12 Republicans Break Ranks on Iraq Resolution [Know who and where they are.]

New York Times ^ | 15FEB07 | JEFF ZELENY

[HitmanLV]

I understand, and also agree with you. The thing is that I really feel that an unpopular war just can't be waged for long. The public has lost confidence in this battle and the leadership.

Ultimately, it's incumbent on our side to convince people we are right and lead accordingly. When a majority thinks we are wrong, it's a dangerous endeavor to continue ahead as if they think we are right.

I'm speaking mostly as a practical matter, which tends to be what I care most about. If we lose the debate, we shouldn't spite the electorate. That hampers our ability to lead on a variety of other issues, as Dubya has found out.

[Joe 6-pack]

In principle, I agree with you for the most part. But consider this: If one truly believes that the war in which we are currently engaged (and I don't just mean Iraq, but the larger GWOT) is a war for our national survival, if not the survival of our civilization, there really can be no choice but to press it, regardless of it's unpopularity. I guess the question is, "is it right to continue to do what must be done to save the nation, even if the nation opposes the very course of action most likely to save it?" It's really quite similar to the dilemma that Lincoln faced...

[HitmanLV]

It is, but if we are right we should be a lot more successful in convincing people we are right.

I place a lot of the responsibility for the public loss of confidence on Dubya. He came across as utterly uninterested in convincing people we were right. When it finally became clear to even the admin that they had to defend themselves, it fell back on tired slogans from 2003, with lots of abstract talk about 'freedom' and such.

It was too late and not nearly good enough. In any event, it got us where we are now: an electorate that doesn't trust the commander in chief to wage a war. It's a terrible situation and it never should have come to this.

So now we have a public that doesn't want a war that we think is necessary. Pressing it further means we lose more confidence, not gain more confidence. It's very, very bad - he magnitude of which is lost on many on FR (not you).

[RightWhale]

One Declaration of War that covers all countries around the world is what President Bush should have received.

Yes, Congress fell down on the job. This is nothing new for Congress, but it is also not the fault of Congress but the electorate that put the rascals there.

[Matchett-PI]

17 Traitor Republicans voted with the Rats. Two DemocRATS voted with the Republicans. I still need to find out who they are.

[RightWhale]

We need to be cool and focused now. The voting list is above.

[Victoria Delsoul]

"Maybe their constituencies feel this way."

And it's the south that we are talking about here.

[cva66snipe]

Don't you even read what you post? We stopped selling arms to Iraq in 1967 according to YOUR article. Iraq's armaments were overwhelmingly SOVIET with the next in line FRANCE. There was almost NO American weapons or weapons systems except as were obtained without US approval from third parties. Saddam was armed by FRANCE and the USSR. That FACT will not stop you from trotting out the LIES of the Leftists claiming otherwise I am sure.

I read what I posted and I stated we BROKE OFF TIES IN 1967 after the Israeli war well DUH what does that mean to you? Sheesh!!! You love to play spin the party propaganda. We however even from your own words restored relations at least in part with them some sources say 1980 some same 1981. Now are you through? Read what I posted U.S. Global Security is a reliable source. YOUR claim was we only provide intelligence though? Nice try. It's about like saying we never helped arm Iran do you want to argue that one as well? I'll say it first we did and even though they were friendly at the time we shouldn't have because they sure weren't that friendly.

[cva66snipe]

The only thing you proved with the President's own words is that you don't understand them or are willing to use them duplicitously. None of them have been contradicted by his actions and many of the problems mentioned have been addressed.

Horse Hillary! Our Troop End Strength Numbers are the same as 1996. Meaning what? Meaning the same active duty and the same reservist will be making multiple tours in a frequent time frame either into Iraq or elsewhere. Not one call except as a token gesture has been called for not a single one. Warner the so called GOP Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman sat there and kept the chair warm for the DEM who replaced him because as Senior RINO no one wanted rid of him. Warner sat through a lot of the gutting of our military.

I understand his words. I also understand he said he and MR Gore were not that far apart on most issues. You like that? I don't! I understand troop shortages also. They mean more frequent return to combat zones. I understand Nation Building and I am 100% opposed. I understand war. If you go there don't go to play national police go there to kill and destroy.

What I don't for the life of me understand is persons in the GOP as Liberal as Lyndon Baines Johnson who have taken the party over and now make our national policy. That's what I don't understand. Well actually I do. Many GOP voters of today voted for the sorry man before they switched parties either in the 1980's or 90's.

[justshutupandtakeit]

I don't have time to deal with all that bilge at the moment maybe later.

[The Shrew]

For Immediate Release
Wednesday, February 14, 2007 Contact: Kathleen M. Joyce
202-225-3415
Click here for Printer Friendly Version
HOUSE REPUBLICANS JOIN JONES TO OPPOSE “SURGE” OF U.S. FORCES IN IRAQ

Washington, D.C. – Today during floor debate of House Concurring Resolution 63, ten House Republicans joined Congressman Jones in voicing their opposition to a “surge” of U.S. military forces in Iraq. The resolution, cosponsored by Congressman Walter B. Jones (R-NC), states: “Congress and the American people will continue to support and protect the members of the United States Armed Forces who are serving or who have served bravely and honorably in Iraq.” The resolution also expresses Congress’ disapproval of the decision to deploy more than 20,000 additional U. S. combat troops to Iraq.

The Republican members joining Congressman Jones included Reps. Howard Coble (NC), Wayne Gilchrest (MD), Mike Castle (DE), Jim Ramstad (MN), Ric Keller (FL), Phil English (PA), Ron Paul (TX), John Duncan (TN), Steven LaTourette (OH) and Fred Upton (MI).

During his time on the floor of the House, Congressman Jones referenced numerous military officials who have voiced their opposition to a proposed surge of U.S. troops in Baghdad:

General John Abizaid, former Commander of U.S. Central Command, said during a Senate Armed Services hearing on November 15, 2006: “I believe that more American forces prevent the Iraqis from doing more, from taking more responsibility for their own future.”

General Colin Powell, former Secretary of State and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said during his appearance on CBS’ “Face the Nation” on December 17, 2006: “I am not persuaded that another surge of troops into Baghdad for the purposes of suppressing this communitarian violence, this civil war, will work.”

At a Senate Foreign Relations hearing on January 18, 2007, Marine Gen. Joseph Hoar, former Commander of U.S. Central Command said: “The proposed solution is to send more troops, and it won’t work. The addition of 21,000 troops is too little and too late.” At that same hearing, Gen. Barry McCaffrey, former Commander of the Southern Command, said: “They’re [the current Administration is] going to try to muscle this thing out in the next 24 months, with an urban counterinsurgency plan that I personally believe, with all due respect, is a fool’s errand.”

“I am persuaded by all available evidence that an escalation of U.S. troop levels is not the way forward in Iraq,” Congressman Jones said. “I am especially heartened by the many calls of support for this resolution that I have received from military families across North Carolina’s 3rd District, and throughout the country. This resolution – H. Con. Res. 63 – is an opportunity to thank our brave men and women in uniform who have performed magnificently in Iraq, and to show the American people that Congress wants to help the President develop a policy for victory.”

For additional information or to schedule an interview with Congressman Walter B. Jones please contact Kathleen Joyce at (202) 225-3415.

- 0 -

I got this from Jones' website: Congressman Walter B. Jones It does appear Jones was lobbied by military families. IMHO, This is a consequence of the Dems playing politics with foreign policy. It could also be he's blowin' smoke to cover his withdrawal.

Regards,

TS