Full Version: Victory!
To me this is simply mind boggling to me... 109 liberal congressmen (women) vote for defeat in Iraq. What exactly did they vote NO on? Well read the resolution HR 612 that is shown in draft at this link: http://www.cspan.org/pdf/iraqres121605.pdf Read the article on the actual vote at this link.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/congress_iraq;_...zkxBHNlYwN0bQ--
Thirty-two liberals and two republicans couldn’t get their finger wet to see how the political wind was blowing so they just voted “present.”
I watched the entire episode in awe with my mouth hanging open and could not believe my eyes and ears that America has become so divisive on the issue of victory. If I were religious I would say a prayer for America because given the majority the liberals would take it to hell.
Questions for Debate:
What were the Democratic Congresspersons thinking?
Will the voters punish the Democratic Congresspersons that voted for defeat or surrender?
Why doesn't the Democratic Party become more unified prior to a vote that place half supporting the conservatives or on the fence on the issue?
Do you see this as a wise NO or a wise Yes vote?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/congress_iraq;_...zkxBHNlYwN0bQ--
Thirty-two liberals and two republicans couldn’t get their finger wet to see how the political wind was blowing so they just voted “present.”
I watched the entire episode in awe with my mouth hanging open and could not believe my eyes and ears that America has become so divisive on the issue of victory. If I were religious I would say a prayer for America because given the majority the liberals would take it to hell.
Questions for Debate:
What were the Democratic Congresspersons thinking?
Will the voters punish the Democratic Congresspersons that voted for defeat or surrender?
Why doesn't the Democratic Party become more unified prior to a vote that place half supporting the conservatives or on the fence on the issue?
Do you see this as a wise NO or a wise Yes vote?
Those aren't debate questions. Those are talking points. This isn't a thread. It's a blog impersonating a thread.Once again, we're treated to yet another of Ol' Sarge's oh-so-familiar and increasingly tiresome "liberals bad/liberals are selling the country down the river/liberals hate America/liberals are coming to eat your children" harangues. Full of sound and fury but little to nothing in the way of actual debate.
In a 279-109 vote, the GOP-controlled House approved a resolution saying the chamber is committed "to achieving victory in Iraq" and that setting an "artificial timetable" would be "fundamentally inconsistent with achieving victory."
Democrats voted against the resolution by 108-59, while 32 of them voted "present," a rarely used option that signals neither support nor opposition.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/congress_iraq;_...zkxBHNlYwN0bQ--
I don't see anything in the vote by the Democrats stating they support "defeat or surrender" in Iraq. That kind of overheated rhetoric is simply a manifestation of Ol' Sarge's much stated antipathy for all things Democratic and/or liberal.
The only purpose of this tirade is to denounce and demonize anyone who dares state an opposing view of the war. This is all hole and no donut.
Good catch, nighttimer. Bringing a bill up in the House to make political hay is a very old trick.
Think I'll start a thread that's a bit more appropriate.
Think I'll start a thread that's a bit more appropriate.
QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Dec 16 2005, 06:37 PM)
Good catch, nighttimer. Bringing a bill up in the House to make political hay is a very old trick.
Think I'll start a thread that's a bit more appropriate.
Think I'll start a thread that's a bit more appropriate.
I'll drink to this NT and AM.
Actually victory is just another catchphrase Bush hopes will drive up his poll numbers.
This thread is a good candidate for closing.
For those who care here is the resolution.
What were the Democratic Congresspersons thinking?
They were thinking, “Oh my God, it’s a sequel to the Hunter resolution with bonus reverse psychology and touchy-feely utterly unenforceable phrases.”
They were thinking, why should we bother with how conservative talking heads will spin our no votes when a combination of the majority’s zealotry and prostitution of their integrity for campaign funds from pro-life PACs in Congress has brought the GOP so low that Republicans rewrote Democratic amendments to the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act alleging Democrats supported rape and sexual predators.
Will the voters punish the Democratic Congresspersons that voted for defeat or surrender?
