Comments

You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name

Your e-mail (optional)

Website (optional)

	My Original Nic Pic-a-Nic Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Foto

Submit your comments on this article

Home Front: Politix

Democratic House OKs rare wartime rebuke of President

2007-02-17

The House of Representatives voted 246 to 182 today to pass a nonbinding resolution supporting U.S. soldiers in Iraq but opposing the president's plan to send more combat troops to the war zone.

The vote caps a historic week of debate in which Democrats and some Republicans inveighed against the cost in lives and dollars of the war in Iraq, and the Republican leadership warned about the dangers of walking away from a fight with Islamic terrorists. Today, 17 Republicans, going against the wishes of President Bush, joined Democrats in supporting the resolution; two Democrats took the president's side and voted against it.

The vote could also mark a turning point in the war.

Only for Democrats.

"This vote is the first step back from the abyss," Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas) said.

"The stakes in Iraq are too high to recycle proposals that have little prospect for success," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco), who rode to power when the anti-war sentiments in last fall's elections helped overturn the Republican majority on Capitol Hill. "The passage of this legislation will signal a change in direction in Iraq that will end the fighting and bring our troops home."

Republican leaders warned that passage of the resolution could embolden Democrats to cut off funding for the war. "Their so-called slow bleed approach is the bite that will surely hurt those fighting under America's flag overseas," said Rep. Roy Blunt of Missouri, the second-ranking Republican. "This nonbinding resolution is the first step in an all-too-binding spiral toward defeat in a fight that we cannot afford to lose," he said.

Republicans voting 'yes': Mike Castle (DE), Howard Coble (NC), Tom Davis (VA), John J. Duncan Jr. (TN), Phil English (PA), Wayne Gilchrest (MD), Bob Inglis (SC); Timothy V. Johnson (IL), Walter B. Jones Jr. (NC), Ric Keller (FL), Mark Kirk (IL), Steven C. LaTourette (OH), Ron Paul (TX), Tom Petri (WI); Jim Ramstad (MN), Fred Upton (MI), Jim Walsh (NY).

Democrats voting 'no': Jim Marshall (GA), Gene Taylor (MS).

Posted by:Fred

#19 I've been reading recently about a projected shortfall in pollworker volunteers. Perhaps the VFW posts could come up with some names?

Posted by: trailing wife 2007-02-17 22:15

#18 Adding to Cyber Sarge's comments (#12): As political as the military got (in its own secret ways) during Carter and Clinton terms, I think you are going to see a landslide of military votes next time by. The recent elections here in Washington took on some controversy in the King County area; the elections office constantly cannot pour piss out of a boot with directions on the heel, and they screwed the mail in /absentee ballots up so bad, that they effectively disenfranchised all King County based military and dependents overseas. And Ron Sims, terminal Democrat, didn't say boo about it. I would not be at all surprised to see a spread of this sort of behaviour in close districts coming up.

Posted by: USN, ret. 2007-02-17 22:07

#17 #16 - the electorate won't stand for it. After all, they elected our current crop of "distinguished" representatives.

Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418 2007-02-17 21:37

#16 But it's no match for the feeble character of the American citizen.

Exactly. This is why there needs to be a mandatory civic service of some sort. Everyone, should have to serve two years in some capacity, doesn't have to be military, but something. Make it between HS and college.

Before I joined the service I was a fucked up sloppy civilian kid. The service straightened me out and gave me a good taste of reality. We need to require everyone to serve the State for two years in some capacity, might end a lot of this BS.

Posted by: Omolurt Elmeaper6990 2007-02-17 18:45

#15 Sudddenly Jim Ramstad (MN) has sunk to Keith Ellison's low level.

These pathetic Dhimmicrats can't offer up one suggestion other than surrender. Yes they are (thanks Proco) Copperhead traitors and the Sauds must be laughing their asses off.

Posted by: Icerigger 2007-02-17 16:25

#14 Looking forward to opposing the seven Quislings in the next primary election.

Posted by: Phineter Thraviger 2007-02-17 15:29

#13 The House passed it, but it failed in the Senate. So the Democratic effort lost, this time.

The vote was 56-34. That was four short of the 60 needed to advance the measure, which is identical to a nonbinding resolution that Democrats pushed through the House on Friday. The vote marked the second time this winter that Senate Republicans have blocked action on nonbinding measures critical of the president's war policies. This time, however, there were signs of restlessness within the GOP. Seven Republicans broke with their leadership, compared with only two on the previous test vote.

