Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Unsurprisingly, House resolution passes
Posted by: McQ on Saturday, February 17, 2007

Not that there was ever a doubt:
After four days of emotional debate over the extent of presidential powers in wartime and the proper role of Congress, the House of Representatives adopted a resolution today denouncing President Bush’s plan to send more American troops to Iraq.
I'm sorry, but what I saw and heard wasn't 'debate', it was a series of statements of position. There was no debate - something which Democrats claim is so necessary. Instead we were treated to rationalization after rationalization, from both sides, designed to justify their vote.

On an interesting note, the vote was 246 to 182, with 17 Republicans joining Democrats. That's far fewer than had been estimated (some as high as 45) by many of the talking heads. And there were two Democrats (Jim Marshall of Georgia and Gene Taylor of Mississippi) who voted against it.

So in essence you had, pretty much, a party-line vote for a meaningless resolution. But, as I've pointed out, while it has no teeth, and despite the claims of Democrats and even Sec. Def. Gates and CJCoS Pace, it will have an effect on troop morale.

Rep. Sam Johnson from Texas best sums up my thoughts on all of this:

Show/Hide

With all due respect to those who think things like this don't effect troop morale, I disagree. I know that Vietnam is now a "history lesson", and I guess that makes me a part of history, but I'm a living part of it and I remember vividly the effect of this sort of "debate" had on morale during that time. And despite the claims by well meaning people that the troops "understand this process" and "support it", that's simply nonsense on a stick. Examples of how they feel have been provided ... and ignored.

Now, as Rep. Johnson has pointed out, we will see this "debate" move toward some sort of meaningful action, and, it appears, that action will be to slowly bleed support and funding from the troops in Iraq there by leaving them incapable of accomplishing their mission. Still in doubt? Take if from the lips of the man who's the architect of the "next step":
“They won't be able to continue. They won't be able to do the deployment. They won't have the equipment, they don't have the training and they won't be able to do the work. There’s no question in my mind.”
I can't think of a more cynical and gutless way to proceed. And I promise you, if it leads to troops in the field getting killed because they didn't have the equipment and training or support or leads to the failure of the mission which at least seems to be making progress early, I will, in my own small way, remind everyone who's responsible for that - constantly and loudly.

Democrats who vote for such a strategy while constantly spouting the bromide that they "support the troops but not the mission" should understand clearly that such a vote does not support the troops.

And yes, I have very strong feelings about this. Just as strong as Sam Johnson's. I've seen the result of craven legislation and activity like this has on troop morale. I've also seen it's aftermath. It led to disaster and the death and oppression of millions.

Democrats controlled the Congress when it was done previously and here they are again doing much the same thing. Granted it is only the first step, but, as is obvious, there is more to come. Either they have not learned the lesson of history or they just don't care. If there is a real "sense of the Congress" as I interpret this it is, at least among Democrats, that as long as they remain viable politically and are able to retain their power, they don't mind repeating the previous disaster. Of course, this time it will be the people of Iraq instead of Vietnam who pay for their gutlessness. But if they retain power ... who cares?

Oh, and Senate Republicans? Grow a pair or become an even smaller minority in '08.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Well said. But just remember, McQ, according to Laura’s way of thinking it’s really the "right wing" who is undercutting the troops and showering them with contempt. I guess when you have your examples refuted time and again, you can spin yourself into believing anything.
 
Written By: cjd
URL: http://
And yes, I have very strong feelings about this. Just as strong as Sam Johnson’s. I’ve seen the result of craven legislation and activity like this has on troop morale. I’ve also seen it’s aftermath. It led to disaster and the death and oppression of millions.

Democrats controlled the Congress when it was done previously and here they are again doing much the same thing. Granted it is only the first step, but, as is obvious, there is more to come. Either they have not learned the lesson of history or they just don’t care. If there is a real "sense of the Congress" as I interpret this it is, at least among Democrats, that as long as they remain viable politically and are able to retain their power, they don’t mind repeating the previous disaster. Of course, this time it will be the people of Iraq instead of Vietnam who pay for their gutlessness. But if they retain power ... who cares?

Oh, and Senate Republicans? Grow a pair or become an even smaller minority in ’08.
Hear hear.
 
