Xavius

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02...q.ap/index.html

House passes resolution rebuking the president on Iraq
POSTED: 5:10 p.m. EST, February 16, 2007

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Democratic-controlled House issued a symbolic rejection of President Bush's decision 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.

"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," Pelosi vowed after leading the House in a moment of silence as a sign of respect for those who are fighting and their families.

Citing recent comments by Democrats, 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 president was too busy to watch the proceedings on television.

After a secure videoconference with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, Bush said the Iraqis reported 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.

"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," he said.

More than 390 of 434 lawmakers spoke during four days of a dignified debate -- an unusual amount of time devoted to what Republicans and Democrats alike said was the most significant issue confronting the country.

Supporters of the nonbinding resolution included 229 Democrats and 17 Republicans -- fewer GOP defections than Democrats had hoped to get and the White House and its allies had feared. Two Democrats joined 180 Republicans in opposition.
Senate to vote Saturday

Moving quickly, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, set a test vote for Saturday on an identical measure, and several presidential contenders in both parties rearranged their weekend campaign schedules to be present. (Watch a change of course in the Senate Video)

Republican senators said in advance they would deny Democrats the 60 votes needed 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. (Full story)

Even so there were signs of Republican restlessness on the issue. Only two members of the GOP rank and file sided with Democrats on an earlier procedural vote; the total figured to be higher this time.

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 plan has risen in the past few weeks from 26 percent to 35 percent, according to the AP-Ipsos poll.

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.

White House focuses on war funding

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. (Watch Bush talk about funding the war Video)

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-Pennsylvania, said recently.

Republicans pointed to Murtha's 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.

______________

I don't think McCain voted on this one. I wonder why?

__________________

AxeUnleashed

So basically, Bush is their bitch.

YES!

SilvaHalo

hardly

Crusader

I have a hard time buying the argument that withdrawing US forces from Iraq will encourage the Iraqi government to get its act together. It seems more likely to me that a withdrawal will isolate the Iraqi government and encourage sectarian fighting. It is true that the Sunni/Shia feud has lasted for centuries, and some even describe what is happening in Iraq as a civil war. However, the Shiites vastly outnumber the Sunnis; to the best of my knowledge, the Sunnis are responsible for most of the terrorist activity in Iraq, but what exactly do you think is keeping the Shiites from responding in greater numbers?

In short, I think our military presence in Iraq is what is keeping the country together and preventing a larger war from breaking out.

Probably because McCain is a Senator. So far only the House has voted.

Xavius

Sorry about that, I heard he wasn't going to vote in the next step.

__________________

Brian10488

didn't see this coming...

lol

__________________

Crusader

I heard a similar thing, which was why I was puzzled by your comment.

I also read that the Democrats don't have enough votes to gain cloture on the resolution. That means Sunday's headline will be "Republicans Block Vote on Iraq Resolution" (or something like that). I don't think that will matter much, though. The Republicans' fate is bound up with Iraq. Only success on the ground can save them.

Advance

No, it's just pandering to say what the people want to hear without actually doing anything about it.

All this is is a powerful reminder that Congress has no power to do anything meaningful. The Framers are rolling in their graves.

__________________

What would you do if you were stuck in one place and every day was exactly the same, and nothing that you did mattered?

Caster13

I discovered Filibuster Cartoons a while ago and enjoy it quite a bit.

__________________
"I have captured the enemy for meat testing! Praise me! PRAISE ME!!!" -GIR
Wi-Fi ID: 1627 8934 4983 8539

AxeUnleashed

NOTHING you just said was right, at all, and you just went and said it like it's fact, take a seat dumbass.

There was no Sunni/Shiite feud until just now. There has been tension, but this sectarian warfare is taking place because of the instability America has caused in Iraq. More people have died since '03 than Saddam ever killed during his regime. And no, the Shiites don't "vastly outnumber" Sunnis at all, it's about 60% : 37% now (according to wiki).

The war between the sects is (mostly) taking place because America gave the Shiites all the governmental power and now they are taking revenge for what Saddam did to them. It's quite ironic actually, and the US has done nothing to really stop it, they just police some Shiite areas of Iraq (which only helps the image that Sunnis are aggressive). Weather or not it was intentional America has, after fighting a war and killing thousands, propelled Iraq into another war over power and land which may only end when the Middle-East has a common goal to unite with.

Crusader

I think you need to calm down Kyuubi. I haven't insulted you, and I don't think it's asking too much to ask that you show the same civility. Thanks.

Well the Shiites and the Sunnis haven't exactly had a great relationship in history. I was simply referring to that history. Take for example Saddam's Iraq. He was a Sunni Arab, and he favored them over the majority.

That's true. Before there was no sectarian warfare. Instead there was repression and brutality on the part of Saddam's regime. Stability carries a high price it seems.

I presume you are referring to the study that claimed that 655,000 Iraqis had died since the war began. Before debunking that claim, I'd like to note that American forces are not responsible for most civilian casualties in Iraq: the insurgency is.

I suggest you read this article on that study, by the way.

I was referring to Sunni Arabs, who make up about 15% of the population (source). The Kurds in Iraq are also Sunni. I apologize for the confusion.

Well, we didn't give them the power exactly. The Shiites, as the majority, naturally gained the majority in the new government (thats how democracy works). But you are right, though, that Shiite groups, like the Madhi Army, are taking revenge on the Sunnis because of Saddam.

You are correct that the US has not done enough to stop the Shiites from going after the Sunnis, and the Iraqi government for some time protected Shiite militias (like Sadr's). However, that policy has changed. Also, you have not provided any evidence to rebut my claim that the Sunnis are responsible for most of the terrorist activity in Iraq. You have also not offered any evidence to refute my central claim that the US military is holding Iraq together.

None of your arguments so far have been enough to prove that the US should leave. At most you have provided some evidence for changes in the general policy, but not a dramatic change of the central policy (namely the presence of the US in Iraq).

AxeUnleashed

Saddam is a secularist, he can hardly be called Sunni, that's just the name he chose to give himself.

First of all, I was talking about all deaths in Iraq, after America did it's business, people are dying a lot more than they used to. End of story there. Second, do you even know what the insurgency is? Who the hell leads them and why?

And I'm not even going to click that link, it's a "opinionjournal" no offense, but I'll take the study over that.


But there is no representation at all, this is a problem.


And when did I ever say I wanted the US out? They started this problem, any "terrorism" from either sect can have it's roots traced to this war, America better not pull out, but I don't think more troops will help either.

And my evidence for the Sunni issue is that, as you agreed, US troops tend to police only the Shiite neighborhoods, this means that when a side attacks America will help the Shiites out and this will in turn make the Sunnis seem like terrorists to you, who can only see the world from your one sided point of view.

Crusader

However, he favored the Sunni Arabs, did he not?

That is arguable. And America is not responsible for all the deaths following the toppling of Saddam's regime; those who are resisting the new Iraqi government have their own free will after all.

The insurgency is not monolithic. It consists primarily of former Baathists, foreign fighters, fundamentalist terror groups (like Al Qaeda), and anti-government militias. The insurgency has no leadership since it is not monolithic. Sunni groups are the primary

Oh, why not? The "opinionjournal" is the online editorial section of the Wall Street Journal, a well respected newspaper. What's the pain in reading it?

The Sunni Arabs do have representation, however, they and the Kurds simply do not have the numbers in the Iraqi parliament to overcome the Shiites.

Ah, well, you see I was arguing in favor of keeping American troops there, so I simply assumed that you were opposed to that since you were so strong in your opposition to my argument. It seems that you are arguing that America has a moral responsibility to stay- and I agree. However, surely America has done some good by starting this war. After all, Saddam led a terrible regime. And also, the American military is stretched thin on the ground in Iraq; to fight the insurgents they need more troops.

Hmm. I have indeed read many reports and stories about the Shiites basically using the Americans to battle the Sunnis for them; and I understand the Sunni militias exist to protect the Sunni population from their perceived destroyers. That is why our recent changes in policy are important-- the protection on Al-Sadr has been lifted, and we are going through Shiite as well as Sunni neighborhoods in our sweep through Baghdad.

We need to win the trust of the Sunnis and restrain the Shiites.

Drunken Savior

Democrats can be so cute sometimes...

__________________
"Because most people think, "Life sucks, and then you die." I disagree. I think life sucks, then you get cancer. Then you go into chemotherapy. You lose all your hair, you feel bad about yourself. Then all of the sudden the cancer goes into remission. You look good you feel good, you're going great, and all of the sudden you have a stroke. You can't move your right side. And one day you step off the curb at 68th by Lincoln Center and bang, you get hit by a bus. And then, maybe, you die."