A narrow but important victory in US House
That was very close.
I was able to listen/watch to portions of the debate in between other tasks, and John Murtha's speech was especially emotional. Leaving aside the antics of Rep. Patrick McHenry, R-N.C., who kept deliberately making bogus points of order to make comments, there were some pretty strong opinions on both sides.
Please note how much things have changed in a few short months. The Democratic margin would have been higher had some very progressive members decided to support it. So the 212 votes against the measure are not all votes in favor of the Bush non-plan for Iraq. TPMCafe has a list of Democrats who voted against the measure and the names of the two Republicans who voted for it.
The problem for the GOP is that they have been saying the same darn thing for years now. In their view, any attempt to get a handle on this war is somehow detrimental to the troops. (Murtha was very forceful in addressing this baloney.) Any attempt to see an end to the fiasco is "handing victory to the terrorists."
It's just rhetoric from a Republican Party that has nothing constructive to offer, only obedience to the commander-in-chief. The American people have spoken on this point (elections have consequences, as Barbara Boxer reminded James Infohe a few days ago in the Senate.) This isn't a dictatorship and the House is rightly using its power to atempt a change in policy. It's not "micro-managing," as Republican after Republican put it, it's performing a constitutional duty.
Sure, chances of passage in the Senate are slim and a White House veto would be certain. So? For too long Democrats shrank from confrontation with the corrupt, delusional party that had seized control of our government. Make them debate it and make them defend it and, if we get lucky in the Senate by some strange happenstance, make them veto it. Make them defend their war. Because all they have is clichés and demagogic appeals to patriotism, neither of which heal broken bodies and minds.
You can see video clips of Rep. Murtha and Speaker Nancy Pelosi at The Gavel. There are additional clips currently posted at The Gavel's main page. (scroll down)
The U.S. House of Representatives has voted to require President Bush to pull U.S. combat troops out of Iraq by fall 2008, despite a White House veto threat.(note-I'm guessing CNN meant "wary" rather than "weary." It happens.)
The vote, largely along party lines, was voted 218-212.
Democratic leaders spent the last several days corralling enough votes for the measure as they face a caucus divided between a progressive faction in favor of an immediate withdrawal and a more moderate faction that is weary of setting time-tables.
I was able to listen/watch to portions of the debate in between other tasks, and John Murtha's speech was especially emotional. Leaving aside the antics of Rep. Patrick McHenry, R-N.C., who kept deliberately making bogus points of order to make comments, there were some pretty strong opinions on both sides.
Please note how much things have changed in a few short months. The Democratic margin would have been higher had some very progressive members decided to support it. So the 212 votes against the measure are not all votes in favor of the Bush non-plan for Iraq. TPMCafe has a list of Democrats who voted against the measure and the names of the two Republicans who voted for it.
The problem for the GOP is that they have been saying the same darn thing for years now. In their view, any attempt to get a handle on this war is somehow detrimental to the troops. (Murtha was very forceful in addressing this baloney.) Any attempt to see an end to the fiasco is "handing victory to the terrorists."
It's just rhetoric from a Republican Party that has nothing constructive to offer, only obedience to the commander-in-chief. The American people have spoken on this point (elections have consequences, as Barbara Boxer reminded James Infohe a few days ago in the Senate.) This isn't a dictatorship and the House is rightly using its power to atempt a change in policy. It's not "micro-managing," as Republican after Republican put it, it's performing a constitutional duty.
Sure, chances of passage in the Senate are slim and a White House veto would be certain. So? For too long Democrats shrank from confrontation with the corrupt, delusional party that had seized control of our government. Make them debate it and make them defend it and, if we get lucky in the Senate by some strange happenstance, make them veto it. Make them defend their war. Because all they have is clichés and demagogic appeals to patriotism, neither of which heal broken bodies and minds.
You can see video clips of Rep. Murtha and Speaker Nancy Pelosi at The Gavel. There are additional clips currently posted at The Gavel's main page. (scroll down)