Posted by: trailing wife 2007-02-17 15:13

#12 Funny that NONE ofthe msm thought to analyze the net affect of this resolution. Their stated goal was to stop or delay the reenforcements (call them what they are) from deploying to Iraq. But the ONLY two things I see as a result of this resolution was to embolden our enemies and demoralize our troops. I served during the entire Presidency of Bill Clinton and I was never ever political (as most people are not in the military). This action and other by the Donks will probably cause most if not all in the military to become more political. While you might think this is a good thing, think of the morale of units that are split with political strife within the ranks. I say this knowing full well that most in uniform are consevative but when you are engaged in a conflict you don't have time or luxury to have a political discussion on every order.

Posted by: Cyber Sarge 2007-02-17 12:17

#11 Nancy Pelosi has gotten some very flattering press coverage in the ME. And it sounds like she is the darling of all the Jihadi websites. Who says this resolution didnt accomplish anything?

Posted by: DepotGuy 2007-02-17 10:36

#10 The yea votes - some are hard core leftists with a cause. Some stand with firm conviction grounded on the latest polls. Some are just pliable fools. All are policticians.

Posted by: Hank 2007-02-17 10:07

#9 In the long fine tradition of selling out their fellow man, a rebirth of the Copperheads.

Posted by: Procopius2k 2007-02-17 09:52

#8 This donk non-binding resolution is the most chickenshit, nutless, whining, crybaby response I've seen in a long time. I'd rather endure a root canal than listen to this whiny bullshit. Support the troops or STFU.

Posted by: JohnQC 2007-02-17 09:10

#7 I read earlier that advocating the shooting of any America will get a poster sink-trapped. Does the same go for advocating a good ass-kicking or maybe a nice tar and feathering of these 17 Repoublican patriots?

Posted by: jds 2007-02-17 08:52

#6 Traitors. Every last one of them. And each deserves a traitor's punishment.

It's not too hard to see where we're headed with all this: for those too young to remember, you're about to experience what the 1970's were like, when America was Fuckup Nation, a musclebound giant of a country that just couldn't seem to do anything right. We spent the decade after 'Nam drugging ourselves into a stupor trying to forget, and capped it all off in the year of our Bicentennial by electing that fucking moron, Jimmy Carter.

These bastards have just delivered a resounding message to allies and enemies alike, that Osama bin Laden was absolutely, positively right about us: Americans WILL give up sooner or later; all you need to do is exceed their miniscule attention span and their meager reserves of courage. America's astonishingly capable military can pound any foreign foe flat in mere days. But it's no match for the feeble character of the American citizen.

*SPIT*

Posted by: Dave D. 2007-02-17 08:50

#5 Brave Sir Robin...

Posted by: Shineger Unatle5424 2007-02-17 06:49

#4 1) It's just a temporary tax.
2) I did not have sex with that women.
3) I'm sorry if you're offended.
4) We support the troops.

Posted by: DMFD 2007-02-17 01:04

#3 Says nothing, accomplishes nothing, impresses only those who were already in the fold.
Good to see "they support the troops" though...

Posted by: tu3031 2007-02-17 00:46

#2 SPACEWAR > NORTH KOREA TO MIANTAIN "WAR FOTING" AGZ AMERICA. Wants a "powerful Socialist State" , prob in order to make sure ordinary Norkies are starved good and proper.

Posted by: JosephMendiola 2007-02-17 00:42

#1 Another non-binder just to say the Dems want a Democrat POTUS in the WH before they admit years later than Dubya was correct + winning in the ME.
Until then, MANLY/PATRIOTIC GUMPTION > American Pols helping Amer's enemies kill our own Amer soldiers for the sake of PC politico advantage/special interest. * O'REILLY > DINESH D/SOUZA book "THE ENEMY AT HOME" > D'Souza's so-called "CULTURAL LEFT" {OR's FAR LEFT] appears to working in coordination wid OBL's agenda, i.e. Osama - Radical Islam provides the anti-US Terror = Righteous People's War of Resistance & National /Global Liberation [from USA-West], locally or internationally, while the Cultural Left = Far Left handles the national anarchy/destabilization aspects. AS SAID BEFORE, THE ANTITHESIS OF WAR AGZ FASCISM [FORMS OF FASCISM] = WAR FOR COMMUNISM. War against Rightist Socialism = War for Leftism-Socialism; War against God-based Ultra-Socialism + Ultra-Nationalism = War for Secular Atheist Socialism + Secular Anti-Nationalism; War agz Hitlerism = War for Marxism-Leninism-Stalinism; War agz Limited Governmentism in Economy = War for TOTAL Governmentism in Economy.

Posted by: JosephMendiola 2007-02-17 00:26

00:00