Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
The House on Friday handily rejected a timetable for pulling U.S. forces out of Iraq, culminating a fiercely partisan debate between Republicans and Democrats feeling the public's apprehension about war and the onrushing midterm campaign season.
In a 256-153 vote, the GOP-led House approved a nonbinding resolution that praises U.S. troops, labels the Iraq war part of the larger global fight against terrorism and says an "arbitrary date for the withdrawal or redeployment" of troops is not in the national interest.
"Retreat is not an option in Iraq," declared House Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio. "Achieving victory is our only option, for the American people and our kids."
"Stay the course, I don't think so Mr. President. It's time to face the facts," House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California answered, as she called for a new direction in the conflict. "The war in Iraq has been a mistake. I say, a grotesque mistake."
Four months before midterm elections that will decide control of Congress, House Republicans sought to force Republicans and Democrats alike to take a position on the conflict that began with the U.S. invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein in the spring of 2003.
Democrats denounced the debate and vote as a politically motivated charade, and several prominent Democrats joined Pelosi in saying they would vote against the measure because, they said, supporting it would affirm Bush's "failed policy" in Iraq.
Balking carried a risk for Democrats, particularly when they see an opportunity to win back control of Congress from the GOP. Republicans likely will use Democratic "no" votes to claim that their opponents don't support U.S. troops.
Republicans and Democrats alike explained the decision, as each side saw it, that voters have to make in November.
"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."
A few Republicans who have publicly expressed misgivings about the war also were expected to oppose the resolution. And, some GOP incumbents who face tough challenges from Democrats in November issued qualified support for the measure while criticizing the GOP-led Congress.
"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.
The House vote comes one day after the Senate soundly rejected a call to withdraw combat troops by year's end by shelving a proposal that would allow "only forces that are critical to completing the mission of standing up Iraqi security forces" to remain in Iraq in 2007.
That vote was 93-6, but Democrats assailed the GOP maneuver that led to the vote as political gamesmanship and promised further debate next week on a proposal to start redeploying troops this year.
Congress erupted in debate on the Iraq war four months before midterm elections that will decide the control of both the House and Senate, and as President Bush was trying to rebuild waning public support for the conflict.
The administration was so determined to get out its message that the Pentagon distributed a highly unusual 74-page "debate prep book" filled with ready-made answers for criticism of the war, which began in March 2003.
But as the death toll and price tag of the conflict continue to rise, opinion polls show voters increasingly frustrated with the war and favoring Democrats to control Congress instead of the Republicans who now run the show.
Sensitive to those political realities, Republicans in both the Senate and House sought to put lawmakers of both parties on record on an issue certain to be central in this fall's congressional elections.
The Senate vote unfolded unexpectedly as the second-ranking GOP leader, Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., introduced legislation he said was taken from a proposal by Sen. John Kerry, the Massachusetts Democrat and war critic. It called for Bush to agree with the Iraqi government on a schedule for withdrawal of combat troops by Dec. 31, 2006.
Democratic leader Harry Reid sought to curtail floor debate on the proposal, and the vote occurred quickly. Six Democrats, including Kerry, were in the minority.
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., predicted that terrorism would spread around the world, and eventually reach the United States if the United States were to "cut and run" before Iraq can defend itself.
But Reid, D-Nev., countered: "Two things that don't exist in Iraq and have not, weapons of mass destruction, and cutting and running."
ScreamingEagle said:Looks like a whole lot of Democrats in the House "cut-and-run".
Obviously they're looking to get re-elected....
Bonnie said:Isn't that telling!!
dilloduck said:Hold the presses--this is just the voting for it before you vote against it---or soemthing like that.
Rico said:So when push comes to shove many Dems do not support the pelosi/kerry/murtha cut and run/another Vietnam policy. Those folks must be in competitive districts where the strategy of cowardice would cost them their seats. Bwhahahaaa. They know damned good and well the electorate does not favor cutting and running.
sitarro said:I would bet that Clinton and Perot wouldn't have had a prayer if President Bush 41 would have ignored the UN and gone into Bagdhad and grabbed that asshole Saddam. I think that hurt him much worse than the "no new taxes" speech.
acludem said:In eight years of Clinton we had peace, prosperity and a budget surplus. In six years of Bush we have war, recession and a massive and growing budget deficit. I know who I'd rather have in the White House.
:rotflmao:
acludem said:In eight years of Clinton we had peace, prosperity and a budget surplus. In six years of Bush we have war, recession and a massive and growing budget deficit. I know who I'd rather have in the White House.
These resolutions are nothing but political fluff put out by Republicans who are desparate to change the growing tide that is going against them. Democrats have always supported the troops and will continue to do so. We oppose the war policy of the Bush administration. It is quite possible to both oppose Bush's war policy and to strongly support the troops. The reason why many of us oppose a long continuation of this war is because we support the troops and oppose continuing to place them in harm's way without a plan to get them out eventually.
:duh3:
acludem said:In eight years of Clinton we had peace, prosperity and a budget surplus. In six years of Bush we have war, recession and a massive and growing budget deficit. I know who I'd rather have in the White House.
These resolutions are nothing but political fluff put out by Republicans who are desparate to change the growing tide that is going against them. Democrats have always supported the troops and will continue to do so. We oppose the war policy of the Bush administration. It is quite possible to both oppose Bush's war policy and to strongly support the troops. The reason why many of us oppose a long continuation of this war is because we support the troops and oppose continuing to place them in harm's way without a plan to get them out eventually.
Did you know that Portugal and the Netherlands are at war. Back in around 1614, Portugal went to war with the Netherlands, which at the time for finishing its fight for independence from Spain. Eventually, both sides ceased hostilities, but they never bothered to sign a peace treaty. So technically, the two countries have been at war for nearly 400 years! There goes the myth of a trainquil Western Europe we've had for the past decade or so.Avatar4321 said:First, if you believe that during the Clinton adminsitration we had peace, prosperity, and a surplus you are still living in the illusion of the Decade. Al Qaeda was at war with us since the beginning of his administration, we werent at peace by not fighting back. peace comes with the absence of an enemy, not failure to fight them.
Avatar4321 said:This is silly on so many levels.
First, if you believe that during the Clinton adminsitration we had peace, prosperity, and a surplus you are still living in the illusion of the Decade. Al Qaeda was at war with us since the beginning of his administration, we werent at peace by not fighting back. peace comes with the absence of an enemy, not failure to fight them.
Second, Bill Clinton attacked Somalia, Bosnia, Iraq, Aghanistan, and China. Some peaceful administration. The difference betwene President Bush and Presdent Clinton is President Bush sees the job through till its over.
Third, prosperity was really great, I mean we have Enron and other scandals occuring in the 90s. We have the Clinton administrative inflating the numbers to help his polls numbers. The man inherited a growing economy and left us with a recession.
Fourth, The budget "Surplus" was a ten year projected surplus. This means that the Surplus only exists if the economy was continuing to grow at the same rate. We now know that the Clinton administration was padding economic growth numbers. The fact that he left us with a recession instead of a growing economy is what killed any such chance at seeing the surplus that didnt exist to begin with.
Besides, Surpluses are supposed to disappear. Its morally wrong for the government to be taking money from the people that it doesnt need. And politicians cannot be trusted with extra money because they will spend it and it will no longer be surplused. Surplus money deserves to be returned to the people who have earned it rather than the politicians that just take it.
Fifth, the resolutions were not political fluff. In fact, Senator Kerry was advocating for this bill himself. Democrats were trying to get support for it before submitting it to both houses of Congress so they could show where they stand on the war. They were the ones calling for the debate. Course that was before Zarquawi was killed. After that the Democrats werent pushing that much so a Republican took Senator Kerry's bill, put his own name on it and submitting it. So naturally Hassert and Frist allowed the bill to be voted on since the Democrats had been pushing for it so much. They wanted the debate. They demanded the debate. So when the Republicans give them what they want they start claiming its just politica fluff.
Problem is the people know your positions now. More important We know the people's positions. Its not a surprise that a large amount of Democrats up for reelection voted with the Republicans. Because anyone who is up for reelection knows that what the people in their area thicks and they know it would be political suicide to support cutting and running from Iraq and the war on terror.
So once again Democrats have screwed themselves over.
What you guys dont seem to understand is there is a plan for when we can start withdrawling more troops. But it does not involve a time table. any idiot knows when you give your enemies notice when you will leave they will lie low until then. The plan for withdrawl is this: Kill the enemy! When they are dead or have lost the will to fight, we win.
You see thats how war is. You have to beat the other guy before you go home or else youve lost. Unfortunately we have too many people who dont seem to understand that simple fact. Not a majority, but still too many people. War sucks, but it sometimes takes the blood of good men to protect our liberty. Thats what makes freedom so precious. Its paid for and sanctified with blood.
Mr.Conley said:Did you know that Portugal and the Netherlands are at war. Back in around 1614, Portugal went to war with the Netherlands, which at the time for finishing its fight for independence from Spain. Eventually, both sides ceased hostilities, but they never bothered to sign a peace treaty. So technically, the two countries have been at war for nearly 400 years! There goes the myth of a trainquil Western Europe we've had for the past decade or so.
Mr.Conley said:As far as I can tell, this was a purely political vote. The representatives will use this to support their reelection campaign. Most of the ones who voted to withdraw probably come from antiwar areas. So both parties were aiming more to shore up their own positions, and to put the other guy's swing districts on the line.
Rico said:They know damned good and well the electorate does not favor cutting and running.
Redhots said:
Redhots said:
