House votes to win in Iraq

NY Times:

The House approved a resolution on Friday that promises "completion of the mission" in Iraq and rejects any "arbitrary" deadline for an American troop withdrawal.

But the vote, which followed a day of intense, often angry debate, reflected sharp partisan divisions over the war. The resolution, which argues that the American action in Iraq is central to the "global war on terror," passed by a vote of 256 to 153. More than 90 percent of Republicans voted for the measure, while nearly 75 percent of Democrats voted against it.

Throughout the debate, held five months before Congressional elections in which the war is already a major issue, Republican leaders tried to frame the choice as one between Republican strength on national security and Democratic weakness.

"The American public deserves to hear how their elected leaders will respond to international terrorism and those enemies who seek to destroy our American way of life," said Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the majority leader. "Will we fight or will we retreat?"

...

Within hours of today's vote, the National Republican Senatorial Committee circulated e-mail messages attacking Democrats who voted against the resolution. "Ford Votes to Cut and Run in Tennessee," one read, referring to Representative Harold E. Ford Jr., a Tennessee Democrat running for the Senate.

Democrats asserted that Republicans had carried the politicization of foreign policy debates to new heights. They were particularly outraged that the Pentagon had distributed an "Iraq Floor Debate Prep Book" to some lawmakers with talking points defending administration policy. Some Democratic leaders also received the report, apparently in error; a Pentagon official sent a second e-mail message a few hours later, trying to recall it.

...

The Democrats still reflect a certain desperation for defeat in Iraq. They do not want to win. They fear a win in Iraq. A win would not only show how wrong they are about the use of force, but could also be used against them in the future when they argue against the use of force, which they surely will. As the voices of retreat and defeat they hope to relive the "glory years" of their policy in Vietnam. It is why I will never vote for them again.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Should Republicans go ahead and add Supreme Court Justices to head off Democrats

Washington Post: Some Democrats eye adding more justices to the Supreme Court to change its ideological bent The once-remote idea has gained the attention of liberals angered by the GOP push to remake the federal courts. Probably the easy way to defeat this court-packing scheme is for Trump to propose doing the same thing now.  It would lead to Democrat denunciations and claims that it would be wrong, thereby blowing up any attempt by them in the unfortunate event of Democrats winning a presidential election.
Read more

29 % of companies say they are unlikely to keep insurance after Obamacare

Conn Carroll: A new survey of 368 midsize to large companies found that 29% of them are considering terminating their active employee health care plans when Obamacare is full implemented in 2014. Only 71% of employers surveyed said they did not expect to drop their health coverage, while 20% said they did not know and 9% said they were planning to exit. The latest survey, conducted by Towers Watson, echoes an ealier survey by McKinsey & Co. finding that 30% of private-sector employers were planning to drop their employee health insurance coverage by 2014. When the Congressional Budget Office crunched Obamacare's spending numbers, they estimated that only 7% of employees currently covered by employer-sponsored plans would lose their plans. ... This means the cost of the health care fiasco will be hundreds of billions more than estimated by the CBO and Congressional Democrat. It is also clear that Obama's pledge that you could keep your health care plan if you wanted t
Read more