Depends on how well this is spun on the Right.
Why doesn't the Democratic Party become more unified prior to a vote that place half supporting the conservatives or on the fence on the issue?
We don’t think dissent is treasonous.
Do you see this as a wise NO or a wise Yes vote?
A wise No vote.
QUOTE(Hyde Resolution)
Expressing the commitment of the House of Representatives to achieving victory in Iraq.
Whereas the Iraqi election of December 15, 2005, the first to take place under the newly ratified Iraqi Constitution, represented a crucial success in the establishment of a democratic, constitutional order in Iraq; and Whereas Iraqis, who by the millions defied terrorist threats to vote, were protected by Iraqi security forces with the help of United States and Coalition forces: Now, therefore, be it
That—
(1) the House of Representatives is committed to achieving victory in Iraq;
(2) the Iraqi election of December 15, 2005, was a crucial victory for the Iraqi people and Iraq’s new democracy, and a defeat for the terrorists who seek to destroy that democracy;
(3) the House of Representatives encourages all Americans to express solidarity with the Iraqi people as they take another step toward their goal of a free, open, and democratic society;
(4) the successful Iraqi election of December 15, 2005, required the presence of United States Armed Forces, United States–trained Iraqi forces, and Coalition forces;
(5) the continued presence of United States Armed Forces in Iraq will be required only until Iraqi forces can stand up so our forces can stand down, and no longer than is required for that purpose;
(6) setting an artificial timetable for the withdrawal of United States Armed Forces from Iraq, or immediately terminating their deployment in Iraq and redeploying them elsewhere in the region, is fundamentally inconsistent with achieving victory in Iraq;
(7) the House of Representatives recognizes and honors the tremendous sacrifices made by the members of the United States Armed Forces and their families, along with the members of Iraqi and Coalition forces; and
(8) the House of Representatives has unshakable confidence that, with the support of the American people and the Congress, United States Armed Forces, along with Iraqi and Coalition forces, shall achieve victory in Iraq.
Whereas the Iraqi election of December 15, 2005, the first to take place under the newly ratified Iraqi Constitution, represented a crucial success in the establishment of a democratic, constitutional order in Iraq; and Whereas Iraqis, who by the millions defied terrorist threats to vote, were protected by Iraqi security forces with the help of United States and Coalition forces: Now, therefore, be it
That—
(1) the House of Representatives is committed to achieving victory in Iraq;
(2) the Iraqi election of December 15, 2005, was a crucial victory for the Iraqi people and Iraq’s new democracy, and a defeat for the terrorists who seek to destroy that democracy;
(3) the House of Representatives encourages all Americans to express solidarity with the Iraqi people as they take another step toward their goal of a free, open, and democratic society;
(4) the successful Iraqi election of December 15, 2005, required the presence of United States Armed Forces, United States–trained Iraqi forces, and Coalition forces;
(5) the continued presence of United States Armed Forces in Iraq will be required only until Iraqi forces can stand up so our forces can stand down, and no longer than is required for that purpose;
(6) setting an artificial timetable for the withdrawal of United States Armed Forces from Iraq, or immediately terminating their deployment in Iraq and redeploying them elsewhere in the region, is fundamentally inconsistent with achieving victory in Iraq;
(7) the House of Representatives recognizes and honors the tremendous sacrifices made by the members of the United States Armed Forces and their families, along with the members of Iraqi and Coalition forces; and
(8) the House of Representatives has unshakable confidence that, with the support of the American people and the Congress, United States Armed Forces, along with Iraqi and Coalition forces, shall achieve victory in Iraq.
What were the Democratic Congresspersons thinking?
They were thinking, “Oh my God, it’s a sequel to the Hunter resolution with bonus reverse psychology and touchy-feely utterly unenforceable phrases.”
They were thinking, why should we bother with how conservative talking heads will spin our no votes when a combination of the majority’s zealotry and prostitution of their integrity for campaign funds from pro-life PACs in Congress has brought the GOP so low that Republicans rewrote Democratic amendments to the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act alleging Democrats supported rape and sexual predators.
