Anti-surge resolution passes / Murtha, Biden plans
"A sharply divided House of Representatives passed a resolution on Friday formally repudiating President Bush’s decision to send more than 20,000 new combat troops to Iraq.
The rare wartime rebuke to the commander in chief — an act that is not binding, but that carries symbolic significance — was approved 246-to-182, with 17 Republicans breaking ranks to join all but two Democrats in supporting the resolution.
. . . Democrats argued that Americans should not referee a civil war, that previous efforts to pour more troops into Iraq had failed and that diplomatic measures were the only way out of the crisis.
Republicans, meanwhile, sought to portray the war in Iraq as a key battleground in a titanic global struggle against militant Islam and criticized the resolution as a slap in the face for troops on the battlefield. Failure in Iraq, they said, would lead to widespread instability in the region." [1]
"[House Speaker Nancy Pelosi] backed key provisions already floated by [Rep. John] Murtha, including requirements that troops be given at least a year's rest between combat deployments, special training in urban warfare and counterinsurgency, and safety equipment that the military has struggled to provide.
. . . [Sen. Joseph] Biden, a declared candidate for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, said his legislative proposal would authorize the limited use of force in Iraq only as part of a withdrawal plan.
'Congress should make clear what the mission of our troops is: to responsibly draw down, while continuing to combat terrorists, train Iraqis and respond to emergencies,' he said. 'We should make equally clear what their mission is not: to stay in Iraq indefinitely and get mired in a savage civil war.'
. . . 'Opposing the surge is only the first step. We need a radical change in course in Iraq. If the president won't act, Congress will have to attempt to do so. . . . We must resist the temptation to push for changes that sound good but may very well produce bad results.' " [2]
sources
[1] Zeleny, Jeff & Luo, Michael. (The New York Times). A Divided House Denounces Plan for More Troops. February 17, 2007.
[2] Weisman, Jonathan & Murray, Shailagh. (The Washington Post). Pelosi Backs War Funds Only With Conditions. February 16, 2007.
posted: sunday, february 18, 2007, 11:44 PM ET
tags: iraq surge congress biden murtha
The rare wartime rebuke to the commander in chief — an act that is not binding, but that carries symbolic significance — was approved 246-to-182, with 17 Republicans breaking ranks to join all but two Democrats in supporting the resolution.
. . . Democrats argued that Americans should not referee a civil war, that previous efforts to pour more troops into Iraq had failed and that diplomatic measures were the only way out of the crisis.
Republicans, meanwhile, sought to portray the war in Iraq as a key battleground in a titanic global struggle against militant Islam and criticized the resolution as a slap in the face for troops on the battlefield. Failure in Iraq, they said, would lead to widespread instability in the region." [1]
"[House Speaker Nancy Pelosi] backed key provisions already floated by [Rep. John] Murtha, including requirements that troops be given at least a year's rest between combat deployments, special training in urban warfare and counterinsurgency, and safety equipment that the military has struggled to provide.
. . . [Sen. Joseph] Biden, a declared candidate for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, said his legislative proposal would authorize the limited use of force in Iraq only as part of a withdrawal plan.
'Congress should make clear what the mission of our troops is: to responsibly draw down, while continuing to combat terrorists, train Iraqis and respond to emergencies,' he said. 'We should make equally clear what their mission is not: to stay in Iraq indefinitely and get mired in a savage civil war.'
. . . 'Opposing the surge is only the first step. We need a radical change in course in Iraq. If the president won't act, Congress will have to attempt to do so. . . . We must resist the temptation to push for changes that sound good but may very well produce bad results.' " [2]
sources
[1] Zeleny, Jeff & Luo, Michael. (The New York Times). A Divided House Denounces Plan for More Troops. February 17, 2007.
[2] Weisman, Jonathan & Murray, Shailagh. (The Washington Post). Pelosi Backs War Funds Only With Conditions. February 16, 2007.
posted: sunday, february 18, 2007, 11:44 PM ET
tags: iraq surge congress biden murtha
Labels: bush plan, iraq, john murtha, joseph biden, nancy pelosi, withdrawal
posted by eric at 11:19 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home