House Passes Resolution Opposing Bush's Plan to Send More Troops to Iraq

WASHINGTON —

House Democrats on Friday sent President Bush the clearest message to date on his Iraq policy by passing a resolution that opposes a plan to send an additional 21,500 troops to the war-ravaged country.

“Today, in a loud voice, the Congress of the United States said to the president: 'We need a new direction in Iraq,'” said House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., after the 246-182 vote.

The vote wrapped up a four-day marathon debate leading up to the vote. The Senate is expected to take up the same debate for a test vote on Saturday. The resolution vote, however, won't formally alter Bush's policy in Iraq or stop the surge of troops into Baghdad.

"The bipartisan resolution today may be nonbinding, but it will send a strong message to the president: We here in Congress are committed and supporting our troops,” said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California on the House floor. “The passage of this legislation will signal change in direction in Iraq that will end the fighting and bring our troops home safely and soon.” ** Translation - Beginning the process of Cutting and running **

Bush pitched his plan last month to send an additional U.S. forces into Iraq to quell sectarian violence there, igniting opposition from Democratic leaders and some Republicans. But even some members of his own party oppose the plan.

The White House said the Iraqi government and the U.S. military leadership support Bush's plan.

"The president concluded that this new strategy was necessary in order to help the Iraqi government gain control over Baghdad, assume more responsibility for security, and pursue reconciliation of all of Iraq's communities," White House spokesman Tony Snow said in a statement.

Snow urged Congress to pass the supplemental defense appropriations bill.

"The president believes that the Congress should provide the full funding and flexibility our Armed Forces need to succeed in their mission to protect our country," Snow said.

Seventeen Republicans voted in support of the resolution while two Democrats voted against it.

"What we now have in Iraq is a defeat. We cannot achieve the illusions of the Bush administration that we will be able to create a stable unified liberal democracy in Iraq that is pro-American," said Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif. "Instead, we have sectarian fighting, death squads and a disabled Middle East that threatens to be engulfed by the nightmare that we have unleashed."

Republicans warn the vote will embolden terrorists and insurgents, and send the wrong message to the troops on the ground, while Democrats argue that the troop surge will risk more American lives.

Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., asked fellow lawmakers to vote against the resolution, calling it "misguided and dangerous."

"You cannot support the troops if you are undermining their mission and challenging their commander in the field,” King said on the House floor. “By opposing this new policy, the supporters of the resolution are clearly undermining our new commander in Iraq at such a vital time at the conduct of this war.”

Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., who chairs the House panel that oversees military spending, said he plans to introduce legislation that would end Bush's plan by setting limits on which troops can be sent and would prevent them from being sent back too soon or too poorly equipped. Troops going overseas for another tour would have to stay in the United States at least one year before being redeployed.

Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., told FOX News that Democratic attempts to cut off funding would put the nation at risk.

"It's going to make us more vulnerable. Democrats cannot walk away from this threat," Hoekstra said. "They cannot cut off funding on a larger scale because it will make us more vulnerable but I think that's exactly what they are doing. They are going to slowly squeeze this funding and limit the president's options."

Bush said Thursday he hopes Congress supports the troops.

"We have a responsibility. Republicans and Democrats have a responsibility to give our troops the resources they need to do their job and the flexibility they need to prevail," Bush said.

On Thursday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada announced that he would keep the Senate in session this weekend to force debate on the House-drafted resolution.

The decision means a delay in the scheduled President's Day recess, and will force Republicans to confront a "yes" or "no" vote on the president's new Iraq security strategy.

"It's a vote on whether or not Republicans support the surge," Reid said.

Reid said the Senate will consider the House resolution and no other alternatives dealing with Iraq. Reid has even given up on a resolution by Sens. John Warner, R-Va., and Carl Levin, D-Mich., that he championed two weeks ago. At that time, Republicans tied the Senate in procedural knots demanding debate and votes on a separate measure prohibiting Congress from cutting off funds for ongoing military operations in Iraq.

FOX News' Major Garrett and Jim Mills, and the Associated Press contributed to this report.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,252382,00.html


To see how your representative in the House voted:

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll099.xml

Did you add that part in the red?

just a quick ??

why do you think that its a good idea that we stay in iraq??

Yes, that was my editorializing. I should have made that clear.

Well, I don't want our troops to remain in the country one second more than they have to. In my opinion, we need to stay in Iraq because if we left the whole country could fall apart, and that would be disasterous - in terms of our own National Security and in terms of the humanitarian crisis that would ensue.

is there a reason you put our own National Security before the humanitarian crisis?