Will the voters punish the Democratic Congresspersons that voted for defeat or surrender?
Depends on how well this is spun on the Right.
Why doesn't the Democratic Party become more unified prior to a vote that place half supporting the conservatives or on the fence on the issue?
We don’t think dissent is treasonous.
Do you see this as a wise NO or a wise Yes vote?
A wise No vote.
QUOTE
Will the voters punish the Democratic Congresspersons that voted for defeat or surrender?
Staying the course in Iraq is giving aid and comfort to al-Qaeda; so did these Democrats vote to stay in Iraq?
QUOTE(nighttimer @ Dec 16 2005, 06:56 PM)
Those aren't debate questions. Those are talking points. This isn't a thread. It's a blog impersonating a thread.Once again, we're treated to yet another of Ol' Sarge's oh-so-familiar and increasingly tiresome "liberals bad/liberals are selling the country down the river/liberals hate America/liberals are coming to eat your children" harangues. Full of sound and fury but little to nothing in the way of actual debate.
In a 279-109 vote, the GOP-controlled House approved a resolution saying the chamber is committed "to achieving victory in Iraq" and that setting an "artificial timetable" would be "fundamentally inconsistent with achieving victory."
Democrats voted against the resolution by 108-59, while 32 of them voted "present," a rarely used option that signals neither support nor opposition.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/congress_iraq;_...zkxBHNlYwN0bQ--
I don't see anything in the vote by the Democrats stating they support "defeat or surrender" in Iraq. That kind of overheated rhetoric is simply a manifestation of Ol' Sarge's much stated antipathy for all things Democratic and/or liberal.
The only purpose of this tirade is to denounce and demonize anyone who dares state an opposing view of the war. This is all hole and no donut.
What part of
In a 279-109 vote, the GOP-controlled House approved a resolution saying the chamber is committed "to achieving victory in Iraq" and that setting an "artificial timetable" would be "fundamentally inconsistent with achieving victory." didn’t you understand? Inconsistent with achieving victory to me equals failure, admit defeat, surrender, give up, give in, lay down your arms or capitulate.
The people who voted NO fall into a category of representatives that agree to failure, admit defeat, surrender, give up, give in, lay down your arms or capitulate in lieu of Victory.
One may not agree with the administration’s method of achieving victory but one cannot redefine the word victory. No war can be victory sure when placed on a timetable. If a representative supported congressman Murtha’s plan then they should have voted YES since he supports victory. He believes victory is more likely if our troops were moved to Okinawa or Kuwait but he still desires victory. Where is the flaw with my or your view on the issue that caused those to vote present? Victory=YES cut and run at all costs=NO __________=Present.
QUOTE(Ol Sarge @ Dec 16 2005, 09:56 PM)
If a representative supported congressman Murtha’s plan then they should have voted YES since he supports victory.
Simply saying a congressman supports rape and running at all costs simply because he disagrees with you on a few or many points doesn't mean a congressmen does support rape or cutting and running. Hyde's resolution includes:
QUOTE
(6) setting an artificial timetable for the withdrawal of United States Armed Forces from Iraq, or immediately terminating their deployment in Iraq and redeploying them elsewhere in the region, is fundamentally inconsistent with achieving victory in Iraq;
Part of Murtha's resolution calls for a withdrawal with redeployments to the region. I would say, rather, that a Yes vote for Hyde's resolution is a No vote for Murtha's resolution and victory has little to do with either one and probably nothing to do with Hyde's resolution, since it points out Iraq's travails and progress but doesn't set any goalposts.
CLOSED.
Questions to debate too inflammatory as posed. If you want to rant, try getting a blog.
Further, instead of personally attacking other members because you don't like their topics, report them.
Questions to debate too inflammatory as posed. If you want to rant, try getting a blog.
Further, instead of personally attacking other members because you don't like their topics, report them.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.