, that they need to fund our troops," Bush said earlier this week, a reference to legislation that requests more than $93 billion for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
White House plays down resolution
As developments on Capitol Hill went forward, the White House sought to play down the impact of the debate and vote. The president himself made no comment on it - with his spokesman saying he was too busy to watch - and turned instead toward Iraq. He reported after a secure videoconference with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki that progress is being made.
The president said that the Iraqi leader briefed him on several recent steps by his government: providing troops to fight alongside Americans, making sure that no ethnic or religious factions are ignored in the security operations, providing $10 billion toward reconstruction and working on an oil revenue-sharing law.
"I was pleased that he's meeting benchmarks that he has set for his government," Bush told reporters. "That's good news for the Iraqi people. And it should give people here in the United States confidence that his government knows its responsibilities and is following through on those responsibilities."
Democrats have made clear in recent days they will use Bush's spending request to impose certain standards of readiness, training and rest for the troops.
"That stops the surge (in troops) for all intents and purposes, because ... they cannot sustain the deployment," Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., said recently.
Republicans pointed to his remarks repeatedly during the day as evidence that despite their claims to the contrary, Democrats intend to cut off funds for the troops.
"This is all part of their plan to eliminate funding for our troops that are in harm's way. And we stand here as Republicans...committed to making sure our troops in harm's way have all the funds and equipment they need to win this war in Iraq," said Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, the Republican leader.
Link http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17179124/
 
Add "lives" to that statment and it would read a lot like something someone opposed to the Iraq War might say.
Thats also whats gonna happen when we start to pull troops out. All the lives already sacrificed will be in vain. Thats why we MUST finish what we started.
 
Thats also whats gonna happen when we start to pull troops out. All the lives already sacrificed will be in vain. Thats why we MUST finish what we started.

All signs point to the War will be waiting for you, I'd say theres plenty of time to get you trained up, and shipped out, no need to rush things along.
 
Last edited:
All signs point to the War will be waiting for you, I'd say theres plenty of time to get you trained, up and shipped out, no need to rush things along.
*rolls eyes* There is a need to rush things along, there are lives already being lost and lives will continue to be lost. We need this thing over as quick as possible. I know the war will probably be waiting on me, and guess what...IM READY FOR IT. Well, thats a lie, no one can be truely ready for combat, but I'll tell you one thing...Im ready to do my part. Im ready to give a little back to my country. How bout you, Gator?
 
I've given more then you will ever know, and, more than you would ever want to know.
I've also paid more Tax than you have in your 16 years on Earth.... the same goes for The Godfather.
 
My 2 cents

It seems to me that the message to the enemy coming out of the House of Representatives is pretty clear now: "Just hang on for a few months and you'll be guaranteed to defeat the US". It purely defeatist politics. So long as long as they can oppose the President, to hell with the troops on the ground is what I hear - disgraceful. They've just made a grave mistake.
Now it's on to slowly cutting the funding and troop numbers available for deployment to Iraq. It seems like the Dems fear the troop increase as much as the enemy does. The worst thing about it is that they seem to know exactly what the tragic repercussions of their actions will be.
That's my opinion on the latest actions of the Pelosi/Murtha posse.
 
We will never win in Iraq.

Thats not defeatism, thats reality. If there was a realistic chance to salvage the situation in Iraq I would argue to soldier on. But there simply is none.

The reason its lost is not because of military defeat, but of a political defeat. All experts including those in the White House have said that the war can only be won through diplomacy, not force of arms. The Iraqis have made it clear that they prefer civil war to democracy. And because the political war is lost, a military victory is totally impossible.

The Presidents actions show that he is either in fanstasyland, or he has decided to pass the humiliation of withdrawing from Iraq to his successor in 2008.

Either way, he has proven over and over again that he is totally incompetent and untrustworthy on this situation, and I do not see any reason to keep throwing away good money and young American lives on a situation that we will never win.

If it was just the liberals howling in protest, that might be dismissed as partisan politics, but the problem is that even the GOP and some NEOCONS have declared the war lost. Wars that we have no possibility of winning are not worth fighting.

It seems to me that many of you are pointing the finger in the wrong direction. Who got us in this situation in the first place? It wasn't Murtha or Pelosi. The President is responsible for this situation. And the President seems more interested in starting yet another war with Iran than on trying to end to wars he already got.
 
Last edited:
Thank you for that fine illustration of what defeatism looks like.

As I said, thats reality. I didn't create the situation, I was against this BS from the very beginning.
And whats your solution? Stay the course and keep sending 20 years olds into a meat grinder just so you can avoid admitting that you were wrong? Some plan.

At least I can sleep at night. My conscience is clear.
 
Last edited:
If we retreat then what have we accomplished? Removing Saddam Hussein and his sons/friends/brothers/lovers from power? Of course. But now who will step in?

If we stay, we have a chance, however small or large, that we can bring some kind of stability to the country.

The "insurgents", of whatever nationality, are a increasingly clever in their use of IEDs (Improvised Exlposive Devices). These IEDs are the main cause of death in the combat zones. I believe a number I read was around the 35% mark with another 31% given to snipers. So where do the remainder of the deaths and injuries come from? I want you to note the casualty trends in the link below. Perhaps you will see somehting I don't.

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2007/01/gns.iraqmilestone070102/

Here are some hard numbers for you:
http://icasualties.org/oif_a/CasualtyTrends.htm
http://www.icasualties.org/oif/stats.aspx
http://www.icasualties.org/oif/Methodology.aspx
 
It seems to me that the message to the enemy coming out of the House of Representatives is pretty clear now: "Just hang on for a few months and you'll be guaranteed to defeat the US". It purely defeatist politics. So long as long as they can oppose the President, to hell with the troops on the ground is what I hear - disgraceful. They've just made a grave mistake.
Now it's on to slowly cutting the funding and troop numbers available for deployment to Iraq. It seems like the Dems fear the troop increase as much as the enemy does. The worst thing about it is that they seem to know exactly what the tragic repercussions of their actions will be.
That's my opinion on the latest actions of the Pelosi/Murtha posse.

very well put
 
Back
Top