The House of Representatives passed a resolution disapproving of the Bush plan to send more troops to Iraq. The measure passed 246-182 with 17 Republicans in support. See this UK Independent story or the Washington Post. HCR 63 Reads:
Disapproving of the decision of the President announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq. Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That--
(1) 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; and
(2) Congress disapproves of the decision of President George W. Bush announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq.
4 comments:
This is a non-binding resolution, I don't see any significance as it died in the Senate with Harry Reid (D-NV) saying "Let's be honest, a vote [against this resolution] is a vote for escalating [the Iraq] war."
Even with the Mormon yoga-practicing former boxer's statement, the Senate said NO to this resolution, what would have given the Arab Terror Forces a strong victory in Iraq against Islam, America, and possibly even the politically bankrupt "democracy" of Iraq...
-Hamza Khan
POLI 230
I think now that the Iraq War is highly reminiscent of Vietnam, not in casualties or scale, but certainly in its running course, that is an initially effective war that lingers on into a grueling, ineffective military action with no end in sight; and once again, the problem is not military, but political, something the President has yet to display any signs of recognizing. Most politicians today concur Iraq was a mistake, but an even greater mistake would be leaving the country prematurely. But then what? If we can’t leave the country, then we have to maintain a presence, but of course the majority of Americans no longer support the current conduct of the war, and so the Democrats come out with their “tuning down” strategy, which may or may not be effective, but will certainly prove disastrous from a military standpoint (less troops means less manpower means less capability to complete missions). And so we arrive at the President’s only remaining option: troop surge, quiet understandable actually. Will a surge work? Maybe. But chances are that even if it works, any improvement in the situation would be only temporary and minute. The root problem, once again, is political. And all I’ll say about this is that there is a reason why political entities like Hezbollah or Hamas enjoy popular support in their respective regions. Instead of haphazardly labeling them as “terrorist organizations,” the Administration should effect a little inquiry into why these types of organizations are proliferating in the Middle East.
This "Resolution" is nothing more than a waste of Congress' time. The resolution, if passed, would mean nothing that the President, and most Americans, don't already know. I am tired of all this political BS and spineless legislation from Washington. Why can't we get congressmen that actually stand for something. At least Bush is standing by his beliefs!
-Patriot
In March 2003, I remember saying to my AP World History teacher: we're walking into Lebanon again. Sadly, I wasn't wrong. But a troop surge is not the only answer. Surging only allows for a short term increase in troop totals, I say we call in something around another 100k to bring down Arab terror tonight.
-Hamza Khan
Post a Comment