Posted on 06/16/2006 1:08:16 PM PDT by FreedomNeocon
WASHINGTON (AP) - The House on Friday rejected a timetable for pulling U.S. forces out of Iraq after a ferociously partisan debate, forcing lawmakers in both parties to go on record on a major issue in re-election campaigns nationwide.
A day after the Senate took the same position against troop withdrawal, the GOP-led House voted 256-153 to approve a nonbinding resolution that says an "arbitrary date for the withdrawal or redeployment" of American forces is not in the national interest.
"Achieving victory is our only option," declared House Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, casting Democrats as defeatists who want to retreat in the face of terrorist threats. "We must not shy away."
"'Stay the course' is not a strategy, it's a slogan," answered House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi as she called for a new direction in a war she labeled "a grotesque mistake."
"It's time to face the facts," Pelosi said.
Angling for political advantage, House Republicans engineered the debate and vote, four and one-half months before midterm elections that will decide who runs Congress - and as polls show voters favoring Democrats to replace Republicans as the controlling party.
Those same polls show the public increasingly frustrated with the war as the death toll and price tag continue to rise. Voters could hold it against incumbent candidates, regardless of political party, come November.
Republicans across Capitol Hill are sensitive to those political realities.
GOP leaders in both the House and Senate sought to put lawmakers of both parties, and particularly Democrats, on record on the conflict, and looked to draw attention to deep Democratic divisions on the war.
Senate Republicans succeeded in doing that Thursday. In a maneuver Democrats assailed as a political stunt, GOP leaders brought up legislation calling for withdrawing combat troops by year's end and quickly dismissed it on a 93-6 vote. Six Democrats were in the minority.
It was the House Republicans' turn a day later.
They scheduled a vote on their symbolic resolution that also praises U.S. troops and labels the Iraq war part of the larger global fight against terrorism.
Democrats denounced the GOP-orchestrated 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.
Still, 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.
Balking carried a risk for Democrats, particularly when they see an opportunity to win back control of Congress from the GOP, because Republicans were expected to use Democratic "no" votes to claim that their opponents don't support U.S. troops.
Sure enough, within two hours of the House vote, the Republican Senate campaign committee circulated news releases that said Rep. Harold Ford Jr., a Democrat running for an open Senate seat in Tennessee, and Rep. Sherrod Brown, a Democrat challenging Sen. Mike DeWine in Ohio, voted to "cut and run" from Iraq.
Lawmakers were mindful of the political implications of the votes throughout the debate that ran more than 12 hours over two days.
In floor speeches, several GOP incumbents who face tough challenges from Democrats in November tried to strike a balance. They carefully criticized the resolution that their leaders had written, calling it weak and incomplete, but then reluctantly voted in favor of it.
"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.
Rep. Vic Snyder, D-Ark., agreed, saying: "We should be having a debate and a discussion on how we will prevail, not just that we want to prevail."
Republicans and Democrats alike explained the decision, as each side saw it, that confronts voters.
"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."
P.S. No this isn't a double post, the one already posted is a much abbreviated (earlier?) version... this is the current offering @ Drudge
Hmmmmm..... I was certain while reading it that this was a press release straight from the Demagogic National Committee, courtesy of Howie Dean. Then I looked back at the top and saw it was put out by the AP....... and I knew that I had been right, it is a press release straight from the DNC.........
Anybody know where I can go to see how my Representative voted?
Hey, did you realize you posted this on the FR "News" forum? I think we might need a new forum - a "MSM Propaganda" forum. It's pretty obvious, as you point out.
I think this is it...
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll288.xml
Let 'em continue their idiocy, FreedomNeocon. We'll be the ones LAUGHING OUR @RSES OFF in NOVEMBER! :)
My same comment applies as last time:
This resolution and Bush’s commitment to Iraq are timely, because the United States has a well-deserved reputation for abandoning countries at strategic moments or in desperate plight. During the Cold War a few examples would be crises in Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Vietnam, Cambodia, Guatemala, Cuba, and Lebanon. More recently consider our apathy towards Somalia, Rwanda, Uganda, and Sudan. The Muslims of the Salafi/Wahhabi heresy remember our failure to defend the sovereignty of our Iranian embassy, and subsequent lethargic responses to 15 major terrorist attacks under four presidents. They understand our affection for debating foreign policy models, until we escape commitment within elegant meanings for necessity, proportional response, multi-lateralism, and exit strategy. The self-congratulatory righteousness achieved is accurately perceived by those relying on us as turning a blind eye, agonizing over their losses from afar, or cutting and running.
We cannot use the words timeline, deadline, or exit strategy when those are code words for the type of actions mentioned above, and those words define us as a dysfunctional ally. The plan for withdrawal must be keyed to a pragmatic evaluation of events. All statements must emphasize that when Iraqi and U.S. governments agree certain conditions exist the disengagement proceeds to the next step. Only in this way can the Salafi/Wahhabi jihadists understand we intend to persevere in this generational conflict against them.
Central Command published a letter from Zawahiri in October 2005 saying clearly that Iraq was the central front for the Global War on Terror. See "What the Terrorists Are Saying". They should have the text in their archives, or it has been posted to Free Republic.
My Congressman, Boyd -D, 2nd District of Florida, voted "PRESENT", I've already sent him a letter telling him I intend to do what I can to see that he is not PRESENT for the next term.
Thanks. My Democratic Rep, Lipinski, voted for the resolution.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.