The Circle Is Complete: The House Rejects Retreat-And-Defeat
Coming off the newswires is the report that the House has followed suit with the Senate. There will be no withdrawal from Iraq.
The House on Friday handily rejected a timetable for pulling U.S. forces out of Iraq, culminating a fiercely partisan debate between Republicans and Democrats feeling the public's apprehension about war and the onrushing midterm campaign season.
In a 256-153 vote that mirrored the position taken by the Senate earlier, the GOP-led House approved a nonbinding resolution that praises U.S. troops, labels the Iraq war part of the larger global fight against terrorism and says an "arbitrary date for the withdrawal or redeployment" of troops is not in the national interest.
"Retreat is not an option in Iraq," declared House Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio. "Achieving victory is our only option ... We have no choice but to confront these terrorists, win the war on terror and spread freedom and democracy around the world."
"Stay the course, I don't think so Mr. President. It's time to face the facts," House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California answered, as she called for a new direction in the conflict. "The war in Iraq has been a mistake. I say, a grotesque mistake."
Four months before midterm elections that will decide control of Congress, House Republicans sought to force Republicans and Democrats alike to take a position on the conflict that began with the U.S. invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein in the spring of 2003.
Democrats denounced the debate and vote as a politically motivated charade, and most, including Pelosi, voted against the measure. They said that supporting it would have the effect of affirming Bush's "failed policy" in Iraq.
Balking carried a risk for Democrats, particularly when they see an opportunity to win back control of Congress from the GOP. Republicans likely will use Democratic "no" votes to claim that their opponents don't support U.S. troops.
In fact, 42 Democrats broke ranks and joined with all but three Republicans to support the resolution. Two Republicans and three Democrats declined to take a position by voting present.
Republicans and Democrats alike explained the decision, as each side saw it, that voters have to make in November.
"The choice for the American people is clear; don't run in the face of danger, victory will be our exit strategy," Rep. Mike Conaway, R-Texas, said.
Countered Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa.: "It's not a matter of stay the course. It's a matter of change direction."
Some GOP incumbents who face tough challenges from Democrats in November issued qualified support for the measure while criticizing the GOP-led Congress.
"The American people are looking to us to answer their questions on how much progress is being made, what are the Iraqis themselves willing to do to fight for their freedom and when will our men and women come home," Rep. Jim Gerlach, R-Pa., said before voting in favor of the resolution.
The House vote comes one day after the Senate soundly rejected a call to withdraw combat troops by year's end by shelving a proposal that would allow "only forces that are critical to completing the mission of standing up Iraqi security forces" to remain in Iraq in 2007.
That vote was 93-6, but Democrats assailed the GOP maneuver that led to the vote as political gamesmanship and promised further debate next week on a proposal to start redeploying troops this year.
Congress erupted in debate on the Iraq war four months before midterm elections that will decide the control of both the House and Senate, and as President Bush was trying to rebuild waning public support for the conflict.
The only "waning support" I see is in Congress. I know plenty of people that want our troops to come home, yet they still support our efforts in Iraq. They get it. They understand that if we run right now--if we take the Democrat's position--it will be Saigon, 1975 all over again. We will watch the slaughter of innocent men, women, and children on the nightly news, and all because a group of cowards do not seem to have the intestinal fortitude to withstand what this nation is going through.
We cannot retreat in the face of this enemy. The Islamicists that are fighting us will only become further emboldened. They have struck London, Spain, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Indonesia, the United States, and almost pulled off an attack in Canada. Our enemy could care less about the place, but they are concerned about making sure their body count is high enough. They cannot achieve that act if we are killing them or capturing them. There will be no running, now. The House and the Senate have made that clear.
And the Democrats claim that this will be used against them in the upcoming election. Of course it will, as it should be. They are taking a side that is obviously not a majority opinion in the nation, and they are throwing a fit over the fact that the minority is not being listened to. That is a lie. We are listening to their side, and we disagree. And as this is a nation where majorities win votes, they have lost, and this debate should be over. But it will not be so. I am sure that Sen. Kerry or Rep. Murtha will come out swinging on the numb-from-the-brain-down talking heads shows this Sunday. Both will moan and wail that because we have passed the milestone mark of 2500 dead that we should pull out. The mission is too tough for our fighting men and women.
