Pick out your congressperson

[dude1394]

So the republicans put a resolution calling for the abandonment of Iraq to the Iraqi's. Pretty straight-forward, with all of the anti-war leftists out there and all of the anti-bush democrats you would expect that there would be some democrats who would vote their rhetoric and there was....3 to be exact.

403-3...Scoreboard again

403-3 seems clear
House vote put stamp on Iraq withdrawal debate

Nov. 23, 2005 12:00 AM

Last week, a decorated veteran of Vietnam stood before his colleagues in the U.S. House of Representatives and spoke brave words about the war against terrorists in Iraq.

No one shouted him down. No one vilified him, or called him a "coward." Indeed, the reaction to this veteran's words was worse than that.

He was ignored.

In the tumult last Friday on the House floor, much was made about the sudden conclusion of Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., that the U.S. should begin an immediate pullout from Iraq.

As a decorated veteran of Vietnam - and an on-the-record supporter of the war to oust Saddam Hussein - Murtha has credentials on the subject of war. His abrupt reversal on Iraq seems more the product of emotion than good sense, but his words deserved a thorough airing, which they got - in headlines from coast to coast.

Rep. Sam Johnson, R-Texas, on the other hand, showed up in virtually no news stories regarding the Big Blow Up in the House. But if military credentials are the currency that give a lawmaker standing in the debate over U.S. troops in Iraq, then Johnson was unfairly and cruelly shorted.

"I spent 29 years in the Air Force - served time in Korea and Vietnam - and spent seven years as a POW in Vietnam, more than half of that time in solitary confinement," Johnson said.

He went on: "When I was a POW, I was scared to death when our Congress started talking about pulling the plug, that I would be left there forever.

"I know what it does to morale - I know what it does to the mission - and, so help me God, I will never, ever let our nation make those mistakes again. Never."

Obviously, partisan furies boiled over in the House last week. Republican Rep. Jean Schmidt of Ohio has been castigated for rankly impugning the integrity of Murtha. Deservedly so.

But the question itself - a non-binding resolution on the sense of the House members regarding Murtha's call for U.S. troops to be withdrawn from Iraq - was very much worth asking.

And the result - a 403-3 defeat of the Democrat's proposal - was telling.

Democrats are fond of citing the plummeting poll numbers of President Bush and the skyrocketing number of polled Americans who want the troops out of Iraq. Last Friday's vote in the House tells us that members of Congress, who grasp the meaning of polls better than any of us, recognize the complexity and ambiguity behind those figures.

With the representatives on the record, American voters have a greater opportunity to judge whether the current Iraq debate is spurred by political opportunism or by a genuine belief that an immediate evacuation of U.S. troops is sound policy. The hard numbers - 403-3 - would seem to arrive at some crisp conclusions on that matter.

Arizona Republican Rep. J.D. Hayworth deserves credit for calling for the vote. If Hayworth's measure is a "ploy" or a "political stunt," as many Democrats complained, it was far less a stunt than the one pulled by Senate Democrats on Nov. 1. That "stunt" took the senators into a closed-door session, putting no one on the record.

The national news media may have been impressed with just one side of the debate over pulling out of Iraq, but at least the lawmakers belted it out in public.

[Drbio]

THanks for sharing that dude.

[Rhylan]

I already loved J.D. Hayworth... now I REALLY do!

I'd love to hear some vigorous debate on Iraq strategy. Why? Because back in the Desert Storm days, and in the early days of this conflict, we had near daily briefings from the forces in Iraq on what was going on. Now, we don't. This administration has done a terrible job of getting the message across. It's typical Bush, some people like it.. I respectfully disagree with the approach, but purely for political reasons.

Anyway, vigorous debate might force the administration to start playing the game a little bit and doing some PR-type work.

But this was even better... put yer money where your mouth is, and no one did. Brilliant.

[Mavdog]

so apparently there are three representitives who would just abandon Iraq. so?

the vote was a farce, a pr event.

it was nothing more.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

so apparently there are three representitives who would just abandon Iraq. so?

the vote was a farce, a pr event.

it was nothing more.

as were Murtha's ramblings, evidently.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

as were Murtha's ramblings, evidently.

And Pelosi and Durbin and JFKerry and Kennedy and Moore and Carter.

Funny isn't it, the democrats put the maggot moore up in their box at their convention with their most beloved president, the rabbit-killer carter and when the 'pubs compare them to the maggot moore they get all sensitive about it.

Hilarious.

[Jeremiah]

...