Six House Republicans voted against Iraq Resolution: Here Are The Names

[Recovering_Democrat]

REPUBLICANS
who chose to not support their President:

1. John J. Duncan (Tennessee, 2nd District)
http://www.house.gov/duncan/

2. John Hostettler (Indiana, 8th)
http://www.house.gov/hostettler/

3. Amo Houghton (New York, 31st District)
http://www.house.gov/hostettler/

4. Jim Leach (Iowa, 1st)
http://www.house.gov/leach/

5. Connie Morella (Maryland, 8th)
http://www.house.gov/morella/

6. Ron Paul (Texas, 14th)
http://www.house.gov/paul/

[EternalVigilance]

...it's practically Idaho.

That one brought a smile to my face!

Could be one of the best compliments the great State of Idaho has ever received. ;-)

Last I knew, more than 85% of elected officials in Idaho were Republican.

[Recovering_Democrat]

Bull feathers. Our National Security is of paramount importance to this survival as a nation. I for one do not want to see another September 11, 2001. Even if we cannot guarantee the pre-emption of another terrorist attack, the United States as the sole SuperPower on the planet has a duty to her citizens (and indeed the citizens of all Freedom Loving nations) to ensure the elimination of all threats.

The argument that Saddam is not a threat isn't even accepted by the mainline liberals--he is dangerous and to a degree not seen in perhaps a generation or two. I happen to believe there is an "axis of Evil", and it must be defeated. Our implementation of "regime change" upon this terror state of Iraq will be a signal to others: create or contemplate a threat to our innocent civilians, and you will pay the price. Big Time.

Notice I didn't use the legit arguments about non-compliance of U.N. Resolutions. Of course that adds weight to the position that Iraq must face the music. But that is icing on the cake, imo. Saddam seeks weapons to use them, and there is not a doubt in my mind that he would use them on Americans if he could get away with. The sooner he's taking a dirt nap, the better.

[winin2000]

Morella, Leach, and Houghton are notorious liberal GOPers; no surprise. Paul is a hardline paleocon isolationist; again, no surprise.

But Duncan and Hostettler, two rock-ribbed conservatives, I don't get. Anybody know anything?

[Lloyd227]

Not flaming or blindly following,just happen to agree with the President on this issue. Thats ok,isn't it?

That's very ok. Is it also ok to disagree with sound reasons? or is that automatically an act of treason or cowardice?

"Should we wait until Hussein gets stronger so that the fight will be more 'fair'?"

How about we go after the real villains? or better, how about we go after the real villains and ALL the villains?

If we don't go after Saudi Arabia where the money and most of the highjackers originated from, we're not really going after the government that supported an attack on the US.

For all of his bad things he's done, Saddam is small fry and there is something not quite right about this fever pitch for a war with Iraq.

[Nam68]

The reason for Jesse Jerkson nickname is because I believe Pres. Bush is a big time liberal. As for our pilots being shot at, I'd prefer that either Congress declares war or we quit violating Iraqi airspace.

[Nam68]

watch your name calling jerkoff. where did I align myself with Hussein?? so go crawl back into your hole.

[leilani]

"GOVERNMENT DOLE?" Who pays for the friggin' dole? Aargghh!!! This is THEIR money. Which they are losing to other states because the have ineffectual representation in congress.That's my point. It's THEIR hard-earned money which they have a right to reap the benefits of except they've got a head-in-the-clouds-rep who pretty much guarantees that their bucks go up to New Jersey instead of their own hard-up community.

[Chi-townChief]

I just found out Lipinski voted against us - does that ever suck!!

[sinkspur]

As for our pilots being shot at, I'd prefer that either Congress declares war or we quit violating Iraqi airspace.

Congress just declared war; you just don't realize it.

Iraq agreed to the overflights and to the no-fly zones as a result of the Gulf War coalition putting Hussein back in his box in 1991.

IMO, violation of the no-fly zones is reason enough for the US and Britain to bomb the hell out of Iraq.

[arjay]

Nonsense!

[Nam68]

I realize that I went public school, but I thought Congress just squirmed their way of declaring war but passing a resolution giving the President to declare war - if and when he chooses. I could be wrong, but I don't think a resolution is what our Founders had in mind.

[John W]

Yes,quite ok to disagree,even with unsound reasons,and thats not treason or cowardice.I believe the House of Saud will appear on our dance card soon,one way or the other and thats why many of those in their hip pocket-imho-oppose us going to the region at all.

My opinion is there is something just a wee bit suspect about the opposition to taking on Iraq,much as you believe the opposite.I feel safer with the direction we're heading.

[vbmoneyspender]

I'll repeat it again -- you are a creep for suggesting that it is okay for Hussein to be shooting at our pilots. Does that make it clear enough for you pal?

[John W]

The Declaration of War fetish is bs.That is,as sinkspur said,essentially what is being done today.You're arguing over semantics in an effort to disguise your pro-Hussein,anti-America position.

[Nam68]

yikes, sorry for the typo. should read "squirmed their way out of declaring war BY passing a resolution giving the President the power to declare war - if and when he chooses." sorry

[sinkspur]

I could be wrong, but I don't think a resolution is what our Founders had in mind.

You are wrong. The Constitution said Congress has the authority to declare war; it doesn't say how they are to do it.

[Manish Boy]

Which is exactly why they should be able keep THEIR money to begin with, instead of having an escalation battle in Congress as to who can spend the most in their own districts. That in the end leads to more money being sucked into Washington, and trickling back what's left after the bureacracy eats its huge share.

Like I said, I won't speak to this guy's competency. I just don't like the gamesmanship to fight for my tax dollars. I'd rather keep them at home in the first place.

This is all really off topic. Of course, I started it :)

[Nam68]

I didn't say it was okay for Saddam to do anything. I'm suggesting that we shouldn't be suprised that Saddam is ordering his troops to shoot at our pilots.

[Gunslingr3]

Ron Paul would scream like a banshee if we got hit again, contending that the President "hadn't done enough to protect Americans."

On the contrary, our current war is the result of trying to do too much. We've allowed our politicians to send our money and the troops sworn to defend the Constitution to the Middle East to defend the dictatorships that 'we' currently like against the dictatorships that 'we' currently don't like.

What has America reaped for what our politicians assure us is a benevolent effort to bring 'stability' to the Middle East? We've been attacked! How many times did the Islamic radicals attack us before we posted troops in their countries and purchased 'peace' (and Arab emnity) between Israel and Egypt at the price of providing them both taxpayer funded military equipment?

We jumped in their backyard, and now that they've punched us in the nose for it we're going to go in their house and shoot them?

Ron Paul stands alongside George Washington in realizing it is not in the interest of the American citizens liberties and security to trod the world in search of wars in which to take side.

You Libertarians are proving irrelevant in the war on terrorism. You are nothing if not consistent in blaming America for the scourge of terrorism

We face a choice. Maintain our global military empire, and accept that the cost of this is terrorism and constant war. Or we can bring our troops home and reassure the world that America defends her own. Not the Kuwaiti King, or the Saudi princes.

We Americans have no dog in this fight.

They are fighting us because we are there, so why are we there?

All you need is a powdered wig and some buckled shoes, and you can play George Washington while the rest of America does what is necessary to protect the country.

Protect the country? You contend a policy of injecting the United States into the globes pissant wars protects Americans from war? Explain to me why we have American troops in the Middle East and not other pissant wars? What's the particular advantage to the American citizen, taxpayer, and soldier in this policy of building military bases across the globe and starting wars.

[mrb1960]

I just sent an email to John Hostettler . I will encourage anyone I know in his district NOT to vote for him ever again.