So, the two combat veterans leading the charge for retreat think out troops cannot handle the rigors of war? They have been trained to handle these conditions as best they can. These people are professionals. These people are not like Sen. Kerry (who re-filmed himself slugging througha jungle in Vietnam to bolster his image for political gain upon returning home) or Rep. Murtha (who has dishonored the Marines, and many Marines have rightly said this aloud). These are men and women who believe in the cause they are fighting for. They believe in the mission.
It is the Congressional Democrats that do not believe in this mission any longer. To them this has taken too long (Duh! When do wars take less than a day? When Clinton is nailing camel's in the butt) cost too many lives (we lost more in all the wars before this one EXCEPT for the first Gulf War in '91), and it has cost us too much money (military technology, weapons, munitions, etc., are not cheap; if they were they would be Soviet). I understand their gripes. They remind me of children whining in the back seat over how long a trip is taking.
The president told this nation the war would be long. Tht it might last longer than his administration. That we, as taxpayers, would be asked to bear the burden of this war. And that much of what would occur in the war would happen unannounced and unnoticed. We knew the score in 2001. We reelected President Bush in 2004, still knowing what he said, and what he meant. Our troops were still in harm's way then, and we still put him back in office. (Of course the same could be said of those in Congress, but I am sure many simply put the names they recognize back in office without considering what those people stand for.) But I cannot believe that to be true of the president.
What sort of a message is sent ot the nation when one party seems so dead-set against continuing the war we are in? What sort of message is sent to the troops when that party basically says, condescendingly, "Good job, but this war is taking longer than we thought, and we honestly do not think you can handle the pressure and rigors any longer"? What sort of message will be displayed to the world if we do "redeploy" As Sen. Kerry and Rep. Murtha had proposed?
For the redeployment, it shows the world that america's word is no longer he bond, and that when the going gets tough, we act like the "paper tiger" that bin Laden called us after Mogadishu. The message sent to the troops is one that reflects a lack of confidence for those people wearing the uniform, which does not translate well into morale for them; at worst it spits in the face of all those who have died thus far, making their ultimate sacrifice a vain effort. And the message to the nation? Well, the Democrats do not need Republicans beating them up this election season. They are doing a fine job of it already, and these two votes show it.
The Republicans do not have to do anything other than tend to their own house. The Democrats will shoot themselves in the foot before November comes around, and it will make the seventh consecutive defeat for them since 1994.
Marcie
Coming off the newswires is the report that the House has followed suit with the Senate. There will be no withdrawal from Iraq.
The House on Friday handily rejected a timetable for pulling U.S. forces out of Iraq, culminating a fiercely partisan debate between Republicans and Democrats feeling the public's apprehension about war and the onrushing midterm campaign season.
In a 256-153 vote that mirrored the position taken by the Senate earlier, the GOP-led House approved a nonbinding resolution that praises U.S. troops, labels the Iraq war part of the larger global fight against terrorism and says an "arbitrary date for the withdrawal or redeployment" of troops is not in the national interest.
"Retreat is not an option in Iraq," declared House Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio. "Achieving victory is our only option ... We have no choice but to confront these terrorists, win the war on terror and spread freedom and democracy around the world."
"Stay the course, I don't think so Mr. President. It's time to face the facts," House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California answered, as she called for a new direction in the conflict. "The war in Iraq has been a mistake. I say, a grotesque mistake."
Four months before midterm elections that will decide control of Congress, House Republicans sought to force Republicans and Democrats alike to take a position on the conflict that began with the U.S. invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein in the spring of 2003.
Democrats denounced the debate and vote as a politically motivated charade, and most, including Pelosi, voted against the measure. They said that supporting it would have the effect of affirming Bush's "failed policy" in Iraq.
Balking carried a risk for Democrats, particularly when they see an opportunity to win back control of Congress from the GOP. Republicans likely will use Democratic "no" votes to claim that their opponents don't support U.S. troops.
In fact, 42 Democrats broke ranks and joined with all but three Republicans to support the resolution. Two Republicans and three Democrats declined to take a position by voting present.
Republicans and Democrats alike explained the decision, as each side saw it, that voters have to make in November.
"The choice for the American people is clear; don't run in the face of danger, victory will be our exit strategy," Rep. Mike Conaway, R-Texas, said.
Countered Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa.: "It's not a matter of stay the course. It's a matter of change direction."
Some GOP incumbents who face tough challenges from Democrats in November issued qualified support for the measure while criticizing the GOP-led Congress.
"The American people are looking to us to answer their questions on how much progress is being made, what are the Iraqis themselves willing to do to fight for their freedom and when will our men and women come home," Rep. Jim Gerlach, R-Pa., said before voting in favor of the resolution.
