« If You're Radicalized and You Know It, Clap Your Hands | Main | Ironic Capitalism »
Prevailing Prevails
As in the Senate, now too in the House. The resolution to keep on fighting the good fight in the War on Terror passed 256-153.
One third of the Congress can't get behind "Declaring that the United States will prevail in the Global War on Terror, the struggle to protect freedom from the terrorist adversary"?
The vote went broadly down party lines, with 42 Democrats joining the prevailers and 3 Republicans (Ron Paul (TX), Jim Leach (IA), and John Duncan (TN)) opting for surrender.
Brad Miller (D-NC), Allen Boyd (D-FL), and Brad Sherman (D-CA), Walter Jones (R-NC), and Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI) (cool name notwithstanding) couldn't be bothered to make up their minds and voted "Present". I don't think that's what they mean by "roll call vote", gentlemen. 12 Republicans and 7 Democrats didn't vote at all.
Yesterday, House Republican Conference Vice Chairman Jack Kingston (R-GA) estimated a hundred or so Democrats would vote no. I thought that sounded awfully high (especially since only 3 members were willing to back the Murtha-inspired pullout resolution), but they managed to top his prediction by a full 50%.
* I've just come into possession of this exclusive audio captured on the House floor as Paul, Leach, Duncan and the 150 surrendercrats (well, 149 surrendercrats and 1 surrenderocialist) cast their votes.
For every piece of good news that comes out of Iraq and indeed the global War on Terror from this point forward (11:17am on June 16), remember that it wouldn't have come to pass if these 153 men and women had their way.
Previously: Chat with House Republicans on Today's Iraq Debate
Elsewhere:
Updates from Allah at Hot Air
More from Sister Toldjah, Stop the ACLU, Flopping Aces, Hugh Hewitt, Gateway Pundit, Riehl World View
Handcrafted by Flip on June 16, 2006 |
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/396377/5127422
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Prevailing Prevails:
» The Democrats Retreat from Flopping Aces
Yesterday the Democrats and Republicans debated on demanding a timetable to cut and run from Iraq. Kerry had proposed an amendment demanding that very thing but chickened out of offering it for a vote by saying that he may want to make revisions…... [Read More]
Tracked on Jun 16, 2006 12:56:35 PM
» If They Had Their Way from America's North Shore Journal
House votes 256-153 to support our troops and our committment to Iraq and the War on Terror.
New discovery on the blogroll, Suitably Flip, says it for all of us:
For every piece of good news that comes out of Iraq and indeed the global War on Terror... [Read More]
Tracked on Jun 16, 2006 2:28:43 PM
» Fresh for Friday from Donkey Cons
HotAir is hot on the trail of the Kos Kool-Aid Caucus, as we will now deem the House members who voted "no" on Friday's war resolution. Also blogging the House vote: Dan Riehl, Michelle Malkin, Flopping Aces, Stop the ACLU and Suitably Flip. ... I noti... [Read More]
Tracked on Jun 16, 2006 2:58:03 PM
» Ambien and side effects. from Ambien verses temacetam.
Ambien sex. Ambien. What color is ambien. Ambien empty stomach. Generic ambien. Long term ambien. Suicide ambien. Ambien cr. [Read More]
Tracked on Apr 7, 2008 1:20:43 AM
Comments
Hang on there chief, you're starting to wear out your Jump to Conclusion mat. Not voting for a pointless resolution is not the same as opposing the War on Terror, and I suspect you know that.Posted by: Tom Joad | Jun 16, 2006 2:16:53 PM
Read the text of the resolution. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.RES.861: Voting no suggests disagreement with 1 or more of the 7 resolutions. The least offensive contrary position requires embracing an "arbitrary date for withdrawal" from Iraq, the primary theater of the global War or Terror. If one's opposition relates to the other 6, then maybe he or she doesn't "honor the sacrifices" of troops or think the world should "promote global peace and security". I'll give the 153 the benefit of the doubt and presume they support an "arbitrary date for withdrawal" from the primary theater of the War on Terror. Also, I strongly disagree that this vote was pointless. Yes, it was a non-binding resolution, but it is an election year and the politics of this are not irrelevant. It's of great value to know how our elected officials view the War on Terror, so we can make informed decisions about whether or not to replace them this November.Posted by: Flip | Jun 16, 2006 2:33:52 PM
Flip, you know perfectly well that instead of an actual debate on the war, the Republicans rigged the resolution so that no amendments could be proposed, no suggestions offered for how to win in Iraq, and so that the Iraq situation could be conflated with the "war on Terror." It was, in other words, a game of Calvinball posing as a debate. What's more, it was the Republicans playing bait-and-switch on one of their own, as Boehner promised Walter Jones a full debate on the war, and instead substituted this sham debate (which is why Jones didn't vote on the resolution). Don't you think it would actually be helpful for the House to have a full debate on the situation in Iraq and potential solutions? Do you think this vague resolution -- the equivalent of "I love puppies and kittens and I dare you to vote against them" -- is a serious way to approach a serious issue? If not, I have to conclude that you conservatives simply don't take the Iraq war seriously -- unlike liberals, who actually consider this a serious situation.Posted by: M.A. | Jun 16, 2006 3:31:08 PM
And of course the whole "arbitrary date for withdrawal" thing gives the game away: the entire resolution was rigged so that the Democrats (and Republicans like Jones) could not make a vote on when to withdraw. If the resolution is something like "We will not withdraw this year," then that's a serious resolution. But "arbitrary date for withdrawal" is meaningless, and just another indication that Republicans do not consider Iraq a serious issue, just a campaign issue. Which is why the Republicans are not serious about national security: ever since Karl Rove publicly urged the Republicans in 2002 to exploit 9/11 as a campaign issue, the Republicans have treated terrorism and war as a soundbite, whereas the Democrats, for all their faults, at least have a few people who are serious about national security.Posted by: M.A. | Jun 16, 2006 3:37:35 PM
This is peculiar. I'm apparently the only one who doesn't know what I know. As for the "arbitrary" language, that's not vague, that set the bar ridiculously low for Democrats. The most Murthish of the bunch could have voted for the resolution, then stated (with complete consistency) that they favor a reasoned timeline for rapid withdrawal, not an "arbitrary date" as the resolution called for. That would still constitute a policy of surrender (one which would endanger Iraq, its neighbors, and peace-loving people the world over) but it would've been less outlandish than supporting any old manner of rapid withdrawal, however "arbitrarily" timed. Supporters of that argument have lost the luxury of being taken seriously on terrorism. Aren't these the same people who decry Iraq's being a "magnet" and a "haven" for terrorists, while it wasn't before we liberated it? Irrespective of whatever you draw from the assertion that we turned Iraq into a country jammed with terrorists, both sides seem to agree that they're there in large numbers. How can surrendering our position there be cast as anything other than a retreat in the War on Terror?Posted by: Flip | Jun 16, 2006 3:52:17 PM
Flip, the point is that the Republicans rejected a bipartisan resolution that would have debated a real withdrawal deadline and real issues, and instead substituted a resolution full of bland homilies. It was showing that they, the Republicans, don't take the war seriously enough to offer a real resolution on it. And most Democrats voted against it to show that they, unlike the Republicans, consider Iraq a serious issue. How can surrendering our position there be cast as anything other than a retreat in the War on Terror? Pretty simple, actually: no matter when we leave, the terrorists will claim victory. So we have to find a moment to plausibly "declare victory and get out" -- that is, withdraw with our dignity intact. Saying that we'll stay until the violence stops is ridiculous, because there will be violence as long as we're occupying the country. (The only way to avoid an insurgency is to, basically, kill lots of civilians the way we did in Japan and Germany in WWII. A devastated population is easier to occupy. But we can't do that to the Iraqis, and we shouldn't.) So there needs to be a strategy for getting out without making it look like a loss. The death of Zarqawi would have been a good pretext: we could have said, hey, the big terrorist is dead, things are looking up, now we'll start the pullout because we've basically won. But the Republicans have instead adopted the childish idea that we can achieve complete, total, unequivocal victory in Iraq and that we should stay until we do. Which means staying forever. But they don't have the guts to advocate that, so they just accuse everyone else of wanting to cut and run. What's depressing is that the Republicans refuse to have a debate on the most important issue: when should we leave? Each of them should be forced to get up there and explain when we should leave, beyond vague platitudes about "victory" and "staying the course."Posted by: M.A. | Jun 16, 2006 4:05:02 PM
That's all predicated on the idea that we can't win and the best we can hope to do is save face. I reject the underlying assumption. But it does pose an interesting question, which may be at the crux of the split among the left. Do you think most of the 153 feel the same way (that victory is simply impossible and the best we can do is save face)? Few have dared say so (the idea even sounded wacky coming out of Howard Dean's mouth a few months back), but if that's what they truly believe, it would explain a lot.Posted by: Flip | Jun 16, 2006 4:12:36 PM
I would say that the 153 probably feel that way to differing extents; they share that notion with such wacky fringe-leftists as William F. Buckley. The real question is why the "yes" voters seem to think victory is possible in a situation like this. Given the dismal historical record of big armies when it comes to fighting insurgencies, the burden should be on the win-win-win crowd to explain how it is possible to "win" when you're occupying a country that is spending half its time fighting amongst itself and the other half fighting you...Posted by: M.A. | Jun 16, 2006 4:52:12 PM