Written By: Mark A. Flacy
URL: http://
Either they have not learned the lesson of history or they just don’t care.
Oh Erb and his ilk "learned" a lesson from history. Just a mistaken one.

As his previous comments show, if this non-binding resolution and then Murtha’s attachment is the best the Democrats can do towards stabbing our troops in the back, it’ll will do for now.

They are committed to an American defeat. They have to have it.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
They are committed to an American defeat. They have to have it.

Treason can never prosper, for if it does none dare call it treason.

From pollingreport.com

"Would you favor or oppose Congress passing a nonbinding resolution to express its disapproval of President Bush’s plan to send more U.S. troops to Iraq?"

2/9-11/07 51% favor 46% oppose 4% unsure

Sounds to me like democracy in action.
 
Written By: Francis
URL: http://
Treason can never prosper, for if it does none dare call it treason.
I am not yet concerned in extremis, you don’t know hat might be dared. And it’s nice for you to show your side’s hand so blatantly.
Sounds to me like democracy in action.
So what does Bush’s favorables improving by 9% mean?

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
Sounds to me like democracy in action.
So, when 51% of the people vote to legalize slavery, you’ll support it?

Just because a lot of people believe something doesn’t make them or what they believe right.
 
Written By: steverino
URL: http://steverino.journalspace.com/
steverino: the legal document preventing the majority from enslaving, say, people whose blog tag starts with the letter S is the Constitution, particularly the 13th amendment. While the Constitution vests substantial warmaking powers with the President, it also gives significant powers to Congress.

In this country, the majority IS always right, unless the minority has constitutional rights / powers to ignore the majority. Slavery is a clear call; warmaking not so much.

 
Written By: Francis
URL: http://
Apparently Bush himself disagrees with you, McQ:
Q: Do you have to support the war to support the warrior? I mean, if you’re one of those Americans that thinks you’ve made a terrible mistake that’s destined to end badly, what do you do? If they speak out, are they, by definition, undermining the troops?

BUSH: No, she actually asked the enemy, not the troops.

But I’ll be glad to answer your question. No, I don’t think so at all. I think you can be against my decision and support the troops, absolutely. But the proof will be whether or not you provide them the money necessary to do the mission.

And I said early in my comment — my answer to her was that — somebody who doesn’t agree with my policy is just as patriotic a person as I am.

And, you know, your question is, you know, valid. I mean, can somebody say, We disagree with your tactics or strategy, but we support the military ? Absolutely. Sure.
 
Written By: cllam
URL: http://
the majority IS always right
No, they are not.

Call us as we are, a Republic.
If we can keep it.
You don’t really want a democracy.
the legal document preventing the majority from enslaving, say, people whose blog tag starts with the letter S is the Constitution, particularly the 13th amendment.
And prior to the creation of that amendment the people had what? Why, that’s right, the power to own other people. The document is only as good as we make it. Amendments which are added can be removed, need I remind you.
And things that aren’t THERE in the document are interpreted to BE there, hence the right of abortion, or the right of privacy, or the right to be born a US citizen by virtue of being on US soil when you draw your first breath. And something that can be interpreted to be there today, can be interpreted NOT to be there tomorrow.

And in theory your vaunted ’majority’ could vote very democratically to elect enough willing tools into office to agree that slavery is a wonderful thing, and strike down the 13th amendment, even in a Republic, but in a REAL democracy, ah, so much the quicker!

It’s not your document that protects you Francis, it’s our belief in and attempts to adhere to that document that protects you.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Apparently Bush himself disagrees with you, McQ:
Heh ... well given your past, that should mean you automatically agree with me.

And I forget who said it but it goes something like "even if 50 million people say something that’s wrong, it’s still wrong". And Bush is simply wrong.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Heh ... well given your past, that should mean you automatically agree with me.
That’s clearly a nonsensical statement. What exactly is my past? And how would it be relevant to the topic at hand?

 
Written By: cllam
URL: http://
What exactly is my past? And how would it be relevant to the topic at hand?
Everything that Bush does/says is wrong. Have you forgotten?
 
Written By: Mark A. Flacy
URL: http://
Everything that Bush does/says is wrong. Have you forgotten?
Ah, I see. You think I am a Bush hater. Really? On what evidence do you make that assertion? Considering that I voted for him, I find that hard to believe.
 
Written By: cllam
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider