House votes for surrender [updated]
Democrats want to give up on April Fool's day. Isn't that rich.
By Jeff Emanuel Posted in Anti-war liberals | Congress — Comments (33) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Update: The Resolution passed, 223-201. Four Republicans voted for this pathetic monstrosity: Jones, Gilchrest, Emerson, and Duncan.
Update 2: I'm told that there was a crowd of "four or five" Code Pinkers along the road between the office buildings and the capitols begging the members to "vote for peace." The source tells me, "it was far from an impression display, more like an act of desperation." Nice.
[Note: A trusted source tells me that the House GOP will be even more united now than they were on the original 'surge' vote, when 17 Republicans broke ranks. The Democrats clearly overreached with their demand for an announced surrender beginning in four months and lasting for four months.
The prediction is that Republican defectors on this will be in the single digits.]
House Democrats, not satisfied to live up to their word (and with no spines to help them out), decided that a September report on the broad, new, effective strategy in Iraq - which they approved as part of the Iraq supplemental - just wasn't good enough, and once again submitted legislation mandating the beginning of a gradual, bloody surrender in Iraq beginning 120 days from now, and being complete - with the last American troops in Iraq dead or on their way home - on (get this) April Fool's Day.
Gordon Johndroe, spokesman for the National Security Council, had this to say about it:
Congress set out a logical structure in the Iraq supplemental legislation that mandates two reports, one on July 15th and the last one on September 15th. There is no reason now — just two months after the bill was debated, passed and signed into law — to change that schedule.
No reason, unless your financial backers (and main constituency) are MoveOn.org types. "If we don't do anything, these groups will feel like we haven't done anything," said House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer - acknowledging that "these groups" referred to "antiwar groups such as MoveOn.org" which are "pressur[ing]...members of his party."
This Resolution is ridiculous on its face, even by modern Democrat standards.
Read on.
The bill includes such clauses as:
The reduction of the number of Armed Forces in Iraq and transition to a limited presence of the Armed Forces in Iraq...shall be implemented in a safe and orderly manner, with maximum attention paid to protection of the Armed Forces that are being redeployed from Iraq.
(Emphasis added) Now, you don't have to be a former (or current) serviceman to see that and think about how the guys in the units who aren't lucky enough to be in the first wave of soldiers forced to abandon the field must feel. How would you feel, knowing that your country had surrendered, that your time - if you lived long enough amidst the escalating violence - would come sometime within the next four months to follow your fellow soldiers home, and knowing that "maximum attention" was being "paid to protection of" the guys who were getting to go home first, and not to you? That you were simply not lucky enough to go home first, and had an even higher chance of being killed while waiting on your turn to execute the surrended than you did while fighting the war in the first place?
Further, the bill lays out - in no uncertain terms - what the President's strategy in Iraq will be. (Yeah, the generals on the ground only have to be consulted by Bush, not by the Generalissima and her immortals on the left side of the House aisle).
I'll present that section without comment, save for this: Bush is required to withdraw the troops, beginning in December and ending on April Fool's day. However (if this passes), as he is withdrawing the troops and performing the military equivalent of facing away from our enemies and grabbing his knees, he is also required to submit to Congress a NEW new strategy for Iraq, to be carried out, one can only assume, during the surrender.
Unbelievable. Anyway, here it is:
1 SEC. 4. COMPREHENSIVE UNITED STATES STRATEGY FOR
2 IRAQ.
3 (a) STRATEGY REQUIRED.—Not later than January
4 1, 2008, the President shall transmit to the appropriate
5 congressional committees a comprehensive United States
6 strategy for Iraq.
7 (b) MATTERS TO BE INCLUDED.—The strategy re8
quired by subsection (a) shall include the following:
9 (1) A discussion of United States national secu10
rity interests in Iraq and the broader Middle East
11 region and the diplomatic, political, economic, and
12 military components of a comprehensive strategy to
13 maintain and advance such interests as the Armed
14 Forces are redeployed from Iraq pursuant to section
15 3 of this Act.
16 (2) A justification of the minimum force levels
17 required to protect United States national security
18 interests in Iraq after April 1, 2008, including a de
19 scription of the specific missions of the Armed
20 Forces to be undertaken. The justification shall in
21 clude—
22 (A) the projected number of Armed Forces
23 necessary to carry out the missions;
24 (B) the projected annual cost of the mis
25 sions; and
26 (C) the expected duration of the missions.1 (3) As part of the justification required by
2 paragraph (2), the President shall, at a minimum,
3 address whether it is necessary for the Armed
4 Forces to carry out the following missions:
5 (A) Protecting United States diplomatic
6 facilities and United States citizens, including
7 members of the Armed Forces who are engaged
8 in carrying out other missions.
9 (B) Serving in roles consistent with cus10
tomary diplomatic positions.
11 (C) Engaging in actions to disrupt and
12 eliminate al-Qaeda and its affiliated organiza13
tions in Iraq.
14 (D) Training and equipping members of
15 the Iraqi Security Forces.
16 (4) Specific plans for diplomatic initiatives to
17 engage United States allies and others in the region
18 to bring stability to Iraq.
19 (c) UPDATE OF STRATEGY.—Not later than July 1,
20 2008, and every 90 days thereafter, the President shall
21 transmit to the appropriate congressional committees an
22 update of the strategy required by subsection (a), includ23
ing a description of the number of Armed Forces deployed
24 to Iraq and the missions for which such Armed Forces
25 are so deployed.1 (d) FORM.—The strategy required by subsection (a)
2 and each update of the strategy required by subsection
3 (c) shall be transmitted in unclassified form, but may con4
tain a classified annex, if necessary.
Oh, one more thing - on the bolded section (emphasis added): Are you kidding me? (Paraphrasing) "Tell us how many troops, how much, and for how long, in advance of everything you do??
That's right, (A) the Democrats don't have to listen to the generals, and (B) somebody is working very, very hard to create him or herself a tailor-made opportunity to use the word "LIE" a whole lot more than they already do. And don't think that it won't be said the moment a single operation takes a day longer or a dollar more than the "projection." Jeez.
« Question and answer time: the Wes Clark thing. — Comments (50) | Political points at any cost (and I do mean ANY) — Comments (4) »
House votes for surrender [updated] 33 Comments (0 topical, 33 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Or, to rephrase the question, are there any Liebermann-like house dems left who will get at least one major aspect of policy right? The more united the dems are in their lunacy, the worse for the country....
Sheesh, what a bunch of idiots!
is the national Democratic Party. Daily treason, served with a straight face.
BTW, I do applaud the GOP house caucus. It's about a year too late, but they seem to have finally grown a pair of big brass ones.
It's war -- so when can we start shooting back at the enemy Democrats?
This is PATHETIC.
http://osi-speaks.blogspot.com/2007/07/september-15th-is-still-day-to-re...
With malice towards none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see right.
If anyone lives in TN 2nd district and would like to run against him, there are several people I know who would help out. We tried to beat him in the primary last year, but didn't have the money to inform folks about his surrender-now stance. Most people here think he's a great conservative, good ol' boy and never keep tabs on his record.
--
"He's tough. He's six feet five inches, a big mean fella."
- Baker on FDT, Nixon tapes, 1973
I live in the 2nd of Tennessee and must disagree with your post. Duncan has been against the Iraq war since the beginning. He voted against the inital authorization. All conservative organizations rate him highly. He tends toward the paleoconservative side so his opposition to the war is to be expected. You may disagree with his stance on the war but you are wrong to say he is not conservative. His voting record is why he won with 77.7% of the vote in 2006.
I said Duncan is a fool. People assume that his reputation as a conservative, good 'ol boy means he supports the war, but if they looked at his record they'd know better.
To believe that US interests are better served by having a tyrant in power in Baghdad is foolish. And the vast majority of people in the TN's 2nd district would agree with me. Unfortunately, they are not aware that their long time incumbent Congressman does not. Note that Duncan did not make any effort to advertise his voting record on the war, quite the opposite. He avoided the subject in interviews and got a free pass from the left-leaning local press. To my knowledge, he did not run a single ad touting his opposition to Iraq. So, in addition to being a fool, he's a coward, and TN's 2nd district would be better served by fresh blood.
--
"He's tough. He's six feet five inches, a big mean fella."
- Baker on FDT, Nixon tapes, 1973
I must apologize in advance to screenwriter/director Randall Wallace (Of Braveheart/We Were Soldiers fame) but I think there are a few lines from Braveheart that can be modified to fit this situation:
To the members of the U.S. House of Representatives who voted for this chickenshit excuse for legislation.
We won in Afghanistan and still you quibbled. We won in Iraq (initially) and still you would not support us. If you won't support us now then I say you are cowards. And if you call yourself Americans then I am ashamed to call myself one.
For my money you can send that to the entire Senate as well.
God help us.
Your points are good, that's all fine.
But you are new here, and so I'll gently remind what you should have known, since all new members are directed to the site rules: DO NOT USE LANGUAGE HERE, PAL.
I'm not an editor here, but I'm telling you, clean it up, or I will personally make your life on RedState suck.
It's war -- so when can we start shooting back at the enemy Democrats?
I have anger issues when it comes to this kind of thing. I will try to refrain in the future. A thousand pardons.
Especially considering the issue at hand, that drives sane and decent people to near-madness.
It's war -- so when can we start shooting back at the enemy Democrats?
And unfortunately there is a Missouri Republican involved in voting for it.
I have known of Emmerson for years - I dont get this.
The question is - where do we go from here?
in the Senate cloture vote. This particular bill is going no where. The bigger question is GWB going to "man-up" and go on the attack against the crapweasel Republicans and the Democrats. If he won't fight, and on a personal level with these jerks, then it's all over. It's just a matter of when, not a question of if.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
in both the House and the Senate have some form of date certain that forces, whether combat, support, or both, must begin withdrawing. It is obvious to all but those voting for any of these proposals that our enemies will just wait us out. Also, any chance that the Iraqi government will be able to take control of its own policing and military will be lost as they begin hunkering down for a civil war. That is why the President will never let any of these bills see the light of day, and will veto any and all of them if they make it to his desk.
The fiscal year ends in three more months and it's time to play the game for keeps. The Democrats will had him a funding bill for government operations with a date in it. Then, we'll see what happens. All we're doing now is the kabuki dance.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
that there is a Republican Senator (sorry, name unknown), who has stated that the Congress is acting unconstitutionally in presenting these bills on the grounds that it is the President's duty, not that of the Congress, to manage this war as he deems appropriate. It Congress wants to defund it, then they should do so and stop interferring with operations. He has stated that if these bills are not withdrawn, then he would begin making life miserable for the Senate Dems by objecting to unanimous consent on every other bill that comes up. If someone knows who this Senator is I would appreciate hearing so.
Can you imagine the Congress sending up bills like these after our casualties on Guadalcanal early in WWII, or later, after our casualties in France on D-Day or those at Iwo Jima? I think not. Then, we were in it to win. Today, these guys are asking us to lose.
She has always been amongst the more liberal Republicans. Her late husband used to have the seat she sits in. I don't know if this has anything to do with her political stances, but her new husband is a big time lib and big Democrat contributor.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
Why is anyone shocked by this bill and this vote?
It's exactly what the Democrats ran on in November, and it's what those who have bought and paid for elected Democrats want. After all, the President made the war in Iraq and his Presidency the main focus of the election, this is what you get.
The President is offering up what as an alternative position? The war is winnable because I say so?
_______________________________
None of the Above !
personally takes on individual Senators. Until then, he's just speechafying. Good speeches, but more or less meaningless drivel.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Erosion of Antiwar Votes Noted
You are right. Comparing the February vote against the surge to today's vote, I get an erosion of 21 votes from the "antiwar" position.
Vote Opposing the Surge, February 16, 2007
Disapproving of the decision of the President announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq
DEFECTORS:
Dems Opposed = 02 (i.e support the war votes)
Reps In Favor = 17 (i.e. antiwar votes)
Today's Vote
Dems Opposed = 10; an increase of 8 in support the war votes
Reps In Favor = 4; an decrease of 13 in antiwar votes
In summary, it appears that the antiwar votes in the House have DECREASED by 21 votes.
