14/02: House Resolution: Day One
Category: Politics
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
110TH CONGRESS RESOLUTION:
Disapproving of the decision of the President announced
on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional
United States combat troops to Iraq.
Resolved by the House of Representatives:
(1) Congress and the American people will continue to support and protect the members of the United States Armed Forces who are serving or who have served bravely and honorably in Iraq; and
(2) Congress disapproves of the decision of President George W. Bush announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq.
The first day of the proposed three-day debate in the House of Representatives over the above resolution proved that there really was no need for debate.
We certainly need more oversight; we need better leadership. We are in desperate need of hard-headed, rock-ribbed and bipartisan realism. We would all be served well by a rhetorical ceasefire. But clearly thirty-six hours of speeches from the well of the House restating four years of hackneyed and partisan talking points will not prove helpful.
One thing is certain: not one person in Congress will change their mind as a result of this debate.
The Democrats:
False and misleading...failed administration...civil war...we support our troops...George Bush is the only person in America who thinks this plan can succeed...this is a first step to defunding this awful war...this is not a first step to defunding this awful war...our troops are heroic and we support them...wrong war, wrong time, wrong place...sectarian violence...end of the line for a tragically flawed policy...I knew all along this was a bad idea.
The Republicans:
See anyone of my myriad schizophrenic posts on the subject (some options here and here).
In a C-SPAN interview from Sunday, President bushed defined "noise" as Washington chatter. "Everybody in Washington likes to talk," he said. Amen.
But the Democrats have a couple of things right: 1) the war is a mess and 2) the buck stops at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
Having said that, now what?
One other note: the news coverage seemed ho-hum. The debate did not seem to be the lead anywhere. Most people still seem more concerned with Anna Nicole Smith.
One last note: C-SPAN has an excellent resource for listening to individual speeches here.
Disapproving of the decision of the President announced
on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional
United States combat troops to Iraq.
Resolved by the House of Representatives:
(1) Congress and the American people will continue to support and protect the members of the United States Armed Forces who are serving or who have served bravely and honorably in Iraq; and
(2) Congress disapproves of the decision of President George W. Bush announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq.
The first day of the proposed three-day debate in the House of Representatives over the above resolution proved that there really was no need for debate.
We certainly need more oversight; we need better leadership. We are in desperate need of hard-headed, rock-ribbed and bipartisan realism. We would all be served well by a rhetorical ceasefire. But clearly thirty-six hours of speeches from the well of the House restating four years of hackneyed and partisan talking points will not prove helpful.
One thing is certain: not one person in Congress will change their mind as a result of this debate.
The Democrats:
False and misleading...failed administration...civil war...we support our troops...George Bush is the only person in America who thinks this plan can succeed...this is a first step to defunding this awful war...this is not a first step to defunding this awful war...our troops are heroic and we support them...wrong war, wrong time, wrong place...sectarian violence...end of the line for a tragically flawed policy...I knew all along this was a bad idea.
The Republicans:
See anyone of my myriad schizophrenic posts on the subject (some options here and here).
In a C-SPAN interview from Sunday, President bushed defined "noise" as Washington chatter. "Everybody in Washington likes to talk," he said. Amen.
But the Democrats have a couple of things right: 1) the war is a mess and 2) the buck stops at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
Having said that, now what?
One other note: the news coverage seemed ho-hum. The debate did not seem to be the lead anywhere. Most people still seem more concerned with Anna Nicole Smith.
One last note: C-SPAN has an excellent resource for listening to individual speeches here.
speakerofdacommoner wrote:
It seems our leaders suffer from a similar myopia as the general public: to complain without any insightful/helpful way out of things! There was not even a suggestion of how to get done what most everyone agrees must be done.
Farmer you sound surprised at Anna garnering the most press … being a fellow transplant I thought you would understand – lipo, boobs, and bozos sell (with Smith we have it all in one package). I can not help but wonder if the public is already becoming weary of the struggle between Congress and the White House? Or perhaps the public just wants it to be OVER – they may not care how or why – just over!