The House vote comes one day after the Senate soundly rejected a call to withdraw combat troops by year's end by shelving a proposal that would allow "only forces that are critical to completing the mission of standing up Iraqi security forces" to remain in Iraq in 2007.
That vote was 93-6, but Democrats assailed the GOP maneuver that led to the vote as political gamesmanship and promised further debate next week on a proposal to start redeploying troops this year.
Congress erupted in debate on the Iraq war four months before midterm elections that will decide the control of both the House and Senate, and as President Bush was trying to rebuild waning public support for the conflict.
The only "waning support" I see is in Congress. I know plenty of people that want our troops to come home, yet they still support our efforts in Iraq. They get it. They understand that if we run right now--if we take the Democrat's position--it will be Saigon, 1975 all over again. We will watch the slaughter of innocent men, women, and children on the nightly news, and all because a group of cowards do not seem to have the intestinal fortitude to withstand what this nation is going through.
We cannot retreat in the face of this enemy. The Islamicists that are fighting us will only become further emboldened. They have struck London, Spain, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Indonesia, the United States, and almost pulled off an attack in Canada. Our enemy could care less about the place, but they are concerned about making sure their body count is high enough. They cannot achieve that act if we are killing them or capturing them. There will be no running, now. The House and the Senate have made that clear.
And the Democrats claim that this will be used against them in the upcoming election. Of course it will, as it should be. They are taking a side that is obviously not a majority opinion in the nation, and they are throwing a fit over the fact that the minority is not being listened to. That is a lie. We are listening to their side, and we disagree. And as this is a nation where majorities win votes, they have lost, and this debate should be over. But it will not be so. I am sure that Sen. Kerry or Rep. Murtha will come out swinging on the numb-from-the-brain-down talking heads shows this Sunday. Both will moan and wail that because we have passed the milestone mark of 2500 dead that we should pull out. The mission is too tough for our fighting men and women.
So, the two combat veterans leading the charge for retreat think out troops cannot handle the rigors of war? They have been trained to handle these conditions as best they can. These people are professionals. These people are not like Sen. Kerry (who re-filmed himself slugging througha jungle in Vietnam to bolster his image for political gain upon returning home) or Rep. Murtha (who has dishonored the Marines, and many Marines have rightly said this aloud). These are men and women who believe in the cause they are fighting for. They believe in the mission.
It is the Congressional Democrats that do not believe in this mission any longer. To them this has taken too long (Duh! When do wars take less than a day? When Clinton is nailing camel's in the butt) cost too many lives (we lost more in all the wars before this one EXCEPT for the first Gulf War in '91), and it has cost us too much money (military technology, weapons, munitions, etc., are not cheap; if they were they would be Soviet). I understand their gripes. They remind me of children whining in the back seat over how long a trip is taking.
The president told this nation the war would be long. Tht it might last longer than his administration. That we, as taxpayers, would be asked to bear the burden of this war. And that much of what would occur in the war would happen unannounced and unnoticed. We knew the score in 2001. We reelected President Bush in 2004, still knowing what he said, and what he meant. Our troops were still in harm's way then, and we still put him back in office. (Of course the same could be said of those in Congress, but I am sure many simply put the names they recognize back in office without considering what those people stand for.) But I cannot believe that to be true of the president.
What sort of a message is sent ot the nation when one party seems so dead-set against continuing the war we are in? What sort of message is sent to the troops when that party basically says, condescendingly, "Good job, but this war is taking longer than we thought, and we honestly do not think you can handle the pressure and rigors any longer"? What sort of message will be displayed to the world if we do "redeploy" As Sen. Kerry and Rep. Murtha had proposed?
For the redeployment, it shows the world that america's word is no longer he bond, and that when the going gets tough, we act like the "paper tiger" that bin Laden called us after Mogadishu. The message sent to the troops is one that reflects a lack of confidence for those people wearing the uniform, which does not translate well into morale for them; at worst it spits in the face of all those who have died thus far, making their ultimate sacrifice a vain effort. And the message to the nation? Well, the Democrats do not need Republicans beating them up this election season. They are doing a fine job of it already, and these two votes show it.
The Republicans do not have to do anything other than tend to their own house. The Democrats will shoot themselves in the foot before November comes around, and it will make the seventh consecutive defeat for them since 1994.
Marcie
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 10:27 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home