House passes resolution rebuking the president on Iraq {246-182}

CNN ^ | February 16, 2007 | Unsigned

[I see my hands]

"I want to see these people be honest, and lay it on the table with real money, or lack thereof"

I agree. This is real life not pretend. Let's see who is who. Let them declare.

[MeanFreePath]

My e-mail to Nick Lampson:

"Congressman Lampson,

I consider your vote today rejecting President Bush's new plan for victory in Iraq a disgrace to the district (which you only represent due to a technicality that kept a viable Republican candidate off the ballot). Clearly you don't respect your constituents or feel any obligation to represent their majority views. I wish that didn't extend to providing aid and comfort to our enemies, but, in that regard, you are a fitting representative for your defeatist, anti-American party.

Anxiously awaiting 2008..."

P.S. I'm just assuming he voted to reject Bush's plan. If he didn't, I guess I'll feel kind of stupid, but what are the odds?

[conservative blonde]

Seventeen was far fewer than the DemoncRATs were saying they were going to get. This was a meaningless resolution put together by irrational losers.

[OKSooner]

Don't get your hopes up. That district is a classical "yellow dog" Democrat district. Those people will elect (almost) anybody so long as they have that D by their name.

Look at what Synar had to do to get himself un-elected.

[MEG33]

May God Protect Those Who Protect
Our Nation

[Recovering Ex-hippie]

Are you kidding?

[Conservative_Rob]

The President should announce that he will veto the measure (even though it isn't being forwarded), and those who voted against it should announce that they will not change their votes to allow the veto to be overridden.

Then, the President should issue a written Executive Finding of Rebuke against the members voting "to defund and demoralize our troops as well as embolden our enemies."

The House Republican minority leader should read it into the Congressional Record.

I agree with your post, but also believe that President Bush is a polictal coward and will never do anything that can be even remotely considered "confrontational" to the Democrats.

[Bitter Bierce]

Hotair has a great video up. Go here to see it:

http://hotair.com/archives/2007/02/16/246-congressman-17-republicans-disapprove-of-sending-20000-more-troops-to-iraq/

Wow. That video sent chills down my spine.

[xzins]

I am a longtime supporter of the President.

I do not think he is a coward by any means.

His team has seriously misplayed the media to the point that I think it has to have been apathetic toward the information war.

He has a great economy, his war record is stellar, and his personal faith and likability make him an honorable man for his job.

[karlmarx1957]

The Democrats finally show their true agenda. It wasn't that they support the troops, that's just eye candy for the thoughtless masses. They really want to pull the rug out from under the whole effort.... not only bring the troops home but cut the funding... and let the Iraqis worry about it!

And you know something? They're right! Iraq is Vietnam all over again... and they're making damn sure that it is.... Vietnam was lost when a Democratically controlled congress pulled the same crap... and this bunch of hyenas is going to go down in history as having done the same thing.

[headstamp]

Yes, I was going to say that this was the first real test of the newly elected so-called "Blue Dog/Conservative" Dems and they failed with flying colors.

A Dem is a Dem period.

[Conservative_Rob]

WASHINGTON - U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) made this statement on plans by Majority Leader Harry Reid to schedule a vote on the Democratic Iraq resolution this weekend.

Reid today said he plans for the Senate to stay in session through the weekend and maybe into next week to debate the resolution currently under debate in the House of Representatives. The Democratic resolution opposes General Petraeus's new strategy in Iraq.

Earlier this month the Senate was scheduled to vote on a Democratic resolution opposing the troop surge but Democrats, unwilling to allow the Republicans to offer an alternative resolution, could not garner 60 votes to bring debate to a close.

The Senate Republicans can kill this so-called non binding reolution to surrender. This is the e-mail I sent to the top three Republicans in the Senate tonight . . . .

I am counting on you, as one of the leaders of the Republican Party in the Senate, to send the troops a message that the American people are not going to abandon them. Either you or another Republican Senator must stop the vote of surrender scheduled for this weekend.

There must be a filibuster of the so-called non binding resolution of non support for the troops unless there is a proper debate including votes, on the record, of whether or not the Democrats intend to defund the war effort, or demand a timetable for surrender. A proper debate, and votes on funding and timetables for withdrawal, will either illustrate to the American people that the Democrats have no intention of fighting against the Islamic terrorists who have stated repeatedly that they intend to bring America to its knees, or show the American people that this so-called non binding resolution for surrender is completely meaningless.

Only in the Senate does the Republican Party have the power to stop this headlong rush to surrender. I am asking you to use that power. If the Republicans do not do everything they can to stop this, then the ability of the Republican Party to retake the House and Senate, not to mention the White House, is greatly diminished. I cannot support a party that will not fight for the American serviceman.

At this point, I do not see America as being the land of the Americans who fought and died to create this country, maintain the union, and defend it against Nazism and Communism. I do not want a repeat of the abandonment of our allies as was shamefully orchestrated in the Congress after our retreat in Vietnam. Not to mention the utter disrespect for the American serviceman who put his life on the line so that today's Democrat Congressman could avoid the draft, smoke his pot, and march against the war in safety and comfort.

You and the rest of the Senate Republicans are the only ones who can stop this attempt to derail the extremely important effort to end the tyranny of Islamic Fascism in the Middle East. Do not abandon your responsibilities not only to the American serviceman, but to current and future Americans. America is not represented by the surrender cult of Democrats and Mainstream Media. Do not be intimidated by them. I am counting on you.

[msnimje]

One is that kooky Ron Paul who some here want to be President of the United States.

[henbane]

The seventeen Republicans:

Mark Kirk R-Illinois

Jim Ramstad R-Minnesota

Wayne Gilchrist R-Maryland

Michael N. Castle R-Delaware

Tom Davis R-Virginia

Howard Coble R-North Carolina

Steven C. LaTourette R-Ohio

James Walsh R-New York

Fred Upton R-Michigan

Tom Petri R-Wisconsin

Ron Paul R-Texas

Bob Inglis R-South Carolina

Tim Johnson R-Illinois

Ric Keller R-Florida

Phil English R-Pennsylvania

Walter Jones R-North Carolina

John J. Duncan, Jr. R-Tennessee

[Wild Irish Rogue]

" I agree with your post, but also believe that President Bush is a polictal coward and will never do anything that can be even remotely considered "confrontational" to the Democrats."

As soon as the last vote was cast,
President Bush should have been in front of the microphone, with smoke coming out of his ears and his hair on fire reiterating that he will never abandon the troops and will do everything in his power to see that they have the supplies and support they need, yada , yada.
It would have been a great morale boost for the troops and the base and reframed the debate.
It would be refreshing to see him fight back once in awhile , instead of always turning the other cheek.

[sport]

They had to have the help of the American voters to do it.

Put the blame where it lies: On the people who elected them.

[Ghost of Philip Marlowe]

2 Dems voted against.

I guess that's the new spirit of cooperation and bipartisan, reaching-across-the aisle that they puked from their commies mouths for all of an entire week.

[freema]

Guess again.

[maica]

Thanks for adding the rogue's gallery.

[cva66snipe]

To those who feel that their congresscritter who has been a strong conservative betrayed you? Maybe you should look in their congressional sites under such tabs as speeches and read why they voted as they did. They may remind you about what being a conservative actually means. Not all of the ones mentioned but I know two made their case. John Duncan and Ron Paul. It doesn't mean they are anti-war if a nation attacks the USA either. Perhaps some want to make certain IF or When we are attacked on a large scale we actually have a military left to fight with and money left to fund it?

BTW Duncan voted no on the 2002 Resolution of force. He got reelected. His district is staunch Conservative. Not staunch GOP as such but Conservative.