Of course the measures were not identical, but they both boiled down pretty much to a yes/no vote on support for the President's policy on the war.
We have been bombarded all week by the media declaring an "implosion" of Republican support for the war. Obviously that is not evident in the House vote. In fact they might have more accurately explored what appears to be a reduction in Democratic votes against the war in this case.
Here's the link to the February roll call
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll099.xml
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
This was a royal pain to figure out from the House roll call vote on #99 vs #624
246 yea on 99
+ 2 NV -> Y
+ 1 N -> Y
- 3 Y -> NV
- 2 Y -> ? (absent?)
- 21 Y -> N
= 223 yea on 624
182 nay on 99
- 4 N -> NV
- 1 N -> Y
+ 3 NV -> N
+ 21 Y -> N
= 201 nay on 624
Changing nay to yea (1)
1 R Emerson (!)
Changing yea to nay (21)
8 D Barrow, Boren, Carney, Ellsworth, Holden, Kucinich (!), Matheson, Snyder
13 R Castle, Coble, Tom Davis, English (PA), Inglis (SC), Johnson (IL), Keller, Kirk, LaTourette, Petri, Ramstad, Upton, Walsh (NY)
Changing NV to yea (2)
2 D Baird, Nadler
Changing yea to NV (3)
2 D Berkley, Conyers
1 R Paul
Changing NV to nay (3)
3 R Boustany, Hastert, LoBiondo
Changing nay to NV (4)
4 R Cubin, Jindal, Tancredo, Young (AK)
Changing yea to ? (2)
2 D Meehan, Millender-McDonald
Even the vast majority of Americans want the war to end. Yet, 23% believe in President Bush.
Who in the world are these "23% people"?
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
understand how tic-tac-toe and chess are both simular and different. The remaining part of the general population consists of those who cannot understand how tic-tac-toe and chess can be both simular and different. I know that this comment is heavily influenced by Mutashi's book and Zen thought but, WTH, a Zen problem is good for the mind.
is playing this vote as Repub's turning against the President and yet only 4 defected and 10 Dem's voted with the Repub's which is truly a defection from the left. Same old story different day in the MSM world of spin.
By the Dems own admission, they concede these votes aren't going to do anything. They just want to keep voting and voting over and over to appease their far left fringe kook base. This is no different than what was passed a few months ago before they caved and gave Bush the money. Passing something like this in the House means absolutely nothing.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
It's obvious that the democrats have been playing politics with the war from the beginning (even their votes to authorize were meerly a calculated stance politically).
It appears to me we are in a high stakes poker game politically. The democrats have a full house (pun intended) and we have an inside straight flush draw. Things don't look real rosy right now, but if we hang in and get our last card we can take it all. They just bet the farm, all their chips are in the pot.
I love the kook fringe. 1) Their a laugh a minute. 2) They do stuff I haven't even done intoxicated (and that's saying something.) 3) They make me look smart (no matter how idiotic I sound, I can't top them). 4) They just made the Dems sign their names on legislation demanding defeat in the war. They've worked real hard to bluster without actually pulling the plug in Iraq. Now they've signed on the dotted line.
IF the president hangs tight, AND we prevail in Iraq, they'll have a tough time claiming they supported it all along. It's one thing to grab old sound bites from before the war and say "look we supported the president" it's quite another to have your name on a piece of legislation demanding withdrawal.
I'm a gambler and I refuse to lose. So give me one card, I'm all in.
"The only way to negotiate with your enemy, is with your knee on his chest and your knife at his throat." - Anon.
Just keep repeating that to everyone you know.
It will sink in.
They will pay a huge price for trying to weaken our great country.
I would like to know where the congress gets the authority to mandate what the CiC can do with respect to conducting a war? He is not responsible to report to the congress with perhaps the State of the Union Address. They have no authority to write legislation as noted here in the post.
get me banned and arrested.
Thanks for the update Jeff, you're a much more mature man than I.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.