The order wasn't intentional. Then again, I don't think the Democrats are considering the ramifications of a US withdrawal...do you?

Well, here's some news about the "surge" that all of the Democrats and a handful of moronic Republicans voted to denounce....


Iraq PM tells Bush of 'dazzling successes' in Baghdad

Iraq's Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has told US President George W. Bush by videolink that the first few days of their countries' joint security plan in Baghdad had been a great success.

"He told President Bush that the security plan had seen dazzling success during its first days and that the government will deal with every outlaw in a firm manner whatever group they belong to," according to his office on Friday.

Some Sunni Iraqis fear their Shiite prime minister might use the security plan as a cover to advance his own group's interests, but Maliki denies this, and cited the example of aid he said he was giving Sunnis in western Iraq.

"He said the sheikhs of the tribes in Anbar Province play a very important role in the hunt for Al-Qaeda and that the government will supply all kinds of support to these tribes and start reconstruction efforts," his office said.

According to Maliki's statement, Bush thanked him for showing leadership, and promised the United States would continue to support his efforts.

Bush has come under fire at home for vowing to send an extra 21,500 troops to join the 132,000-strong US force in Iraq in order to support Maliki's moves to pacify the capital, which is in the grip of a sectarian war.

The US House of Representatives was expected to vote later Friday to express their disapproval of the plan, which has already seen thousands of US and Iraqi troops deployed around Baghdad without encountering much resistance.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070216/wl ... 0216155856

My question is this. If people choose to kill each other, just like two men getting in a shootout because they hate each other, but on a larger scale, can that really be called a humanitarian crisis? I mean, I am not denying the possibility of civilian casualties, but it sounds like what will happen in Iraq when we leave (be it now or in 10 years, god forbid) is a civil war, which is not the same as a humanitarian crisis.

There is no dictator oppressing people, no military regime enforcing order with weapons, no drug lord bandit gangs going around knocking people off. Basically these people have no fucking excuse except that they are savage mindless zealots, if you can call that an excuse. It's simply a bunch of fanatic homicidal lunatics killing each other. Noone is making them, and they could just as easily stop doing it as continue.

Oh well. Noone is going to convince me to feel sorry for these people, except for the women and children who are not involved but get hurt anyway.

is it not disastrous now??

how does a bunch of arabs running around in iraq bombing each other get in the way of our security here in the usa?

i see the humanitarian angle, but us being there aint really workin, so maybe its for the better for everyone if we just get out and let them step it up and deal with their own problems on their own..which is probably the way they want it to be anyway

i'm not going to say whether it is or isn't working, but you should take anything this guy says with a grain of salt. he's deathly afraid of us pulling out. he knows he's fucked. he needs our complete support. you can't believe anything these guys say, they obviously have a motive behind it. remember chalabi and all of the iraqi resistance telling us that everything would be so wonderful after invasion?

the repubs should have shawn kemp run for pres

you know he aint pullin out

Rep. Young (R-AK) Uses Fabricated Lincoln Quote on House Floor
By: SilentPatriot on Friday, February 16th, 2007 at 4:06 PM - PST Submit or Digg this Post

As we've noted on two occasions this week, there has been a fabricated and widely-discredited quote attributed to Abraham Lincoln floating around among the pro-war (anti-liberty) conservatives. Well, now it's part of the official Congressional record. In his opposition speech on the House floor Wednesday, Alaska's lone Congressman, Rep. Don Young, opened his remarks with a fake quote that could not be more historically inaccurate.

As Greenwald reminded Frank Gaffney on Colmes' radio show last night (.mp3), Abraham Lincoln spoke out fiercely against President Polk during the Mexican-America War, saying "show me the spot [where American blood was spilled]" because he believed the war was based on false pretenses. In other words, Abraham Lincoln acted in the exact opposite way as the right-wing historical revisionists are saying he did. Furthermore, although he was elected as a Republican, Lincoln was a staunch Whig who believed in the supremacy of Congress over the Executive. Polar opposite of the situation we see today.

(Nicole: Ironically, the quote in question came not from Lincoln, but from the Moonie Times, who has since issued a retraction. Atrios figures as long as Young refuses to retract his fabricated quote, he'll cite some other fabricated quotes attributed to Young.)

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/02/1 ... use-floor/

and the bullshit quote in question:

IT DOESN'T MEAN ANYTHING.

it's complete crap. nonbinding legislation is nothing. the democrats have no spine.