Posted by Naftali Bendavid at 2:30 CST
Rebuking President Bush on a war that enjoyed great support at its outset but has become deeply unpopular, the House went on record Friday opposing Bush’s plan to add 21,000 troops in Iraq, with 17 Republicans joining all but two Democrats in expressing their disapproval.
The non-binding resolution, passed with a 246-182 vote, was Congress’ most forceful action yet to challenge presidential authority following last November’s congressional elections, in which the Democrats were catapulted to a majority in both houses largely by the public’s growing frustration with the Iraq War.
Even some of the strongest opponents of the resolution voiced little faith Friday in Bush’s escalation plan, stressing instead the importance of backing the troops, supporting the commander-in-chief and showing steadfastness in fighting terrorism.
The White House and Republican House leadership had worked feverishly throughout the four days of debate to stem defections from the GOP side, concerned about the political impact if a large majority of lawmakers opposed the president. Republican leaders also complained that Democrats did not allow them to offer alternative resolutions more supportive of the president.
But Democrats, confident that the public is with them on Iraq, argued that the war has been misguided and poorly executed, and that sending 21,000 more troops would only result in more American deaths without turning the tide of what has become a bitter civil war.
The rhetoric on the House floor Friday was emotional, sweeping and at times agonized, with orators on both sides talking of honoring the dead, staying true to the nation’s mission and respecting the Constitution. In a chamber that often sees a lone congressman speaking to an empty chamber, many seats were filled, and particularly eloquent speeches were met with standing ovations. It was perhaps the closest the Congress had come in three decades to the impassioned debates that animated the nation during the Vietnam War.
``The stakes in Iraq are too high to recycle proposals that have little prospect for success,’’ said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California, in a rare speech from the House floor. ``The passage of this legislation will signal a change in direction in Iraq that will end the fighting and bring our troops home.’’
Rep. Sam Johnson, a Texas Republican who served seven years a prisoner of war in Vietnam, was equally impassioned. ``Now it’s time to stand up for my friends who did not make it home, and for those who fought and died in Iraq already,’’ Johnson said in opposing the resolution. ``We must not cut funding for our troops. We must stick by them.’’ He ended his remarks with a salute.
Potentially adding to the power of the rebuke, the Senate plans to debate a measure identical to the House resolution on Saturday. Republican leaders will try to block that vote with procedural moves, but the Senate action raises the possibility of a unified congressional response to a military move the White House considers the province of the executive branch.
• 
• 
• 
Comments
I'm sure this will be followed with posts as a
"wimp" of a resolution but, it is a great day for the change in direction of this war. For too long the republican congress overlooked or were also to much like wimps to dare speak their minds.
This is just a first step to bringing an end to a blunder of epic porportion. From the very start of this war it has been one huge mistake after another. There was no consideration of the
ethnic backgrounds or knowledge of the very people they wanted "free". Not that I believe that was their purpose. I believe you may see some say it's not enough. Some will truely believe that, many will be disigenuous. To me, this is the first nail in the coffin of a war falsely started and not at all managed correctly.
Posted by: bill r. | February 16, 2007 3:26 PM
Out of the 17 Republicans who voted with Democrats two from Il Kirk and Johnson
Posted by: Dale Peters | February 16, 2007 3:36 PM
The Demoncratic party: Traitors, treasonists, unAmerican, jerks.
Posted by: John D | February 16, 2007 3:48 PM
``The passage of this legislation will signal a change in direction in Iraq that will end the fighting and bring our troops home.’’
My only question is "What Legislation?" This doesn't stop Bush and co. from sending more troops, and it doesn't cut funding. It's basically a junior-high petition passed around the hallways.
Such an absolute waste of time and energy. Instead of putting together a piece of paper that says "I told you so on Feb. 16, 2007", put something in writing that says, "you can not raise troop levels" or "congress will not allocate $$ to the military for x-function".
Posted by: Karl | February 16, 2007 4:38 PM
OMG when will the Democrats Chief Idiot In The
House Looney Toons Nancy Pelosi & Her Stooges
Steny Hoyer Ever Learn,That Crazy Drug Store Cowboy In the White House George W Bush and
His Out Of Touch With Reality "Boss" Delusional
Dick Cheney Will Simply Ignore These Stupid
Democrat's Non Binding Mickey Mouse BS Phony
War In Iraq Resolutions? And So, Don't Forget
Speaker Nancy Pelosi And Senator Harry Reid The
Democrat Senate Majority Leader Brought This All
Down On Their Own Heads By Taking IMPEACHMENT
Off The Table! It Time To Demand The Democrats
Dump That Goofy Nancy Pelosi And Harry Reid
So Impeachment Of Bush And Cheney Can Take Place!
These War Criminals And Traitors Must Be Brought
To Justice And Pay The Price For Their Treason,
War Crimes,Murders,And Crimes Against Humanity And
Yes Nancy Pelosi And Harry Reid You Bet I Include
You Along With Bush And Cheney Here!
Posted by: Sandy | February 16, 2007 4:38 PM
OMG when will the Democrats Chief Idiot In The
House Looney Toons Nancy Pelosi & Her Stooges
Steny Hoyer Ever Learn,That Crazy Drug Store Cowboy In the White House George W Bush and
His Out Of Touch With Reality "Boss" Delusional
Dick Cheney Will Simply Ignore These Stupid
Democrat's Non Binding Mickey Mouse BS Phony
War In Iraq Resolutions? And So, Don't Forget
Speaker Nancy Pelosi And Senator Harry Reid The
Democrat Senate Majority Leader Brought This All
Down On Their Own Heads By Taking IMPEACHMENT
Off The Table! It Time To Demand The Democrats
Dump That Goofy Nancy Pelosi And Harry Reid
So Impeachment Of Bush And Cheney Can Take Place!
These War Criminals And Traitors Must Be Brought
To Justice And Pay The Price For Their Treason,
War Crimes,Murders,And Crimes Against Humanity And
Yes Nancy Pelosi And Harry Reid You Bet I Include
You Along With Bush And Cheney Here!
Posted by: Sandy | February 16, 2007 4:41 PM
This is just the first step towards ending the Republicans illegal war in Iraq,the Dems have only been in control of congress for a month and they've already done more than the lockstep Republican congress did during the last 6 yrs of control they had during the W. administration.
Public sentiment will NOT switch over to the Republicans when the Dems choke off the financing for the GOP's war,unlike during the Vietnam days,people today recognize that Iraq is the Republicans war and the Republicans and their President lied to the the Democratic congressmen and the American people in order to trump up a reason to start this civil war in Iraq.
Bring them home,OBAMA IN 08 !!!
Posted by: John E. | February 16, 2007 5:58 PM
I heard Bushs' response to the non-binding resolution tonight. Bring it on. This cowboy just never learns. I have been against withholding funding for fear of what would happen to the troops not knowing what Bush would do. Would he endanger them? Now I feel like he wants to be the cowboy and force it. Well, I'm at the point that this fool doesn't have a clue.
I'm all for it if that is the way he wants to respond. Go ahead cut off the funding. This guy is off his rocker.
Posted by: bill r. | February 16, 2007 5:59 PM
Here the vote does anyone know why Hastert did not vote.
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll099.xml
Posted by: Dale Peters | February 16, 2007 7:03 PM
John D the link is for you. The 17 Republicans are they in your comment too. Remember you defended Kirk in the 2006 run with all your might. HMMM
Posted by: Dale Peters | February 16, 2007 7:29 PM
bill r,
I wish I could share your optimism. Yes, this is the begining of the end... a very tortuous bloody end. And who knows what the final outcome will be, as the Democrats refuse to take real action.
All the Democrats seem to be willing to do is take small steps (this is the fiwst widdle baby step, as John E might say).
They're nipping at Bush like horseflies, with their "slow-bleed strategy designed to gradually limit the administration's options"* while Bush digs in his heels and refuses to budge.
Great plan there.
How may lives (American and Iraqi) will that cost? What will be the final outcome for Iraq, for peace and security in the Middle East. How many Americans will come home in boxes as we very slowly creep to the miserable end? How many vets will be disabled.
Sorry, I can't join your celebration.
* From politico.com
Posted by: Leo T | February 16, 2007 8:42 PM
At last, some oversight of this runaway administration. If the Republicans had had any sense they would have done their job and held this mad crazy president in check 5 years ago. Their deferrence to his every whim has been tragic. Just ask the families of the men and women who have fallen in this ill conceived search for wmd, aka war on terror, aka ridding a country of its leader, aka bringing democracy to the impure, and so forth. I know, the conservative, right wing patriots are crying in their cranberry juice over this resolution, but there is one consolation. They will have a chance to vote on another part of the people's will - the ways that the Chief Executive can spend the money that he is allocated. That should be interesting.
Posted by: GW | February 16, 2007 8:55 PM
John D, your wit never ceases to amuse. John D, facist, simpleton, and one party ideologue.
Posted by: Dunny Rummy | February 16, 2007 9:15 PM
Here are some indisputable conclusions anyone can reach following the 45 hours of debate in Congress on sending more troops to Iraq.
1. Any elected official who voted against the resolution believes the majority of the American public is wrong. Polls show that about 70 percent oppose the so-called surge. A solid majority opposes the overall “war” in Iraq.
2. Apparently those who criticize such debates as detrimental to troop moral believe we should not have those debates. How, then, does a representative democracy make decisions on such weighty matters — especially when the commander in chief has run amok?
3. The non binding resolution opposing the “surge” will lead to gradual defunding of the Iraq adventure. Let’s hope so. The Democrats ought to grow spines and start proposing budget cuts that will force Pres. Bush to focus future efforts on only critical areas in Iraq.
4. Iraq is not one of several fronts in the “war on terror.” Ironically, one Republican opposing the “surge” resolution under debate stated that the “war on terror” has no boundaries or clear front lines.
5. There is nothing the US military can do in Iraq that will stop terrorists from anywhere in the Middle East from traveling to the US and planting a dirty bomb, releasing toxic chemicals or biological agents or causing any other harm to American citizens.
6. Regardless of how or when the US military leaves Iraq, many of those who continue to blindly support this huge blunder will consider it “cut and run.” Is that because they cannot admit or are too stupid to see the futility of our military presence there? The only way to not “cut and run” would be for the military to stay forever, as referees in an unending conflict, with targets painted on their backs.
7. Those who continue to support the US presence in Iraq have yet to explain what Americans are getting in return for the deaths of thousands of troops and spending billions of taxpayers’ money there. Nobody can demonstrate how we are more safe. How many elected officials have close family members in Iraq? Would they be so eager to send troops into that meat grinder if it jeopardized the lives of people close to them?
8. Republicans opposed to the anti-surge resolution have railed that it is meaningless because it is not binding. If it were binding, would they have a different reaction? Certainly not. They’d simply foam at the mouth with even greater senseless ferocity.
Posted by: Roger Hayden | February 16, 2007 9:20 PM
The whole 'debate", over a NON-binding resolution, is costing the taxpayers $30 million.
To paraphrase Winston Churchill, never has so much time and money been spent for so little.
Posted by: bruce | February 16, 2007 10:59 PM
Bill r. you got it right. This is the first step toward ending this illegal war. The congress under the Democrats is doing what amounts to retroactive action. I hope eventually they come to terms with the fact that Bush engaged in a war without congress making an official declaration of war, which is required by the constitution.
Posted by: GW | February 17, 2007 8:19 AM
I hope the Democrats who are following Move On .org, People for the American Way, George Soros and Daily Kos including many Dem posts who just parrot words lose badly in 08..The troops deserve our support not delusional new age psychobabble. I'm disappointed in Mark Kirk he turns out to be a wuss. Congratulations to our Congressmen LaHood and John Shimkus. Hastert was missing in action. When the new General Patraeus succeeds with Victory. Eat your hearts out Pelosi,Murtha, Durbin, Obama and dingy Harry Reid,Schumer, Rahm Emmanuel. I hope in 2008 you are all repudiated by the American voter you deserve nothing less for treason by cutting and running. This was a black day in America. We will rue this day. The Senate appears to be deadlocked this bill will not make it to President Bush's desk. John Murtha is a real loser if he trys to make our troops bargaining chips. As Shaespeare said "Oh judgment you have fled to brutish beasts and men have lost their reason." Jerry White, Springfield, IL
Posted by: Jerry White | February 17, 2007 9:07 AM
Jerry are you watching. The Whole idea was to get the Iraqis to stand up in Bagdad. Will they are not. First Battle 200 showed up and 2500 Americans had to do the fighting. We took a hit with wounded and KIA's. Jerry this has been done five times now. My family is there now. I have one home with brain injury and the other in Bagdad. Tell me is any of your family there? If so or you have anyone you know there talk to them find out the truth.
Posted by: Jerry White | February 17, 2007 9:15 AM
Sandy...I recommend Prozac! You gotta stop hating everyone.
Posted by: bill r. | February 17, 2007 9:42 AM
Whoever said are you watching Jerry White was a fraud if all you can be is anonymous don't post --you must be responsible-- the problem with Democrats is they adopted the Jackass as their symbol now don't wonder why we can't have a noble Indian named Chief Illiniwik--he is popular and Dem academics don't like popularity they would be fired after all like Ward Churchill they are phoneys, Jerry White, Springfield, IL
Posted by: Jerry White | February 17, 2007 12:04 PM
8. Republicans opposed to the anti-surge resolution have railed that it is meaningless because it is not binding. If it were binding, would they have a different reaction? Certainly not. They’d simply foam at the mouth with even greater senseless ferocity.
Posted by: Roger Hayden | Feb 16, 2007 9:20:16 PM
Roger,
Most of your post was pretty specious and pointless and shrill, and I wasn't going to bother responding to it.... but then your last item caught my eye.
If a resoultion were binding, would the Republicans have a different reaction? Although you confidently blurt, "Certainly not" you CERTAINLY don't know that.
However, if the Republicans were to oppose a binding anti surge resoulution THEY (not the Democrats) would pay a heavy political price for doing so. Even if they weren't foaming at the mouth while doing it!
And also, I, like you, hope that the Democrats some day grow spines, but they've been spineless for very many years -- decades -- now, so I'm not too confident about that.
Posted by: Leo T | February 17, 2007 12:09 PM
1st: educate yourself on the words "treason" and "impeachment". The Democrats and anyone opposed to this war in Iraq are not traitors, just a different type of Patriot.
2nd: Bush and the others in his administration will never be impeached as technically, regardless of how many innocent lives are lost on Iraq, have not actually committed a crime according to the Constitution and the fact that congress voted to give him the power to invade Iraq, no matter wat they now say about that vote.
Now, the International Court of Justice in the Hague could indite Bush or others on "War Crimes" but I highly doubt it.
Most of what the Republican led Congress and Bush did the Democrats would also try to do in the future. Why impeach someone when: (1) There aren't enough votes for conviction (2) President Chaney would pardon Bush (3)There is less than 2 years before the next elections, with Bush concerned about his legacy, the Democrats are content letting him hang himself as the war drags on and on.
Buckley
Posted by: Buckley | February 17, 2007 12:59 PM
Leo T.
The reason the Democrats are taking baby steps against this war is because that's how government works.
You don't just rush into something,(like telling everyone that Iraq has WMD'S and that we need to start the bombing immeadiatly),you need to dot i's and cross t's.
Don't worry yourself,the Republicans are going to get alot more than a non-binding resolution to deal with in the very near future.
Leo,for a guy who calls himself an Independent I have yet to hear you take anything but a Republican stance......and no,talking out against the nationally unpopular President LoneRanger is not taking a stance from the middle,it's a stance from the overwelming majority of American's.
Posted by: John E. | February 17, 2007 6:25 PM
I don't recall calling myself an independant.
Posted by: Leo T | February 17, 2007 8:53 PM
Hey, The Democrats have chosen to support the Terrorist rather than stand with our troops. Cliff
Posted by: cliff zeider | February 18, 2007 5:42 AM
Cliff get a clue. republicans have sent men and women into battle without equipment needed or training needed. They refuse to take care of them when they come home. Link
http://www.vawatchdog.org
Read about Walter Reed Miltary Hospital I would not even want you there
Posted by: Dale Peters | February 18, 2007 12:28 PM
Come on Leo,answer my questions.
Kind of got ya in a box huh old phony?
Posted by: John E. | February 18, 2007 1:01 PM
Sorry, John E, but what questions?
And who are you calling "old", son?!
Posted by: Leo T | February 18, 2007 4:00 PM
Why shouldn't Bush and Chaney be held accountable for wor crimes as SUDAM AND Hitlers fallowers were?? They all invadid a country,killed many inasent peaple caused termoil and distruction. Justified by the thought that it was better for the world.When in fact it sent the world in to turmoil. Wher is the INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE??
Posted by: jim VET/NAM | February 20, 2007 4:46 PM