I hope they get a ton of mail and phone calls and emails from their constituents and the rest of the American people that want this war to end! This will come back to bite them.
"The Senate Should Not Fiddle While Iraq Burns"
New York Times | February 17, 2007 06:49 PM
Other Republicans who had helped thwart the earlier debate also said it was time to end the procedural impasse.
"In my view, it is most important that the Senate speak out on Iraq," said Senator Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania. "If we continue to debate whether there should be a debate while the House of Representatives acts, the Senate will become irrelevant. To paraphrase the Roman adage, 'The Senate should not fiddle while Iraq burns.' "
LINK
Showing posts with label Surge votes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Surge votes. Show all posts
Saturday, February 17, 2007
Here's what my Rep said on the floor of the House. Peter Roskam
Peter Roskam defeated Tammy Duckworth for Henry Hyde's seat in the House of Representative. You know I wished Tammy would have won. Now this double amputee's husband is off to Iraq. Sometime life just isn't fair!
Here's Mr. Roskam's words about Bush's surge plans:
Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to Mr. PETER ROSKAM from Illinois.
Mr. ROSKAM. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Madam Speaker, we are here to debate a House Concurrent Resolution, and the root verb of ``resolution'' is resolute. I just want to challenge the House today to consider the resolution of our enemies. I would like to read three quotes to you.
Resolved, by Samba bin Laden. The whole world is watching this war, and the two adversaries, the Islamic nation on the one hand and the United States and its allies on the other. It is either victory and glory or misery and humiliation.
Or how about this? Resolved, in the al Agenda charter: There will be continuing enmity until everyone believes in Allah. We will not meet the enemy halfway, and there will be no room for dialogue with them.
Or how about this, and I am paraphrasing: Resolved, from Samba bin Ladens deputy, who said that the plan is to extend the jihad wave; to expel the Americans from Iraq and extend the jihad wave to secular countries neighboring Iraq, clash with Israel and establish an Islamic authority.
Is there anybody among us who doubts the resolve and clarity with which our opponents are speaking? I don't.
I think what is lacking today in our conversation is the consequences of failure. The previous speaker used the words ``victory'' and ``success.'' He had a very low view of them, and I understand his characterization of those words. He said we have heard those words before. That is what the gentleman from New Jersey said.
But, do you know what? We will hear the word ``failure'' when it is used in the context of this challenge that is before us.
There is no question that there has been great difficulty that has gone before us in this fight. There is no question that there have been great mistakes that have been made, and I am wholeheartedly in favor of us acting as a coequal branch of government and calling for benchmarks and demarcation and holding the administration accountable for its decisions.
But if we fail in this, if we pull out, if we retreat, if we yield, what will happen? Is there anybody really who thinks that Iran, for example, will be less provocative? Is there anybody who thinks that al Agenda will be less provocative?
If we fail, extremism in this world, will it be ascendant or will it be descendant?
Madam Speaker, I close with a simple question, and that is, we need to ask, What is it about this resolution that will do one of two things? Does this encourage our troops, or does this discourage our enemies? I would suggest that this resolution, while it is serious, oh, it is very serious, it is not substantive. This is the ultimate expression of legislative passive aggression. It offers no substantive alternative.
Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition, and ask my colleagues to do the same.
Link
Bah!! More double speak!! And this man never served in any branch of the armed services! Just another Chciken Hawk playing a chess game with human lives!
Here's Mr. Roskam's words about Bush's surge plans:
Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to Mr. PETER ROSKAM from Illinois.
Mr. ROSKAM. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Madam Speaker, we are here to debate a House Concurrent Resolution, and the root verb of ``resolution'' is resolute. I just want to challenge the House today to consider the resolution of our enemies. I would like to read three quotes to you.
Resolved, by Samba bin Laden. The whole world is watching this war, and the two adversaries, the Islamic nation on the one hand and the United States and its allies on the other. It is either victory and glory or misery and humiliation.
Or how about this? Resolved, in the al Agenda charter: There will be continuing enmity until everyone believes in Allah. We will not meet the enemy halfway, and there will be no room for dialogue with them.
Or how about this, and I am paraphrasing: Resolved, from Samba bin Ladens deputy, who said that the plan is to extend the jihad wave; to expel the Americans from Iraq and extend the jihad wave to secular countries neighboring Iraq, clash with Israel and establish an Islamic authority.
Is there anybody among us who doubts the resolve and clarity with which our opponents are speaking? I don't.
I think what is lacking today in our conversation is the consequences of failure. The previous speaker used the words ``victory'' and ``success.'' He had a very low view of them, and I understand his characterization of those words. He said we have heard those words before. That is what the gentleman from New Jersey said.
But, do you know what? We will hear the word ``failure'' when it is used in the context of this challenge that is before us.
There is no question that there has been great difficulty that has gone before us in this fight. There is no question that there have been great mistakes that have been made, and I am wholeheartedly in favor of us acting as a coequal branch of government and calling for benchmarks and demarcation and holding the administration accountable for its decisions.
But if we fail in this, if we pull out, if we retreat, if we yield, what will happen? Is there anybody really who thinks that Iran, for example, will be less provocative? Is there anybody who thinks that al Agenda will be less provocative?
If we fail, extremism in this world, will it be ascendant or will it be descendant?
Madam Speaker, I close with a simple question, and that is, we need to ask, What is it about this resolution that will do one of two things? Does this encourage our troops, or does this discourage our enemies? I would suggest that this resolution, while it is serious, oh, it is very serious, it is not substantive. This is the ultimate expression of legislative passive aggression. It offers no substantive alternative.
Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition, and ask my colleagues to do the same.
Link
Bah!! More double speak!! And this man never served in any branch of the armed services! Just another Chciken Hawk playing a chess game with human lives!
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Reid: Senate cloture vote on Iraq resolution this Saturday
From Think Progress:
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced today that he will delay the Senate’s recess and hold a cloture vote on the Iraq resolution on Saturday. “Time is of the essence,” Reid said, and we are “determined to end the silence and find a new direction.”
Link
Senate Dems To Force Up Or Down Vote On Bush's War Plan
Washington Post | Shailagh Murray | February 15, 2007 01:41 PM
Senate Democratic leaders abruptly switched course in the Iraq war debate today, shelving a complicated non-binding resolution that has run into procedural hurdles, in favor of a House version that simply states Congress's objections to President Bush's troop escalation plan.
Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) this afternoon announced that the Senate would take a rare Saturday vote on whether to proceed to consider the House resolution, which is expected to pass that chamber Friday, with some Republican support.
Read the entire article here.
Congress opened debate on the measure on Tuesday and is expected to vote by Friday. Read the Resolution Here.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced today that he will delay the Senate’s recess and hold a cloture vote on the Iraq resolution on Saturday. “Time is of the essence,” Reid said, and we are “determined to end the silence and find a new direction.”
Link
Senate Dems To Force Up Or Down Vote On Bush's War Plan
Washington Post | Shailagh Murray | February 15, 2007 01:41 PM
Senate Democratic leaders abruptly switched course in the Iraq war debate today, shelving a complicated non-binding resolution that has run into procedural hurdles, in favor of a House version that simply states Congress's objections to President Bush's troop escalation plan.
Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) this afternoon announced that the Senate would take a rare Saturday vote on whether to proceed to consider the House resolution, which is expected to pass that chamber Friday, with some Republican support.
Read the entire article here.
Congress opened debate on the measure on Tuesday and is expected to vote by Friday. Read the Resolution Here.
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
A Republican's reason for voting against the surge
A Florida Republican explained on the House floor today that he would not support President George W. Bush's troop escalation because it was bound to be a failure. Rep. Ric Keller criticized an earlier surge policy, warning that "the benefits were temporary, the body bags were permanent."
The junior congressman's speech may signal softening of support among the House Republican caucus for the president's "new direction forward in Iraq."
Rep. Ric Keller is in his fourth term as the Representative from the area of Orlando, FL. He took the House floor earlier today to say that he would vote to support the Democratic non-binding resolution that "disapproves" of the president's plan to escalate the number of troops in Iraq by more than 20,000.
"Interjecting more young American troops into the cross hairs of an Iraqi civil war is simply not the right approach," said Keller.
The Florida Republican offered a harsh criticism of Bush's approach, noting that it had been tried before and failed.
LINK
The junior congressman's speech may signal softening of support among the House Republican caucus for the president's "new direction forward in Iraq."
Rep. Ric Keller is in his fourth term as the Representative from the area of Orlando, FL. He took the House floor earlier today to say that he would vote to support the Democratic non-binding resolution that "disapproves" of the president's plan to escalate the number of troops in Iraq by more than 20,000.
"Interjecting more young American troops into the cross hairs of an Iraqi civil war is simply not the right approach," said Keller.
The Florida Republican offered a harsh criticism of Bush's approach, noting that it had been tried before and failed.
LINK
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)